This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I'm interested in getting a rucksack for use on the Ben in winter, alpine use, use in the dolomites, and general crag use. I'm looking at getting either the Deuter Guide 35+ (43l overall) or the Deuter Guide 45+ (55l overall).
Which should I go for?
Thanks
Dave
Which should I go for?
Thanks
Dave
which one feels the best when you have it on...
ooppp my bad both the same... go a bit bigger , that way when its cold and in a rush you have a bit more space to reach in and grab stuff
In reply to AndyE9: I've only tried the 45+ on and found it extremely comfortable. I'm hoping to try on the 35+ this friday but I was mainly interested in what size I should go for.
In reply to DavidRex:
The standard advice is that people tend to think they need bigger rucksacks than they need, which leads to carrying to much kit. I tend to think this is good advice.
The standard advice is that people tend to think they need bigger rucksacks than they need, which leads to carrying to much kit. I tend to think this is good advice.
1
In reply to The New NickB: I'd like it to be able to hold a belay jacket, food, harness and rack, crampons, a layer or two and at least one 60m rope
In reply to DavidRex:
Should fit in the 35. Have a look at what Bob has to say.
http://www.bobwightman.co.uk/climb/alp-gear.php
> (In reply to The New NickB) I'd like it to be able to hold a belay jacket, food, harness and rack, crampons, a layer or two and at least one 60m rope
Should fit in the 35. Have a look at what Bob has to say.
http://www.bobwightman.co.uk/climb/alp-gear.php
In reply to DavidRex:
CRUX AK47 - X is one of the best. Bid enough, simple and tough
CRUX AK47 - X is one of the best. Bid enough, simple and tough
take your kit with you and see what works best , the shop wont mind im sure..
In reply to The New NickB:
I disagree everyone I know that uses a 35 litre ends up strapping bits to the outside like the rope. Also the straps on a 35 litre are rarely designed to take the kinds of weight that a full winter climbing bag weighs. I always take as little kit as I think I can get away with, having a smaller bag wouldn't change this.
I suggest getting 45 -50 litre bag it will weigh a couple of hundred grams more but everything will fit inside it and it will prolly be more comfortable.
> (In reply to DavidRex)
> [...]
>
> Should fit in the 35. Have a look at what Bob has to say.
>
> http://www.bobwightman.co.uk/climb/alp-gear.php
> [...]
>
> Should fit in the 35. Have a look at what Bob has to say.
>
> http://www.bobwightman.co.uk/climb/alp-gear.php
I disagree everyone I know that uses a 35 litre ends up strapping bits to the outside like the rope. Also the straps on a 35 litre are rarely designed to take the kinds of weight that a full winter climbing bag weighs. I always take as little kit as I think I can get away with, having a smaller bag wouldn't change this.
I suggest getting 45 -50 litre bag it will weigh a couple of hundred grams more but everything will fit inside it and it will prolly be more comfortable.
In reply to The New NickB:
I agree. From my own experience no matter what size is the rucksack it always happened to be full. I use a 28L/33L for Scottiah winter and single day apline climbs. Most partners use something similar. Never thought I need a bigger bag except when carrying an SLR (in which case I'll use my 44L). Bigger bags are heavier and sometimes get in the way when climbing chimneys.
45+10L is however quite a versatile size. It's suitable for multi-days hiking/camping, alpine climbs involving bivis/hut stays, but still a practical size for single day cragging/winter climbing. When not extended most 45L rucksack are accepted as a hand luggage on flights (tight at the upper limit though).
I agree. From my own experience no matter what size is the rucksack it always happened to be full. I use a 28L/33L for Scottiah winter and single day apline climbs. Most partners use something similar. Never thought I need a bigger bag except when carrying an SLR (in which case I'll use my 44L). Bigger bags are heavier and sometimes get in the way when climbing chimneys.
45+10L is however quite a versatile size. It's suitable for multi-days hiking/camping, alpine climbs involving bivis/hut stays, but still a practical size for single day cragging/winter climbing. When not extended most 45L rucksack are accepted as a hand luggage on flights (tight at the upper limit though).
In reply to jamestheyip:
28L! I take it the rope + lid does not go inside the bag. I've tried using both my 35L bags the rope always got packed on the outside of the bag and the straps got uncomfortable on my shoulders as they just didn't have the necessary padding, shape or adjustment for the weight of winter kit.
28L! I take it the rope + lid does not go inside the bag. I've tried using both my 35L bags the rope always got packed on the outside of the bag and the straps got uncomfortable on my shoulders as they just didn't have the necessary padding, shape or adjustment for the weight of winter kit.
In reply to The New NickB:
I would suggest you are wrong and you don't know what I carry.
