Ultralight rucksacks: perspective?

Peewiglet said:

I've been trying to reduce the weight of the stuff ........

However, I'm now wondering about my rucksack. I've been reading about
lighter rucksacks, and I was in the process of gearing myself up for
the purchase either of a ULA P-2 or a Golite Infinity. However, this
weekend I wanted to go up to the Lakes to camp and so I made do with
my Macpac Pursuit.

Macpacs are really lovely rucksacks - I have 3... <blush>... but
no-one could really call them light. .........

Earlier this week I tried a North Face Terra 40 and a Lowe Alpine
Walkabout 45, as I'd been reading the review of 40-50 litre sacks in
TGO magazine. ....

Quoted message said:

This weekend has caused me to reconsider my options re: lightweight
40-50 litre backpacking. Improvements in kit in terms of both weight
and size are so considerable over the last 10 years or so that I don't
think I actually need to sacrifice comfort for the sake of a kilo,
when it comes to my rucksack. .........

What do other backpackers think about this? I'm all in favour of
reducing weight - for all the obvious reasons - but I'm interested to
know how others define the line between weight and comfort.

Well.... My partner and I usually manage with about 35 and 40 litres
respectively. We don't camp, but those packs carry everything for a two-week
hotel-to-hotel walking trip.

I have been disappointed with pack development over the years. When our old
35litre Karrimor got to the point of replacement it was darned hard to find
something which didn't weigh a lot more empty, or had excessively padded
waist belts which don't fit very thin people (they are too looonnng). We
eventually found a Macpac Geko at a similar weight, and after contacting
Macpac in NZ, arranged to have a short-back variant despatched to the local
Macpac stockist.

Similarly, I've been looking to replace the 40 litre pack, and have been
disappointed; its either a handful of ultra-light packs with virtually no
padding or structure (really not convinced they will be comfortable), or
something which weighs an extra 500g to 1kg over what I currently carry.
Considering I've been thinking of replacing a 35mm camera (around 750gms)
purely on weight reasons, putting it back immediately with a new pack seems
the height of stupidity.

I note that the recent TGO test of packs reported an average weight rise
over previous year's tests.
Many items of gear have improved a lot in recent years; weight, cut,
breathability, smell reduction, etc.
But, I'm still waiting for the "vast improvement" in pack design to happen.
Or I'm looking in the wrong places.

- Nigel

--
NC - Webmaster for http://www.2mm.org.uk/
Replies to newsgroup postings to the newsgroup please.

NC said:

But, I'm still waiting for the "vast improvement" in pack design to
happen. Or I'm looking in the wrong places.

Golite Infinity. Very light, internal frame, not cheap.
http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/news/article/mps/UAN/2687/v/1/sp/3289863367
02362356614

Oh yes, very comfortable to wear.

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

* The air of uk.rec.walking was filled with the delicate perfume
* of violets, as Peewiglet <[email hidden]> descended on a shaft
* of golden sunlight, and announced:

Quoted message said:

However, I'm now wondering about my rucksack. I've been reading about
lighter rucksacks, and I was in the process of gearing myself up for
the purchase either of a ULA P-2 or a Golite Infinity. However, this
weekend I wanted to go up to the Lakes to camp and so I made do with
my Macpac Pursuit.

http://www.gossamergear.com

Is an interesting site that has details of an 'ultralight'(16oz) pack you
can make yourself, for loads of 30lbs or less. On the site are details of
other lightweight gear.

Regards: Jim Ford

Peewiglet said:

I'm just wondering what y'all think about this, as I'm trying to
decide the best way forward and like to know what other people think.

I've been trying to reduce the weight of the stuff that I carry on
backpacking trips.

Here's a different approach: find a friend to go with. If it's solitude
you're after then clearly nul points for this approach and don't worry
further about it, but if it's viable than 2 people can travel rather
lighter than 1. If Roos and I are out with the Spacepacker that's 900g
each where you have 1.5 Kg (a Laser would be quite a bit less than
that), we only need 1 stove between the two of us so that's half the
weight there. Anything than can be shared generally comes out better,
one first aid pack rather than two, and so on.

