rucksacks

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

I now use the Osprey Atmost 35L. It's expensive but it's the best
daysack I've ever used.

I think you do generally get what you pay for in rucksacks, but to
identify the contenders you need to work out exactly what you want to
use it for. There are a number of excellent day sacks around for much
less money than the Osprey: various Lowe Alpine sacks, for instance.

Good luck!

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"aj" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay

for?

You might get what you pay for to some extent but do you really need it
if you're keen on saving cash? My cheap rucksack that I started off
using for walking is still going strong many years later in its latter
life as a cycling to work bag. If you can stick to carrying light loads
in a 25 litre sack I don't think robustness or comfort and fit should be
a problem with something cheap. More expensive rucksacks will have
"airflow" type back systems but such things still aren't perfect at
doing what they set out to and with a small, light rucksack I find it
better to just carry it on one shoulder from time to time. If you need
something bigger to carry more stuff the more important fit and comfort
become.

Peewiglet said:

I think you do generally get what you pay for in rucksacks, but to
identify the contenders you need to work out exactly what you want to
use it for.

Indeed. But of course this extends to the case where if you pay
for all sorts of stuff you don't need, you'll /get/ all sorts of
stuff you don't need.

Plus you're against the usual Law Of Diminishing Returns, where a
rucksack good for what you want that costs twice as much as a
prefectly serviceable model won't be twice as good, it'll just be a
little better. Whether "a little better" is worth paying twice as
much for is a question that varies from individual to individual:
if you're going out once a month and want somewhere to keep a spare
pullover and a round of sandwiches then to be honest there isn't
much point in paying much money. It's a simple job and doesn't
need anything too fancy. OTOH if you're doing regular walks with
bigger loads you'll probably benefit more from a better pack, and
moving into specialist areas like running, climbing and skiing it
also pays more to spend more on something with appropriate refinements.

But do note that for a lot of basic walking jobs then you'll get
something at least good enough from Lidl or Aldi next time they
have a suitable Specials day. A friend of mine who has Been There
and Done That with respect to outdoor pursuits achievements is very
happy using a Lidls bargain special for a general bag, and looking
at it I can't find any obvious fault.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

I have a Regatta Landtrekka, in fact, I have two, a 35 and a 45 litre
which I use for everything from shopping to carting around my geology
stuff. Not sure if they are still availible and too lazy to Google but
they both have the back system where a sheet of mesh lies against your
back and a curved plate in the sac keeps this under tension. I would
abls never consider a sac for anything other than carrying your
sandwiches to work which did not have a sternum strap.
I prefer the 45 Litre even for small loads at it is slightly longer and
a better fit, a good, cumfy, cool carry even when full of rocks.
Still get a a sweaty back, but no where near as bad as with other style
of sacs, and other than a strap ripping off ( easily fixed) it has
given years of hard usage, with many more expected.

Only downside, the side pouches are pretty much useless, too small.

Nifty touch, a built in raincover

Possibly a bit big for most peoples "Day" sacs

Cheers##Nigel

I bought an Osprey 45 litre sack because everyone was raving about
them. What a mistake? It didn't fit well and was uncomfortable on my
lower back. Sold it at half price just to get rid of it.

Subsequently bought a Lowe Alpine 45 litre sack at half the price of
the Osprey. Great sack. Wish I hadn't read these aricles on the
Osprey, it was an expensive mistake.

www.caledoniahilltreks.com

Peter Clinch said:

Peewiglet said:

I think you do generally get what you pay for in rucksacks, but to
identify the contenders you need to work out exactly what you want to
use it for.

Indeed. But of course this extends to the case where if you pay
for all sorts of stuff you don't need, you'll /get/ all sorts of
stuff you don't need.

Of course. That's why the rest of my paragraph continued:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are a number of excellent day sacks around for much
less money than the Osprey: various Lowe Alpine sacks, for instance.

Plus you're against the usual Law Of Diminishing Returns, where a
rucksack good for what you want that costs twice as much as a
prefectly serviceable model won't be twice as good, it'll just be a
little better. Whether "a little better" is worth paying twice as
much for is a question that varies from individual to individual:
if you're going out once a month and want somewhere to keep a spare
pullover and a round of sandwiches then to be honest there isn't
much point in paying much money. It's a simple job and doesn't
need anything too fancy. OTOH if you're doing regular walks with
bigger loads you'll probably benefit more from a better pack, and
moving into specialist areas like running, climbing and skiing it
also pays more to spend more on something with appropriate refinements.