But in the same vein as your guesses about what I carry I would suggest that the 10 litres of kit I get inside my bag you strap to the outside and end up with a bag that is overloaden and not as stable and when it rains gets sodden with rain and heavier.
I would suggest you are wrong and you don't know what I carry.
But in the same vein as your guesses about what I carry I would suggest that the 10 litres of kit I get inside my bag you strap to the outside and end up with a bag that is overloaden and not as stable and when it rains gets sodden with rain and heavier.
In reply to DavidRex:
In the old days you needed bigger ruckies because the kit was bulky and heavy. My first decent rucksac was a Berghaus Ice Star- a whopping 50 litre job. Nowadays you can get away with smaller bags- I reckon 40 litres is a good sized rucksac that will also do for Summer rock climbing.
In the old days you needed bigger ruckies because the kit was bulky and heavy. My first decent rucksac was a Berghaus Ice Star- a whopping 50 litre job. Nowadays you can get away with smaller bags- I reckon 40 litres is a good sized rucksac that will also do for Summer rock climbing.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> I would suggest you are wrong and you don't know what I carry.
>
I am not guessing at what you are carrying, but if you can't easily fit it inside a 35l sack and is too heavy to be comfortable with a 35l sack, I am glad I am not climbing anything with it. > I would suggest you are wrong and you don't know what I carry.
>
In reply to CurlyStevo:
The rope always go inside (near the bottom, only above my belay jacket and bivi bag), so do the crampons. The helmet and axes are the only items I hang outside. The helmet can usually fit inside when I use my 33L.
The rope always go inside (near the bottom, only above my belay jacket and bivi bag), so do the crampons. The helmet and axes are the only items I hang outside. The helmet can usually fit inside when I use my 33L.
In reply to The New NickB:
Fine I've done a lot of winter climbing with a lot of different people, for the average weather you expect (either very cold or windy/wet) pretty much everyone I've seen with a 35 litre bag ends up packing a load of kit on the outside of it that IMO would be better inside the bag. Most people use 40-50 litres in winter, with the majority being >45 I'd say. For sunny spring days when you won't need much insulation or water proofs fair enough 35 L is enough, but these are not the usual conditions you need to cater for.
Fine I've done a lot of winter climbing with a lot of different people, for the average weather you expect (either very cold or windy/wet) pretty much everyone I've seen with a 35 litre bag ends up packing a load of kit on the outside of it that IMO would be better inside the bag. Most people use 40-50 litres in winter, with the majority being >45 I'd say. For sunny spring days when you won't need much insulation or water proofs fair enough 35 L is enough, but these are not the usual conditions you need to cater for.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I really interested in what you carry, forget the climbing gear, just tell me about clothing and emergency kit.
I really interested in what you carry, forget the climbing gear, just tell me about clothing and emergency kit.
In reply to The New NickB:
To the OP, sorry moving away from your question, but as you can see, more than one school of thought on this issue.
To the OP, sorry moving away from your question, but as you can see, more than one school of thought on this issue.
In reply to jamestheyip:
Well I guess it's whatever works for you. I do put my lid inside my bag but I pack my sandwiches in it and other stuff to pack it out. so it doesn't take up much space.
I find the weight of clothing (I walk in hot so not wearing much), axes, crampons, gloves, enough food for a full winter day and all the climbing kit does make the winter bag heavier than a summer day mountain climbing kit and I appreciate the extra padding and adjustment that the larger bags give. The construction of the straps on 35l bags is normally totally different to the bags the next size up as there is much less padding and often no adjustment on the top section of the straps.
Well I guess it's whatever works for you. I do put my lid inside my bag but I pack my sandwiches in it and other stuff to pack it out. so it doesn't take up much space.
I find the weight of clothing (I walk in hot so not wearing much), axes, crampons, gloves, enough food for a full winter day and all the climbing kit does make the winter bag heavier than a summer day mountain climbing kit and I appreciate the extra padding and adjustment that the larger bags give. The construction of the straps on 35l bags is normally totally different to the bags the next size up as there is much less padding and often no adjustment on the top section of the straps.
In reply to The New NickB:
Why so you can pick holes in it? Really I have enough experience to know how to minimize my kit to what is necessary. I lived in Scotland for 6 years.
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
>
> I really interested in what you carry, forget the climbing gear, just tell me about clothing and emergency kit.
>
> I really interested in what you carry, forget the climbing gear, just tell me about clothing and emergency kit.
Why so you can pick holes in it? Really I have enough experience to know how to minimize my kit to what is necessary. I lived in Scotland for 6 years.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
No, so I can try and understand where you are coming from. I won't big up my own experience, I am happy with the system I use after 20 years of trying to get it right, but Bob Wightman is worth listening to even if I am not.
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
>
> Why so you can pick holes in it? Really I have enough experience to know how to minimize my kit to what is necessary. I lived in Scotland for 6 years.
