What size rucksack?

Advice from an experienced oldie mountain walker. Buy the SMALLEST rucksack
sufficient for your needs. The Bigger it is the more you will put in it and
the heavier it will be.
"Friith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hello

As a fairly recent day-walker, I haven't yet done any
prolonged walks.

However,

Quoted message said:

next month I hope to do three days on the Thames path,
staying in B&B

overnight

Quoted message said:

and eating in hostelries, so only need to carry two extra
days' clothing

and

Quoted message said:

whatever I need for daily life. What is the minimum size
of rucksack I

need? I

Quoted message said:

suppose this is a 'how long is a piece of string'
question, considering I

might

Quoted message said:

be doing longer walks at some time, even back-packing.

Anyway, any suggestions welcome.

P.

Friith said:

next month I hope to do three days on the Thames path,
staying in B&B overnight and eating in hostelries, so only
need to carry two extra days' clothing

Two days extra clothing? Are you kidding? Obviously you
haven't done much backpacking. Take two sets of clothing
maximum, one for walking in, one clean set.

Quoted message said:

What is the minimum size of rucksack I need?

Other expert lightweight freaks will probably recommend
less but I can't personally see how they can pack all
their stuff. I'd say that 55 litres would be a good size
for you, definitely no more than that. You might get away
with 45 but probably not if you aren't skilled in ultra-
lightweight travel.

Buy a cheap sack to start, no sense forking out on an
expensive sack if it turns out to be the wrong size. Gelert
do a very reasonable looking 55 litre sack for just £30.

Quoted message said:

I suppose this is a 'how long is a piece of string'
question, considering I might be doing longer walks at
some time, even back-packing.

If so I'd recommend at least 65 litres. It takes experience,
obsession and a lot of money on hi-tech gear for a smaller
sack to suffice. IMHO.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Friith said:

As a fairly recent day-walker, I haven't yet done any
prolonged walks. However, next month I hope to do three
days on the Thames path, staying in B&B overnight and
eating in hostelries, so only need to carry two extra
days' clothing and whatever I need for daily life. What is
the minimum size of rucksack I need?

Probably the one you've already got. You really don't need
much else. If your walking kit is good quality it'll easily
take 3 days use and not get horrible. I'd particularly
recommend some high tech underpants (something like Rohan's
"cool" range, though there's plenty of others to choose
from) to help keep things comfy over the duration, and a
spare pair of good socks. (though I'd personally prefer to
do the Thames Path in sandals and no socks, light walking
shoes and good socks should be fine, I think boots will just
be a way to make life less comfortable given route and time
of year unless you're really only happy walking in boots).
If you want a spare shirt for the evening then take another
one you can walk in. Something like Rohan's "Polo Plus"
(plenty of alternatives from other manufacturers too) would
be fine as it's fairly smart and very comfortable, deals
well with sweat, packs small and doesn't crease.

If you can't fit a spare shirt, pair of socks, pair of pants
and toothbrush in your existing day pack I'd be fairly
surprised.

Quoted message said:

suppose this is a 'how long is a piece of string'
question, considering I might be doing longer walks at
some time, even back-packing.

Use what you have for this one and worry about that when the
time comes. It's really just 3 day walks if you think about
it, so your existing day walk pack should be up to the job.
Unless you don't usually bother, in which case 20 litres is
enough for this particular job.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Friith said:

next month I hope to do three days on the Thames path,
staying in B&B overnight and eating in hostelries, so
only need to carry two extra days' clothing

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What is the minimum size of rucksack I need?

Other expert lightweight freaks will probably recommend
less but I can't personally see how they can pack all
their stuff. I'd say that 55 litres would be a good size
for you, definitely no more than that. You might get away
with 45 but probably not if you aren't skilled in ultra-
lightweight travel.

Huh?

You need your normal daysac stuff, waterproofs, fud, water
etc. One spare top (two if you don't want to wash kit in the
B&B). Underwear etc to taste. One set of non-smelly clobber
for the pub. Washing/shaving kit, but no towel or soap since
B&Bs provide those. Street shoes (guess what I forgot last
time I did this?).