But do note that for a lot of basic walking jobs then you'll get
something at least good enough from Lidl or Aldi next time they
have a suitable Specials day. A friend of mine who has Been There
and Done That with respect to outdoor pursuits achievements is very
happy using a Lidls bargain special for a general bag, and looking
at it I can't find any obvious fault.

Again: of course. That's why I pointed out that the first thing for
the poster to do is work out exactly what he wants to use it for.

To be honest, I think a lot of it comes down to common sense. I have a
cheap watch because I don't need an expensive one. I have a more
expensive rucksack because I have a use for the extra features. Those
who can't discriminate may end up with either a pile of rubbish or a
lot of unnecessary features.

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

Lindsay said:

I bought an Osprey 45 litre sack because everyone was raving about
them. What a mistake? It didn't fit well and was uncomfortable on my
lower back. Sold it at half price just to get rid of it.

Interesting! Which model was that? I've never heard anyone say
anything at all about a 45L Osprey. I've heard great things about the
large ones (Crescent and Luna) and the Atmos, though, but they don't
do a 45L one.

Quoted message said:

Subsequently bought a Lowe Alpine 45 litre sack at half the price of
the Osprey. Great sack. Wish I hadn't read these aricles on the
Osprey, it was an expensive mistake.

My longest lasting sack is a Lowe Alpine Contour Runner I bought over
15 years ago now: it's still going strong.

Did you try the Osprey on with weight before you bought it?

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

Don't remember the model of osprey but it was a 45 litre sack as that
is what I need for an expedition I am doing. I gave the bits and
pieces of documentation to the new owner.

I hope my Lowe Alpine last as long as yours.

www.caledoniahilltreks.com

Lindsay said:

Don't remember the model of osprey but it was a 45 litre sack as that
is what I need for an expedition I am doing. I gave the bits and
pieces of documentation to the new owner.

I hope my Lowe Alpine last as long as yours.

I'm sure it will. I notice them getting good write-ups whenever the
magazines review the medium sized sacks 🙂

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

Peewiglet said:

Of course. That's why the rest of my paragraph continued:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There are a number of excellent day sacks around for much
less money than the Osprey: various Lowe Alpine sacks, for instance.

Not quite the point I was getting at, so apologies for not wording
more carefully. For example, I have a Lowe Contour Mountain which
came in at much less than an Osprey in the same size, but which has
stuff specific to my purposes that aren't necessarily much use to
anyone else, the snow shovel patch, ski slots and ice axe loops
being an obvious case in point. You are getting what you pay for
with those, but if you don't carry a snow shovel, skis or ice
tools, why pay for those features? An otherwise identical sack
without them would cost less and also weigh less (and things
wouldn't slip through the slots in the wand pockets), so would be
better for some users, irrespective of the make and basic design.

Quoted message said:

To be honest, I think a lot of it comes down to common sense.

Absolutely. If only "common sense" was common and always
sensible... ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Lindsay said:

I hope my Lowe Alpine last as long as yours.

Bought my expedition sack, a Lowe Kantega 2, in 1988. It's still
going strong and has been well used over the years (its adventures
including being stolen and recovered several months later, at which
point I sold on its replacement rather than my original). I did
send it in to Lowe to have a bit of stitching redone on the harness
and a general check-over last year, more preventative maintenance
than anything else, for which they charged me the princely sum of a
tenner, including return postage.

IME Lowe stuff is well built, and where there are any troubles the
customer service of their UK arm has been very good any time I've
had cause to contact them.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

Loads of reviews for you to browse on the OutdoorsMagic site
<URL:http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/review/reviewcategory.asp?RGN=8&RCN=64&ob=p.noreviews&oborder=desc&SP=590148384674536955536&V=3>

Daytona

Peter Clinch said:

Peewiglet said:

Of course. That's why the rest of my paragraph continued:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>There are a number of excellent day sacks around for much
>less money than the Osprey: various Lowe Alpine sacks, for instance.

