 Re the GoLite Trek, this link will take you to some of the reviews that helped me make my choice:
http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/Packs/Frameless%20Backpacks%20and%20Day%20Packs/GoLite_Trek/
BTW - (possible dumb question alert) What is a daisy chain for? How's it used?
|
 |
It's basically for carrying bits and pieces of climbing gear which can be attached via a karabiner - I know, I know, fat lot of good that is to a backpacker but that's the mentality of many pack designers.
I must admit I fall into the camp of preferring a slightly heavier pack for the stability and comfort it affords. For many years, a long time ago, I used one of the very first ultralight packs. It was called a Jensen Pack, made by the Rivendell Mountain Works ( I kid ye not!) in the US. It was a wonderful pack but it was a bugger to pack and if you took your waterproofs out in the course of the day the whole pack literally collapsed. I find many modern lightweight packs similar. Give me a pack in which I can stuff my gear any way I think fit, and still carry it with comfort and stability.
I currently use an excellent Gregory Palisades for big trips and an Arcteryx pack, which weighs about 4lbs (under 2k) for summer trips. I rarely carry more than 15-20 lbs in summer and rarely more than 25lbs in winter for a typical weekend trip. If I want to go ultralite I use a Berghaus Cyclops Lite. It's not ideal but it is lightweight and is a step in the right direction from a UK manufacturer.
|
|
 I think the key is to use a pack that will comfortably support the weights you carry. If you only have one pack this must support the heaviest load you're likely to carry. I regularly use three packs - the GoLite Gust for loads up to 30lbs/14kg, the ULA P-2 for loads from 30lbs/14kg to 42lbs/20kg and the Dana Designs Astralplane for loads above 42lbs/20kg. The Astralplane weighs 7lb 2oz/3.23kg and holds 115 litres. It's by far the most comfortable pack I've ever carried. I've had it 12 years and it's proved very tough. I mostly use it on winter ski touring trips in remote areas where a week or more's food has to be carried. If I only had one pack it would be the Astralplane.
|
|
 DavidG
I think the less weight I carry, the better it is for my joints (well everything), I’m less likely to hurt myself and it leads to more actual enjoyment. In a nutshell, it’s all about giving my body as easy a time as possible. The only major saving I think I’ve got left at the moment is the actual rucksack. Hopefully experience will allow smaller savings along the way.
Cameron
Perhaps you could share a typical kit list with us. I’m going to struggle to achieve your weights but I’m happy to try. My body keeps whispering, ‘listen to Cameron’.
Chris
I bow to your superior body. At the moment I doubt my 'dodgy' foot could take that weight for any prolonged period.
Thanks for taking the time to make this thread interesting - does this mean the next edition will be late!
|
|
And before anyone says anything; I suffered a tear in the plantar fascia of my right foot playing badminton, not walking.
|
|
 I take the point about lighter weight packs but I'm more interested in something that takes weight in its stride.
Chris mentioned the Crux sacks. I bought their 75 litre model for three weeks in the Pyrenees last year; I didn't get on with it very well I'm afraid. It is a cavernous 75 litres and is kind of stretchy which means that you can stuff a lot in it but it is not really comfortable.
This year, for a return to the Pyrenees, I bought an Osprey Crescent 75 which I found to be superb. As Cameron said this is not the lightest of tents but it worked well on the trail. The design and performance meant that this was inherently more comfortable than the Crux.
The last time I used the Crux was to take winter camping equipment to Snowdonia. Great for that. But once the walking started it was left behind.
|
|
 Andy
Interesting about your experience with the Crux. I am wondering if the AK75 lacks support etc in terms of it's relatively large volume or if it was the actual fit that didn't suit, or a combination. I have an AK50 which I find moderately comfortable but I don't think I would like to use the larger Crux packs long term. At the moment I find the AK50 a great all rounder - for 3 to 4 day trips my total pack weight is between 7 and 8 kg excluding food and water, a bit heavier in winter. I have just bought a Gregory G pack for my wife and have used it once and it felt very comfortable - seemed like it was floating on my back once I got it set up properly. However, it would not appear to be as sturdy as the Crux and not really suitable for winter use.
|
|
I've noticed that it is difficult to get the AK75 now and wonder whether feedback has not been that good. When I first had the pack I thought it was the most comfortable I had ever used! But continued use gave a different impression.
This pack has an aluminum frame which seems to be reasonable enough but I think the biggest problem is that it is difficult to get the weight in the pack close to the pack. It often feels very unstable at just the time you want some stability.
I suspect the lack of rigidity in the pack material doesn't help much.
