/ Do everything, go anywhere climbing pack
need it to do everything.
Practical for the Crag, Scottish winter, alpine winter/ summer, everything.
Ideally not too expensive either.
It's bloody brilliant, does it all.
It is, however, £110.
Berghaus Crag 45 looks alright though, I had the 30litre one ages ago and it was alright but not a patch on my Macpac. It is only £50 though.Got a few mates with em and they seem to like it
macpac A bit heavy, no?
also doesn't seem big enough.
Found the Pursuit bad on the shoulders. Straps were wide so dug in and was uncomfortable. I'm using, and have been for a while, a North Face Prophet 45 and an Arcteryx 45
Personal preference I spose
Get the pursuit!
It's no heavier than anyother sack of that size (give or take a few grams).
Bomb proof if you get the better old style one.
and i picked mine up for £80.
I bought mine after my old Mountain Equipment sack fell apart this summer in the alps and am now convinced i made the right choice.
OMM - MM45+10RL The Villain
Also like the look of the Macpac - Pursuit 50, lighter than the original pursuit.
I found i needed the size 2 back length (second smallest) with the pursuit and i'm 6'2" and broad shouldered. The straps were not right on anything bigger. This however is spot on for fit.
To the OP: Have you looked at the POD crag sacck/Black ice? Not that cheap but will prob last as long as 3 at half the price.
> I found i needed the size 2 back length (second smallest) with the pursuit and i'm 6'2" and broad shouldered.
That was probably the problem then. I'm the same, 6'3, broad shouldered, just found it cut in bad after a day on t'hills
I'm sure it's heavier than the original as it's got a funny metal rod thing in it.
I found it bloody uncomfortable but each to their own.
Also, the fabric on the new one looks a lot thinner than on the old one, partly why I like my old style one as it seems far more durable.
I'm not entirely sure how you can say 50ltr is too small, you're taking too much! I had full alpine kit and camping gear in it last year.
Berghaus Arete 45 again looks nice too.
Now, if you have a serious wedge, the Pod Black Ice is the kinda rucksack to have wet dreams about...
Nope, I'm pretty sure it's 50litres
their mistake. Sorry.
Nope its 50 and plenty big enough. It's all i'm taking to the alps this winter.
I would say that its in the same league as the POD sacks for quality too. It all however boils down to fit.
I originally thought the Lowe Alpine mountain attack would be good. But looking at it, it has so many useless features, making it quite heavy.
Crux AK 47, light, well made and simple. A bit small if you want to carry camping/bivvy stuff, but for day routes they're great. I didn't get on with Macpac, painful after a proper day out.
POD Black Ice. Worth every extra penny.
Berghaus Arete 45- will do the lot. I like mine, especially at £45.
> I found i needed the size 2 back length (second smallest) with the pursuit and i'm 6'2" and broad shouldered. The straps were not right on anything bigger. This however is spot on for fit.
Each to their own i guess....
if you have to get a bigger sack, get a pod thin ice.
Wrong. We all listen to you and then choose to do our own thing.
I have a Lowe Alpine Quark 40 and it is perfect. Very light, takes Axes, and most importantly fits my back - which is imho really what you should put as your first priority.
I use mine for ice and rock and pretty much everytime I go away because it fits into hand luggage on a plane.
This is similar to the one I have apart from I have the roll-top version and it is reduced to 65.00 pounds.
The material is not the toughest but very light, so it probably won't last as long as a Crux or Pod (having said that, I know of lots of Crux packs which have broken).
The Thin Ice is an ultra lightweight specialist alpine sack. The OP wants an all rounder. I wouldn't want to backpack with a thin ice, or even lug a weekend's worth of food and a rack into the Hutchy hut.
Grivel and Black Diamond do good mid-sized sacks too. The Lakes shops occasionally do good deals on them.
I had a BD something or other, very comfy and light, but it was too featured for me and didn't have wand pockets (which I like having) so i flogged it and bought a Black Ice.
> Hardly a do everything all rounder
Once young Tom gets some real Scottish winter routes under his belt, he may yet become an all rounder.
it is hardly ultra light.
the aiguille alpine zeneith (cordura) weighs 1kg too.