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/

On 17/10/04 5:12 pm, in article [email hidden],

Peewiglet said:

What do other backpackers think about this? I'm all in favour of
reducing weight - for all the obvious reasons - but I'm interested to
know how others define the line between weight and comfort

I would advise some caution here. Lightweight packs (in general) are not so
good at carrying heavier weights and so it depends on what you are doing.

I tried the ultralight route that year and bought a Crux 70 litre. At first
I thought this was the best pack I had ever owned but it just didn't cope
with life in the field. For this summer I bought an Osprey Crescent 75
which, like Macpac, are not the lightest but it works superbly.

Since then I have bought a 36 litre Osprey for more general use. The Trail
test reckons this is good but too heavy. But this pack copes with real
weight and - in all honesty - it is not too heavy.

The most important thing is what you feel comfortable in. When you try a
pack get the store to load them up with as much weight as they can (usually
those bean bag things). If you get anywhere near 15kg then don't go too
light. Personally, I think it is easy to get very light for a weekend or in
the high summer. But trek for longer and you may have to carry more food,
etc., which makes a big difference.

As for the Thermorest, there are several styles, some heavier than others.
But before you buy something else try putting a foam mat underneath your
Thermorest and see if that works; this is something that people do when the
ground is colder in the winter and you may find that it helps.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

I been using a lightweight rucksack for the past couple of years, I started
out with a GoLite Gust then a G4 (Gossamer Gear earlier model) homemade and
now a GoLite Trek.

All 3 of these packs are good with weighs around the 25 pounds make and can
be overloaded for short periods of time, like carrying provisions for a
couple of miles.

I`ve used the packs all year round but find that the G4 is better suited to
Summer and the Trek for Winter.

Tents used are a Hilly Nallo or TN Solar plus Rab 800 sleeping pad or
Coleman Bumbusa.

Sleeping pad is either a T-A-R ultralight or the POE Max-Thermo.

My backpacking weight is normally 18-20 pounds before food and water.

Geo

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

Quoted message said:

Hi there,

I'm just wondering what y'all think about this, as I'm trying to
decide the best way forward and like to know what other people think.

I've been trying to reduce the weight of the stuff that I carry on
backpacking trips. I have a light tent (Akto) and a light, small
sleeping bag (Marmot Hydrogen), a tiny stove (Primus Micron) and light
pots (MSR titanium jobbies). I can't sleep properly on a Thermarest,
so I'm willing to carry more weight/size in the hope that I can find
myself a workable mattress. All of this makes sense to me.

However, I'm now wondering about my rucksack. I've been reading about
lighter rucksacks, and I was in the process of gearing myself up for
the purchase either of a ULA P-2 or a Golite Infinity. However, this
weekend I wanted to go up to the Lakes to camp and so I made do with
my Macpac Pursuit.

Macpacs are really lovely rucksacks - I have 3... <blush>... but
no-one could really call them light. However, I found that when I
packed my weekend kit into the Pursuit (old style) I was really
carrying a very light sack. I've not weighed it, but I'd be very
surprised indeed if any backpacker found it any sort of a burden.
Every time I picked it up I basked in the realisation that it was much
lighter and compact than the sack I carried recently on the Pennine
Way.

Significantly, though, it's also extremely comfortable. It fits me
perfectly (I got the women's model, probably about 5 or 6 years ago),
and it has a luxuriously padded waistband and back.

Earlier this week I tried a North Face Terra 40 and a Lowe Alpine
Walkabout 45, as I'd been reading the review of 40-50 litre sacks in
TGO magazine. I liked them both, but I was struck by how the back on
the Terra 40 was really quite minimalist in comparison with what I've
become used to. It caused me to wonder what they might feel like on
sacks that really do purport to be lightweight. I wasn't sure it would
be comfortable enough

This weekend has caused me to reconsider my options re: lightweight
40-50 litre backpacking. Improvements in kit in terms of both weight
and size are so considerable over the last 10 years or so that I don't
think I actually need to sacrifice comfort for the sake of a kilo,
when it comes to my rucksack. When I think of how I - 10 years
younger and therefore stronger, more flexible etc - used to struggle
with a 60 litre rucksack on the way up to Sprinkling Tarn, I thank
whatever Gods are responsible for making the task so much easier in
the intervening period!