> [...]
>
>
> Why so you can pick holes in it? Really I have enough experience to know how to minimize my kit to what is necessary. I lived in Scotland for 6 years.
No, so I can try and understand where you are coming from. I won't big up my own experience, I am happy with the system I use after 20 years of trying to get it right, but Bob Wightman is worth listening to even if I am not.
In reply to The New NickB:
I'm guessing here that 1 year of living in scotland (whilst working) is worth 3+ of not living there in terms of what you can get done.
I'm guessing here that 1 year of living in scotland (whilst working) is worth 3+ of not living there in terms of what you can get done.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
I am not going to get into a debate about who has got the most experience, I have experienced the worst Scotland has to offer and the contents of a 30l sack more than adequately carried the kit I needed. I reference Bob's article, because he has climbed more and harder than both of us.
I am genuinely interested in what you carry. Someone said, Chouinard maybe, they more I know, the less I need. This has certainly been the case for me, although advances in material technology and product design have helped.
I am not going to get into a debate about who has got the most experience, I have experienced the worst Scotland has to offer and the contents of a 30l sack more than adequately carried the kit I needed. I reference Bob's article, because he has climbed more and harder than both of us.
I am genuinely interested in what you carry. Someone said, Chouinard maybe, they more I know, the less I need. This has certainly been the case for me, although advances in material technology and product design have helped.
In reply to The New NickB: Even if careful packing could get my minimal kit in to a 30 litre pack, as mentioned I find the shoulder straps on these bags get sore on my shoulders especially if climbing multiple days in the row. Also as I guess you know when walking up the hill access to kit is needed and However well you plan it's not always the top item you need access to. Sounds like a right faff to me having to repack a crammed 30 litre bag half way up the hill with stuff that would easily fit in to a 45 litre sack for the sake of 200 grams of extra of bag weight.
In reply to The New NickB:
I reckon 30 litres is taking it a bit far. I Winter climbed with a guy who used a Karrimor Hot Ice 30l bag- the rope had to be draped over the top of the main compartment with the lid holding it in place.
I reckon 30 litres is taking it a bit far. I Winter climbed with a guy who used a Karrimor Hot Ice 30l bag- the rope had to be draped over the top of the main compartment with the lid holding it in place.
In reply to Wee Davie:
I use a 30 as it works for my admittedly minimalist tastes, but the op asked about a 35+(42l) or a larger bag. I cannot see any reason to have a bag larger than this for the uses described by him.
I use a 30 as it works for my admittedly minimalist tastes, but the op asked about a 35+(42l) or a larger bag. I cannot see any reason to have a bag larger than this for the uses described by him.
In reply to DavidRex:
I've got a Berghaus crag extreme 45+ and a Grivel alpine 35+. I use the Grivel the most. If you go bigger you will most likely take more stuff than you actually need. I only tend to use the 45+ for multi day trips.
I've got a Berghaus crag extreme 45+ and a Grivel alpine 35+. I use the Grivel the most. If you go bigger you will most likely take more stuff than you actually need. I only tend to use the 45+ for multi day trips.
In reply to DavidRex:
Why two ropes? Also why crampons on the inside? Much more sensible to have them on the outside, I have them strapped to the lid.
I think we've gone from little but bulky gear to little but light and compact gear to lots of light and compact kit. Ropes are an example, we used to have 45m ropes, now we have 60m ropes as standard, a 33% increase. I'm not suggesting that we go back to 45m ropes but we do tend to carry far too much stuff these days.
The lightest and most compact gear is the stuff you don't take. Do you really need a triple set of wires, a double set of cams and fifteen quick draws for a standard Scottish winter route?
ALC
Why two ropes? Also why crampons on the inside? Much more sensible to have them on the outside, I have them strapped to the lid.
I think we've gone from little but bulky gear to little but light and compact gear to lots of light and compact kit. Ropes are an example, we used to have 45m ropes, now we have 60m ropes as standard, a 33% increase. I'm not suggesting that we go back to 45m ropes but we do tend to carry far too much stuff these days.
The lightest and most compact gear is the stuff you don't take. Do you really need a triple set of wires, a double set of cams and fifteen quick draws for a standard Scottish winter route?
ALC
In reply to Wee Davie: I got an Ice Star for my 18 birthday. I looked so cool with the stripy side straps and fluorescent colours (or so I liked to think). Very Euro, very late 80s! I actually was still using mine occasionally until a few years back. Actually despite the silly look - a fantastic pack, very light for the size and with lighter material, feels like its not there once empty.
In Scotland I always found what type of route you were doing made a big difference, because I would take a much bigger rack of rock gear for trying what for me was hard mixed. So then I would want the Ice Star, but for the Ben you would have less gear, so a 35 ltr pack would be fine.
