Lightweight backpacking - any point trying? (LONG)

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

Quoted message said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

It's bloody hard to get the weight down to something like 20lbs. I think I'd
be around 30lb myself. I bought a Karrimor rucksack once because it had been
reduced in price - it looked great but it weighed a ton. I reckon the new
sacks were probably have the weight! So, yes, a new sack might save you a
noticable amount. Can you reduce the amount of clothes you take? I just take
what I'm walking in plus my safety gear - you should take a change of
clothes, but that's just more weight imo. Food is the necessary evil. What
we really need is a 1000 calorie pill that we can take three or four times a
day. Everything else seems very light - I don't think you'll beat the Akto.
I once went through Knoydart with a 45l rucksack. It was murder. I still
reckon it weighed 30lbs :-(

Graham

Judith said:

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

That's quite a good weight, it is the sort of weight we often had for
hut-to-hut touring in Norway.

Quoted message said:

This weight was uncomfortable to carry. On the flat (eg on the
metalled tracks/roads I sometimes used) I can plod on indefinitely,
but on rough ground the heavy pack is a liability as it accentuates
any trip or lack of balance and tips me over. I have some lovely
scrapes and bruises on my legs.

Maybe you need a bit more time to get used to it - I often find the first
couple of days hard going and then suddenly it feels normal. Until you
take it off and then you feel all bouncy :-)

Quoted message said:

I am 5' 4" tall and have the following major items of gear:

That may be a factor - I'm 5'9.5". If the main problem is that the weight
tips you over than your rucksack may be too high and leaning away from
your body. Do you have a short torso? Maybe a wider rucksack whoch
concentrates the weight nearer the hips would help? Or work on reducing
volume rather than weight, so you can pack it close to your back 🙂

Roos

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

Quoted message said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

This weight was uncomfortable to carry. On the flat (eg on the
metalled tracks/roads I sometimes used) I can plod on indefinitely,
but on rough ground the heavy pack is a liability as it accentuates
any trip or lack of balance and tips me over. I have some lovely
scrapes and bruises on my legs.

I wonder whether this is a problem that I could just throw cash at?
Would expensive lightweight gear reduce my pack weight to a level that
would make backpacking fun again, or do I need to improve my
strength/stamina .... or should I just give up and go back to using
Youth Hostels?

I am 5' 4" tall and have the following major items of gear:

- Karrimor Jaguar 65 litre rucksack. It weighs approx 1,800 grammes.
- Hilleberg Akto (Mark 1) tent. 1,625 g
- Ajungilak Kompakt 180 sleeping bag. 1,400 g inc compression sack.
- Thermarest Ultralite 3/4. 500 g inc stuffsack and repair kit (30g)
- MSR Pocket Rocket

I am sure I could save tens of grammes on each of the smaller items eg
I could get an LED headtorch to replace my Petzl Micro; a titanium
kettly thing to replace my aluminium pan but these savings would
probably add up to only a couple of hundred grammes.

My big savings would come from the tent, sleeping bag, mat and
rucksack. However! I love my Akto; it's sturdy and roomy. I would
not want to use a tarp as I want 100% protection from midgies.
*Maybe* I would try a single-skin tent in some circumstances.

I know I did a fair bit of research when buying my Ajungilak, so it
was probably one of the lighter 3-season (ie down to -5 degs C) bags
at the time. I'd love a Down bag but my Veggie principles are telling
me I shouldn't get one. Maybe I could survive with a Snugpak Softie 3
Merlin but I do like a cosy bag and don't think the Softie 3 would be
warm enough.

I could probably save up to a kg on my rucksack - so perhaps this is
where I should start.

Or perhaps I'm just too weedy for backpacking. Could I save enough
weight, without severely limiting my comfort, to make the cost
worthwhile or will I still struggle ...... but be carrying an extra
thousand quid on my back!?

Judith

I just can't imagine how you can go backpacking with 12K!. I haver just
retunred from a hut to hut walk in Norway and I took the absolute bare
essentials, only one spare item of the basic bits of clothing, and my pack
was 12K. How do you do it? Well 'll look closer at your list and see how you
did it. (I am 6ft 5ins and size 14 shoes/boots, so everything \I have is
massive (so to speak).