I have a Karrimor Alpiniste and use it for everything. I'm sure many would say it's too big for summer walking but I like it. Good size for climbing and good for backpacking as well as it forces you to only take what you need while still being big enough,
There ain't such a thing! I've got at least five rucksacks in regular use (though I could get away with two or three) of varying sizes/weights/styles. It just depends what I am doing on the day. Note that the largest of these is 35L.
As for coach travel - nip down to JJB sports (never thought I'd say that) and grab a big sports holdall. Easier to pack than a rucksack of similar size and since the coach will be carrying it most of the time you don't have to worry about comfort etc. Also a lot cheaper than the equivalent sized rucksack.
I don't want to haul several rucksacks to base camp.
I want to pack my stuff in it at home and un pack it in the valley. then use it for climbing.
I would add my vote to a cheap holdall for getting you to the campsite, then a small nice light sack for climbs and wanders.
A holdall is just so much easier to use round a campsite - it is easier to find things in a holdall than in a rucksack, and you have something to leave your camping kit in when you head off (most hotels and guest houses will let you leave your big bag if you have been staying with them).
On my first Andean trip I took a suitcase and a daysack. The suitcase went on top of the jeep to base camp, and then I used the daysack for climbing
You're not going to find a rucksack then.
In 2005 when I went to CHamonix, I had a 50ltr alpine climbing rucksack (Macpac Pursuit) and a small holdall type bag.
I only own one rucksack, a 50 ltr Macpac Pursuit
Look at it this way - any sack that is big enough to fit in clothing for several weeks plus camping and climbing gear is going to be too big for climbing - you'd need a 100L sack.
Get a reasonably sized, decent sack for climbing, I'd say no bigger than 35L but the kitchen sink brigade insist that nothing less than 50L will do, and when travelling shove it into the holdall. OK it will take up a bit of space but not as much as you'd think.
You ask for something impossible, then when a solution is offered you reject it. So what is the point of asking? I've hitched around the alps carrying two sacks and a pair of skis without too much problem BTW.
For back packing i do the same, but i need a larger sack really to fit everything inside. As bob sed a 100L should do the job.
My Berghaus sack has never failed me it holds all my cragging gear and all my bivi gear on longer routes. You can pick them up dirt cheap too.
I must have the old model got mine for £25!
A few off my friends have the Lowe alpine onces(35L). Not as good as mine! ;-)
My combo: a 35L rucksack (Arc'teryx RT35), plus a A North Face Rolling Thunder Bag (80L)- you can get a 100L version too if you need that size. I really, really like the North Face, tough as boots, waterproof for anything other than a prolonged deluge (100%w/proof material plus mostly covered zips), designed to stand on end without falling, for some reason often gets admiring looks in airport check-in queues (2 different people have asked me about it in airports) and crucially, has wheels and a pull-out handle. This means you can save yourself a double hernia lugging around your 80L of gear - great for airports etc, plus the internal aluminum frame and wheel set seems quite happy being dragged over rough ground for miles. There are well-designed grab handles all over it if you must/need to lug it too. The rectangular box shape means that it is easy to stow eg on top of a truck and is probably less likely to roll off than an overstuffed holdall, plus the frame will provide more protection from being crushed and abused in aircraft holds etc. compared with a large softshell bag. Although fairly heavy (4.2kgs), this can be more than compensated by cramming all your heavy gear and boots into the rucksack for flying as hand luggage, keeping the weight down to avoid the >20kgs limit.
FWIW the Arc'teryx RT35 Rucksack, which I got in virtually new condition from eBay, is extremely well made and the most comfortable rucksack I've ever owned, even when heavily loaded.
there is a solution, it is very exspesive and called the wild things and andistia. it is a 70litre bag, with a 30litre extention. however due to two ingenious zippers down the sides the bags capacity can be decreased to 35litres. also the bag only weighs about the same as POD black ice.
however, i agreee with you. travel to cham with a 100litre holdall, either using your 30litre sack as your carryon for the plane or packing it flat in the bottom of your bag.
I think Mark Twight might have you for breach of copyright there, son.
Elsewhere on the site
Rock shoes stink – let’s face it. Boot Bananas are the perfect way to fight the funk and keep them fresh. They help... Read more
On Saturday 13th December Greg Boswell and Guy Robertson kicked off their Scottish winter season early by making the... Read more
The release of Peter Jackson's new film The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies on 12th December may not appear to link to... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more
Perhaps the perfect Xmas gift for the climber in your life... Wild Country's Crack School has two of the worlds best crack... Read more