People shouldn't get hung up on different stated sizes anyway, because one firm's 35 ltrs is suspiciously like 40 or even more from another. So the person who can fit everything into his 35 may actually have what would be called a 42 by another make.
In Scotland I always found what type of route you were doing made a big difference, because I would take a much bigger rack of rock gear for trying what for me was hard mixed. So then I would want the Ice Star, but for the Ben you would have less gear, so a 35 ltr pack would be fine.
People shouldn't get hung up on different stated sizes anyway, because one firm's 35 ltrs is suspiciously like 40 or even more from another. So the person who can fit everything into his 35 may actually have what would be called a 42 by another make.
In reply to TobyA:
I was going to post the same Toby, but couldn't be harsed. I've got way too many packs here and comparing them the sizes can vary significantly. My Osprey Variant 28 is more like a 40. My Cilogear 45 is more like a 60. So before those above get too worked up they need to be sure they're comparing apples with apples. Five litres can make a big difference.
I still have my old Ice Star and I too thought it was the dogs. But I've since realised it didn't really fit me that well, compared to more modern packs. Hangs back too much, nice and simple though. A porter I used in Hunza years ago was obsessed with it, because Mick Fowler had been through with one a few years earlier! At the time I couldn't afford to give up a perfectly decent pack, of course now I wish I could give him three.
> (In reply to Wee Davie)
> People shouldn't get hung up on different stated sizes anyway, because one firm's 35 ltrs is suspiciously like 40 or even more from another. So the person who can fit everything into his 35 may actually have what would be called a 42 by another make.
> People shouldn't get hung up on different stated sizes anyway, because one firm's 35 ltrs is suspiciously like 40 or even more from another. So the person who can fit everything into his 35 may actually have what would be called a 42 by another make.
I was going to post the same Toby, but couldn't be harsed. I've got way too many packs here and comparing them the sizes can vary significantly. My Osprey Variant 28 is more like a 40. My Cilogear 45 is more like a 60. So before those above get too worked up they need to be sure they're comparing apples with apples. Five litres can make a big difference.
I still have my old Ice Star and I too thought it was the dogs. But I've since realised it didn't really fit me that well, compared to more modern packs. Hangs back too much, nice and simple though. A porter I used in Hunza years ago was obsessed with it, because Mick Fowler had been through with one a few years earlier! At the time I couldn't afford to give up a perfectly decent pack, of course now I wish I could give him three.
In reply to The New NickB:
I am with CurlyStevo here. 40L+ is needed for me in winter. Rope, rack, helmet, crampons, food, water, clothes, bits an pieces just do not fit in anything less in my experience. Ditto the alps, where I like even more space so I can put my boots in the sack and walk in trainers. Modern larger sacks are so light (<1.3kg) that the luxury of a bit of space is worth it. Just be ruthless in what you carry.
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
> [...]
>
> No, so I can try and understand where you are coming from.
> [...]
>
> No, so I can try and understand where you are coming from.
I am with CurlyStevo here. 40L+ is needed for me in winter. Rope, rack, helmet, crampons, food, water, clothes, bits an pieces just do not fit in anything less in my experience. Ditto the alps, where I like even more space so I can put my boots in the sack and walk in trainers. Modern larger sacks are so light (<1.3kg) that the luxury of a bit of space is worth it. Just be ruthless in what you carry.
In reply to Damo: Very true, one of my bags is 35+8 yet I get more stuff in my standard 35 climbing pack. My standard winter pack is 50 but actually it's a fair bit smaller than most other 50 packs and much smaller than my old 50 pack.
In reply to DavidRex:
Personally I'd get the Deuter Guider 35+. That should do for everything. However I think that the Deuter Guide is too heavy, 1440g!. Maybe a Lowe Alpine Alpine Attack (http://www.lowealpine.com/eng/prod_app_det.php?catid=9&itemid=922&t... which is a bit lighter. Also a Crux AK37 is a much lighter sack. I normally use a 40l sack for Scottish Winter and I fit everything inside the sack (just!), that includes a large Paramo Torres belay jacket. For summer alpine routes, hut/lift to hut/lift, I'm planning on using a 20l Alpkit sack. I think if I took a 40l sack to the Alps, it would be very empty. I think in the ideal world, I'd have a 50l sack for cragging, 40l for Scottish winter and a 30l sack for the Alps. I think a 55l sack is just too big. So 40l is a good compromise.
