This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Looking at buying a pack that is going to service me in both scotland and the alps!
Anybody used the Macpack Pursuit classic????????
cheers
kev
Anybody used the Macpack Pursuit classic????????
cheers
kev
In reply to Kevin Charleston: i think thats the one my brother has. Theres so many rucksacks that will do the job out there- get one that's comfortable for you, after all, you will be lugging a lot of kit round in it. I tried loads of rucksacks looking for a winter sack and ended up with the burghaus arete 45, as it was the only one that was comfy and allowed me to look up when wearing it.
Might be tricky getting one that is good for both scotland and the alps.
In scotland, I use a 50 litre Macpac pursuit - built like a tank and plenty of volume for all the gear.
In the Alps, unless your planning to Bivi you'll be staying in Huts or down in the valley, and travelling as light and as fast as possible each day. I tend to use a 30l sack and find I that is plently.
In scotland, I use a 50 litre Macpac pursuit - built like a tank and plenty of volume for all the gear.
In the Alps, unless your planning to Bivi you'll be staying in Huts or down in the valley, and travelling as light and as fast as possible each day. I tend to use a 30l sack and find I that is plently.
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
Hey yeh i used a macpac pursiut classic 30 in the alps last summer, its a really good bombproof bag and i managed to cram everything i needed into it! (no point carryin extra bag space u don't need!) plus u can get it half price if u shop around
hope this helps
Jon
Hey yeh i used a macpac pursiut classic 30 in the alps last summer, its a really good bombproof bag and i managed to cram everything i needed into it! (no point carryin extra bag space u don't need!) plus u can get it half price if u shop around
hope this helps
Jon
In reply to Kevin Charleston: a nice small, simple 30 litre sack, like the aiguille alpine cirrus is all you need.
other wise your carrying too much!
other wise your carrying too much!
In reply to Kevin Charleston: dont be tempted to buy a sack that to small, there nothing worse than fumbling around with cold hads trying to cram everthing in.
In reply to vinte: nothing worse than haveing huge burly sack, full of shit you don't need. light light light move move move.
dress lightly, carry a sythethic belay jacket, head torch and lots of water. don't stop.
dress lightly, carry a sythethic belay jacket, head torch and lots of water. don't stop.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
But what if you need to carry bivi bag, sleeping bag, stove, food, pan, mug etc?
A 30L sac won't cut it for multi day trips.
But what if you need to carry bivi bag, sleeping bag, stove, food, pan, mug etc?
A 30L sac won't cut it for multi day trips.
In reply to Glen: bollocks you can get
1 1/2 rope
half a rack, say 5 quickdraws, 5 wires, 1 screw, 2 cams a couple of slings
harness + belay plate
helmet
rock shoes
belay jacket
sythetic sleeping bag
paclite jacket
buffalo mitts
drytool glove
balaclava
food
2 litres of water
gas
micro stove
bothy bag
head torch
karimatt folded
ect ect
in my 30litre sack
packing just requires a bit of thought.
the only thing on the outside would be: cramposn and axes.
1 1/2 rope
half a rack, say 5 quickdraws, 5 wires, 1 screw, 2 cams a couple of slings
harness + belay plate
helmet
rock shoes
belay jacket
sythetic sleeping bag
paclite jacket
buffalo mitts
drytool glove
balaclava
food
2 litres of water
gas
micro stove
bothy bag
head torch
karimatt folded
ect ect
in my 30litre sack
packing just requires a bit of thought.
the only thing on the outside would be: cramposn and axes.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: Your rack seems to get smaller every time you post...
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
I was on Rock + Run earlier and noticed:
http://www.rockrun.com/shop/prod.html?d=5&t=386&p=2439&sid=d64d...
Don't know if that's of any interest to you.
I was on Rock + Run earlier and noticed:
http://www.rockrun.com/shop/prod.html?d=5&t=386&p=2439&sid=d64d...
Don't know if that's of any interest to you.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Well, your 30L sac seems to be about the same size as my 50L, then as that's pretty much what fills mine.
Well, your 30L sac seems to be about the same size as my 50L, then as that's pretty much what fills mine.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
P.S. Stuffing the same amout of stuff into a smaller sack doesn't make it any lighter, just more uncomfortable to carry.
