Check Out Our Shop
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    5,223

    Ortovox/Arcteryx LiTRIC Airbags

    Got to play with the new Ortovox LiTric last week. Pretty slick. Compact and Light. They are using ultra capacitors+ a small li-ion battery to power it.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20221014_082455.jpg 
Views:	161 
Size:	1.20 MB 
ID:	430283
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20221014_082448.jpg 
Views:	161 
Size:	1.56 MB 
ID:	430285
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	20221013_171424.jpg 
Views:	142 
Size:	715.6 KB 
ID:	430286
    When life gives you haters, make haterade.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    SW, CO
    Posts
    1,626
    I'm was curious to hear more about this system after seeing the social media posts the other day. Just read the wildsnow article here and I'm even more interested. I own an old Ortovox canister pack and I hardly ever use it outside of very specific circumstances. I didn't even fire it last year because our local canister filler (a dive shop) was closed still due to covid. The new latch system for the airbag compartment and the refined trigger look excellent and deal with some of my biggest gripes with my current airbag pack. Not to mention the significantly lighter weight. I don't have anywhere near $1300 to spend on a new pack this season but I will be keeping an eye out for discounted versions going forward.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    Anyone know about the bags coming out this year? I see some have pre-orders available for the Ortovox ones, but don't see anything from Arc'teryx.

    Doesn't look like any of these have hip pockets? What gives?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    What do you want to know about them specifically? I can find out for you thur/fri
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    I’d like to see more pics of the battery / fan packaging…also want to know if any have waist pockets…the zero doesn’t.

    I’d love a sub-5lb avy pack. I wish I took mine out more.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    I'll grab some pics. I got to deploy one today. The latch system is smart. The repacking is just "stuff it in there." The safe vs armed is by rotating the trigger... not sure how I feel about that
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    Cool thanks! The only E2 pack that strikes my fancy is the BCA but I think it’s ugly haha call me vain. Andy buddy has a Scott E1 that I just can’t get around.

    I also need one that fits a big BD Evac 9 shovel which can be tough

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    BCA's large pack is a smart design... good use of internal space and good suspension, but I dunno if I like the roll top personally... In the PNW or AK it makes sense

    The Ortovox is annoying to me because the small packs come with the "freeride frame" with the stretchy grippy waist belt that I'd want, but a flimsier backpanel. So I'd have to buy a 20L pack for that waist belt and a 40L for a the stiff backpanel and put it together to get the waistbelt and panel I want on the 40.

    I haven't checked out the dead bird yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    BCA's large pack is a smart design... good use of internal space and good suspension, but I dunno if I like the roll top personally... In the PNW or AK it makes sense

    The Ortovox is annoying to me because the small packs come with the "freeride frame" with the stretchy grippy waist belt that I'd want, but a flimsier backpanel. So I'd have to buy a 20L pack for that waist belt and a 40L for a the stiff backpanel and put it together to get the waistbelt and panel I want on the 40.

    I haven't checked out the dead bird yet.
    Why does it make sense in the PNW but not where you are?

    I didn’t realize they gave 2 different bases. Either have hip pockets? That has huge value to me when touring.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    Rain.

    I think the BCA had hip pockets plus the stash access. I'll check ortovox and dead bird tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    None of the Ortovox or Arcteryx bags had hip pockets. My guess is trying to save weight.

    The BCA E2 bag has a hip zip pouch on one side an really good slash access to both sides of the main compartment that would be reachable while the pack is on, like you could reach and grab naglene. I can post pics if you want.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    None of the Ortovox or Arcteryx bags had hip pockets. My guess is trying to save weight.

    The BCA E2 bag has a hip zip pouch on one side an really good slash access to both sides of the main compartment that would be reachable while the pack is on, like you could reach and grab naglene. I can post pics if you want.
    Yeah I need to go check one out in person, they look very very functional. They also seem bigger than the stated size? Wondering if I could get away with the 25L.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Canukistan
    Posts
    277
    Will chime in and add that the 2 BCA bags are very well-built packs and while I didn't weigh them, they felt heavy relative to the solden E1 and Scott E1 40 I had on had to compare with. BCA had the most useful features with all sorts of access and very burly fabric which I feel added to the weight. I loved the upper wrap-around zipper on the shoulder straps that gave access to the water bladder area of the pack and the lower pack separation with the side access. I had a hard time picking between the 25 and 30, they both felt very similar could have gone either way. But my show stopper for their bags was the very wide fit at the waist which I think would affect my skiing and just felt awkward. My criteria was for an A-frame pack Electronic bag, so the BD was not an option. Ended up settling on a Deuter Allproof 32L site unseen which is very well-built with the newer E2 system, lots of usable pockets, OK weight at ~6lbs, 3-way zipper etc etc. some trade off but overall I am happy. Wish I could have looked at the new Lictric's as i love the idea of a base pack with different zip-on volumes. Another pack I could not get my hands on and looked intriguing was the POC product which was new for last year. Millet in France also had a very good-looking E2 bag last year, but no dedicated avy pocket and top load only...

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    I agree the BCA bags were solid and had EXCELLENT access. However, I did not feel they were heavy. Scales will tell eventually.

    Also, I gotta say, the Arcteryx 40L pack is a design flop. I told them straight up that the avi tool pocket is totally unacceptable. It is only a side zipper that doesn't wrap around a corner so it isn't big enough to get pro tools in and out, like a shovel handle. Their solution is that you are ALSo supposed to open the main compartment zip and reach into the avi tool compartment to get that. I pointed out that access is too narrow to pull out a wide object like a shovel blade. That means I am opening two zipper in order to get both parts of my shovel out! The rep admitted that I was far from the first to point this out. Hopefully the fix before it goes to market.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    I should have put this in the tech talk forum...oh well.

