Rucksack covers

Liner as well and if the rubble bag works - then why not. Personally I use
extra strong dustbin bags)

The covers work great, but when you lay the bag on the ground there's always
a corner that seems to catch the wet. Even more so if you root around in the
bag during heavy rain.

For the weight, best to have the inner protection to be on the safe side

"Paul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all,

opinions needed. I have just acquired a waterproof cover for my new ULA
Catalyst sack. Do you think I will need a waterproof liner in addition to
the cover or will the cover provide sufficient protection? (as with most
other sacks, seams are not sealed so some waterproofing will be needed) In
the past I have just made do with a builders rubble bag as a liner and not
bothered with the over cover.

Many thanks

Paul

Paul said:

opinions needed. I have just acquired a waterproof cover for my new ULA
Catalyst sack. Do you think I will need a waterproof liner in addition
to the cover or will the cover provide sufficient protection? (as with
most other sacks, seams are not sealed so some waterproofing will be
needed) In the past I have just made do with a builders rubble bag as a
liner and not bothered with the over cover.

If you need a liner depends on use. It's all very well having a dry
rucksack under a liner, but say the rain's just stopped and you put your
wet jacket and o-trousers in it... it won't be dry any more!

But with a liner, you can compartmentalise between wet and dry. On a
longer trip it's even more useful: wet tents and dirty pots really don't
need to be in the same direct space as your dry, clean clothing.

I'm not a fan of liners as they make access to the sack a faff and catch
in the wind, but I can see the point if you're lugging a load for a day
as it prevents the sack from absorbing a fair bit of water and getting
heavier as a result. But for day trips I can't be bothered with them at
all and much prefer liners, as they give more flexibility in what stays
wet or dry.

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/

Peter Clinch said:

Paul said:

opinions needed. I have just acquired a waterproof cover for my new
ULA Catalyst sack. Do you think I will need a waterproof liner in
addition to the cover or will the cover provide sufficient protection?
(as with most other sacks, seams are not sealed so some waterproofing
will be needed) In the past I have just made do with a builders rubble
bag as a liner and not bothered with the over cover.

If you need a liner depends on use. It's all very well having a dry
rucksack under a liner, but say the rain's just stopped and you put your
wet jacket and o-trousers in it... it won't be dry any more!

But with a liner, you can compartmentalise between wet and dry. On a
longer trip it's even more useful: wet tents and dirty pots really don't
need to be in the same direct space as your dry, clean clothing.

I'm not a fan of liners as they make access to the sack a faff and catch
in the wind, but I can see the point if you're lugging a load for a day
as it prevents the sack from absorbing a fair bit of water and getting
heavier as a result. But for day trips I can't be bothered with them at
all and much prefer liners, as they give more flexibility in what stays
wet or dry.

Pete.

Thanks for the replies. The nice thing about the ULA
http://www.ula-equipment.com/catalyst.htm(although I have yet to test it
in anger) is that it has a very large rear mesh pocket, separate from
the main compartment which can accommodate wet gear. Nevertheless, I
think that on reflection a liner might be sensible.

thanks again

Paul

Peter Clinch said:

I'm not a fan of liners as they make access to the sack a faff and catch
in the wind, but I can see the point if you're lugging a load for a day
as it prevents the sack from absorbing a fair bit of water and getting
heavier as a result. But for day trips I can't be bothered with them at
all and much prefer liners, as they give more flexibility in what stays
wet or dry.

I'm guessing one of those "liners" should be "covers" ?

Covers seem to work quite well when it's coming down all day long,
keeping all the pockets much drier. I don't put everything in the
main body of my sack, but the stuff in the pockets is still worth
keeping dry. Plus, a saturated sack takes quite a while to dry out.

[Of course, it's easier if the cover is "integral" to the sack, at the
cost of a couple of ounces of extra weight. I probably wouldn't
bother with anything that had to be attached and re-attached.]

--
"Proofread carefully to see if you any words out."

John Laird said:

Peter Clinch said:

I'm not a fan of liners as they make access to the sack a faff and catch
in the wind, but I can see the point if you're lugging a load for a day
as it prevents the sack from absorbing a fair bit of water and getting
heavier as a result. But for day trips I can't be bothered with them at
all and much prefer liners, as they give more flexibility in what stays
wet or dry.

I'm guessing one of those "liners" should be "covers" ?

Ooops! Quite right, the ones I'm not fans of...

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/