P.S. Stuffing the same amout of stuff into a smaller sack doesn't make it any lighter, just more uncomfortable to carry.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: You also assume that people don't like to enjoy themselves on the hill. I wouldn't dream of walking into a bothy without a bottle of red and a decent malt.
In reply to IainRUK: An excellent point and well made too...
In reply to mike kann: I felt I had to add something, normally Norrie deals with such matters.
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
Yes, had one for years, replaced it with another which I've also had for years. Main problem is the straps (especially hip belt) don't stay tight, it gradually loosens so all the weight ends up on your shoulders/back.
I've just bought one of these as a replacement
http://www.theomm.com/packs_mm45.html
> Anybody used the Macpack Pursuit cla
Yes, had one for years, replaced it with another which I've also had for years. Main problem is the straps (especially hip belt) don't stay tight, it gradually loosens so all the weight ends up on your shoulders/back.
I've just bought one of these as a replacement
http://www.theomm.com/packs_mm45.html
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
POD Black Ice, much lighter, simpler and better IMO.
POD Black Ice, much lighter, simpler and better IMO.
In reply to Tom Ripley: i second what glen says. its not a case of carrying loads of crap in a big rucksack, it just make life easier to have a bit of extra space. This does not mean you not traveling light
but hey, each to his own.
but hey, each to his own.
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
Several on market similar - I have been looking around (as replacement for my karrimor alpinist.
The conclusion I came to for an alpine sac is one of the following
Macpac pursuit - heard only good things about macpacs
Pod ice or the Aiguille equivalent - look very well made
Crux 47 L one - look similar to the old northface ones which were not that durable but havent had chance to look closely at them yet.
Size wise you will need something around 45L for multiday trips. The less bells and whistles the better IMO.
Several on market similar - I have been looking around (as replacement for my karrimor alpinist.
The conclusion I came to for an alpine sac is one of the following
Macpac pursuit - heard only good things about macpacs
Pod ice or the Aiguille equivalent - look very well made
Crux 47 L one - look similar to the old northface ones which were not that durable but havent had chance to look closely at them yet.
Size wise you will need something around 45L for multiday trips. The less bells and whistles the better IMO.
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
I am really pleased with my Alpine Lowe Quark
Breathable padded back, the waist belt fits comfortably over a harness and has gear loops. Alternatively it is detacheable of you prefer. Expanding hood pocket - you can fit your helmet under it for the walk in. Elasticated external pockets for guide book, specs case etc, and crampon, axe or pole straps. Internal provision for a camel back bladder and drinking tube. Removeable folded closed cell half length bivi mat which doubles up as back padding.
The 40 litre one is a perfect size for summer, but too small for winter, but they do a 50 litre version.
I am really pleased with my Alpine Lowe Quark
Breathable padded back, the waist belt fits comfortably over a harness and has gear loops. Alternatively it is detacheable of you prefer. Expanding hood pocket - you can fit your helmet under it for the walk in. Elasticated external pockets for guide book, specs case etc, and crampon, axe or pole straps. Internal provision for a camel back bladder and drinking tube. Removeable folded closed cell half length bivi mat which doubles up as back padding.
The 40 litre one is a perfect size for summer, but too small for winter, but they do a 50 litre version.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Copyright boB
> (In reply to Glen) bollocks you can get
>
> 1 1/2 rope
> half a rack, say 5 quickdraws, 5 wires, 1 screw, 2 cams a couple of slings
> harness + belay plate
> helmet
> rock shoes
> belay jacket
> sythetic sleeping bag
> paclite jacket
> buffalo mitts
> drytool glove
> balaclava
> food
> 2 litres of water
> gas
> micro stove
> bothy bag
> head torch
> karimatt folded
> ect ect
>
> in my 30litre sack
>
> packing just requires a bit of thought.
>
> the only thing on the outside would be: cramposn and axes.
>
> 1 1/2 rope
> half a rack, say 5 quickdraws, 5 wires, 1 screw, 2 cams a couple of slings
> harness + belay plate
> helmet
> rock shoes
> belay jacket
> sythetic sleeping bag
> paclite jacket
> buffalo mitts
> drytool glove
> balaclava
> food
> 2 litres of water
> gas
> micro stove
> bothy bag
> head torch
> karimatt folded
> ect ect
>
> in my 30litre sack
>
> packing just requires a bit of thought.
>
> the only thing on the outside would be: cramposn and axes.
