REVIEW: Mammut Trion 28 pack

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC/UKH Gear 29 Apr 2024

Robust, comfy and versatile, the update to this alpine pack range retains its original close fit and handy chest pockets, features influenced by running vest design. It's this that really sells it, reckons Dan Bailey. 

Read more

 morpcat 29 Apr 2024
In reply to UKC/UKH Gear:

I think you missed "Cons: Price". I know it's not the most expensive pack out there (*cough* *cough* BD Beta Light 30) but the price is significantly higher than a lot of similar packs.

For example, Alpkit Idris 25L has similar fit and features, is 40%+ lighter, and is less than half the RRP. OMM have similar packs for much less, and I'm sure I could find many more. Ice axe attachment is one difference, but for the difference in price I could just add some ties/bungee myself. Based on this review, I'm not seeing the justification for the higher price point (other than the lovely mammoth logo of course). 

In reply to morpcat:

Of course you can find cheaper rucksacks. But I don't think £155 is excessive in this current inflationary economy. It's a quality pack - over the last few years I've had absolutely loads of use out of its predecessor and it still shows no sign of wear.

Your cheaper example has some similarities in the sense that it's a rolltop with a degree of running vest influence. But there the similarities seem to end.

I'd bet it isn't as tough. As you acknowledge, it has no axe attachment. No rope strap either. And I'd imagine no internal frame. And no removable hip padding. So it's not directly equivalent at all really. It look more a running/walking pack, whereas the Trion is first and foremost a climbing pack, with a running influence, that's also good for walking. Apples and pears.

So I'm not listing its price as a con, that would be unfair.

 morpcat 30 Apr 2024
In reply to Dan Bailey -

Maybe I'm just thriftier than others, but I still think that £155 is a pretty high RRP for a small pack. 

Perhaps a fairer comparison would be to the Blue Ice Firecrest 28, Black Diamond Blitz 28, or Rab Latok 28, all of which are climbing specific, all of which have lower RRPs, and all of which weigh less. 

The obvious trade-off for the weight is durability, which you're vouching for based on your experience with your older Trion 38. However, it looks like the material may have changed since then. I couldn't find a lot of information about the material, but what I could find was the older model was "100% polyamide", and the newer model has "Main material 90% polyamide, 10% polyester". We know the even a small change in fabric composition can completely change its performance. Do you have more information on the materials to confirm if they are actually the same composition and weight? 

The other reason I might go for the more expensive Mammut is if the fit is super comfortable. The best thing to do would be try one on, but the reality is that I don't have anywhere in reasonable traveling distance that would ever stock such a specialist pack, so I'm always going to be ordering online. Other packs (e.g. Firecrest) do come in different sizes. You mention that the pack is too short for you and that the waist belt becomes a "belly belt", but also that you find the fit "hard to fault". So, does that mean you're still ok with the short fit or not? 

I'm being hypercritical here because I'm really interested in this pack. You may not think the price is high enough to be a negative, but it's certainly a factor I need to strongly consider. The high-end price point is justifiable if the pack lives up to it, but there seems to be a fair number of reasons to give me pause: ambiguity over weight vs. durability, ambiguity over fit, unnecessary zips that could reduce water resistance (I agree on the side zip being surplus), untidy straps, and possibly too-small chest pockets. 

Post edited at 10:44
 ScraggyGoat 30 Apr 2024
In reply to morpcat:

The Trion 38 I have is made from very undurable fabric, but is very light, and was very much designed as a ski touring pack/alpine snow climbing. So if the fabric changed for a use and abuse climbing pack that is an improvement. So it’s clear different generations of Trion can’t be directly compared.

But in reality anyone wanting a robust small pack for fine days could pick up a karrimor hot rock or similar on eBay, save themselves a chunk of change for other gear and have a sac with a two decade life span. Plus would be more environmentally sustainable.

Post edited at 11:13
 webding 05 May 2024

There's no way I'd pay £155 for a small rucksack when you can get something like the Simond Sprint 22L for a third of the price and weight.

I've had an earlier version of the Sprint for 10 years and only needed to replace it this year.

 FrankieMac 11 May 2024
In reply to UKC/UKH Gear:

I’ve had the previous version of this pack for the past couple of years and have been really impressed by it. I’ve used it for UK cragging, alpine rock routes and alpine ski (day) tours. The main plus points for me are its versatility, and also that it ‘climbs’ and ‘skis’ very well indeed - the pack moves with you and doesn’t lurch when you make an awkward or sudden move. The similar lighter packs I have tried fell short here. It can also carry skis & kit well and comfortably - important for relatively heavy loads.

I agree Mammut kit is pricey; I always try to buy in their sales if the timing is right.

 wbo2 12 May 2024
In reply to UKC/UKH Gear: looking at some of the alterntives cited above, the Blue Ice firecrest is very similar in price in Europe, and the Rab is more expensive!!

 blackcat 13 May 2024
In reply to FrankieMac:

I also have the previous version and agree it's a great pack, love the roll top so simple to close,got mine in a sale 80 quid.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...