|
retro
Feb 1, 2009, 2:34 PM
Post #1 of 37
(1834 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Sorry guys...another Cilo question:
Which do you think would be better suited for 20-45 minute approaches with the occasional 1-2 hours and multi-pitch ice climbs in the White Mountains?
I did own the 40L before and loved it, but I see that the 45's are a bit lighter and can carry more. Is this too big for cragging and day trips with gear, or can the ability to cinch this thing down negate any worries of that? Anyone climb ice with this pack before? How did it handle? How about low angle ice? Did the pack interfere with the helmet when looking up the route?
Thanks again for your input folks! 
Grammy
|
|
|
|
|
k.l.k
Feb 1, 2009, 5:03 PM
Post #2 of 37
(1806 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2007
Posts: 1190
|
I'm running a 45l for daytrips in the backcountry. Working great-- cinches down to nothing. My favorite pack in years, so far.
I'm 6'2," though, so check the sizing.
|
|
|
|
|
btreanor
Feb 1, 2009, 6:27 PM
Post #3 of 37
(1792 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 121
|
As I said in the other thread, the 40B is perfect. Usable for a day cragging or an overnight technical route. The amazing compressibility of Cilogear makes larger size packs usable for smaller tasks. That being said, I pretty much only use my 40B now; the last time it actually opted for the 60L was a 5 day backpacking trip where I was carrying the "guide's load" (extra sh|te, first aid kids, etc., etc.). For all my personal trips, half day to three day two night, it's the 40B.
The pack climbs very well, but like anything else (especially Cilogear, which is made to be customizable), you have to use it right. How you pack with determine both how well it climbs and how much head mobility you have with a helmet.
I've never used the 45L, but it seems hard to go wrong with either one.
Brian
|
|
|
|
|
kane_schutzman
Feb 1, 2009, 7:15 PM
Post #4 of 37
(1783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2005
Posts: 896
|
You can't add more space, but you can take it away.I'd go big
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Feb 1, 2009, 7:37 PM
Post #5 of 37
(1779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Thanks you guys. I am still curious how it climbs, though the 40 climbed like a dream. I can't imagine 5 liters will make much much of a difference in climbing performance. The 45's are a little lighter too, so that is always a bonus.
Tough call...
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Feb 1, 2009, 8:19 PM
Post #6 of 37
(1766 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
btreanor wrote: I've never used the 45L, but it seems hard to go wrong with either one. Brian
I hear that! Thanks for the input Brian!
|
|
|
|
|
justinboening
Feb 1, 2009, 8:52 PM
Post #7 of 37
(1757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 119
|
Kind sir, the 40B is going to, in my opinion, be a significantly better climbing pack. Yes, it's true, the volume is not substantially different, but the 45 is taller than the 40, causing, as you previously mentioned it might, the pack to interfere on low angle terrain. In fact, I think the 45 is as tall as the 60, if you've ever seen one of those. Go for the 40. It's plenty light enough, it's plenty big enough. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Feb 1, 2009, 9:45 PM
Post #8 of 37
(1732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
justinboening wrote: Go for the 40. It's plenty light enough, it's plenty big enough. Enjoy.
Thanks Justin!
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Feb 2, 2009, 9:59 PM
Post #9 of 37
(1666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
I've never filled the 45L even when I have the fat rope and a dozen screws, First Aid kit, belay jacket, Thermos, water btl in its insulated cover. And the back panel DOES hit my (Meteor) helmet, but I hear it's not hard to cut the panel to stop this - I just haven't done it yet. I think a 40L would be big enough but you'll be happy with either. Yea, 5L isn't much diff.
|
|
|
|
|
crackers
Feb 3, 2009, 12:48 AM
Post #11 of 37
(1632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 416
|
btreanor wrote: As I said in the other thread, the 40B is perfect. Usable for a day cragging or an overnight technical route. The amazing compressibility of Cilogear makes larger size packs usable for smaller tasks. That being said, I pretty much only use my 40B now; the last time it actually opted for the 60L was a 5 day backpacking trip where I was carrying the "guide's load" (extra sh|te, first aid kids, etc., etc.). For all my personal trips, half day to three day two night, it's the 40B.
Thanks for the kind words Brian and all the rest of you!
The 45L is the pack that's shown up in those awesome pictures in the last, oh, seven Patagonia catalogs. That said Mr Retro, you want the 40B if your torso is under 20 inches...
The new 40B and 45 are both quite a bit lighter than the old packs. They're both made here in Portland, Oregon. But the 40B does have a shorter back panel length than the 45L / 60L sized packs as Justin suggested quite correctly.
The guys in those catalogs are using the 45 in Patagonia, in the himalayas and all that jazz. They're using 30L's and 40B's at home for days or even weekends. I suspect that you'll have plenty of room in the 40B for all of your stuff.