35L max.
--
Dave

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Friith said:

As a fairly recent day-walker, I haven't yet done any
prolonged walks. However, next month I hope to do three
days on the Thames path, staying in B&B overnight and
eating in hostelries, so only need to carry two extra
days' clothing and whatever I need for daily life. What
is the minimum size of rucksack I need?

Probably the one you've already got. You really don't need
much else. If your walking kit is good quality it'll
easily take 3 days use and not get horrible. I'd
particularly recommend some high tech underpants
(something like Rohan's "cool" range, though there's
plenty of others to choose from) to help keep things comfy
over the duration, and a spare pair of good socks. (though
I'd personally prefer to do the Thames Path in sandals and
no socks, light walking shoes and good socks should be
fine, I think boots will just be a way to make life less
comfortable given route and time of year unless you're
really only happy walking in boots). If you want a spare
shirt for the evening then take another one you can walk
in. Something like Rohan's "Polo Plus" (plenty of
alternatives from other manufacturers too) would be fine
as it's fairly smart and very comfortable, deals well with
sweat, packs small and doesn't crease.

If you can't fit a spare shirt, pair of socks, pair of
pants and toothbrush in your existing day pack I'd be
fairly surprised.

Quoted message said:

suppose this is a 'how long is a piece of string'
question, considering I might be doing longer walks at
some time, even back-packing.

Use what you have for this one and worry about that when
the time comes. It's really just 3 day walks if you think
about it, so your existing day walk pack should be up to
the job. Unless you don't usually bother, in which case 20
litres is enough for this particular job.

Pete.

My wife and I just returned from a 3 week trip to the UK and
Europe and managed with a 25 litre and 30 litre pack. For a
few days walking and spending nights in B&Bs the 25 litre
would be a good bet. You'll have plenty of room for what you
need and not too much extra to fill with what you don't. If
you have a smaller rucksack - 20 litres - I agree with Pete
- you don't need to buy anything else for this trip.

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Other expert lightweight freaks will probably recommend
less but I can't personally see how they can pack all
their stuff. I'd say that 55 litres would be a good size
for you, definitely no more than that. You might get away
with 45 but probably not if you aren't skilled in ultra-
lightweight travel.

It's all in the art of stuffing. I used to cycle to visit
people with a set of clean clothes and more in a bum bag.
(Nowadays I've left the clothes there and don't need to
carry the bag at all unless it might be a lot colder for the
return journey.)

Quoted message said:

If so I'd recommend at least 65 litres. It takes
experience, obsession and a lot of money on hi-tech gear
for a smaller sack to suffice. IMHO.

I'd be at a loss as to what I could usefully take along to
fill a 65 litre sack with and I certainly wouldn't want to
carry it anywhere.

Dave Pickles said:

Huh?

You need your normal daysac stuff, waterproofs, fud,
water etc.

Yeah. That will fill 35L.

Quoted message said:

One spare top (two if you don't want to wash kit in the
B&B). Underwear etc to taste. One set of non-smelly
clobber for the pub. Washing/shaving kit, but no towel or
soap since B&Bs provide those. Street shoes (guess what I
forgot last time I did this?).

All that plus 2 complete sets of clean clothes? Even just
one set - 55L.

Quoted message said:

35L max.

No way. 55L is still quite a small sack.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

AndyP said:

"Paul Saunders" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Other expert lightweight freaks will probably recommend
less but I can't personally see how they can pack all
their stuff. I'd say that 55 litres would be a good size
for you, definitely no more than that. You might get away
with 45 but probably not if you aren't skilled in ultra-
lightweight travel.

Quoted message said:

It's all in the art of stuffing. I used to cycle to visit
people with a set of clean clothes and more in a bum bag.
(Nowadays I've left the clothes there and don't need to
carry the bag at all unless it might be a lot colder for
the return journey.)