Roos Eisma said:

Quoted message said:

This weight was uncomfortable to carry. On the flat (eg on the
metalled tracks/roads I sometimes used) I can plod on indefinitely,
but on rough ground the heavy pack is a liability as it accentuates
any trip or lack of balance and tips me over. I have some lovely
scrapes and bruises on my legs.

Maybe you need a bit more time to get used to it - I often find the first
couple of days hard going and then suddenly it feels normal. Until you
take it off and then you feel all bouncy :-)

Yes, that's a good point. It does feel "normal" after a few days, but
this was only a short trip.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am 5' 4" tall and have the following major items of gear:

That may be a factor - I'm 5'9.5". If the main problem is that the weight
tips you over than your rucksack may be too high and leaning away from
your body. Do you have a short torso? Maybe a wider rucksack whoch
concentrates the weight nearer the hips would help? Or work on reducing
volume rather than weight, so you can pack it close to your back 🙂

I don't *think* the pack is too high on my back. I try to bear the
weight on my hips and to make sure that the pack is solid against my
back. When I said that the pack tips me over, what I really mean is
that the extra weight makes it tricky for me to steady myself if one
foot sinks into a bog or if I slip on some scree. I've always fallen
over a lot and seem to have very poor natural balance. Perhaps
strengthening my legs and back would help with this?

I'm interested to see that everyone seems to think that 12kg is light!

Oh my!

Judith

On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 21:49:49 +0100, "Trevor Appleton"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip desire to reduce backpack from 12kg>

Quoted message said:

I just can't imagine how you can go backpacking with 12K!. I haver just
retunred from a hut to hut walk in Norway and I took the absolute bare
essentials, only one spare item of the basic bits of clothing, and my pack
was 12K. How do you do it? Well 'll look closer at your list and see how you
did it. (I am 6ft 5ins and size 14 shoes/boots, so everything \I have is
massive (so to speak).

I do take a change of clothes as I once spent a miserable night
shivering in damp clothes and feel that, for me, a complete dry set of
clothes is an important safety measure. However, I am prepared to
have a Wet/Dry routine and change back into wet clothes in the
morning. Yes, it's horrible at first but you soon warm up.

All of the individual items don't seem to take up much room or weigh
much ..... but add them all together.

Judith

Aside from cutting down on your gear weight, have you ever considered
using a pair of hiking poles? Poles can add greatly to your overall
stability and, when used properly, can also make your uphills and
downhills go much more easily.

It takes some time to condition your upper body in order to get the
fullest benefit from hiking poles, but once you are strong and have
good technique the poles can make a world of difference. It's almost
like riding an escalator as compared to taking the stairs. Notice, I
said almost!

What about lighter boots. Given how often you have to lift your feet on
even a short walk heavy boots can sap more energy than you realise

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

Quoted message said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

This weight was uncomfortable to carry. On the flat (eg on the
metalled tracks/roads I sometimes used) I can plod on indefinitely,
but on rough ground the heavy pack is a liability as it accentuates
any trip or lack of balance and tips me over. I have some lovely
scrapes and bruises on my legs.

I wonder whether this is a problem that I could just throw cash at?
Would expensive lightweight gear reduce my pack weight to a level that
would make backpacking fun again, or do I need to improve my
strength/stamina .... or should I just give up and go back to using
Youth Hostels?

I am 5' 4" tall and have the following major items of gear:

- Karrimor Jaguar 65 litre rucksack. It weighs approx 1,800 grammes.
- Hilleberg Akto (Mark 1) tent. 1,625 g
- Ajungilak Kompakt 180 sleeping bag. 1,400 g inc compression sack.
- Thermarest Ultralite 3/4. 500 g inc stuffsack and repair kit (30g)
- MSR Pocket Rocket

I am sure I could save tens of grammes on each of the smaller items eg
I could get an LED headtorch to replace my Petzl Micro; a titanium
kettly thing to replace my aluminium pan but these savings would
probably add up to only a couple of hundred grammes.

My big savings would come from the tent, sleeping bag, mat and
rucksack. However! I love my Akto; it's sturdy and roomy. I would
not want to use a tarp as I want 100% protection from midgies.
*Maybe* I would try a single-skin tent in some circumstances.

I know I did a fair bit of research when buying my Ajungilak, so it
was probably one of the lighter 3-season (ie down to -5 degs C) bags
at the time. I'd love a Down bag but my Veggie principles are telling
me I shouldn't get one. Maybe I could survive with a Snugpak Softie 3
Merlin but I do like a cosy bag and don't think the Softie 3 would be
warm enough.

I could probably save up to a kg on my rucksack - so perhaps this is
where I should start.

Or perhaps I'm just too weedy for backpacking. Could I save enough
weight, without severely limiting my comfort, to make the cost
worthwhile or will I still struggle ...... but be carrying an extra
thousand quid on my back!?

Judith

"Judith" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

Quoted message said:

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg.

<snip>

You ought to just about be able to fit 12kg in a 45 litre rucksack. I
usually carry between 10 & 11kg in mine these days but I expect I used
to carry 12 or just over in it, I suppose they're not all quite the same
size though. Stuff things like small items of clothing right down into
the corners and spaces between the big items, squash all the air out any
food packets and things like that. It's worth noting that if you want
to take a small sack you need to think about the size of things as well
as their weight. I think the Akto is still quite a large pack size for
it's weight but I suppose it squashes down a bit.

You don't necessarily have to spend a lot. You could maybe take your
lighter sleeping bag by wearing clothes (including hat) inside it. And
if you take a foam mat instead of a thermarest you could strap it
outside for both a weight saving and rucksack space saving.

If balance is your concern I'd be wary of really lightweight sacks that
are made of thin material with not much in the way of stiffness or
support of any kind. I've got a very old one like that and the weight
can slop from side to side quite easily but maybe there are good ones
about these days.

This spring I bought myself a Crux AK57 rucksack and a TN laserlite tent and
together with a 200g fill down bag packed as minimal a set of gear as
possible for a weekend. Compared to previous backpacking / wild camping
weekends it was like freedom! I don't know what the exact weight was, but
definitely sub 8kg.

The Crux rucksack is excellent - because it weighs so little and has
compression straps, it can be anything from a backpacking sack to a day
pack, and is very comfortable as either.

Adrian

Judith said:

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

I've weighed virtually everything I have and when I travel 'heavy' -
with camera accessories and tripod, it totals well over 18Kg. About the
best I can do, travelling 'light' is 14Kg. My Karrimor Condor sac is a
bit heavy and I went after, but lost, the Golite pac recently on Ebay. I
might look into getting a new one.

Jim Ford

On 3/9/05 20:53, in article [email hidden],

Judith said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

Judith,

I wonder about the rucksack. Weight is a consideration but often this has to
be balanced with the natural comfort and design of the pack. Despite a lot
of the stuff you read you will often feel a lot happier with a stable pack
that performs well than a lightweight pack that is not as comfortable or
effective at distributing weight.

Pack volume is also important. I think 45 litres is probably too small. 60
litres is quite a useful size particularly if the pack is reasonably
lightweight. If you are considering spending some serious money here my
guess is that you should concentrate on the pack and find somewhere that you
can try them properly loaded. Karrimor packs can go on for years but many of
them are very heavy.

You do need to try them out.

I have recently bought an Osprey Atmos 50 litre sack. This is brilliant and
lightweight but I haven't bought it to carry camping gear. I reckon that I
could get away with weekends using it with an Akto but it wouldn't be as
comfortable. As weight increases you can feel this pack beginning to move
away from your back. But I probably will use it for overnight camps in good
weather next summer.

Inspired by PW I'm currently thinking about next years TGO challenge. For
something like this I think comfort is important and - as you say - carrying
food and water makes a difference. I'm currently wondering whether to
investigate a 65 litre Osprey Aether pack which is designed for lightweight
hiking. But I will probably stay with my Osprey Crescent which is their top
of the range (weight wise) pack.

The Crescent works very well and is remarkably comfortable with lighter
loads. Whether the lighter Aether would make a difference I don't know. The
only way I could make a judgement would be to go into a store and load up
the two for comparisons.

If you look at packs concentrate on the comfort of the back systems and the
effectiveness of the hip belts.

Macpac, Osprey and Gregory (if you can find them) are all good packs. I
tend to stick with Osprey because I've found that they are superbly designed
and are nearly always pretty stable. But others speak highly of the other
bvrands.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

Judith said:

I wonder whether this is a problem that I could just throw cash at?
Would expensive lightweight gear reduce my pack weight to a level that
would make backpacking fun again, or do I need to improve my
strength/stamina .... or should I just give up and go back to using
Youth Hostels?