If you want to have a look at what some people carry in the Alps then look at these two articles:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3441
http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3533
Personally I'd get the Deuter Guider 35+. That should do for everything. However I think that the Deuter Guide is too heavy, 1440g!. Maybe a Lowe Alpine Alpine Attack (http://www.lowealpine.com/eng/prod_app_det.php?catid=9&itemid=922&t... which is a bit lighter. Also a Crux AK37 is a much lighter sack. I normally use a 40l sack for Scottish Winter and I fit everything inside the sack (just!), that includes a large Paramo Torres belay jacket. For summer alpine routes, hut/lift to hut/lift, I'm planning on using a 20l Alpkit sack. I think if I took a 40l sack to the Alps, it would be very empty. I think in the ideal world, I'd have a 50l sack for cragging, 40l for Scottish winter and a 30l sack for the Alps. I think a 55l sack is just too big. So 40l is a good compromise.
If you want to have a look at what some people carry in the Alps then look at these two articles:
http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3441
http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=3533
In reply to DavidRex:
I'm not trying to go against the grain, but I just can't fit everything into a 35 litre sack for a day on the ben. Call me old fashioned or say that I'm carrying too much kit but I just can't do it. I carry my crampons inside my bag, the same with the rope because if there is bad weather on the walk in I'd rather start the route with a a dry rope and unhoarfrost covered kit.
I use a POD black Ice, which is around the 50 litre mark. I find it a little too big sometimes, but who cares! I just tighten the straps. When I'm humping a large rack and abseil rope to gogarth later in the year, I appreiciate the extra space.
I'm not trying to go against the grain, but I just can't fit everything into a 35 litre sack for a day on the ben. Call me old fashioned or say that I'm carrying too much kit but I just can't do it. I carry my crampons inside my bag, the same with the rope because if there is bad weather on the walk in I'd rather start the route with a a dry rope and unhoarfrost covered kit.
I use a POD black Ice, which is around the 50 litre mark. I find it a little too big sometimes, but who cares! I just tighten the straps. When I'm humping a large rack and abseil rope to gogarth later in the year, I appreiciate the extra space.
In reply to DavidRex: I've got one of those Guide 35 bags you refer to. It's a good rucksac but as we say in Scotland a bit nippit. Net result is that I have generally cut down on the gear I carry and it baffles my mates how I get everything in. So I agree with the other comments. If you have less space you will avoid carrying stuff for the sake of it, stuff you never use and you'll be carrying less weight.
RN
RN
In reply to mattrm:
the deuter guide is actually 1690 g with hip belt and frame (I'd want both for scottish winter). It's also actually a 43L bag. My specialist climbing 50L ruck sack weighs in at 1.7 kg (it was never the lightest sack when I bought it but it was cheap and durable £60) so pretty much the same weight as the dueter guide, I suspect in practice not very different in size either.
the deuter guide is actually 1690 g with hip belt and frame (I'd want both for scottish winter). It's also actually a 43L bag. My specialist climbing 50L ruck sack weighs in at 1.7 kg (it was never the lightest sack when I bought it but it was cheap and durable £60) so pretty much the same weight as the dueter guide, I suspect in practice not very different in size either.
In reply to a lakeland climber: Couldnt agree more. We occasionally have what we refer to as retro days when we do a classic winter ridge (Tower, Curved etc) with minimal gear. 1 axe, crampons a couple of long slings, half a set of wires, 3 quickdraws, 1 9mm rope, half a quiche and a mars bar. It's great fun, proper mountaineering.
RN
RN
In reply to Damo: Very soon there should be my review of the new Marmot Centaur 38 on the site. They sent me a pre-production sample to review which it turned out was a large (no tags etc.), and despite being called the "Centaur 38" the size large is actually 42 litres! So bags can change just on back size.
May well be that Curly Stevo and New Nick B have exactly the same size pack if they filled them up with water and measured!
May well be that Curly Stevo and New Nick B have exactly the same size pack if they filled them up with water and measured!
In reply to TobyA: Toby, stop talking nonsense. It goes against everything that Mick and Alan are trying to do here. You full well know that there is only one correct answer and its that a 25 litre pack is the way to go. Personally having climbed numerous Himalayan giants in siege style I have never required more than this. Of course when I go cragging because I'm an uberwad I carry a 60 l pack because that way I can fit in my three ropes, extra large rack and a small belayer in just for training purposes.
In reply to TobyA:
My Ice Star passed in 2008 after a short illness. After 15 years of devoted service holes were just starting to wear through the fabric. However, the straps had gone creaky and zip failure on the lid pocket proved to be the last straw according to the pathologist.
My Ice Star passed in 2008 after a short illness. After 15 years of devoted service holes were just starting to wear through the fabric. However, the straps had gone creaky and zip failure on the lid pocket proved to be the last straw according to the pathologist.
The Berghaus Arete 45 has not failed me. It can hold everything for the walk in and out, and has compression straps for once kitted up.
In reply to DavidRex:
Agree with TobyA and Damo. I've had sacks that claim to be the same size that are actually vastly different.