    I checked out an BCA E2-25L in the store today and ended up ordering an E2-35L online. For me the hip pocket + stash sold it for me over the Ortovox. I'd love to have the swappable pack sizes though and the Ortovox is slightly lighter (2800g vs 2500g about). I am also uncertain whether the LiTRIC system will be easily allowed on planes...it seems like a grey area - they should have made the lithium battery removable.

    I'm really looking for an avy pack that I will grab everyday simply because I like the design better than my non-avy packs. That's sort of the bar.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Sandy
    Posts
    5,223
    Another interesting thing about the LiTric system is it was designed to create minimal interference with beacons. (There is a new EN standard in the works for airbag interference, and the LiTric is the only bag that will meet it right now)

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    Lost in the PNWet
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by jacob_dbu View Post
    I should have put this in the tech talk forum...oh well.

    I checked out an BCA E2-25L in the store today and ended up ordering an E2-35L online. For me the hip pocket + stash sold it for me over the Ortovox. I'd love to have the swappable pack sizes though and the Ortovox is slightly lighter (2800g vs 2500g about). I am also uncertain whether the LiTRIC system will be easily allowed on planes...it seems like a grey area - they should have made the lithium battery removable.

    I'm really looking for an avy pack that I will grab everyday simply because I like the design better than my non-avy packs. That's sort of the bar.
    13 oz is quite a bit to shave off.

    The situation regarding flying with it is concerning though. Ortovox insists that it is kosher and on a list of allowed devices but at first blush it does seem to violate the IATA's battery limits for bags with non-removable lithium ion packs

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,689
    I have not looked into the details of that design, but in general, IATA is a trade association, not a regulatory agency, so in the U.S., the IATA guidelines have no direct bearing on TSA.
    Mo' skimo here: NE Rando Race Series

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    TSA really needs some sort of certification policy that bag makers and pay for to avoid this confusion.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    Lost in the PNWet
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan S. View Post
    I have not looked into the details of that design, but in general, IATA is a trade association, not a regulatory agency, so in the U.S., the IATA guidelines have no direct bearing on TSA.
    True, but airlines seem to adopt the IATA's standards whole-cloth and the single (known) instance of a Litric system being rejected was outside the USA and due to the IATA's language around "baggage with non-removable lithium-ion batteries".

    Ortovox's stance is the primary function of the Litric system is a personal safety device, falls under a different category, and the incident in question was a one-off problem caused by a specific agent's interpretation. To Ortovox's credit, if you read the literature surrounding the text in question (example), it is clear the IATA is intending to target "smart luggage" specifically (self-propelling, usb charging ports, gps/bluetooth tracking, etc), and Litric systems are only in jeopardy due to the too-broad wording of the actual guidance.

    The TSA does not have a carve-out for non-removable batteries in luggage and only follows the more permissive <100 Wh and carry-on only rule so outside of getting a grumpy agent, electric avalanche bags are okay on that front.
    Last edited by Ørion; 10-27-2023 at 10:19 AM. Reason: grammar

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,520
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    I agree the BCA bags were solid and had EXCELLENT access. However, I did not feel they were heavy. Scales will tell eventually.

    Also, I gotta say, the Arcteryx 40L pack is a design flop. I told them straight up that the avi tool pocket is totally unacceptable.
    Bummer. I was hoping the 32L would be my next pack but not as hopeful given that feedback about the 40. Its stated weight is far below any competitor's usable size pack. I could be mixing up some numbers but it appears BCA managed to make their batt packs heavier than the canister versions?

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Amherst, Mass.
    Posts
    4,689
    Quote Originally Posted by Ørion View Post
    True, but airlines seem to adopt the IATA's standards whole-cloth. […]
    Any adoption is by TSA not individual airlines.
    Even if TSA is somehow ultimately influenced by IATA, what matters at the moment is what TSA is adopting, not anyone else’s interpretation of how IATA guidelines should be adopted.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Location
    Lost in the PNWet
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathan S. View Post
    Any adoption is by TSA not individual airlines.
    Even if TSA is somehow ultimately influenced by IATA, what matters at the moment is what TSA is adopting, not anyone else’s interpretation of how IATA guidelines should be adopted.
    Sorry if I didn't make it explicitly clear, I was commenting on the IATA still being relevant for international flights since, despite being a trade-org, their guidance is adopted by the airlines, while also noting that the TSA doesn't have as restrictive of rules. Wasn't intentionally implying an influence between the two.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    22,086
    It is worth mentioning that you can take 100Wh plus batteries... up to 2x 160Wh spare batteries in you carryon per TSA, but only if the carrier also allows for it. I don't think this matters so much specifically for airbags, but the one time I had my E1 bag hassled in Calgary, it was because security insisted that the capacitors must be batteries and demanded the airline give me permission leaving me sitting at security waiting for an airline agent who of course approved. The next flights through Calgary the following year, no issues.
    Last edited by summit; 10-28-2023 at 08:54 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by North View Post
    Bummer. I was hoping the 32L would be my next pack but not as hopeful given that feedback about the 40. Its stated weight is far below any competitor's usable size pack. I could be mixing up some numbers but it appears BCA managed to make their batt packs heavier than the canister versions?
    Battery packs are almost universally heavier than canister packs. The motor and fan drives are heavy…although they are rapidly refining them and dialing in the safety factor (which was probably much too high for gen1).

    I agree the BCA doesn’t feel super heavy. Although lighter is always nicer…

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •