|
sosumi
Apr 6, 2010, 3:23 AM
Post #1 of 14
(6326 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2010
Posts: 3
|
Either this year or next I plan to do the Alpine Ascents denali prep climb (mt. ranier) and am slowly trying to put together the complete list of gear they ask for. Amongst the requirements are "Expedition Backpack. Internal frame pack, minimum of 5,500-6,000 cu.in. Keep simple/light, avoid unnecessary zippers which add weight"
I have a buddy who wants to sell this particular pack:
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/spo/1669400118.html
Does anyone have any recommendations whether this will work for an "expedition backpack" or is this just a regular camping pack? What kind of features am I looking for in an "expedition backpack"? Please excuse my newbness. I am just getting started with alpinism but plan to climb several mountains in the future such as Baker, Denali, etc in the next few years.
Thanks !!!
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Apr 6, 2010, 11:05 AM
Post #2 of 14
(6273 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
You can't go wrong with getting whichever Osprey pack is in the size you need.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Apr 6, 2010, 12:21 PM
Post #3 of 14
(6257 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
In general, I like my packs, expedition pack included, to be as simple as possible. Straight top-loaders, minimal and light suspension, few/no extra zippers/pockets/straps...Even with an expedition pack, you'll still likely wear it on summit day, so you still want to keep it light. But also keep in mind that you'll be carrying heavy loads, so try out the fit with it loaded. I find that I rarely need a full 5000+ expedition pack. More often than not, I can get by with a smaller and lighter pack (I use a Wild-Things Ice Sac). For my tastes, the pack you have listed is way too complicated; way too may zippers/pockets, and useless features.
|
|
|
|
|
osu_cowboy
Apr 6, 2010, 1:14 PM
Post #4 of 14
(6233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2008
Posts: 29
|
The reason your buddy is selling his pack for 90$ is because Jansport is cheap...
Spend the extra coin and buy a nice pack. It sounds like your looking to use it more than once and your body will thank you for it later. If you take good care of your pack it will last years and be well worth the money.
I think Osprey and Gregory both make good packs. I know the label has lost street cred with all the frat boys and girls wearing their jackets, but I have several North Face packs that have treated me well in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnkid85
Apr 6, 2010, 6:07 PM
Post #5 of 14
(6184 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 221
|
First off figure out how much weight your going to be carrying, then look at packs.
If my weight is over ~50lbs then Im reaching for my Arctreyx Bora 65. Carries like a dream, is heavy, bomb proof and not a good climber.
If im closer to 40lbs or under Im taking my Cilogear 40l worksack. Light weight, climbs well, easily swallows all my gear, super simple/nothing is going to fail.
Just for you to have an idea, when I go try Rainier (lib ridge) and Baker (Coleman headwall) this year, Ill be taking the Cilogear.
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Apr 6, 2010, 6:25 PM
Post #6 of 14
(6173 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
mtnkid85 wrote: First off figure out how much weight your going to be carrying, then look at packs. If my weight is over ~50lbs then Im reaching for my Arctreyx Bora 65. Carries like a dream, is heavy, bomb proof and not a good climber. If im closer to 40lbs or under Im taking my Cilogear 40l worksack. Light weight, climbs well, easily swallows all my gear, super simple/nothing is going to fail. Just for you to have an idea, when I go try Rainier (lib ridge) and Baker (Coleman headwall) this year, Ill be taking the Cilogear.
The new Cilogear NWD worksacks look pretty sweet! I wish I had an excuse to buy one.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnkid85
Apr 6, 2010, 6:36 PM
Post #7 of 14
(6164 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 18, 2005
Posts: 221
|
qtm wrote: mtnkid85 wrote: First off figure out how much weight your going to be carrying, then look at packs. If my weight is over ~50lbs then Im reaching for my Arctreyx Bora 65. Carries like a dream, is heavy, bomb proof and not a good climber. If im closer to 40lbs or under Im taking my Cilogear 40l worksack. Light weight, climbs well, easily swallows all my gear, super simple/nothing is going to fail. Just for you to have an idea, when I go try Rainier (lib ridge) and Baker (Coleman headwall) this year, Ill be taking the Cilogear. The new Cilogear NWD worksacks look pretty sweet! I wish I had an excuse to buy one.
Its taking all the will power I can muster not to buy one of the NWD 30 or 20l packs! Bitchin to the nth degree.
|
|
|
|
|
hhelbein
Apr 6, 2010, 8:28 PM
Post #8 of 14
(6133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2007
Posts: 112
|
qtm wrote: The new Cilogear NWD worksacks look pretty sweet! I wish I had an excuse to buy one.