My old-style Deuter Guide 35 (2004 model I think) is just on the small side for most winter climbing days, unless I strapped stuff on the outside.
I have an Osprey Mutant 38 (actually 41 litres for large model), which despite its other faults is the perfect size for my winter climbing gear - everything inside bar axes and just a bit of space to spare.
Agree with TobyA and Damo. I've had sacks that claim to be the same size that are actually vastly different.
My old-style Deuter Guide 35 (2004 model I think) is just on the small side for most winter climbing days, unless I strapped stuff on the outside.
I have an Osprey Mutant 38 (actually 41 litres for large model), which despite its other faults is the perfect size for my winter climbing gear - everything inside bar axes and just a bit of space to spare.
In reply to DavidRex: I just bought a Deuter Guide 45+ and I'm very happy with it.
I like the divided main compartment: I stow things I'll definitely use in the larger top part (rope, harness, rack, boots, helmet); and the things I want to carry but might not use in the smaller bottom section (extra layer, waterproofs, first-aid kit, kitchen sink...) The 35+ doesn't have this feature (though both have a side-access zip into the main compartment).
I haven't increased the amount of gear I carry - yet! I use the compression straps to reduce the bag's volume when it's not full. This also helps with load-carrying since the load is cinched up closer to my spine. I find the extra space makes loading and unloading gear at the crag quicker because it's less of a fine art - I can just dump it in any old way. Handy for when the rain suddenly blows in!
I didn't consider the relative weight of the bag to be important because I knew I was going to dump 10 kg of kit into it so I wasn't worried about a few extra hundreds of grams. Also, if the limiting factor in my climbing was the weight I was carrying I'd consider that a nice problem to have! (Not that I'm planning on wearing the sack while actually climbing.) More important to me was the build quality - and both Deuter sacks seem like they were built to last.
Most importantly this is a comfortable rucksack to carry. It fits my long back well and the wide shoulder straps don't cut in under heavy loads. Your mileage may vary of course...
I like the divided main compartment: I stow things I'll definitely use in the larger top part (rope, harness, rack, boots, helmet); and the things I want to carry but might not use in the smaller bottom section (extra layer, waterproofs, first-aid kit, kitchen sink...) The 35+ doesn't have this feature (though both have a side-access zip into the main compartment).
I haven't increased the amount of gear I carry - yet! I use the compression straps to reduce the bag's volume when it's not full. This also helps with load-carrying since the load is cinched up closer to my spine. I find the extra space makes loading and unloading gear at the crag quicker because it's less of a fine art - I can just dump it in any old way. Handy for when the rain suddenly blows in!
I didn't consider the relative weight of the bag to be important because I knew I was going to dump 10 kg of kit into it so I wasn't worried about a few extra hundreds of grams. Also, if the limiting factor in my climbing was the weight I was carrying I'd consider that a nice problem to have! (Not that I'm planning on wearing the sack while actually climbing.) More important to me was the build quality - and both Deuter sacks seem like they were built to last.
Most importantly this is a comfortable rucksack to carry. It fits my long back well and the wide shoulder straps don't cut in under heavy loads. Your mileage may vary of course...
In reply to Wee Davie:
I think you've right regarding bulky gear 'back in the day'.
Clothing is certainly less bulky these days, although people now carry big belay jackets these days, filling up this excess space! Another observation, folk used to wear everything, climb without bags, now they wear less, but climb with sacks (belay jacket inside).
Anyway, the Ice Star was an awesome pack, though was yours not the red cordura one? I used to have a 25L VauDe pack, purple down one side, yellow covering the rest of body, some bizare black, useless pocket, with buckles, facing rear. My friend, Elsie, has been using it for years, the retro styling, complements her 'hill' look.
38L would seem about right for Scotland, everything inside, walking in just wearing a thermal.
Stuart
Ps. Toby, I'll bet that Ice Star, probably lighter than several 'go faster' packs these days. Have things really evolved in 20 years????
I think you've right regarding bulky gear 'back in the day'.
Clothing is certainly less bulky these days, although people now carry big belay jackets these days, filling up this excess space! Another observation, folk used to wear everything, climb without bags, now they wear less, but climb with sacks (belay jacket inside).
Anyway, the Ice Star was an awesome pack, though was yours not the red cordura one? I used to have a 25L VauDe pack, purple down one side, yellow covering the rest of body, some bizare black, useless pocket, with buckles, facing rear. My friend, Elsie, has been using it for years, the retro styling, complements her 'hill' look.
38L would seem about right for Scotland, everything inside, walking in just wearing a thermal.
Stuart
Ps. Toby, I'll bet that Ice Star, probably lighter than several 'go faster' packs these days. Have things really evolved in 20 years????
