 been asked to give advice on a rucksac for travelling (12 months round the world type thing). It's a bit outside my scope really. Needs to be good build quality (a year's a long time!), carryable and open in a few more places than a technical backpacking or mountaineering sac. Anybody got any experience/favourites/ideas?
|
 |
 It's not exactly the best known pack but the Gregory Baltoro looks like the sort of thing you're looking for.
|
|
 Would it be worth having a look at some of the genuine army surplus websites - they seem to have quite a few large rucksacks (bigger than the usual backpacking ones) with plenty of useful pockets and I presume they have to be hardwearing ...
|
| Edited: 16/08/06 10:05 |
I'll take a look at the gregory - ex army's not a bad idea though I gather travelling with military looking equipment isn't always a bright idea - thanks. P.S. not named after dibidal on Rum by any chance? I spent three of the best weeks of my life on Rum many years ago.
|
|
I gather travelling with military looking equipment isn't always a bright idea
true ... although the plain green packs aren't too obvious - in fact I'm getting one myself to carry my painting gear which is in a wooden box resembling a bomb so I'm probably doomed ... :0
Named after Dibidal on Skye although I recently found out there is an equally lovely one on Rum. :)
|
|
|
|
|
 The Macpac stuff has a reputation for being built to last, if that's a help.
|
|
Iv`e been backpacking around the world with a pretty heavy pack (16-22kg) for 8 years now. And my first pack was a cheapy 80 litre thing, which for years did me fine.
Recently I have bought a Deuter Polaris for £65 from Mountain Warehouse. Its a 70+10 litre.
Several of my friends have the Lowe Alpine 65 litre bag. Like the Deuter, its very strong and will last for years and years.
I think they are cheap and Gaynors in Ambleside.
In my experience, I do not think that you need a bigger bag than 80 litre.
If you want a bigger one, I would recommend the Lowe Alpine 85+20. But its not cheap at around £110 I think.
Anyway...happy travelling!
|
|
 In case you're interested, I've got an excellent Osprey Luna (70L, I think) that I've only used on two trips. I don't take it backpacking now as I use a lighter pack, but for an extended trip of the sort you're describing I reckon it would be perfect.
It's actually a womans' model, but I'm never convinced that there's much difference. The blokes' equivalent is the Crescent.
See if you can try a Luna on locally, and if you like it and are interested then drop me a line. I'll do you a decent price :) It's currently sitting in the pile of things I'm getting ready to put on eBay.
|
|
There is quite a difference between men's and women's Osprey packs, but in general they are excellent products and although a little heavy would be ideal for a long trip.
|
|
Have you tried on a Luna, Dave? I've tried both the Luna and the Crescent, and I didn't detect much of a difference. Perhaps the differences would be more noticeable over the course of a day or more.
Then again, I was never able to detect much of a difference between the M and W Macpacs either. I know the various retailers can write down a significant list of differences - some of which seem like a bad idea to me, like (for instance) the narrower shoulder straps that some W packs have - but at the end of the day I reckon that the most important thing - as always - is just to fill it up, try it on and buy the comfy one. Blindfolds would probably be an advantage.
|
|
Yes Shirl, I've tried them both. The big differences are around the hips and between the shoulder blades. The Luna is generally narrower in both places than the Crescent.
|
|
I'd go for 60 litres max. You need no more for a 12 month trip than a 2 week trip. Post souvenirs home (believe me, even an 80 litre rucksack fills up fast if you are not careful in markets!).
Forget the idea of 'travel' packs. I went through two before I saw the light. Packs with panel loading access etc. are still an arse to get things out of and still crumple clothes. If you want easy access this is what suitcases are for, but I don't see many backpackers with suitcases (although to be honest for people that stick only to cities, don't know why they don't get a little wheely one-much more pratical).
Top loading packs are much more comfy.
Do not get one with a flap to protect the harness. I've never had the harness damaged and the flap things are a nightmare to get on anyway and add weight. If paranoid about luggage carosels get a big, light cheap duffle to put the pack in. As you can see I found 'travel' features annoying.
I dislike womens packs. The backlengths are always too short and a lot of brands only do a very limited range (of normally their heavier crappy packs).
Vaude packs look quite good at the moment-saw a load of lovely ones in Switzerland. Seemed v.well made, and adjustable (even the daysacks have adjustable shoulder pads and I was seriously impressed by the waterproof one). I'd make sure you try it on and load it up as PW suggests.
|
|
|
|
| Edited: 20/08/06 08:17 |
