UKC

I'm looking for a small climbing rucksack for multipitch trad routes where you walk in, climb with the rucksack, then walk off a different way. I find climbing with a big bag annoying even if it's empty (gets in the way of gear and chalk bag, moves around, gets in the way looking up). I'm looking for something that's just big enough for half a rack, rope, helmet etc and a few spare layers, possibly with the rope and helmet on the outside for the walk in.

The two options which jump out at me are the Blue Ice Warthog 26 and the Patagonia Ascensionist 25. Unfortunately the nearest stockist of either is miles away from me. Anyone had a chance to compare the two in the flesh and have a preference? Any thoughts on how they both come up size wise? Am I missing something similar that beats either?

A couple of specific questions if anyone owns one:
Someone on the forums mentioned the warthog might not be so good if you're tallish, I'm 180 cm, anyone that sort of height have one and get on ok with it?

Someone else mentioned that the ascensionist 25 doesn't take a rope strapped across the top so well and it slips down, anyone got any experience of that?

Cheers!

In reply to Neek:

I use a Warthog 26 for multipitch and winter. I don't climb hard, but like very long days out and find the Warthog fits everything in and remains stable and unobtrusive. I'm 5'11" and find it very comfortable.
It is also incredibly tough - a 1000' slide a couple of winters back broke me but didn't leave a scratch on the sac.

A steal at the moment as well:

http://www.needlesports.com/1976/products/blue-ice-warthog-26-litre.aspx

HTH

In reply to Neek:


180 is not that tall... I'm 175 and the warthog fits me fine.

I think the main differences between Warthog and Ascensionist is the materials. To me, Patagucci seems a bit more flimsy. That said, Warthog is built like a tank.


To be honest, if you do not need to fasten icetools and carry much stuff in them (on the approach, harness, rack, shoes & snacks. And when climbing, hiking shoes and snacks). Perhaps something lighter might be in order. I've used successfully Alpkits 20 liter Gourdon and there are other lighter options available as well.

In reply to HeMa:

Ive been looking at bigger versions of these packs and as others have said the blue ice is bomb proof but heavier whearas the patagonia is much thinner material, much lighter, but wouldn't last long thrutching up a chimmney or with contact with ponty winter gear, quite different bags really.

In reply to Neek:

I've been through the same choice myself recently and you have undoubtedly picked the two outstanding options. Don't let anyone derail with alternatives, none are as light as the Ascensionist or as tough as the Warthog in that size.

It comes down to your priorities. The Warthog is much tougher, more comfortable a carry, takes a rope better and will last longer. It's also prettier. The Ascensionist will probably carry a little more being better equipped with webbing and shock cord and is incredibly light so great for lightweight winter climbing. Hope that analysis helps.

In reply to BnB:

And which did you pick.........?

I got an Ascentionist 25L when they were £30 on EpicTV but have yet to really use it in anger. I wanted something super lightweight and it's far lighter than the Warthog.

In reply to all:

Great, that's really useful thanks. I'm leaning towards the warthog; I've got a couple of OMM running packs that will do me if I ever want to go ultralight, so perhaps the ascensionist is a bit too similar to those.

In reply to Neek:
I'd say either the warthog or the arc teryx alpha fl30. I found the patagucci to faffy to use, didn't hold the tools properly. Love the simplicity of the alpha fl. Fairly bomber too

In reply to Neek:
How about a Deuter speed lite 20? Its really good for those use cases and is only 32 quids.

Its great. It has very comfy padded shoulder straps for overloading the bag (but a tiny waist and chest strap / belt). Its made for freedom of movement when running so is positioned well out of the way of moving body parts and is well out the way of the harness and arms (the bottom of the pack isn't too far down you back and is a little narrower than the top). It also has compression straps for fixing a rope to. Also weighs only 530g. The only thing I would change is I'd have rid of the front pouch and save some more weight.

The packs you link look a bit long and thin to me, would the bottom of them interfere with your chalk bag? Out of the two you link the warthog would be too heavy for me to consider. I think its a shame the Patagonia doesn't have better external rope attachments (I noticed that independently of your post, single strapped closures which I'm not a big fan of anyway are never that great for carrying ropes without some further way of attaching them, the deuters dual side straps are fine in this regard). I also think the 20 litre dueter is big enough for your needs, sure the helmet and rope will be on the outside on the walk in, but the shoulder straps are made for overloading and the pack is then nice and small / light when climbing.

In reply to Neek:

For your purposes any "daysack" that has compression straps will do the job. I use Lowe Alpine Edge 22L. Enough for summer rack, rock shoes, 1 thin spare layer, light rain jacket and 0.5 L of water. Rope is attached by the compression straps and the helmet clipped to the outside. It also looks inconspicuous for walking around town (without rope and helmet obv).

In reply to Kirill:
Yes it was after our alps trip and seeing your (possibly other) bag that I became convinced on such a small bag. 20 litres is an ideal size for trad day trips carrying the bag whilst climbing.

