|
elnero
May 12, 2006, 6:18 AM
Post #1 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
Well I've searched the forums like a good n00b should but still dont quite see an answer for my question. I've never owned a pack of my own and figured it was time to buy one. I do some 3-4 backpacking trips and overnight climbing trips and am looking for a bag that will hold my gear for backpacking and cinch down nice and small for lighter climbing trips.
Question is this: looking at any brand they have 'backpacking' and 'alpine' packs. Osprey for example has exposure and aether in very similar size and weights, whats the big difference? Exposure seems to have daisy chains, which I guess it climberesque? It does look like it has beefier compression straps, but thats about it.
As a sub question, any recommendations for a smallish pack that can hold rope, harness, shoes etc and pack down real small to shove in my big pack?
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
May 12, 2006, 11:04 AM
Post #2 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
generally speaking alpine packs are lighter and dont have a heavy carriing system, whereas backpacking packs have a big heavy beefy carry system, since you are normally carrying huge loads over a long time.
also an alpine pack is (or better said should be) harness compatible, wich is not that common and a backpacking pack. furthermore alpine packs dont restrict movement and are gennerally more "streamlined".
thats the theory. in real live you will find alpine packs, that are definitely not made for climbing, and backpacking packs that suck for backpacking, but are great climbing packs.
or packs that are all of the above or none.
it all depends on what you need/want. if you want to go light, and dont need fancy gadgets, you best look at alpine or ultralight hiking packs.
if you want a special strap or clip for every special item, and want comfort (even if it does ad weight) you should look into backpacking packs.
the most important thing is that it fits your body, and doesnt get into the way when climbing.
i dont know what others think, but my requirements for an allrounder pack are:
light
but still a carrying system that allows me to carry some serious weight
shouldnt get in the way
it should be able to expand, but also be able to compress
it should be able to have some stuff attached on the outside, but it shouldnt be overload with gadgets
it should be useable with cold fingers and gloves
i had a similar question and now for me it is the BD shadow, wich does all of the above, except the last point.
qwert
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
May 12, 2006, 11:27 AM
Post #3 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
remarks from qwert are all interesting, and delve on the type of pack.
the one information missing is the consequence of having a backpack with accessories and designed for heay load:
- weigth
- fragility
- cost
+/- ease of use
For example a big heavily paaded belt can be importnat hile carrying 12kg or more, but while climbuing is an hindrance
For the type of use you describe, climbing with eventually a night thrown in, a 40l sack would be rather adequate.
The weight difference between a minimal rucksack (1kg) and a heavily accessorized pack (1.5-2.2 kg) is rather noticeable
to better understant the trade-off: compare
barebone alpine
http://www.deuterusa.com/guide35.html,
http://www.deuterusa.com/guide45.html
with
comfortable alpine
http://www.deuterusa.com/aircontact35.html
http://www.deuterusa.com/aircontact45.html
unless mistaken, the guide's belt and back foam panel can be removed to make it really light during pure climbing.
For Alpine routes I have the aircontact35+10 which allow me to carry in comfort what I need to the hut (with the extension and external attachment),
For day climb I have a 22l 750gr Lafuma pack, and I am probably going down to Vaude Ultralight 25l 360gr soon (or even lighter)
http://www.vaude.de/...index.hbs/outdoor/en.
|
|
|
|
|
snothead
May 12, 2006, 12:01 PM
Post #4 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 2, 2005
Posts: 44
|
I have a Kelty redcloud that I bought for backpacking. I wouldn't recommend it as it weighs over 6 pounds. If I was going to get a new one I would definitely stay with the extension collar, get more and better quality side straps and get something without all the extra pockets and zippers. Extra pockets and zippers just add weight. There are better ways to organize gear. All I need is one huge main pocket and one small one on top. Also, I would go with a thinly padded shoulder and waist straps. They don't have to be an inch thick to be comfy.
You can save weight by getting one without adjustible shoulder straps - it just better fit right.
My wife got a Gregory Z pack and she loves it. It is under 3 pounds and a further 1 1/4 pounds can be removed by taking out the stay. The thinner parts are made of dyneema. It only holds 50-60L, the shoulder straps aren't adjustable, and it has no extension collar. She got it from MEC for around $160. If it wasn't for the low volume ( I need more space for backpacking) I would consider one myself.