Copyright boB
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
Hmm, two different things really. The alps in summer (I assume that you want this for summer) is a lot warmer than most people think so you don't need so much kit. In fact you can usually tell the British climbers out there by the inordinate amount of kit they carry when compared to the continentals.
A 30L sack is enough for most routes up to things like the Walker Spur; NE Spur of Les Droites; etc. I.e. routes that you bivvy before and probably once on the route itself. Note that this size is for old style gear so modern kit should take up even less space.
Scottish winter doesn't need sleeping bag or bivvy kit but needs extra warm clothing so 35L is more like it. I used a 35L sack for things like N Face of Les Droites and the Swiss Route on Les Courtes in winter and N face of the Eiger with no problem. In fact on the Droites, I must have been comfortable enough on the bivvy to keep the others awake with my snoring!
boB
Hmm, two different things really. The alps in summer (I assume that you want this for summer) is a lot warmer than most people think so you don't need so much kit. In fact you can usually tell the British climbers out there by the inordinate amount of kit they carry when compared to the continentals.
A 30L sack is enough for most routes up to things like the Walker Spur; NE Spur of Les Droites; etc. I.e. routes that you bivvy before and probably once on the route itself. Note that this size is for old style gear so modern kit should take up even less space.
Scottish winter doesn't need sleeping bag or bivvy kit but needs extra warm clothing so 35L is more like it. I used a 35L sack for things like N Face of Les Droites and the Swiss Route on Les Courtes in winter and N face of the Eiger with no problem. In fact on the Droites, I must have been comfortable enough on the bivvy to keep the others awake with my snoring!
boB
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
Stongly suggest you ignore the sub 30L advice. Around 50l is about right because
a) You don't have to fill it if you don't need to and it ways very little more than a 30l sac so the weight issue is irrelevant
b) You can carry your boots in it up to a hut and wear trainers, thus saving your feet
c) You don't have to compress everything each time you pack/unpack thus saving time and frustration
d) You can use for travelling more generally
e) You can take bread to eat without crushing it.
Stongly suggest you ignore the sub 30L advice. Around 50l is about right because
a) You don't have to fill it if you don't need to and it ways very little more than a 30l sac so the weight issue is irrelevant
b) You can carry your boots in it up to a hut and wear trainers, thus saving your feet
c) You don't have to compress everything each time you pack/unpack thus saving time and frustration
d) You can use for travelling more generally
e) You can take bread to eat without crushing it.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
.................
Don't be so short and snappy you seem arrogant and opinionated.
Yes you can get all that gear in a 30l sac, indeed a 25l rucsack would suffice if you put the rope on the outside. I used to (and still do from time to time) squeeze all my kit in a 32l sac but now I actually find a bit more space is never a bad thing, as said above you can still go lightweight with a big rucsack. If you don't feel you have the self control not to fill it then you should really question whether you're ever going to be a real climber?
How many seasons have you spent in the Alps? Have you ever tried crushing everything into your 30l sac when you're on an icy bivy ledge big enough for one ass cheek having spent a sleepless night shuffling to relieve pins and needles and it's blowing a hoolie? An extra 10l is well worth it for the stress and time saved.
As I said this is down to personal experience, everyone to their own. Some people prefer a little sac some people prefer a comfier but slightly bigger rucsac. There's an awful lot of people on this site who feel they have the right to dictate to everyone what they can and can't do. A lot of the advice is good and people like Bob know their stuff, you on the other hand don't. You've read a few magazine articles and Mark Twight books and think you're the voice of all reason, go and actually do some climbing instead of swearing and being rude to people asking for simple advice on here.
TBGM
> bollocks you can get
.................
> in my 30litre sack
>
> packing just requires a bit of thought.
>
> packing just requires a bit of thought.
Don't be so short and snappy you seem arrogant and opinionated.
Yes you can get all that gear in a 30l sac, indeed a 25l rucsack would suffice if you put the rope on the outside. I used to (and still do from time to time) squeeze all my kit in a 32l sac but now I actually find a bit more space is never a bad thing, as said above you can still go lightweight with a big rucsack. If you don't feel you have the self control not to fill it then you should really question whether you're ever going to be a real climber?
How many seasons have you spent in the Alps? Have you ever tried crushing everything into your 30l sac when you're on an icy bivy ledge big enough for one ass cheek having spent a sleepless night shuffling to relieve pins and needles and it's blowing a hoolie? An extra 10l is well worth it for the stress and time saved.