$1250 for the NWD 75L! Wow, breaking the four digit barrier for a pack. I'm in awe. Non Woven Dyneema must be the new carbon fiber.
http://www.cilogear.com/nwd75l.html
|
|
|
|
|
sosumi
Apr 7, 2010, 1:41 PM
Post #9 of 14
(6059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2010
Posts: 3
|
Even the Cilo 75 is just 4,500 cubic inches.... their "gear list" states 5,500-6,000 inches minimum... where do I even find such a monstrously sized pack? Is it really necessary to have 6k inches? The cilo 75 seems huge. I assume the Variant is Osprey's mountaineering pack? it only goes up to 52 liters :(
(This post was edited by sosumi on Apr 7, 2010, 1:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Rudmin
Apr 7, 2010, 1:52 PM
Post #10 of 14
(6050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2009
Posts: 606
|
sosumi wrote: Even the Cilo 75 is just 4,500 cubic inches.... their "gear list" states 5,500-6,000 inches minimum... where do I even find such a monstrously sized pack? Is it really necessary to have 6k inches? The cilo 75 seems huge. I assume the Variant is Osprey's mountaineering pack? it only goes up to 52 liters :(
Aether goes up to 85 while keeping it pretty light. Argon goes into the 100s, which I guess is more for extended winter trips.
|
|
|
|
|
qtm
Apr 7, 2010, 1:54 PM
Post #11 of 14
(6050 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2004
Posts: 548
|
Did you check the recommendations from AA?
Suggested Brands:
Gregory: Denali Pro (105L)
Lowe Alpine: TFX Summit 75+20
Arc’Teryx: Bora 95
Deuter: Aircontact 75+10
Mystery Ranch: G6000 (98L)
Gregory: Whitney 95
McHale Alpine Packs: Super-Critical Mass II (98L)
I suppose they're going to make you carry everything including the kitchen sink, so they require you to have the biggest pack possible.
I'm not an alpinist (hence no need for the NWD worksack though I'd love to have one), but I would guess that with more experience you get your gear needs dialed in and thus can use a smaller pack. Looks like AA rents gear, maybe you want to rent a pack to begin with?
|
|
|
|
|
lostcause
Apr 7, 2010, 2:51 PM
Post #12 of 14
(6040 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 118
|
Since I just bought a larger pack also for an upcoming trip (100 L) maybe my research might help you out some. I tried on a lot of packs in the range (most of which are already listed here but the MH BMG is another good one) and found without surprise that the most comfortable packs were also the heaviest. I loved the fit and comfort of the Gregory Denali but it is also ~8 lbs. Compared to the Cilogear listed above which is less than 2 lbs. I guess depending on how long you are going for and how hard of a climb you're doing you may want to balance the two aspects of comfort and weight.
The pack I ended up purchasing was a Bask Berg 100. It is around 5 lbs and seems very comfortable for the little hikes I've used it on so far, but we'll see if I still think that after 3 weeks with it on. In the US or Canada you can buy Bask products through Yeti Outfitters in Canada.
Another thing I found that may help is that Whittaker Mountaineering did have some rental packs (Gregory Denali) for sale at about half retail. Don't know if they still do, but might be worth looking if price is scaring you on these.
Hope some of this helps.
|
|
|
|
|
sosumi
Apr 7, 2010, 3:02 PM
Post #13 of 14
(6035 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2010
Posts: 3
|
thanks to everyone for the advice! a lot to work with!
My major concern at this point is whether I'm actually going to be able to carry 50 lbs for huge distances... I'm definitely not weak or out of shape but I only weigh 125 lbs so that's a fairly significant percentage of my overall weight, might make me unbalanced or hard to keep a sure footing
(This post was edited by sosumi on Apr 7, 2010, 3:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
harpo_the_climber
Apr 7, 2010, 3:33 PM
Post #14 of 14
(6019 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2005
Posts: 106
|
sosumi wrote: Even the Cilo 75 is just 4,500 cubic inches.... their "gear list" states 5,500-6,000 inches minimum... where do I even find such a monstrously sized pack? Is it really necessary to have 6k inches? The cilo 75 seems huge. I assume the Variant is Osprey's mountaineering pack? it only goes up to 52 liters :(
I am pretty sure the Cilo 75 has considerable expansion capacity - my Cilo 60 does. I would call or email Cilo to find out. I bet my Cilo has an extra 20l in its expansion sleeve.
Also, if you end up with a cilo, find a good pack fitter to shape the back panel to your back. I tried to do it myself and failed miserably. I went to a proffesional pack fitter at my local shop and now the fit is money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
