"Chris Gilbert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Gareth Crawshaw wrote
Quoted message said:Or something else if 65ltr isn't what I'm after...
I used to backpack with 75l and reached the same conclusion that a
lot of people reach which is you will fill all of the space that you
have available. If you by a bigger pack then you'll fill it without
necessarily improving the quality of your walk. I subsequently down-
siezed to a 65l pack with a noticeable improvement in walking quality
without feeling that I was skimping on my kit. I echo Paul's observation,
however, that if you are going to carry as little as you can get away
with then you should try and invest also in lightweight stuff. Polycotton
doesn't absorb as much water as cotton and it dries quicker. A small
gas stove is also desirable as well as single skin tent and a down
sleeping bag. Attention to detail like this is more likely to deliver
benefits than the absolute size of your pack.
For the record I went from a Karrimor Panther 75 to a Panther 65.
They're both perfectly serviceable bits of kit without being too
pricey. Whether you can still get hold of them is another matter !
Chris
I'd agree with those who say that the bigger the sac, the more stuff you'll
take. Size requirements clearly depend upon the bulkiness of your equipment,
and the types of food you take - but 75L IMHO would be far too much for a
few days, and you will fill it up. With 60L, which IMHO is plenty, there is
still a temptation is to take extra spare lucky just-in-case clothes. Things
that you won't always take, like rope/crampons would easily fit on the
outside, provided you've got decent webbing.
Another (somewhat contrary) solution is to go with an expandable system.
I've had a couple of excellent and very versatile Karrimors; both have had
zip-down sides that allow extension by a considerable amount (60-80 and
60-100). I only ever use the 60L "mode" when walking, but it's great knowing
that whatever you do, you can always fit everything in. At the moment, my
Independence is sitting on my landing with enough camping kit in it for my
family of four (minus clothes/food), including several ridiculous luxury
items. However, it does add weight to the rucksack itself (Independence =
3kg) and I've really only used the extra capacity for longer, international
trips, where I'll be base-camping (in this case taking my family to the
Pyrenees; though the principle also applied in the Himalayas and the
Adironacks, before my family was invented). I wouldn't ever walk with 100
litres of kit (unless it was 100L of polystyrene or popcorn), but it's
surprising how often having that capability has been really useful in an
enormous variety of ways. So expansion gives you much more versatility, and
has made a good all-round solution for me, but clearly it is a compromise
which lightweight purists would laugh at.
I'm currently adapting my philosophy to go as minimal as possible for some
fast and furious weekends, with the goal of longer-term bushcrafting. I
reckon I can now get everything I need for 2 comfortable
spring/summer/autumn nights *inside* a 38L day sack, though I've yet to
field-test this fully.
Ken.