As an alternative, think about base camp trips. You walk in on the
first eveneing and pitch camp, and then leave your camp where it is
for a couple of days and do walks out from it, returning in the
evening.

I much prefer this way of doing things to packing everything up
every day and carting it with me, as I find that detracts from the
walking and if you've gone ultralight to make the walking better
then the camping suffers.

Horses for courses, but for me I just want to be out there, what I
actually /do/ is pretty much incidental. So if backpacking becomes
a chore I look to do something else.

Quoted message said:

I am sure I could save tens of grammes on each of the smaller items eg
I could get an LED headtorch to replace my Petzl Micro; a titanium
kettly thing to replace my aluminium pan but these savings would
probably add up to only a couple of hundred grammes.

I don't think the weight would disappear to the extent you want.
However, I'd get a LED or LED/bulb combo rather than the Micro in
any case, they're just better and the batteries last for yonks longer.

Quoted message said:

I'm interested to see that everyone seems to think that 12kg is light!

For certain values of "light". For a 3 day solo backpacking trip
with no resupply I'd say that's a reasonably light load, but of
course different people have different physiologies. Saying I'm
probably stronger than you isn't bragging, it's just the way the
statistics stack up 'cause I'm male and bigger than you. Being
that much smaller then The Average Backpacker you are likely to be
that much weaker, and suffer more with the same load. Sad, but true.

But as I suggested at the start, you don't need to carry a tent for
3 days for a 3 day wild camping trip, just as far as your pitch and
out again at the end.

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/

Judith said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

This weight was uncomfortable to carry. On the flat (eg on the
metalled tracks/roads I sometimes used) I can plod on indefinitely,
but on rough ground the heavy pack is a liability as it accentuates
any trip or lack of balance and tips me over. I have some lovely
scrapes and bruises on my legs.

I wonder whether this is a problem that I could just throw cash at?
Would expensive lightweight gear reduce my pack weight to a level that
would make backpacking fun again, or do I need to improve my
strength/stamina .... or should I just give up and go back to using
Youth Hostels?

I am 5' 4" tall and have the following major items of gear:

- Karrimor Jaguar 65 litre rucksack. It weighs approx 1,800 grammes.
- Hilleberg Akto (Mark 1) tent. 1,625 g
- Ajungilak Kompakt 180 sleeping bag. 1,400 g inc compression sack.
- Thermarest Ultralite 3/4. 500 g inc stuffsack and repair kit (30g)
- MSR Pocket Rocket

I am sure I could save tens of grammes on each of the smaller items eg
I could get an LED headtorch to replace my Petzl Micro; a titanium
kettly thing to replace my aluminium pan but these savings would
probably add up to only a couple of hundred grammes.

My big savings would come from the tent, sleeping bag, mat and
rucksack. However! I love my Akto; it's sturdy and roomy. I would
not want to use a tarp as I want 100% protection from midgies.
*Maybe* I would try a single-skin tent in some circumstances.

I know I did a fair bit of research when buying my Ajungilak, so it
was probably one of the lighter 3-season (ie down to -5 degs C) bags
at the time. I'd love a Down bag but my Veggie principles are telling
me I shouldn't get one. Maybe I could survive with a Snugpak Softie 3
Merlin but I do like a cosy bag and don't think the Softie 3 would be
warm enough.

I could probably save up to a kg on my rucksack - so perhaps this is
where I should start.

Or perhaps I'm just too weedy for backpacking. Could I save enough
weight, without severely limiting my comfort, to make the cost
worthwhile or will I still struggle ...... but be carrying an extra
thousand quid on my back!?

In what you've mentioned, I'd identify the sleeping bag as the only
place to really save weight - though that is possibly incompatible with
your down boycott.

Next I'd examine your backpack; not to save weight, but to get one which
is more balanced and carries better. In my perspective, 12kg really is
light (but then I'm 6'1"😉!!

I had (still have) the Karrimor Jaguar 65. I was not at all impressed
with it. It got replaced by an old model Lowe Cerro Torre, which was
definitely more balanced and comfortable up to about 17kg. I've recently
bought a Bach No Macs for loads above 17kg.
Of course your Jaguar 65 might be much more suited to your size than
mine, but I'd seriously try out a number of other bags.