I've gotten it down to about 150 emails to respond to from the OR shutdown, and I should be caught up by tomorrow. (I hope.)
|
|
|
|
|
dps
Feb 3, 2009, 2:18 AM
Post #12 of 37
(1611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 116
|
crackers wrote: btreanor wrote: As I said in the other thread, the 40B is perfect. Usable for a day cragging or an overnight technical route. The amazing compressibility of Cilogear makes larger size packs usable for smaller tasks. That being said, I pretty much only use my 40B now; the last time it actually opted for the 60L was a 5 day backpacking trip where I was carrying the "guide's load" (extra sh|te, first aid kids, etc., etc.). For all my personal trips, half day to three day two night, it's the 40B. Thanks for the kind words Brian and all the rest of you! The 45L is the pack that's shown up in those awesome pictures in the last, oh, seven Patagonia catalogs. That said Mr Retro, you want the 40B if your torso is under 20 inches... The new 40B and 45 are both quite a bit lighter than the old packs. They're both made here in Portland, Oregon. But the 40B does have a shorter back panel length than the 45L / 60L sized packs as Justin suggested quite correctly. The guys in those catalogs are using the 45 in Patagonia, in the himalayas and all that jazz. They're using 30L's and 40B's at home for days or even weekends. I suspect that you'll have plenty of room in the 40B for all of your stuff. I've gotten it down to about 150 emails to respond to from the OR shutdown, and I should be caught up by tomorrow. (I hope.)
I totally agree with what crackers is saying. My 45L has seen the most use on big alpine days and internationally. The pack has been through hell and back and there are only a few things wrong with it. I haven't used my 60L since I got the 45L, I've just been loaning it out to friends (including some attempted new routing in South America).
And now that I have a 30L, I barely take out the 45L for local trips. I've put over 30 days of use on a 30L pack so far this ice season and it is holding up beautifully. If you think you might want to carrying a bit more than the bare essentials, the 40B is the perfect pack in my opinion.
I'm 6'2'' and never have a problem carrying the 45L on an alpine climb as long as I take out the plastic frame sheet. I don't know why you'd be climbing with it, as the pack is so much lighter and comfortable for climbing without it.
(This post was edited by dps on Feb 3, 2009, 2:21 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Feb 3, 2009, 2:34 AM
Post #13 of 37
(1603 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
dps wrote: I'm 6'2'' and never have a problem carrying the 45L on an alpine climb as long as I take out the plastic frame sheet. I don't know why you'd be climbing with it, as the pack is so much lighter and comfortable for climbing without it.
Yah....I always kept the framesheet in so stuff in the pack (Screw pouch, helmet, biners, etc...) were not jabbing me in the back, but you do save some weight with it out I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
dps
Feb 3, 2009, 2:37 AM
Post #14 of 37
(1598 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 116
|
I still have the foam pad in the pack at all times.
If I am carrying a bunch of stuff into a climbing area, I will throw the framesheet in and toss the plastic framesheet before I start climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
shermanr6
Feb 3, 2009, 2:40 AM
Post #15 of 37
(1595 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2006
Posts: 79
|
btreanor wrote: As I said in the other thread, the 40B is perfect. Usable for a day cragging or an overnight technical route. The amazing compressibility of Cilogear makes larger size packs usable for smaller tasks. That being said, I pretty much only use my 40B now; the last time it actually opted for the 60L was a 5 day backpacking trip where I was carrying the "guide's load" (extra sh|te, f irst aid kids, etc., etc.). For all my personal trips, half day to three day two night, it's the 40B. The pack climbs very well, but like anything else (especially Cilogear, which is made to be customizable), you have to use it right. How you pack with determine both how well it climbs and how much head mobility you have with a helmet. I've never used the 45L, but it seems hard to go wrong with either one. Brian
DANG! that must be a heavy load!
|
|
|
|
|
btreanor
Feb 3, 2009, 3:12 AM
Post #16 of 37
(1576 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 24, 2004
Posts: 121
|
shermanr6 wrote: btreanor wrote: As I said in the other thread, the 40B is perfect. Usable for a day cragging or an overnight technical route. The amazing compressibility of Cilogear makes larger size packs usable for smaller tasks. That being said, I pretty much only use my 40B now; the last time it actually opted for the 60L was a 5 day backpacking trip where I was carrying the "guide's load" (extra sh|te, f irst aid kids, etc., etc.). For all my personal trips, half day to three day two night, it's the 40B. The pack climbs very well, but like anything else (especially Cilogear, which is made to be customizable), you have to use it right. How you pack with determine both how well it climbs and how much head mobility you have with a helmet. I've never used the 45L, but it seems hard to go wrong with either one. Brian DANG! that must be a heavy load!
Ha! Yeah. My WFR certification expired so I put a couple of pint-sized med students under the top lid. They're pretty useful in a pinch, but damn lazy when it comes to taking their turn on the sharp end.
