UKC

Just curious to find out why manufacturers have such wildly different ideas of the true capacity of their rucsacs.

For example, I have an Osprey Variant 37L. I managed to fit my grivel 42L pack, full to the brim, inside the main compartment of the Osprey 37L with plenty of room to spare. Then, my OMM 32L pack is literally less than half the size of the Osprey one, fully packed.

Any ideas?

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

Because they all use different methods for working out the volume.
Some will do a rouge estimate based on the size of the bag, others will use a system of filling the bag with lots of little balls with a known volume, and basing it on that.
And of course the size of the "balls" (can be any shape realy) and how well they fit together, the difference from actual size will vary. (and sometime a lot)

In reply to Mokkel: But the difference is quite staggering, do you not agree? For example, OMM 32 and the Osprey 37.

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

I know, but its down to there not being a standardized method of measuring the volume.
I work for a company that amongst other things, make rucksack and i have seen the volume change from season to season on the same pack, simply down to changing how it was measured, even though the pack was identical.

You cant trust the volume given by manufacturers one bit when it comes to comparing across brands (not even with packs from same brand)

In reply to nickinscottishmountains: They're a complete work of fiction. Often if you take the published dimensions of the pack and work out the maximum possible volume the claimed size is still way bigger. Dakine are particularly poor for this.