/ Pod alpine 30

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
ray - on 21 Feb 2014
I am after a new bag for winter climbing. My berghaus arÍte 35 is a tad small for all my clobber, and pod are doing good deals at the moment. So, question is, which one? Would the alpine 30 be any bigger than the arÍte? Or do I go for a 40?
Tom F Harding on 21 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

eeer.... Troll?
ray - on 21 Feb 2014
In reply to The_flying_climber:

Errr no.
ray - on 22 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Bump
Tom F Harding on 22 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Cant believe I'm going to answer this question but...

The number = The liters the bag can store.

So a 35 lt bag is bigger than a 30 lt and a 40 lt is bigger than a 35 lt.

It's not rocket science!!
andyd1970 - on 22 Feb 2014
In reply to ray: I have a mammut trion element 40 and when i had a look at the the Black diamond Speed 30 it had a roll top closure which made it miles bigger in volume. A lot of manufacturers rucksack sizes vary a lot.
check out this link what Trail magazine found http://www.livefortheoutdoors.com/Videos/Search-Results/Walking/New-Video-How-Trail-measures-rucksac...
The 40L would be a better option as it has a roll down top which is great as it extends more and is more sealed if you remove the lid for a lighter pack
Andy

Slarti B on 22 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Don't have the Alpine 40 myself but a couple of other guys in the club do and they really like them.
Very good value at the moment but, if you want to get one, act before they run out!
ray - on 22 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Thanks for the helpful replies.
GridNorth - on 22 Feb 2014
In reply to The_flying_climber:

At face value this does seem like a stupid question but I agree with others who say that the size quoted differs between manufacturers. I have a Millet 32 litre that holds more than my old OMM 35 litre and by a significsnt margin.
alooker - on 23 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Alpine 40 is a great sac. I'd get the 40 over the 30 as it has a roll top. I don't use the top pouch anymore, just the roll top.
NiceUsername - on 23 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Saw some podscas half price in millets today, alpine 40 i think.
Nath93 - on 23 Feb 2014
In reply to The_flying_climber:
There isn't actually a "universal" size measurement for bag capacity which gear companies use, so one companies 30 litre could be another companies 35l.

My mate used to use a 45 litre Arete which was of a similar size to my 35 litre pack. He now has a Montane bag which is 40l I think and is of a comparable size to my Lowe Alpine 45/55 litre bag.

Take it all with a pinch of salt.
Post edited at 13:45
andy_e on 23 Feb 2014
In reply to Nath93:

I agree, the Montane Torque 40, packs as much as my older "55" litre bag. This is mostly due to a high skirt on the inside and a very well designed floating lid with adjustable straps on it. Even with the the bag crammed full, the top pocket can still be used. My 35 litre bag seems tiny in comparison to the 40 montane bag, as once it is full there is no way to close the lid or put anything in the top of it!
Nath93 - on 23 Feb 2014
In reply to andy_e: Not being able to close or use the top pocket on my 35l when it was full used to drive me mad, so I just cut it off in the end and keep my essentials in a little carry bag and have them beside my lunch under my lid when I use that pack.
ads.ukclimbing.com
ray - on 26 Feb 2014
In reply to ray:

Thanks.
Reckon I will go for the pod 40l
Saw bd speed 40 for under £100 too.Decisions decisions

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