As I said this is down to personal experience, everyone to their own. Some people prefer a little sac some people prefer a comfier but slightly bigger rucsac. There's an awful lot of people on this site who feel they have the right to dictate to everyone what they can and can't do. A lot of the advice is good and people like Bob know their stuff, you on the other hand don't. You've read a few magazine articles and Mark Twight books and think you're the voice of all reason, go and actually do some climbing instead of swearing and being rude to people asking for simple advice on here.
TBGM
In reply to MG:
Would you care to explain why most continental climbers have very small rucksacks?
boB
> (In reply to Kevin Charleston)
>
> Stongly suggest you ignore the sub 30L advice. Around 50l is about right because
>
> a) You don't have to fill it if you don't need to and it ways very little more than a 30l sac so the weight issue is irrelevant
I never mentioned weight of the sack, anyway a larger sack encourages more kit to be taken leading to a greater weight overall.
>
> Stongly suggest you ignore the sub 30L advice. Around 50l is about right because
>
> a) You don't have to fill it if you don't need to and it ways very little more than a 30l sac so the weight issue is irrelevant
> b) You can carry your boots in it up to a hut and wear trainers, thus saving your feet
Is there a kitchen sink in there to wash your feet when you reach the hut? If you are going to do this (and it is something worth doing if the approach is mainly dry) then tying the boots together by the laces and having them saddle bag style over the top of the body of the sack but beneath the lid is the way to go.
> c) You don't have to compress everything each time you pack/unpack thus saving time and frustration
You only pack your sack a couple of times but have to carry it all day. Even if packing a small sack takes twice as long as just shoving it into a large sack, that's just something like five minutes over the course of a day which is easily regained by being more agile.
> d) You can use for travelling more generally
Holdalls are more use for air-travel and a small sack is (still?) acceptable for hand luggage.
> e) You can take bread to eat without crushing it.
True.
Would you care to explain why most continental climbers have very small rucksacks?
boB
In reply to The Big Grey Man:
Thats the advantage of youth... When he says he's used this system and that, what he means is hes read about this system and that... Sorry Tom, you do tend to come out with some stuff off the top of your head sometimes - at least when Bob or Norrie says it we all know it comes from years of trial and error...
> (In reply to Tom Ripley)
> Don't be so short and snappy you seem arrogant and opinionated.
Thats the advantage of youth... When he says he's used this system and that, what he means is hes read about this system and that... Sorry Tom, you do tend to come out with some stuff off the top of your head sometimes - at least when Bob or Norrie says it we all know it comes from years of trial and error...
In reply to Glen: i disagree, a well packed 30lire sack, with a triplle layer of foam near the back is just as comfly as 50litre sack, however all the bulky gear i compressed properly.
it also make it harder for you so called mates to slip in extra stuff.
it also make it harder for you so called mates to slip in extra stuff.
In reply to The Big Grey Man: i have speant one season in the alps, i didn't use a 30litre sack, because i didn't own one, nor did i belive everytihng could fit in, i used a 50 litre which was a faff.
i have happily lived out my 30litre litre sack for 3 days, carrying my tent and all my food.
i have used my 30l itre sack for scottish winter and lots of big multi pitch days in the lakes, where my partner has carried a 50litre sack, without problem.
i do not make thing up off the top of my head, or recomend things i havn't used.
i have happily lived out my 30litre litre sack for 3 days, carrying my tent and all my food.
i have used my 30l itre sack for scottish winter and lots of big multi pitch days in the lakes, where my partner has carried a 50litre sack, without problem.
i do not make thing up off the top of my head, or recomend things i havn't used.
> I never mentioned weight of the sack, anyway a larger sack >encourages more kit to be taken leading to a greater weight >overall.
No but others did. I don't get this thing about large sacks encouraging taking more. Just take what you need and no more.
> Is there a kitchen sink in there to wash your feet when >you reach the hut?
Be sarcastic if you like but I find walking up much more comfortable not wearing boots. It also saves wearing out very pricey boots on easy ground. Yes, you can probably devise a means of attaching boots on the outside of the sack but that will make it lumpy and unbalanced - just buy the extra 20l and be done with it.
> You only pack your sack a couple of times but have to >carry it all day.