In reply to TobyA:
I doubt it, my 30 is a bog standard Hot Ice, seems to be on the smaller side of '30l'. I used to have a macpac pursuit circa 1993 model, said 45l but was huge.
> (In reply to Damo)
> May well be that Curly Stevo and New Nick B have exactly the same size pack if they filled them up with water and measured!
I doubt it, my 30 is a bog standard Hot Ice, seems to be on the smaller side of '30l'. I used to have a macpac pursuit circa 1993 model, said 45l but was huge.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
Blimey that is heavy. If you're dead set on 45l, then Blue Ice do a 45l pack that's a lot lighter, especially when stripped. Check http://www.blueice.com/en/products/blue-ice-45l . If not again, either of the Crux packs are much smaller. Also if you can get hold of one the Mammut Granit is a nice simple and light sack. I've got a 40l Granit and it only weighs 1200g and has a decent frame and amount of padding. Cold Cold World (US) do light sacks as well - http://www.coldcoldworldpacks.com/ .
Blimey that is heavy. If you're dead set on 45l, then Blue Ice do a 45l pack that's a lot lighter, especially when stripped. Check http://www.blueice.com/en/products/blue-ice-45l . If not again, either of the Crux packs are much smaller. Also if you can get hold of one the Mammut Granit is a nice simple and light sack. I've got a 40l Granit and it only weighs 1200g and has a decent frame and amount of padding. Cold Cold World (US) do light sacks as well - http://www.coldcoldworldpacks.com/ .
In reply to mattrm:
yeah I bought it whilst strapped for cash, expense was more important than lightness. To be honest though I'm not going to now spend £100 just to save 500 grams, I'll keep the bag until it's worn out. Its a mountain technology 50L climbing pack, very durable and comfortable just a bit heavier than the modern offerings. I bought it at a time when the manufacturers were really catching on to the fact climbers want light no nonsense packs so at the time it was on the heavy side but not as much of a difference as you find now. Still its the same weight as the supposedly smaller dueter pack others on this thread are using.
For summer stuff I have a bergaus arete 35L pack which has been great and weighs about 1kg. I don't like using it for winter though, too small and the straps hurt when full with winter kit, partly because of the longer walkins but I do find if I'm pushing the grade the winter kit I need weighs a fair amount more than a summer mountain climbing pack.
Personally I wouldn't strip a pack for a winter day, I like the back support and waist belt it makes the day more bareable.
yeah I bought it whilst strapped for cash, expense was more important than lightness. To be honest though I'm not going to now spend £100 just to save 500 grams, I'll keep the bag until it's worn out. Its a mountain technology 50L climbing pack, very durable and comfortable just a bit heavier than the modern offerings. I bought it at a time when the manufacturers were really catching on to the fact climbers want light no nonsense packs so at the time it was on the heavy side but not as much of a difference as you find now. Still its the same weight as the supposedly smaller dueter pack others on this thread are using.
For summer stuff I have a bergaus arete 35L pack which has been great and weighs about 1kg. I don't like using it for winter though, too small and the straps hurt when full with winter kit, partly because of the longer walkins but I do find if I'm pushing the grade the winter kit I need weighs a fair amount more than a summer mountain climbing pack.
Personally I wouldn't strip a pack for a winter day, I like the back support and waist belt it makes the day more bareable.
In reply to The New NickB:
No, it is silly patronising advice which assumes people aren't capable of working out what they actually need to carry. Fitting what you actually need into a slightly larger sack is easier and the sack will be more versatile. Go big.
> (In reply to DavidRex)
>
> The standard advice is that people tend to think they need bigger rucksacks than they need, which leads to carrying to much kit. I tend to think this is good advice.
>
> The standard advice is that people tend to think they need bigger rucksacks than they need, which leads to carrying to much kit. I tend to think this is good advice.
No, it is silly patronising advice which assumes people aren't capable of working out what they actually need to carry. Fitting what you actually need into a slightly larger sack is easier and the sack will be more versatile. Go big.
In reply to Robert Durran:
People do generally carry more than they need. Of the two sacks mentioned by the OP, the smaller should still have plenty extra capacity.
> (In reply to The New NickB)
> [...]
>
> No, it is silly patronising advice which assumes people aren't capable of working out what they actually need to carry. Fitting what you actually need into a slightly larger sack is easier and the sack will be more versatile. Go big.
> [...]
>
> No, it is silly patronising advice which assumes people aren't capable of working out what they actually need to carry. Fitting what you actually need into a slightly larger sack is easier and the sack will be more versatile. Go big.
People do generally carry more than they need. Of the two sacks mentioned by the OP, the smaller should still have plenty extra capacity.
In reply to The New NickB:
Talk about patronising!