In reply to Neek:

I currently use an osprey mutant 28 and its been spot on for me. I use it for all sorts and its comfy, light and carries helmet and rope really well.

The zip opening seem to put a lot of people off but i like the lack of faff when getting things in and out.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

The Ascentionist isn't very long and sits well clear of harness, rack and chalk bag (I can happily chalk up with it on).

In reply to galpinos:
Thing is when you actually use the pack you may find different. Packs tend to sag somewhat in use and the bottom of the pack becomes less rigid. I think until you've taken the pack on a good few climbing trips you won't know for sure.

You can see here that even a new pack positioned quite high on the back does come down quite low and that the pack is quite tall and narrow:

http://bozeman.jp/pic-labo/aspppppppppp.jpg

The benefit here of course is the waist strap is in a more supportive position, but on the Deuter and Patagonia they are both so small they wouldn't support much anyway

In reply to galpinos:


That's an important point and the only real failing of this:

http://www.decathlon.co.uk/cliff-20-ii-backpack-orange-id_8302354.html

Which is otherwise pretty much ideal and a great deal cheaper than the options the OP is considering. Before that I had one from Pod Sacs that was heavier (bad) but sat higher (good) but afaik it's no longer made.

I'm sure both the Ascentionist and the Warthog are excellent light alpine sacks, but they strike me as overkill for the OP's purposes.

In reply to Neek:

I've got the Ascenscionist in 25 and 35 litre sizes, the former for rock and the latter for Scottish winter. Both are great bags in their different ways. It's true that carrying a rope under the lid isn't as easy with these versus more standard sacks, but solving the problem doesn't require much extra effort, particularly with the help of the side straps on the 35L or the daisy chain attachments on the 25L.

In reply to Neek:

I use a Millet Prolighter 25, as it features a more substantial suspension system with a rigid back and a lightly padded hip belt. I really appreciate the added comfort on long approaches and descents . The narrow profile also remains unobtrusive when climbing.

In reply to galpinos:



I went for the Warthog for reasons of fit. Ascensionist range is superb though.

In reply to AlanLittle:




galpinos: does own the ascentionist but has not climbed with it yet so its unclear if the bag will interfere with the chalk bag over the long term, that said they do come in 2 sizes so the smaller on a larger person should be ok. The other disadvantage to this bag is no back mesh, bags without this (and I have one) do often become nastily sweaty in hot weather.

I agree a cheaper bag may do which is partially why I suggested the £32 deuter.

In reply to timmeehhhh:

Weirdly I've found, but the Millet Prolighter range really isnt that light compared to the alternatives.

In reply to CurlyStevo:


By " but have yet to really use it in anger" means I've done a few routes in it but haven't used it as much as i'd like to in order to pass judgement. So far, never more than half loaded, it hasn't got in the way of my chalk bag. I intended it as a light sac for Scottish winter classic routes where I don't need a full arsenal of gear and single day alpine routes but I've yet to use it for either, just pottering about in the UK.

It only comes in one size though as far as I know.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

The 25L is 875g I think, not exactly light!

In reply to galpinos:

Apologies I misinterpreted your post.

How did you find not having a mesh back panel? I have a light weight bag made like this and have found in summer conditions its uncomfortably sweaty.

In reply to CurlyStevo:

No problem! I've never found the back panel makes a difference, I'm a sweaty beast regardless. I was wearing a thin summer softshell though. I guess the thinking was that it's an alpine sac so you'd have a shell on and the mesh just gets knackered and ads no benefit.

I'm a Patagucci fanboy though so my opinion is skewed.

In reply to galpinos:
?

I've owned more rucksacks than you can shake a stick at and none of the meshes are knackered and as mentioned they all ad benefit (to varying degrees, some are just a very thin layer over non absorbent foam). I'm also sweaty which I assume would make the problem worse. Obviously having a non breathable layer over the majority of your back is going to make it sweaty (and I've found that in the past)

I've found it can get pretty warm in the Alps and anyway the OP didn't specify for a specialist bag only for cool conditions.

In reply to CurlyStevo:
Maybe I should have said: I have owned a variety of rucsacks with and without mesh backs and for me, have been as sweaty wearing those with mesh backs as those without. As such, it doesn't bother me. As I've only worn this sac with a light shell, I believed a mesh back would have made even less of a difference. It was perfectly comfy enough. Some of these mesh backed sacs have been fine, some I've ripped and torn the mesh. I don't think any of the sacs I currently own/use have a mesh back though so maybe they're better nowadays.

I had totally forgotten the OP's use though and a mesh back should be a consideration should he believe they make a difference.......

In reply to galpinos:
Well I was including any bag with some kind of back to it rather than just the surface of the bag as 'mesh back', (probably wrongly so). Admittedly some of the preformed style backs aren't all that much better at preventing sweat although I think it is noticeable in warm weather.

I had to home repair one of my bags quite soon after it was new with a mesh back as it got torn hauling it up a sea cliff. Other than that I've had no issues with the back systems on my bags.