Conclusion (IMHO):
1) If you can face using down, you can save about 500gr on the sleeping bag.
2) Get a better rucksack (nothing against Karrimor as a brand: I loved
the old Alpinist series)...

Chris Loffredo said:

1) If you can face using down, you can save about 500gr on the sleeping bag.

And a fair bit of volume - down bags pack incredibly small! If your 45 l
was almost big enough this could make the difference between fitting it in
or not.

Roos

Trevor Appleton said:

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

Quoted message said:

Aside from cutting down on your gear weight, have you ever considered
using a pair of hiking poles?

Yes, I've considered it - and I do sometimes use them, but I find they
get in the way more than they help. Perhaps I need practice!

If I knew that I was going to walk a nice, easy trail then I'd
probably take them but I always end up on rough ground and need to use
my hands for other things.

Quoted message said:

...extra weight I'm afraid!!!

Yes, that's how I view them although I realise that they can be
brilliant when used properly.

Judith

Judith said:

Last weekend I spent three days and two nights backpacking north of
the Rhinogs. I had intended to use my 45 litre rucksack but found
that I couldn't easily fit my gear in, so I reverted to my tried and
tested 65 litre pack. Blimey, it was heavy.

I know that feeling :-)

Quoted message said:

Fully loaded, with food and 500ml of water, my pack weighed 12kg. I
have carried more in the past but I was trying to keep the weight
down.

You can get under 12kg, but it's not a wholly unreasonable weight to
carry: practice does help.

Quoted message said:

This weight was uncomfortable to carry. On the flat (eg on the
metalled tracks/roads I sometimes used) I can plod on indefinitely,
but on rough ground the heavy pack is a liability as it accentuates
any trip or lack of balance and tips me over. I have some lovely
scrapes and bruises on my legs.

Arrange a time for me to drop off my Osprey Luna and try that. It'd be
interesting to see whether you find it more comfortable than the sack
you're currently using. It's not light, but it's built for backpacking
comfort.

Quoted message said:

I wonder whether this is a problem that I could just throw cash at?
Would expensive lightweight gear reduce my pack weight to a level that
would make backpacking fun again, or do I need to improve my
strength/stamina .... or should I just give up and go back to using
Youth Hostels?

I am 5' 4" tall and have the following major items of gear:

- Karrimor Jaguar 65 litre rucksack. It weighs approx 1,800 grammes.

You could reduce weight there, but unless you're careful that could
come at the cost of discomfort.

Quoted message said:

- Hilleberg Akto (Mark 1) tent. 1,625 g

My personal view is that it's just not worth carrying something less
than an Akto to save a little bit of weight: I think you already have
the best tent for your purposes.

Quoted message said:

- Ajungilak Kompakt 180 sleeping bag. 1,400 g inc compression sack.

You could save weight and bulk there if you throw money at the
problem: my Marmot weighs about 600g, and it's very small indeed. I
bought it after the Pennine Way and it's made a very big difference to
me.

Quoted message said:

- Thermarest Ultralite 3/4. 500 g inc stuffsack and repair kit (30g)
- MSR Pocket Rocket

I don't think you can save a *lot* of weight on that . The T-rest is
light, and there's nothing wrong with the Pocket Rocket (though my
Primus Micron is marginally lighter and smaller, I think).

Quoted message said:

I am sure I could save tens of grammes on each of the smaller items eg
I could get an LED headtorch to replace my Petzl Micro; a titanium
kettly thing to replace my aluminium pan but these savings would
probably add up to only a couple of hundred grammes.

The main thing, it seems to me, is your sleeping bag. Your sack would
be next on the list. If you buy sufficiently small kit you can
definitely use an Osprey Atmos 50L for the sort of trip you made, and
that's light and extremely comfy. It's expensive, though. I think you
would be able to use a 45L sack if you get a smaller sleeping bag and
make sure you're not carrying a lot of bulky small things. It might
still weigh 10-12kg, though: that depends on the weight of the sack
and the little things you take with you.

Quoted message said:

My big savings would come from the tent, sleeping bag, mat and
rucksack. However! I love my Akto; it's sturdy and roomy. I would
not want to use a tarp as I want 100% protection from midgies.
*Maybe* I would try a single-skin tent in some circumstances.