In theory. I find that my gloves, lipsalve, guidebook, marsbar etc is always at the bottom and having a bit room helps in retrieving things.
> Would you care to explain why most continental climbers >have very small rucksacks?
In my experience most have sack between 40 and 50l. Clearly small sacks work well for you but this is not the case for everyone. My view is that if you are doing mid-grade routes, say AD-D- then a 50L sac is the most versatile and leads to most enjoyment. It certainly does not slow you down. Maybe at TD an up things are different but I suspect the OP and most alpine climbers are not operating at this level. And if they are they will know what they want.
In reply to Kevin Charleston: i use a boreal ascent 45 for scottish winters..can hold everything..also use it for wildcamping stuff too..best 'sac i've ever had..problem is that i've never seen one in uk..got mine online from weird spanish climbing site
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
These 3 statements and your original post don't add up
> i have speant one season in the alps, i didn't use a 30litre sack,
> i have happily lived out my 30litre litre sack for 3 days, carrying my tent and all my food.
> i do not make thing up off the top of my head, or recomend things i havn't used.
These 3 statements and your original post don't add up
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: You'd do well to listen to 'The Big Grey Man' Tom. Lecturing people based on your very minimal experience and some things you've read is neither helpful nor impressive. The arrogance doesn't come across as ironic particularly either.
In reply to MG:
Sarcastic? Moi?
Why use the exception to justify the rule? Most of the time will be on route (or technical ground) so your sack should reflect that.
Why not put them in the lid pocket? Or (better for lipsalve) in a jacket pocket so you don't have to stop to find them. A lot of alpine climbing is much easier if you have a system rather than being slap-dash about things.
It's at the lower grades that a small sack is most useful!
boB
>
> Be sarcastic if you like but I find walking up much more comfortable not wearing boots. It also saves wearing out very pricey boots on easy ground. Yes, you can probably devise a means of attaching boots on the outside of the sack but that will make it lumpy and unbalanced - just buy the extra 20l and be done with it.
> Be sarcastic if you like but I find walking up much more comfortable not wearing boots. It also saves wearing out very pricey boots on easy ground. Yes, you can probably devise a means of attaching boots on the outside of the sack but that will make it lumpy and unbalanced - just buy the extra 20l and be done with it.
Sarcastic? Moi?
Why use the exception to justify the rule? Most of the time will be on route (or technical ground) so your sack should reflect that.
>
>
> [...]
>
> In theory. I find that my gloves, lipsalve, guidebook, marsbar etc is always at the bottom and having a bit room helps in retrieving things.
>
> [...]
>
> In theory. I find that my gloves, lipsalve, guidebook, marsbar etc is always at the bottom and having a bit room helps in retrieving things.
Why not put them in the lid pocket? Or (better for lipsalve) in a jacket pocket so you don't have to stop to find them. A lot of alpine climbing is much easier if you have a system rather than being slap-dash about things.
>
> In my experience most have sack between 40 and 50l. Clearly small sacks work well for you but this is not the case for everyone. My view is that if you are doing mid-grade routes, say AD-D- then a 50L sac is the most versatile and leads to most enjoyment. It certainly does not slow you down. Maybe at TD an up things are different but I suspect the OP and most alpine climbers are not operating at this level. And if they are they will know what they want.
> In my experience most have sack between 40 and 50l. Clearly small sacks work well for you but this is not the case for everyone. My view is that if you are doing mid-grade routes, say AD-D- then a 50L sac is the most versatile and leads to most enjoyment. It certainly does not slow you down. Maybe at TD an up things are different but I suspect the OP and most alpine climbers are not operating at this level. And if they are they will know what they want.
It's at the lower grades that a small sack is most useful!
boB
In reply to Bob:
why? surley a small sack is usful on all grades? especailly the upper grades as the climbing is more strenuous.
>
> It's at the lower grades that a small sack is most useful!
> It's at the lower grades that a small sack is most useful!
why? surley a small sack is usful on all grades? especailly the upper grades as the climbing is more strenuous.
In reply to Kevin Charleston: Pod black ice does the lot.
In reply to TWINKLETOES: aye, it ways 2kg, is over featured and costs £140 though.
if oyu have ot get pod get the thin ice.
the aiguille sacks, are cheaper, simplier and lighter.
if oyu have ot get pod get the thin ice.
the aiguille sacks, are cheaper, simplier and lighter.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: I could'nt tell you how heavy it is, all I know is its comfy hardwearing, no frills good all round sack, and it has withstood a helluva abuse. The weight may be a problem if you have a puny physique and weak little shoulders.