I think it's mainly just down to taking what you need and
not much else. Don't forget in this case there's no need for
tents, no need for food beyond a snack and no need for
cooking gear. The Thames path is hardly the place where
you'll need emergency survival equipment. Basically the
requirements are what you'd be wearing plus a jumper for if
it gets chilly and a light raincoat and/or a light brolly if
it starts raining. Spare shirt and spare socks, maybe a tube
of sun cream and a toothbrush, and a suitable bit of plastic
money. That would fit in a standard supermarket carrier, I
can't see how you'd struggle with "only" 45 litres.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If so I'd recommend at least 65 litres. It takes
experience, obsession and a lot of money on hi-tech gear
for a smaller sack to suffice. IMHO.

Not really. It's obsession that can lead people to take far
more than they need. Some people won't walk around the local
country park with less than a 30l pack, heavy boots and
waterproofs that wouldn't be out of place on K2. Other
people just mooch around the same places in trainers, jeans
and a T shirt and do fine.

Quoted message said:

I'd be at a loss as to what I could usefully take along to
fill a 65 litre sack with and I certainly wouldn't want to
carry it anywhere.

For 3 days B&B on the Thames path in summer I'd probably try
and get it down to a bumbag if I was being truly minimalist.
I think I could, but then I'm an experienced gear junkie. I
think the OP should be able to get away with a 20l pack fine
without spending a fortune on superlight kit.

Camping in the wild would be a different matter, especially
in winter. But that's not what's involved here.

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] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

Paul Saunders said:

Dave Pickles wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One spare top (two if you don't want to wash kit in the
B&B). Underwear etc to taste. One set of non-smelly
clobber for the pub. Washing/shaving kit, but no towel or
soap since B&Bs provide those. Street shoes (guess what I
forgot last time I did this?).

All that plus 2 complete sets of clean clothes? Even just
one set - 55L.

No. Set off in walking kit. One spare top in the rucksac.
Wash tops in B&B. One spare set of kit for the pub (all 3
nights), doubles as emergency kit in case of drenching.

Oh I forgot. No cameras ;-)
--
Dave

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

Quoted message said:

Paul Saunders said:

Dave Pickles wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One spare top (two if you don't want to wash kit in the
B&B). Underwear etc to taste. One set of non-smelly
clobber for the pub. Washing/shaving kit, but no towel
or soap since B&Bs provide those. Street shoes (guess
what I forgot last time I did this?).

All that plus 2 complete sets of clean clothes? Even
just one set - 55L.

No. Set off in walking kit. One spare top in the rucksac.
Wash tops in

B&B.

Quoted message said:

One spare set of kit for the pub (all 3 nights), doubles
as emergency kit in case of drenching.

Oh I forgot. No cameras ;-)
--
Dave

Weight is still important regardless of rucksack capacity. I
leave for the Pyrenees tomorrow with a sack weighing 35lbs
and its full to the brim. I wouldn't want to put any more in
it even if I could. You shouldn't need anything like that
weight for the walk you are describing.

Dave Pickles said:

No. Set off in walking kit.

I was going by what he said we wanted to carry.

Quoted message said:

One spare top in the rucksac. Wash tops in B&B. One spare
set of kit for the pub (all 3 nights), doubles as
emergency kit in case of drenching.

Oh I forgot. No cameras ;-)

How can anyone walk without cameras?

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Michael Hobby said:

Weight is still important regardless of rucksack capacity.
I leave for the Pyrenees tomorrow with a sack weighing
35lbs and its full to the brim. I wouldn't want to put any
more in it even if I could. You shouldn't need anything
like that weight for the walk you are describing.

I think weight is more important than rucksack capacity. One
typically assumes that whatever capacity you have you will
fill but that's not necessarily the case. If you carry less
then you just don't have to compress it so much. If you
choose a small sack and you decide (for whatever reason) to
carry a lot, then you'll have a problem if you can't get it
all in. On the other hand, if you have a larger sack you
don't need to fill it completely. If you carry less then you
don't need to compress it so much and you can tighten the
rucksack straps more.

In other words, what I'm saying is that if you don't know
what size rucksack you need, it's better to err on the side
of larger. You can always compress it, and larger rucksacks
don't weight that much more than a slightly smaller one.