What do other backpackers think about this? I'm all in favour of
reducing weight - for all the obvious reasons - but I'm interested to
know how others define the line between weight and comfort.

Best wishes,
--
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \

Quoted message said:

I tried the ultralight route that year and bought a Crux 70 litre. At

first

Quoted message said:

I thought this was the best pack I had ever owned but it just didn't cope
with life in the field.

I've been looking at these Crux sacs for myself. The weight figures are
excellent but they do seem to have quite thin material. What was your
experience with the Crux?

Cheers, Jiffy

On 19/10/04 12:42 am, in article [email hidden],

Jiffy said:

I've been looking at these Crux sacs for myself. The weight figures are
excellent but they do seem to have quite thin material. What was your
experience with the Crux?

To be honest, very mixed. Last year I needed a new large sack and I bought
a 70 litre Crux to take with me to the Pyrenees. In the shop I thought it
was the best pack I had ever worn!

This is a cavernous pack that can take a lot of stuff; the material is
almost stretchy. But I think this is the main problem as it is very
difficult to keep the contents close to your back. The hip belt system
doesn't work with loads of about 15 kg. The three weeks I spent in the
mountains with this pack were absolute murder! I bought a new pack this
year for a return to the Pyrenees. I went for an Osprey Crescent 75 which,
like the Macpacs, are not the lightest of packs. A little heavier perhaps
but these packs deal far more effectively with a weighty-ish load.

Since then I have used it only once, at Easter when it was still cold and I
wanted to take the kitchen sink to a campsite in Capel Curig. Once there I
could remove half of the hip belt and remove the frame from the sack and I
had a very light day sack and this works reasonably well.

I've since been told that this pack is aimed at climbers. All I can say is
that I wouldn't want to be climbing with something as unstable as this on my
back!

I haven't seen this big pack in the stores for ages; either people are not
carrying it or a new model is on the way. The smaller sacks do look a
better bit for hills and mountains; they are very light.

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen this big pack in the stores for ages; either people are not
carrying it or a new model is on the way. The smaller sacks do look a
better bit for hills and mountains; they are very light.

Yeah, the 70l one is no longer in the range but it's still sold by a few
retailers. I had been looking at that and the big Pod Sacs. I think I'm
leaning towards a Pod Sac now but I'll check out the Ospreys too. They are
heavier than the likes of Crux and Pod but still not bad.

Cheers, Jiffy

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:12:54 +0100, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I'm just wondering what y'all think about this, as I'm trying to
decide the best way forward and like to know what other people think.

pw, I think you've pretty much answered your own question, praps
without realising it ;-) Well, I reckon anyway.

Its all about comfort, yes? The idea of going "lite" or "ultralite" is
fundamentally to increase comfort... I doubt seriously if anyone does
it to increase the privations they endure ;-) In this context its
seesm you've stumbled upon your own answer to your quest for a
comfortable 'sac that you're happy with.

jealous, moi?
;-)

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

NC said:

Well.... My partner and I usually manage with about 35 and 40 litres
respectively. We don't camp, but those packs carry everything for a two-week
hotel-to-hotel walking trip.

No offence, but your preferred modus operandii (sic.) has little to
compare with backpacking in the sense the pw is talking about. Despite
the similarities on the face of things, underneath it all there's a
true world of difference.

Quoted message said:

I have been disappointed with pack development over the years.

The 'sac market is tailored toward aethetics, 'looking the part'
<koff!> rather than functionality.

Quoted message said:

But, I'm still waiting for the "vast improvement" in pack design to happen.
Or I'm looking in the wrong places.