It depends what they NEED to take. The stuff I NEED to take certainly would not fit in it. I am old and scared, so I need a big rack. I feel the cold more than anyone else I know, so I need to carry lots of bulky clothing, I find it worth carrying 1.5 litres of drink, so I need a big bottle. I like the benefit of surplus rummage space. Overall I need a 60 litre sack.
I am sure the OP is capable of putting the stuff he needs in a pile and then finding out what sack it sensibly fits in. How much additional rummage space he wants is then up to his personal preference.
> People do generally carry more than they need.
Talk about patronising!
> Of the two sacks mentioned by the OP, the smaller should still have plenty extra capacity.
It depends what they NEED to take. The stuff I NEED to take certainly would not fit in it. I am old and scared, so I need a big rack. I feel the cold more than anyone else I know, so I need to carry lots of bulky clothing, I find it worth carrying 1.5 litres of drink, so I need a big bottle. I like the benefit of surplus rummage space. Overall I need a 60 litre sack.
I am sure the OP is capable of putting the stuff he needs in a pile and then finding out what sack it sensibly fits in. How much additional rummage space he wants is then up to his personal preference.
In reply to Robert Durran:
Not patronising, an observation. I have been guilty of carrying too much gear myself in the past.
I have never climbed with a 60l, I found even a half empty 45l cumbersome.
Not patronising, an observation. I have been guilty of carrying too much gear myself in the past.
I have never climbed with a 60l, I found even a half empty 45l cumbersome.
In reply to The New NickB:
"I found even a half empty 45l cumbersome."
sounds like your using an inappropriate 45l rucksack or your back is very small.
My 50 litre bag has compressions straps on it and never interfears with my helmet or climbing (unless the bag is in contact with the rock/ice). I find having my 2/3 empty 50 litre bag with the compression straps compressing the contents is more comfortable to climb in than a 35 litre bag that is nearly full, it works better in chimneys than having a more pronounced bump as the contents are more flat. As for climbing faces neither bag gets in the way the only consideration is weight.
"I found even a half empty 45l cumbersome."
sounds like your using an inappropriate 45l rucksack or your back is very small.
My 50 litre bag has compressions straps on it and never interfears with my helmet or climbing (unless the bag is in contact with the rock/ice). I find having my 2/3 empty 50 litre bag with the compression straps compressing the contents is more comfortable to climb in than a 35 litre bag that is nearly full, it works better in chimneys than having a more pronounced bump as the contents are more flat. As for climbing faces neither bag gets in the way the only consideration is weight.
In reply to DavidRex: I used the 45+ last winter in Scotland and in the Alps the previous summer. For me it was fine providing enough space for rope, rack and extra clothing so no need to have stuff banging around on the outside.
In reply to CurlyStevo:
The 45l was fine, but inherantly more bulky that a 30 or 35.
See I don't really see why a 35 would be nearly full when you are climbing.
The 45l was fine, but inherantly more bulky that a 30 or 35.
See I don't really see why a 35 would be nearly full when you are climbing.
In reply to DavidRex: What about the Deuter Lite Guide 32. Its about 550g lighter than the Guide 35 and has got rid of a few of those stupid straps you find on the outside of most bags these days.
RN
RN
In reply to The New NickB:
You said you found your half full 45l cumbersome when climbing only on your post before last. Make up your mind! Also that would Imply a 2/3 full 35 litre Which is pretty full no?
> (In reply to CurlyStevo)
>
> The 45l was fine, but inherantly more bulky that a 30 or 35.
>
> See I don't really see why a 35 would be nearly full when you are climbing.
>
> The 45l was fine, but inherantly more bulky that a 30 or 35.
>
> See I don't really see why a 35 would be nearly full when you are climbing.
You said you found your half full 45l cumbersome when climbing only on your post before last. Make up your mind! Also that would Imply a 2/3 full 35 litre Which is pretty full no?
In reply to DavidRex:
whats with all this arguing?
OP: just get out all the kit you will put in your pack (worst case scenario) then figure out what size pack you need from that.
Everyone is different and everyone carries different gear, therefore everyone has a different opinion
whats with all this arguing?
OP: just get out all the kit you will put in your pack (worst case scenario) then figure out what size pack you need from that.
Everyone is different and everyone carries different gear, therefore everyone has a different opinion
In reply to CrankCrimp: You're right seems pretty stupid arguing over the size of rucksacks. And your suggestion is logical see what gear you want to carry and get a bag to suit. I bet we'll be arguing about ice axe lengths next.
RN
RN
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Le Toit de Ben - Quebec 1958
This week's Friday Night Video whisks us back to Val-David, Quebec, in the Autumn of 1958. Two daring young climbers embark on the ascent of a route that seemed unattainable, resembling a roof suspended in the air, defying all the conventions of the time....
3 May
Loading Notifications...