I know it's tempting to carry more if you have the extra
space, but it's *impossible* to carry everything you need if
you don't have enough space.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

I think weight is more important than rucksack capacity.
One typically assumes that whatever capacity you have you
will fill but that's not necessarily the case. If you
carry less then you just don't have to compress it so
much. If you choose a small sack and you decide (for
whatever reason) to carry a lot, then you'll have a
problem if you can't get it all in. On the other hand, if
you have a larger sack you don't need to fill it
completely. If you carry less then you don't need to
compress it so much and you can tighten the rucksack
straps more. I know it's tempting to carry more if you
have the extra space, but it's *impossible* to carry
everything you need if you don't have enough space.

A week ago I set off on the Cumbria Way with a brand
spanking new Berghaus 65+10.

I took with me:

The clothes I was standing up in (no spare shoes - just the
walking boots) Wet weather gear (shell for upper and lower)
A light fleece - this was despite the forecast being set
fair for all week. Three spare t-shirts - I was thinking
pub. Lowe stretch pullie (best bit of kit I ever did buy!) A
pair of shorts (these being the alternative to the
lightweight trousers I set off in) Two small towels, one for
during the day (I sweat a lot) and a microlight. Soap,
toothbrush/paste.
1.5ltrs of water in the +10 bit. One days supply of food
plus half a dozen chewy biscuits. Camera in separate hip
bag. GPS plus other nav stuff

Now, if I'd stopped there I would have been fine. In fact I
could have fit that in my 45ltr sack and I could have saved
myself the money for the new sac....

....but I didn't.

I also took:

Charger for mobile Charger for the camera batteries Half a
bottle of Bells. and a bunch of other stuff that nestled in
there somewhere.

(I did try and get the tent/mat/sbag in there too but no
chance and I had to abandon that idea the night before I
went. I was thinking I might have problems with
accommodation on nights two (Langdale) and four (Caldbeck).
In fact I had problems getting a single room in Coniston and
it was 8.40pm when I finally secured one. I thought I was
sleeping rough for a while there!)

The result was that the sac was way too heavy and, with it
being new and me only packing it the day before I set off, I
didn't have it adjusted correctly on the first day out,
speshly the hip belt.. The weight of the sac, plus other
things - like the first day being about 10k too long,
combined to curtail the trip for me and this was my first
multi-day trip so that was a shame. I was back home after
just two days with bad blisters on both heels (something I
haven't had for years!) and pains in both hips having only
done two of the five days - six days later I still have one
bad heel and my right hip is beginning to worry me.

I hope I've learned a lot from this. I think I now
understand the cutting-the-toothbrush-in-half thing!

There's a couple of dozen images at the link in the sig then
the 'Cumbria Way' link.

--
Dave Newton

Lake District walk&image site daves-lakeland-daves-lakeland-Open ↗
mountains.co.uk

NEWTON said:

Now, if I'd stopped there I would have been fine. In fact
I could have fit that in my 45ltr sack and I could have
saved myself the money for the new sac....

....but I didn't.

I also took:

Charger for mobile Charger for the camera batteries Half a
bottle of Bells. and a bunch of other stuff that nestled
in there somewhere.

Well that's a matter of self discipline.

Quoted message said:

(I did try and get the tent/mat/sbag in there too but
no chance and I had to abandon that idea the night
before I went.

But what if you were going wild camping? You'd have to take
a tent/mat/sbag then. Normal essential items in fact. Not to
mention a stove, pots and pans, cutlery and up to 5 days of
food (mainly dehydrated).

Quoted message said:

The result was that the sac was way too heavy

Which it would have been anyway if you'd taken all the
camping gear.

Quoted message said:

The weight of the sac, plus other things - like the first
day being about 10k too long, combined to curtail the trip
for me and this was my first multi-day trip so that was a
shame. I was back home after just two days with bad
blisters on both heels (something I haven't had for
years!) and pains in both hips having only done two of the
five days
- six days later I still have one bad heel and my right
hip is beginning to worry me.

Should be okay after a rest. Sounds just like what I'd
expect on a backpacking trip. Heavy sack = pain. Which is
why I do mostly short distances to base camps when carrying
all that weight. I've tried carrying it over longer
distances and it just ends up being miserable. For
backpacking, either get serious about ultralite gear or
dramatically cut down the distance you walk each day. I
think the distance is the main cause of your aches and
pains. With camping gear a lesser distance would be quite
practical because you could camp almost anywhere. Of course
the trip would take longer, but is that such a bad thing?
You'd have more time to enjoy it.