No.... I don't think you should even go there. The Akto is perfect: if
you want to lose weight then look at your sleeping bag and your sack,
and the peripheral things you're carrying. Can you post a complete
list?

Quoted message said:

I know I did a fair bit of research when buying my Ajungilak, so it
was probably one of the lighter 3-season (ie down to -5 degs C) bags
at the time. I'd love a Down bag but my Veggie principles are telling
me I shouldn't get one.

Well, I hear what you say but it's a balancing act there... do you
wear leather shoes?

Quoted message said:

Maybe I could survive with a Snugpak Softie 3
Merlin but I do like a cosy bag and don't think the Softie 3 would be
warm enough.

I could probably save up to a kg on my rucksack - so perhaps this is
where I should start.

I think you should start with your sleeping bag.

(Oops... did I already say that? ;-)

Quoted message said:

Or perhaps I'm just too weedy for backpacking.

Nooo....but you may need to put in some more practice.

Quoted message said:

Could I save enough
weight, without severely limiting my comfort, to make the cost
worthwhile or will I still struggle ...... but be carrying an extra
thousand quid on my back!?

EXTRA THOUSAND QUID??? C'mon... even I - an acknowledged and
self-confessed kit addict - would have difficulty spending a thousand
squids on a new sleeping bag and rucksack! :-) (I could try
though...)

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

"The most important job is not to be governor, or first lady in my case."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 10:26:16 GMT, Andy Howell
<andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk> wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

I have recently bought an Osprey Atmos 50 litre sack.

<fx: wild and enthusiastic cheering!!!>

Quoted message said:

This is brilliant and
lightweight but I haven't bought it to carry camping gear. I reckon that I
could get away with weekends using it with an Akto but it wouldn't be as
comfortable. As weight increases you can feel this pack beginning to move
away from your back. But I probably will use it for overnight camps in good
weather next summer.

Inspired by PW I'm currently thinking about next years TGO challenge.

You MUST do it! :-)))) G'won - enter - you'll love it! :-) We could
meet up in the Lairig Ghru and pull faces at the Big Grey Man! :-)))

People - if you want to enter the TGO Challenge for next year then you
need to buy the TGO that's just come out - the entry form is in it.

Quoted message said:

For
something like this I think comfort is important and - as you say - carrying
food and water makes a difference. I'm currently wondering whether to
investigate a 65 litre Osprey Aether pack which is designed for lightweight
hiking. But I will probably stay with my Osprey Crescent which is their top
of the range (weight wise) pack.

The Crescent works very well and is remarkably comfortable with lighter
loads. Whether the lighter Aether would make a difference I don't know. The
only way I could make a judgement would be to go into a store and load up
the two for comparisons.

If you look at packs concentrate on the comfort of the back systems and the
effectiveness of the hip belts.

Macpac, Osprey and Gregory (if you can find them) are all good packs. I
tend to stick with Osprey because I've found that they are superbly designed
and are nearly always pretty stable. But others speak highly of the other
bvrands.

Judith - borrow my Osprey Luna, and after that I have a Macpac 65L (I
think) women's sack that I bought years ago. Try that too.

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

//SigChanger V2.1.0 - Variable signatures

On 3/9/05 23:18, in article
[email hidden], "Adrian Fawcett"

Quoted message said:

The Crux rucksack is excellent - because it weighs so little and has
compression straps, it can be anything from a backpacking sack to a day
pack, and is very comfortable as either.

I bought one of these a couple of years ago and didn't get on with it. The
sack is certainly light but not that stable with big loads on long treks. I
do still use it for public transport accessed campsites though - because as
you said it can be stripped down to a daysack.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

To mail simply put back the dots ...

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:56:52 GMT, Andy Howell

andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk said:

On 4/9/05 19:23, in article [email hidden],

Peewiglet said:

You MUST do it! :-)))) G'won - enter - you'll love it! :-) We could
meet up in the Lairig Ghru and pull faces at the Big Grey Man! :-)))

How can I refuse - but who is this Grey man and what has he done to deserve
it?

Brilliant! :-))) Really, you must enter! <fx: wheedle!>

The Big Grey Man - he's a terrifying character... I'll send him round
to introduce himself ;-)

(Are you really entering??)

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

"More and more of our imports come from overseas."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/