Good luck
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
May 12, 2006, 12:48 PM
Post #5 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
2 suggestions
In reply to: As a sub question, any recommendations for a smallish pack that can hold rope, harness, shoes etc and pack down real small to shove in my big pack?
First, I wouldn't recomend doing this, if you look around you won't have trouble finding a pack that is both big enough for backpacking but light and compressable enough to use for climbing.
Second, avoid any "ultralight" packs unless you want to be really meticulous about how you pack. You'll be much happier if you get at least a plastic back panel to keep sharp objects from jabbing you in the kidneys and to keep an 1/2 full pack from flopping around uselessly.
What kind of climbing are you going to be doing?
|
|
|
|
|
papounet
May 12, 2006, 8:34 PM
Post #6 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2003
Posts: 471
|
In reply to: It only holds 50-60L, the shoulder straps aren't adjustable, and it has no extension collar. She got it from MEC for around $160. If it wasn't for the low volume ( I need more space for backpacking) I would consider one myself. Good luck
Arghh !!!
How large a pack do you need ??
Since I looked into Ultra light backpacking, I have noticeably reduced the weight I carry around by trimming down the stuff I bring and selecting the some of the lightest gear for what I bring.
A 5 day trip gear+food+backpack can be trimmed easily down to 10 kg )and ought o fit in and around a 40ish L pack. (some UML manage with 7Kg and 25L)
|
|
|
|
|
everythingelse
May 13, 2006, 3:53 AM
Post #7 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 45
|
i have actually just gone with two packs. one for backpacking (the before mentioned kelty red cloud that i got used from a friend). and my climbing pack is the osprey exposure. both do what they are designed for very well. there is a small pack made by outdoor research that i'm planning on getting this summer that might be what you looking for as a compression sack/dry bag/ summit pack. check it out
http://www.orgear.com/home/style/home/storage/storage_stuffsacks/storage_stuff_compress/36600
pwigg
|
|
|
|
|
kricir
May 13, 2006, 4:57 AM
Post #8 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 15, 2005
Posts: 434
|
My personal criteria for a good climbing pack is whether or not I can turn it inside out. If I can turn a pack inside out, then It is light and flexible enough for day climbs. If I cant, then it may be a good backpacking / approach pack, but too much for climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
crackers
May 13, 2006, 4:30 PM
Post #9 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Posts: 416
|
Did you read this review on the frontpage or this one from a member?
I'm pretty confident that all of my packs will "cinch down tight for climbing trips" and all of them, once you pull the frame out, are capable of being turned inside out.
|
|
|
|
|
qwert
May 14, 2006, 6:41 PM
Post #10 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 2394
|
the "turning it inside out" thing might not be good for everyone, but apart from this theres a lot of good input for choosing you pack.
if you decide to look at my suggestion (BD shadow) you might rahter check the predator.
i have seen it in the shop yesterday, and its everything the shadow is, minus the anoying things.
qwert
|
|
|
|
|
rocketsocks
May 14, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #11 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2006
Posts: 179
|
In reply to: Did you read this review on the frontpage or this one from a member? I'm pretty confident that all of my packs will "cinch down tight for climbing trips" and all of them, once you pull the frame out, are capable of being turned inside out.
I can attest to the fact that the 60L Worksack converts to a light, tiny little daypack easily.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
May 14, 2006, 9:32 PM
Post #12 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I just bought a cilogear pack, and they are great, it does take some playing with the strap configuration to get the thing dialed in, however it's ultra versatile, and really light, and i like that nobody else around here has the same pack as me...yet.
if you're going to be doing strictly backpacking, my favorite pack is the gregory palisade (on sale at REI right now for $210, it takes less thought in loading and strap configurations than the Cilogear, and it carries a big load really well, but it's twice as heavy and less versatile than the cilogear.
Lowe alpine makes some pretty small packs that can function as compression sacks and day packs, but since they are trying to fulfil two functions, their not the best at either one.
|
|
|
|
|
elnero
May 15, 2006, 1:36 AM
Post #13 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
Thanks for all the responses, was gone for the weekend, so didn't have a chance to reply.
To clarify, the most of my climbing trips have been a hike out to camp, then a shorter hike out to the wall, so it would just be nice to have a small pack to take to the wall with the climbing gear only. If the big pack tightens down small, no problem. I won't be doing much climbing with the pack actually on, only scrambles on the approach.
