/ Alpine Rucksack with Long/Adjustable Back

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rich_Garnett on 30 Sep 2013
Hello,

I'm looking for an Alpine Rucksack 45-55 litres, but as I'm 6'3" I'm finding a lot of the ones I've tried come up short in the back with the waist straps not putting any weight on my hips.
Can you recommend a pack please?

Thanks!

Rich
calumr on 01 Oct 2013
I'm also 6'3", and I've got the Podsacs Alpine 50 (review of 40L version here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=2843 ). The size B version is a bit longer, make sure you get that one.

I've not worm it for more than about 6 hours at a time, but I've not had any problems with the weight not being on my waist. As a bonus, I can also confirm the internal framesheet works as a sledge!
Jon Wickham - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to calumr:
> I'm also 6'3", and I've got the Podsacs Alpine 50 (review of 40L version here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=2843 ). The size B version is a bit longer, make sure you get that one.

You might be interested to know that that pack is still going strong too after a fair amount of use. Indeed it basically looks like new, its not even very grubby! So they seem to last well too.
calumr on 01 Oct 2013
Excellent news, thanks.
Exile - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to Rich_Garnett:

Aiguille will measure your back, make a bombproof light rucsac that is specific to you and you'll still pay less for it than most other sacs on the market.
Bootsy - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to Rich_Garnett: Rich - I am 6'4" and bought the Osprey Mutant 38 (Large) for my most recent summer Alps trip this year. In fact the Large pack is 40L and expanded (it has a floating lid) significantly bigger - if anything almost too much space for summer Alpinism when staying in huts - but the back length was spot on and it is comfortable.

Only thing it's missing IMO are the pockets which appear on the waist-belt of other packs (eg. the Osprey Kode 30 which I ski with) and instead it has loops for racking gear. My preference would be for the former since I don't feel like I need the loops when I have my harness, but it's a matter of personal preference I guess.
martinph78 on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to Rich_Garnett: I would have suggested the Grivel Freney 50+10 had mine not fallen to bits with very little use :( An otherwise excellent pack with adjustable back, I just wish that they had bothered to use double stitching and a few more bar-tacks.

In fairness to them, they did give me a full refund.
davy_boy - on 01 Oct 2013
In reply to Rich_Garnett: used to have a podsacs alpine 50 in the long back size but was too long for me im 5'11" so i swapped it for the smaller back length and the 40l model. cant fault it been used for 2 years solid as summer. winter. climbing and skiing pack as well as for any holidays as its perfect size for most cabin bag restrictions.
alasdair19 on 08 Oct 2013
In reply to Rich_Garnett: I;m 6 two and seem to have a long back. pod thin ice in size 3 is excellent. sadly the arcteryx cierzo 35 is a bit too short. mac pac size 3 are fine too. i have the kacapoa or something 35l in size 2 but 50l in size 3. nice neart thin shape and the new version has a full mac pac lid rather than the dinky one on mine.
Denni on 08 Oct 2013
In reply to Rich_Garnett:

AK 47 size 3. Excellent rucksack, very durable and no frills.
ads.ukclimbing.com
cubanking - on 08 Oct 2013
I agree with Rich Garnett.Thanks..

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.