In reply to TWINKLETOES: i'm much prefer to have the smallest, lightest sack possible, meaning i can move quicker and enjoy myself.
> Why use the exception to justify the rule? Most of the >time will be on route (or technical ground) so your sack >should reflect that.
>
> It's at the lower grades that a small sack is most useful!
>
> It's at the lower grades that a small sack is most useful!
Clearly not something we will agree on. My point is that if you are going to have one alpine sack get one that will do everything but will not slow you down. 50L seems to fit the bill for me. Also carrying the sack up to and down from the hut is when I want to be most comfortable as I will be tired or hot or both. I find having everything inside much more comfy.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
Sorry, you've just dispelled any lingering notion that you might know what you're talking about.
They weigh a little over 1.6kg, and are one of the least-featured (in a good sense) rucksacks on the market. You were right about the cost though, which is the main reason I went for an OMM sack instead.
> aye, it ways 2kg, is over featured and costs £140 though.
Sorry, you've just dispelled any lingering notion that you might know what you're talking about.
They weigh a little over 1.6kg, and are one of the least-featured (in a good sense) rucksacks on the market. You were right about the cost though, which is the main reason I went for an OMM sack instead.
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
I have and love my Haglofs Climber 50.
http://www.haglofs.se/produkter/ryggsackar.asp?lang=en&CatNr=410#
It is also available in a 40l version too, just remember just because it is a 50l rucksac it dosen't mean you have to fill it !
I would personally have a little extra space for a little something extra rather than having to leave it behind.
You could also go for a lim sac seen them not used but they are mega lightweight.
http://www.haglofs.se/produkter/ryggsackar.asp?lang=en&CatNr=410#
The choice is yours !!!
I have and love my Haglofs Climber 50.
http://www.haglofs.se/produkter/ryggsackar.asp?lang=en&CatNr=410#
It is also available in a 40l version too, just remember just because it is a 50l rucksac it dosen't mean you have to fill it !
I would personally have a little extra space for a little something extra rather than having to leave it behind.
You could also go for a lim sac seen them not used but they are mega lightweight.
http://www.haglofs.se/produkter/ryggsackar.asp?lang=en&CatNr=410#
The choice is yours !!!
In reply to Simon Caldwell: the needlesports site said it weighed 2kg, that was for the old one though.
i still thing that things like the removeable framsheet and padded hipbelt, are excessive. adding cost and weight to the sack.
even at 1.6kg i think the weight is excessive. my 30liresack weighs 800g and my 50litre 1.1kg. they are both cordura, rather than dynemma. personally i would rather carry and extra 500g of climbing gear, rather than 500g of excess cordura and foam. both my sack togheth cost only £10 more than the black ice.
the sack is overfeatured.
i still thing that things like the removeable framsheet and padded hipbelt, are excessive. adding cost and weight to the sack.
even at 1.6kg i think the weight is excessive. my 30liresack weighs 800g and my 50litre 1.1kg. they are both cordura, rather than dynemma. personally i would rather carry and extra 500g of climbing gear, rather than 500g of excess cordura and foam. both my sack togheth cost only £10 more than the black ice.
the sack is overfeatured.
I use a 30L bog-standard Karrimor sack which I have "modified" (cut all the crap dangling bits off). It's comfy, and I can get all my warm stuff, plus a shelter, in...
In reply to MG:
dude...i hear that Hovis are bring out a new kind of uncrushable bread esp. for outdoor types so's you can make the perfect sandwich at lunchtimes on the hills....no matter what your sack size.
> (In reply to Kevin Charleston)
>
> Stongly suggest you ignore the sub 30L advice. Around 50l is about right because
>
>> e) You can take bread to eat without crushing it.
>
> Stongly suggest you ignore the sub 30L advice. Around 50l is about right because
>
dude...i hear that Hovis are bring out a new kind of uncrushable bread esp. for outdoor types so's you can make the perfect sandwich at lunchtimes on the hills....no matter what your sack size.
In reply to Kevin Charleston:
I absolutely love my Arc Teryx Khamsin 30.
Nearer 40L in capacity, 0.9kg in weight and nothing there that doesn't need to be (apart from the key clip in the lid pocket!