I'll check out all the links you guys threw out, thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
jrgroucho
May 15, 2006, 2:41 AM
Post #14 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 4
|
While I am fairly new to this forum (after a fairly long time of lurking around) and climbing in general, I did just purchase a cilogear 60 L worksack and absolutely love it. I have only had it for a couple of weeks and already love it better than any pack I've ever had. It's so versatile that I could use it for just about anything I could think of. I used it for a three day hike and it was by far the most comfortable pack I ever used. It goes from about 90 L to...well, I'm not sure, but small enough for a good day pack.
If all that rambling wasn't enough, Graham has to be the best customer service of any company I have ever patronized. He seems to be genuinely interested in how things are going with his packs.
|
|
|
|
|
kimgraves
May 15, 2006, 3:08 PM
Post #15 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 1186
|
Hi,
The 60L Cilogear Worksack, can certainly meet all your requirements. But there is another option - which you can get for the same or less price as all those overly expensive heavy packpacks.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...p.cgi?Detailed=73424
All of the Cilogear packs mate with each other: i.e., using the D ring system you can mate one pack behind another. So for example, if you need to hump large loads into a base camp and then blast off super lightweight alpine, you would mate a 40L to a 60L. The heavy stuff goes in the 60L next to your back, while the 40L carries your clothes, sleeping bag, etc. When you blast, you carry the 40L. In the above photo you can see how the D rings allow for the attachment without sacrificing the compression function. (Also note the fluorescent patches being set off by the camera flash.)
Or if you're hiking in and taking day trips, you can mate a 30L to a 60L. The 30L weighs about a pound less than the 60L, but more importantly, it's less bulky. I've climbed comfortably with the compressed 60L on easy routes. But on harder routes I think I'd like a less bulky pack. As soon as the $$ are available, I'm going to get a 30L to add to my collection of 40L & 60L Worksacks. Yea, I'm a gear ho'. :roll:
Best, Kim
|
|
|
|
|
xgecko
May 20, 2006, 10:26 PM
Post #16 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Posts: 28
|
as an admitted bag-a-holic I've been through a bunch of bags over the last decade or so. My best luck has always been with Mountainsmith and EMS brand bags though. I have had a bunch of bags from Greggory, Kelty, Arc Teryx, K2 and even Dana Designs that were nice bags but didn't fill my needs as well IRL as they did in the store
|
|
|
|
|
sthcrag510
May 21, 2006, 5:36 PM
Post #17 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 31, 2006
Posts: 254
|
The ARC TERYX RT series is sweet. Thats what i use for my climbing pack.
|
|
|
|
|
elnero
May 21, 2006, 6:42 PM
Post #18 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
dont think the RT would be big enough for a multi-day trip though. I need it to hold a tent and pad/bag etc. I think I'm lookin 50-60L
|
|
|
|
|
bkalaska
May 21, 2006, 6:54 PM
Post #19 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 143
|
I highly recommend the Osprey Exposure 50. It is my crag bag, and hold tow ropes, lead gear and everything else nicely. It is also a great 3-4 backpacking bag. It carries comfortably, but I would avoid overloading it as it doesn't have a true backpacking support frame. The system I use is exactly as you describe, and I have the osprey daylight (a 15 liter extension) that I broing along for extended backpacking, or for some multipitch if I want a small pack to hold food and rain gear that will definetly not hinder my climbing. The cost for the exposure is well worth it, but the daylight extention is expensive for a pack you won't use much. If you feel like you could use it after you've been using the exposure for a while I recommend it.
|
|
|
|
|
elnero
May 21, 2006, 7:01 PM
Post #20 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
The exposure 50 was looking pretty good for my use. I read somewhere that it was perhaps too narrow to fit items like a sleeping bag in it though? my local shop has mostly osprey, kelty and gregory, so hopefully i'll find a pack from one of those three that works.
|
|
|
|
|
everythingelse
May 21, 2006, 7:09 PM
Post #21 of 21
(2101 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 45
|
the exposure is narrow but i've fit a change of cloths sleeping bag and gear in it with my rack and rope strapped on the outside, still carried very well. i haven't climbed much with it on but when you take stuff out you can really cinch it down pretty much to nothing with the compression system. i retro fitted it with a pull string on the top for my helmet and i got the cm hip-belt which really feels great.
pwigg
|
|
|
|
|
|