Not quite the point I was getting at, so apologies for not wording
more carefully. For example, I have a Lowe Contour Mountain which
came in at much less than an Osprey in the same size, but which has
stuff specific to my purposes that aren't necessarily much use to
anyone else, the snow shovel patch, ski slots and ice axe loops
being an obvious case in point. You are getting what you pay for
with those, but if you don't carry a snow shovel, skis or ice
tools, why pay for those features? An otherwise identical sack
without them would cost less and also weigh less (and things
wouldn't slip through the slots in the wand pockets), so would be
better for some users, irrespective of the make and basic design.

I think what we wrote was actually directed at the same thought, but I
probably didn't word my posting carefully enough either 🙂 I
particularly had in mind some features of the Osprey that suit my
prejudices, for instance mesh side pockets large enough for my flask
and snacks, and a pocket at the back large enough for my waterproofs.
This is more significant with the larger sacks, as the needs of a
backpacker are quite different (ime) from those of a climber. That's
what makes the expensive Osprey worthwhile for me, because it's got
everything I want to make a long walk as easy as possible.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

To be honest, I think a lot of it comes down to common sense.

Absolutely. If only "common sense" was common and always
sensible... ;-/

Now there's a thought 🙂

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

For years and years I used a cheap nylon pack bought in a shop near
Coniston in ~1981. Modified with a piece of plywood inside to stop
pointy things poking me in the back. For something to stick my coat in,
it's fine. I've just upgraded; I guess the old one counts as an
heirloom as my son has it! I'm sure it doesn't get the mileage that a
lot do though.

Andy

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

For years and years I used a cheap nylon pack bought in a shop near
Coniston in ~1981. Modified with a piece of plywood inside to stop
pointy things poking me in the back. For something to stick my coat in,
it's fine. I've just upgraded; I guess the old one counts as an
heirloom as my son has it! I'm sure it doesn't get the mileage that a
lot do though.

Andy

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

I've used a Berghaus Freeflow 35l for a few years now - I was determined to
get something which held the body of the sack away from my back which
otherwise gets extremely sweaty. (And I wear as little as I need to keep
warm.) It meets this need very well. However, it's a little large,
slightly awkward to pack, and lacks a few gizmos.

Yesterday, I treated myself to a slightly smaller 25l (+6) version, which is
on clearance at Argos at GBP 39.99 (a tenner off the previous catalogue
price). This seems to have just about everything - adjustable shoulder
straps, decent waist belt, chest harness, two ice-axe loops, compression
straps, external map pocket, shock-cord thingy, internal and external lid
pockets, internal water bladder pouch plus requisite hole, and a built-in
rain-cover. Not used in anger yet, but I doubt I'll be disappointed.

Yes, you get what you pay for, up to a point. I can't see why a day-sack
might cost twice what I just paid (itself easily twice what I could have
budgeted), but some do, and I've no particular argument with anyone who pays
the extra.

--
There's a light over at the Frankenstein place.

I have a berghaus bullfrog (30+20) it is excellent. Also served me well
as a 'school bag' when I was at Uni.

It has a big bungee on the front and bellows side pockets. Its always
been comfy and certainly big enough. Often I'll just squash it down with
the side straps.

It cost £60 about 8 years ago. It is still going strong, except for the
bungee which I replaced about 3 years ago.

Jay

John Laird said:

aj said:

what sacks do you all use for a days hike & do you get what you pay for?

I've used a Berghaus Freeflow 35l for a few years now - I was determined to
get something which held the body of the sack away from my back which
otherwise gets extremely sweaty. (And I wear as little as I need to keep
warm.) It meets this need very well. However, it's a little large,
slightly awkward to pack, and lacks a few gizmos.

Yesterday, I treated myself to a slightly smaller 25l (+6) version, which is
on clearance at Argos at GBP 39.99 (a tenner off the previous catalogue
price). This seems to have just about everything - adjustable shoulder
straps, decent waist belt, chest harness, two ice-axe loops, compression
straps, external map pocket, shock-cord thingy, internal and external lid
pockets, internal water bladder pouch plus requisite hole, and a built-in
rain-cover. Not used in anger yet, but I doubt I'll be disappointed.

Yes, you get what you pay for, up to a point. I can't see why a day-sack
might cost twice what I just paid (itself easily twice what I could have
budgeted), but some do, and I've no particular argument with anyone who pays
the extra.