You are, in some respects, but it depends on what you're looking for
and the uses you want to put it to. I don't mean that to sound a
vacuous repetition of the obvious. Ultimately, what I mean is you are
looking in "not quite the right places" but the lengths you need to go
to find your "holy grail" might not be worth the effort for your end
needs. Make sense?

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:29:12 GMT, Andy Howell

andy.howellNOSPAM@ecotrendDOTorgDOTuk said:

Osprey Crescent 75 which,

Quoted message said:

I've since been told that this pack is aimed at climbers. All I can say is
that I wouldn't want to be climbing with something as unstable as this on my
back!

Reckon you've been spun a yarn, that's not a "climbing" 'sac
(expedition poss, but not climbing).

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

SteveO said:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 07:29:12 GMT, Andy Howell

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Osprey Crescent 75 which,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I've since been told that this pack is aimed at climbers. All I can say is
that I wouldn't want to be climbing with something as unstable as this on my
back!

Quoted message said:

Reckon you've been spun a yarn, that's not a "climbing" 'sac
(expedition poss, but not climbing).

I think he meant the Crux, not the Osprey...

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:

I think he meant the Crux, not the Osprey...

ah

<doh!>
;-)

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

SteveO said:

Its all about comfort, yes? The idea of going "lite" or "ultralite" is
fundamentally to increase comfort...

Indeed. An ultralight sack only makes sense if you don't pack too much
stuff in it. If you want to carry half a ton of gear, a heavier
sturdier sack will be better.

My Infinity feels great with 10kg in it, not so good with 15kg in it
(they say 15kg is the limit but I don't feel happy putting that much
in).

Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
http://www.wildwales.fsnet.co.uk

In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

My Infinity feels great with 10kg in it, not so good with 15kg in it
(they say 15kg is the limit but I don't feel happy putting that much
in).

One third of your own weight should be the recommended max (I think)

Anyway 15kg is a bit heavy and you wouldn't like it.
--
Bill Grey
http://www.billboy.co.uk

On 19/10/04 10:24 am, in article [email hidden],

Jiffy said:

Yeah, the 70l one is no longer in the range but it's still sold by a few
retailers. I had been looking at that and the big Pod Sacs. I think I'm
leaning towards a Pod Sac now but I'll check out the Ospreys too. They are
heavier than the likes of Crux and Pod but still not bad.

I would really leave the Crux behind if you're looking at that size. I
looked at the Pods as well; quite liked them. I'm very impressed with the
Ospreys, the design really does hold the contents close to the centre of the
back. Also, the zip which runs the length of the bag proved to be a great
bonus. Some people have not been sure about the detachable day sack and
detachable lid/bum bag. I used both of these in the summer and found them
to be quite useful. The solo daysack, for example, can carry a waterproof,
first aid kit, lunch and also has a section for a hydration bladder! I've
used Macpacs a lot in the past. The Ospreys are as tough as the Macs and
(for me at least) are more comfortable. Osprey sell their packs in three
back sizes, S,M & L and don't rely on adjustable backs - which seems to be a
decent thing!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

On 19/10/04 11:35 am, in article [email hidden],

SteveO' SteveO said:

NC said:

Well.... My partner and I usually manage with about 35 and 40 litres
respectively. We don't camp, but those packs carry everything for a two-week
hotel-to-hotel walking trip.

No offence, but your preferred modus operandii (sic.) has little to
compare with backpacking in the sense the pw is talking about. Despite
the similarities on the face of things, underneath it all there's a
true world of difference.

Almost an understatement that! Carrying tents, equipment and food makes
this almost a completely different pastime!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK

On 19/10/04 11:50 am, in article [email hidden],

SteveO' SteveO said:

Reckon you've been spun a yarn, that's not a "climbing" 'sac
(expedition poss, but not climbing).

My fault, I should have said expedition. If by that people mean just taking
things to camp and the back again I can understand that, indeed, it was good
for that at Easter. But, in all honesty, it wasn't really any better than
any other good sized back - and it was bloody uncomfortable!

--
Andy Howell
Birmingham, UK