Weight can go down to ~0.7kg if you put a foam bivi seat in te back rather than the carbon fibre struts.
Anyway - point is, sturdy construction (4 years of hard abuse and it's still fine). Swallows gear for days in scotland and almost all alpine stuff i'd consider.
Love it. Not cheep, but you get what you pay for.
I absolutely love my Arc Teryx Khamsin 30.
Nearer 40L in capacity, 0.9kg in weight and nothing there that doesn't need to be (apart from the key clip in the lid pocket!
Weight can go down to ~0.7kg if you put a foam bivi seat in te back rather than the carbon fibre struts.
Anyway - point is, sturdy construction (4 years of hard abuse and it's still fine). Swallows gear for days in scotland and almost all alpine stuff i'd consider.
Love it. Not cheep, but you get what you pay for.
In reply to Morgan Woods: pita bread?!
>i hear that Hovis are bring out a new kind of uncrushable >bread esp. for outdoor types so's you can make the perfect >sandwich at lunchtimes on the hills....no matter what your >sack size.
Excellent. Have they solved this going stale business too?
Excellent. Have they solved this going stale business too?
In reply to supertrickywoocheese: I have got a LIM 37, I like it alot, I think 50l is way too big, for summer alpine, even with bivvis or scottish winter, but wanted the option of a little extra room.
In reply to MG:
yes....it's the best thing since.....err anyway just thought i'd provide a light hearted distraction to the serious business of pontificating about pack size :0)
yes....it's the best thing since.....err anyway just thought i'd provide a light hearted distraction to the serious business of pontificating about pack size :0)
In reply to Stormmagnet:
I have my eye on gettin one of these ascents now they look sweet.
http://www.haglofs.se/produkter/ryggsackar.asp?lang=en&CatNr=400
> (In reply to supertrickywoocheese) I have got a LIM 37, I like it alot, I think 50l is way too big, for summer alpine.
I have my eye on gettin one of these ascents now they look sweet.
http://www.haglofs.se/produkter/ryggsackar.asp?lang=en&CatNr=400
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: Mate, the beaty of the removeable framesheet and hipbelt is that theyre removable, so you dont need to use them!!Doesnt mean the sack is over featured-if you try carrying big loads with no hipbelt you will regret it!!
Sam
Sam
In reply to sam the man: i have carries loads, that i would never climb with, 25-30kg in wild tihngs anditsta, which is twice as big as a black ice, but about 500g lighter.
the hip belt on the wild things is much less bulkier than the pods, but it didn't cause me any problems.
no hip belt is i bit of a pain, but the unpadded 500mm webbing belt is great, just as comfy and supportive than padded one, without the weight and bulk.
the hip belt on the wild things is much less bulkier than the pods, but it didn't cause me any problems.
no hip belt is i bit of a pain, but the unpadded 500mm webbing belt is great, just as comfy and supportive than padded one, without the weight and bulk.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
500mm! strewth, thats some hipbelt.
> no hip belt is i bit of a pain, but the unpadded 500mm webbing belt is great, just as comfy and supportive than padded one, without the weight and bulk.
500mm! strewth, thats some hipbelt.
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: 500mm? Sounds more like a corset to me-should certainly be supportive!! Pod sacks are totally solid, which is why they are a bit heavier, there's more than just lightness to think about. I'm in the light is right group personally, but everyone's different&likes different systems don' assume that just cos some famous climber thinks something they're right-its only their personal opinion. It's no wonder people get annoyed with you when your posts dont seem to make any sense.
Sam
Sam
In reply to sam the man: 50mm!!!
aiguille sack are solid too. just as well made as pod. how come they are lighter then?
but it is personal choice like you say...
aiguille sack are solid too. just as well made as pod. how come they are lighter then?
but it is personal choice like you say...
In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide: my goodness me - it never ceases to amaze me how, when someone asks for advice, that climbers (who are usually a pretty friendly bunch) get on their soapboxes and a torrent of vitriol gushes forth.
go into a decent shop, try a load of rucsacs on - decide what YOU want, for YOUR needs, see what fits and that way you avoid the bad natured pontificating!
peace out.
go into a decent shop, try a load of rucsacs on - decide what YOU want, for YOUR needs, see what fits and that way you avoid the bad natured pontificating!
peace out.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...