Brian
(This post was edited by btreanor on Feb 3, 2009, 3:15 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
crackers
Feb 3, 2009, 4:14 PM
Post #18 of 37
(1514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 416
|
retro wrote: "btreanor wrote: Ha! Yeah. My WFR certification expired so I put a couple of pint-sized med students under the top lid. They're pretty useful in a pinch, but damn lazy when it comes to taking their turn on the sharp end. Brian  Nice!!! I think I will stick out the remainder of the season with the CCW and when the new 40's start rolling off the line, I will consider picking up another one! I fiddled with the Chernobyl last night...shifting weight up a bit. move the sternum strap down a bit and it felt better than it has over tha past few seasons. I never really tweaked it much...just shoved the junk in, threw it on and out I went. Cilo taught me how to tweak!!!
Try next week for the new 40B's and 45Ls...I'm waiting for the new extension material to come in and then we'll be shipping them. 
Glad you learned *something* from us Grammy!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Feb 3, 2009, 5:39 PM
Post #20 of 37
(1485 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Hey Graham,
Any significant changes to the 40L since the V2's? I think I heard you added a beefier fabric to the powder sleeve??
Grammy
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Feb 3, 2009, 7:40 PM
Post #21 of 37
(1463 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
I am going to hyjack my own thread here, but I have decided to go with the 40L vs the 45...I just don't need the extra room for cragging and daytrips IMHO...so the 40 it is. Now, I just have to figure out which pack best suits my needs...the 40B or 40L??? Not sure why one would choose the 40B over the original 40L as the weight difference is minimal, and you gt the benefit of the zippered access pocket on the front ot the 40L.
Any differences in carrying the 40B over the 40, etc..?
|
|
|
|
|
dps
Feb 3, 2009, 7:59 PM
Post #22 of 37
(1455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 116
|
I recommended the 40B for two reasons:
1) The internal compressions strap makes a BIG difference in load carrying comfort in my experience.
2) I never use the zipper pocket on my V1 40L, so why not get the weight savings?
Mainly it is reason #1, as I found my 45L with the internal compression strap carries much better (without the framesheet) than my 40L w/o the strap did.
(This post was edited by dps on Feb 3, 2009, 8:00 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
Feb 3, 2009, 8:08 PM
Post #23 of 37
(1447 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
Please allow me to ask a question that will really expose my ignorance. I am looking to save some money and to therefore buy a multi-purpose pack that I can take to the rock crags to do some multi-pitch trad during the warm seasons. If possible, I would also like this bag to double as an alpine pack for 1-2 day adventures on alpine routes.
I have been looking at the Cilo 30 and 40B packs, but I'm just not sure they would measure up at the rock crags. Is there anyone out there with experience climbing moderate 5.10 trad routes with a 40L bag on their back? I am just wondering how the Cilo bags would hold up on rock, and if anyone has used them for rock and ice/alpine routes?
Also, for a crag bag, is the 40L too big? It would be nice to have a bag that can do it all, but I'm just not sure this is possible. Whoa is me!
|
|
|
|
|
dps
Feb 3, 2009, 8:16 PM
Post #24 of 37
(1440 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 116
|
I've used Cilo bags for the last 3 or 4 years as my only packs.
I highly recommend them as alpine climbing backpacks and cragging bags. My 60L has been to Peru three times and my 45L has been to Alaska and Peru. I use the 45L mainly for alpine climbing now. It is a great backpack which holds just enough for long routes, but compresses nicely and weighs little.
Climbing harder rock routes with any pack sucks, so it's always nice to have a smaller pack to do that with. I have been using a 30L pack as my climbing pack for about 6 months now and really haven't run into any pitches where I felt the need to take it off. From the Diamond on Longs Peak to the Ames Ice Hose, I have climbed (and lead) with my 30L on my back.
If you aren't carrying too much, you can make the 30L work for just about everything but multiday routes. It is a simple, stripped down bag which is great for going light, but there is no way I could get climbing and bivy gear in it at the same time. If it is just bivy gear and your climbing gear is on you, then yeah, that could work out...
Are you going to be leading with the pack or will the second being carrying it?
|
|
|
|
|
IsayAutumn
Feb 3, 2009, 8:22 PM
Post #25 of 37
(1435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2008
Posts: 355
|
Thanks for your reply. More than likely the second would be carrying the bag. Obviously for harder rock routes, the smaller the better. But I was thinking that the compression straps in the 40B would allow it to clamp down nice and small when needed. I just haven't worn a Cilo pack in any size, so I'm a little in the dark on how well their 40L would climb. It seems to me that most 40L bags would be pretty burdensome, even when halfway full.
If I'm honest with myself, it sounds like I need to buy two bags. Possibly the 30L for cragging and one-day alpine, and maybe a 45L for peak bagging/ 1+ day climbs/hikes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
