UKC

Mate and I were walking away from the crag yesterday and started talking gear, rucksacks to be precise. Why is it that a lot of rucksacks are lidless ?

Because lidded rucsacs flop about when not very full, and lids are labour intensive and costly to make?

Silly fashion.

Rubbish.  It's for when you want a simple, minimalist sack that does not weigh much and does not interfere with your climbing when it is nearly empty and as Toerag says.

Al

A removable lid addresses the first issue and tucking the lid inside the sack addresses the second.

I think it's just marketing as usual - convince people they need to buy something else they don't need.

Well I don't own one but I can see the logic and the appeal  It's down to personal taste but to dismiss it as simply clever marketing implies that those who own one are being duped.  It's that that I object to.

I could also add that a cinched draw cord is never really weather proof and indeed could under some circumstances act as a funnel.  A roll top solves that issue.

Al

Pah! What's wrong with a carrier bag and piece of string? Bloody fashionista.

Simplicity and weight. The thing I don't understand is top tension straps on climbing packs less than 40L. When loaded, these packs don't ride high enough to benifit from this feature, only catch on slings when you climb with pack, even more so when empty?!

I've been using a Golite Jam for many years, 38L+ a bit more. It has a rear pocket for things you'd traditionally put in lid.

Stuart

If money were no object then yes.

Sorry but I think a lot of people are duped into buying a lot of stuff by clever marketing of kit - manufactures would have us believe we need 5 different jackets and 5 different jackets for 5 types of climbing (not to mention other activities!).

I have a BD Axis 33 (actually 31 l as it's the smaller back size) with zip closure and I love it. It's obviously got it's draw-backs in terms of load carrying (although the external rope strap combined with the top side compression straps carries a rope well), but I love the zip closure as it makes access so much quicker and easier. With a conventional pack if I want to get item X which is in the bag I need to undo 1-2 buckles, then 1-2 drawstrings whilst trying not to have the lid in the way or flop the bag over, and I'm still routing around in a long bag with a relatively small opening. With the axis it's a case of whipping round a zip to the desired level of opening, grabbing said item and whipping it back. and when I want to route around it zips down to essentially halfway, allowing me to get below items and go in just one side (it has 2 zips) if that's helpful, avoiding the blind search or complete repack.

In terms of climbing, you never have to worry about the bag being in the way (unless you've got a rope or helmet on top whilst climbing - why would you), it goes from fully loaded to minimalist by pulling light a couple of side compression straps, and I've still got access to the sensibly sized outside and inside 'lid' pockets whilst having helmet clearance - as surely on a climb is when you're more likely to want that chocolate bar or camera you've stashed in there for quick access.

It obviously isn't as useful on some bag sizes/uses, but this is my standard cragging/, multipitch and alpine sack, and the only time it's ever been a hindrance it's because I'm either using a bag that's too small, or I'm packing stuff I don't need.  In fact I love the fact that it's harder to over pack with it  - although the combination of great axe holders, gear loops on waist, two way helmet holder, crampon holder and rope strap makes it easy to load up with useful things.

For larger bags I now always go for some kind of side/back zip access in addition to lid as I find them too faffy/awkward when I'm trying to be quick. Obviously I could use a lidded pack fine, but if I'm buying a new bag because my old one has a hole in, I might as well buy one which I find functional.

Of course, I agree, but that is not a reason to dismiss something as just being fashionable and those who buy it of having more money than sense especially when the said item has some merit.

Al

I didn't say anything was fashionable........   And I wouldn't use the word stupid - it's more that the manufactures cleverly plant seeds of doubt about the kit people already have or manage to suggest that you are missing out somehow.

They're good for the price

https://www.lidl.co.uk/en/Non-Food-Offers.htm?articleId=13187

My current winter sack has a removable lid, which I immediately removed and have never used. So the thing they convinced me to buy which I didn't need was in fact the lid itself...

That's a very cynical view, if we're talking specifically about rucksacks with removable/no lids. I bought a Pod Alpine years ago. If I knew at the time that the lid was removable it certainly meant nothing to me. I primarily got it because it was going cheap. With use I found I used the pack more and more without the lid. Simply because it compressed down so much better without the lid flopping around on a climb. It seemed ideal for winter/alpine where most of the stuff in my pack would be emptied at the base of the route. Given it's a 50 litre pack it was also just about big enough for bivi gear, which made it also suitable for multiday alpine stuff, but minimal bulk with just a water bottle and coat. So a pretty flexible pack I thought. Anyway, I figured this out for myself without help from any advertising. The only downside with that pack was that the drybag style closure was a bit more faff. I noticed this more when using the bag at the supermarket checkout than when climbing with it though!

Of course you are rather presuposing in this arguement that the purchaser already has a rucksack with a lid. And that they are simply wasting their money by buying a rucksack with out one. There is also the distinct possibility that people are replacing an old worn out sack, or buying one because they don't have one. In which case having the choice between one with a lid and one without a lid is entirely valid and not just a cynical marketing ploy.

For those incredible y rare instances this matters more than the usefulness of a lid pocket I just remove the lid.  About 0.5% of the time......

Yes, I find that a default initial position of cynicism about marketing is usually sensible.

No.

Even worse - if you only own one rucksack, it makes sense to go for flexibility rather than a specialised lidless one. 

Well you've made rather broad generalisations about the industry being cynical, which I'm merely pointing out is true only to an extent. As for your other point, specialised is a matter of perception. What seems odd to you seems logical to another. That's the spice of life.

No, I really don't think it's a matter of opinion/perception whether or not a lidless rucksack is more flexible/less specialised than one with a removable lid.

I didn't say they are more flexible. What I said is that some people will and do prefer a sack without a lid. Just like some prefer double axle cams over single axle. In the end it's personal choice and I'm not sure why you find that hard to accept. Besides, does it really matter?

You said "specialised is a matter of perception". It is not in the case of lidless versus removable lid; lidless is obviously more specialised/less flexible.

I do accept that; I just don't really like the way the marketing sometimes pushes specialised stuff towards, well, non-specialists.

I still maintain that lidless as a specialisation is purely a matter of perception. If rucksacks had been lidless from inception and then some bright spark came up with the idea of a lid for your sack, it would be in your view specialised. If you think back to early sacks, pockets in lids weren't really a thing, the lid was there to keep your stuff dry. Then someone figured they could put a pocket on it to make it more useful. The rest is history. Its perfectly feasible that someone could have invented a roll top instead of that pocket and you'd be in lidless land.

No it wouldn't. As long as the lid is removable it would clearly be more flexible/less specialized - just because one version comes first does not mean it is the less specialised version.

But I do like the idea of a roll top sack with a removable lid - even more flexible.

I'd point you at a version with exactly those features but it's just cynical marketing

not sure it's really a rucsack if lidless - just a glorified duffel/kit bag with more strappy bits