Paul
--
wilderness-wales.co.ukwilderness-wales.co.ukOpen ↗
wildwales.fsnet.co.ukwildwales.fsnet.co.ukOpen ↗
photosig.comuserphotosOpen ↗

NEWTON said:

Now, if I'd stopped there I would have been fine. In fact I
could have fit that in my 45ltr sack and I could have saved
myself the money for the new sac....

Quoted message said:

....but I didn't.

Quoted message said:

I also took:

Quoted message said:

Charger for mobile

I bought a larger capacity battery for my mobile. It goes
for nearly a fortnight in heavy use, and three weeks in
light use (switched on all the time, but used for less than
ten minutes a day).

I suspect it's a bit heavier than the phone charger, but
not having to worry about access to mains electricity is a
great relief.

Quoted message said:

Charger for the camera batteries

There's a new kind of camera very well suited to lightweight
backpackers. Uses only one small button cell battery which
lasts for at least a year. Takes pictures on something
called film, available in canisters much smaller and very
much lighter than batteries.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Quoted message said:

Should be okay after a rest. Sounds just like what I'd
expect on a backpacking trip. Heavy sack = pain. Which is
why I do mostly short distances to base camps when
carrying all that weight. I've tried carrying it over
longer distances and it just ends up being miserable. For
backpacking, either get serious about ultralite gear or
dramatically cut down the distance you walk each day. I
think the distance is the main cause of your aches and
pains. With camping gear a lesser distance would be quite
practical because you could camp almost anywhere. Of
course the trip would take longer, but is that such a bad
thing? You'd have more time to enjoy it.

That's my conclusion too. I'll be back up there doing day
three (plus the bit of day two I didn't do) as soon as I can
but I'm going to do Skelwith Bridge to Keswick in two hops
of about 10 miles each rather than one slog of
20. I will be taking the camping gear and setting down on
the tops near Stake Pass somewhere. Day four will also
be divided down when I get around to that too. We live
and learn, Paul.

--
Dave Newton

Lake District walk&image site daves-lakeland-daves-lakeland-Open ↗
mountains.co.uk

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

Quoted message said:

"NEWTON" <[email hidden]> writes: snip<

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Charger for the camera batteries

There's a new kind of camera very well suited to
lightweight backpackers. Uses only one small button cell
battery which lasts for at least a year. Takes pictures on
something called film, available in canisters much smaller
and very much lighter than batteries.

Sounds interesting. Do you think it'll ever take off? ;o)

Regards, Paul Lake District Walking Site:
lakelandwalker.co.uklakelandwalker.co.ukOpen ↗

Chris Malcolm said:

There's a new kind of camera very well suited to
lightweight backpackers. Uses only one small button cell
battery which lasts for at least a year. Takes pictures on
something called film, available in canisters much smaller
and very much lighter than batteries.

I use old Olympus XAs which don't use batteries at all
except for the flash unit (which you can unscrew to make
them easily fit a shirt pocket). The XA1 is still going
strong after 20 years, I've only had the XA3 a little while
(my Dad picked it up second hand for a song) but it'll be a
similar vintage and seems to take okay pictures.

A pal borrowed one for his trip to Greenland as he wouldn't
have to worry about temps down to ~ -30C fubarring attempts
to use battery-reliant equipment.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee Tel 44 1382 660111 ext.
33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital Fax 44 1382 640177
Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK net [email hidden]
dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗

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

snip

Quoted message said:

I use old Olympus XAs which don't use batteries at all
except for the flash unit

snip Errr yes they do. Two mercury cells accessed underneath
(one cell if you buy the extra large one) .The XA uses it
for metering ( as does the XA2 except you don't see a meter
if I recall) but they last such a long tme it's easy not to
notice. I would suggest having a look 'cause when I checked
mine, just before a trip, they had started to leak. I caught
it just in time before any harm done.

Alan