It's fine for lugging stuff to a base camp but not for days of trekking.
|
|
I haven't used the AK75 so I can't comment on it. I did try the A70, an earlier incarnation and found it okay with 15kg loads. Overall though I'd say that if you're filling a 75 litre sack then you're carrying a fair weight and so need a supportive harness. Lightweight loads tend to be fairly low bulk too.
Andy comments that the AK57 is unstable and that it's difficult to get the weight close to the back. I've found this with a number of 70+ litre packs with a narrow and thin alpine design. With large packs I find a wider design that doesn't rise much above the head is more stable and comfortable. Crux packs are all alpine ones, designed for climbing rather than backpacking. The ULA P-2 and the Dana Designs Astralplane have a squarer, wider shape that looks bulkier and clumsier but is actually more stable and comfortable.
|
|
Chris has hit the nail on the head. British pack manufacturers use alpine packs, or climbing packs, as their base design. That's not too surprising. Who, for example, does Berghaus sponsor - Bonington, Hinkes, Houlding, and a German climber whose name I can't recall. All climbers so all the advice that's given is based on their experience of climbing or mountaineering. Backpacking packs are different beasts entirely, the nuances of which escape most of our manufacturers. But not the Americans, because backpacking is more popular in the States, arguably more popular than climbing. That's why the real development of this kind of pack comes from the likes of Gregory, Dana, Osrey and the newer lightweight pack companies like ULA or Go-lite.
Chris and I have pestered the outdoor trade about this for years but as President and Vice President of the Backpackers Club I guess most manufacturers just expect it from us and generally ignore our pleas. Incidentally, if anyone wants good practical advice on backpacking gear come along to a Backpackers Club weekend. I know folk there who spend the entire weekend discussing the merits, and otherwise, of gear. Difference is these folk use the gear every weekend. Check out www.backpackersclub.co.uk
I'll do a list of my own gear as soon as I get a chance - just packing now for a weekend in the Cairngorms, in the rain!
|
|
I’m packing to do the Offa’s Dyke Path. Start tomorrow, so possibly two weeks in the rain! It was planned for earlier in the year but had to postpone at the last minute. I’m a member of the Backpackers Club (unless I’ve missed to pay a sub). Yet to make a meet though - need to overcome my dislike of crowds. Assume this thread will have long since died of natural causes by the time I return, but hey, I’ll have fun reading all the new ones. Thanks for all the info and all the best to those out this weekend. <picks up coat and thinks of Prestatyn>
|
|
A whole weekend discussing the merits of gear!
And I thought that only happened on uk.rec.walking!
It's certainly more acceptable in cyberspace than in real open country space!
|
|
Depends what turns you on I guess...
|
|
 It is a pity that my alpine-esque Karrimor is built to withstand the force of a nuclear explosion.
I would love an excuse to check out the Dana, Osprey or Gregory ranges, but I
see it giving out anytime soon.
|
|
I've been using the Golite Gust for the last 18 months or so. I'm genuinely very happy with it, but it took me a while to accept its limitations. For a weekend trip I find it really very comfortable indeed – much more so than my old ~75L Berghaus (I'd concur with Chris about the 14kg confort limit). I find it's fine for a week too, although it may be slightly overloaded for the first day or too until I've eaten my way through the bulging food bag in the extension collar.
I love simplicity of the Gust, and like the fact that the load is close to your back (although this can be a distinct disadvantage on a hot day!).
I do often catch myself yearning for big mesh pockets on the sides and a large zipped pocket on top, so I guess I'm not cut out for the true minimalist sentiment!
|
|
Oddly, the most minimalist packs, like the GoLite Breeze, do have mesh pockets on the back and sides. What they lack are frames, back padding and hipbelts. The Gust was originally designed as a climbing sack hence the lack of mesh pockets but has became popular with walkers who want an ultralight sack but also a hipbelt and a padded back. The GoLite Trek has the same back system as the Gust plus mesh side and back pockets and a detachable lid with a zipped pocket. I used a Trek on a 500 mile walk in the High Sierra and found it okay, though I did tape foam pads to the hipbelt, as I carried 23kg at one point (ten days food). My Trek is too roomy - it wasn't full with ten days food in but was too heavy for the suspension system. Current ones are slightly smaller - 64 litres for the medium back length (the Gust is 59 litres). The medium Trek weighs 910 grams (medium), the medium Gust 70 grams. GoLite say the maximum comfort weight is 15kg, with which I agree.
|
|
Chris, just been re-reading your chapter on Oren and Superfeet in "The Advanced Backpacker". It makes so much sense.
Do you have anything to add to what you said in that chapter? Do the Brasher Rapids you used on the TGO Challenge fit in this scheme? There is a Oren fitter here in Somerset, but they don't seem to have a vast range of boots, and I assume a decent range is key to getting a suitable boot? Can you recommend any particular shop/fitter?
|
|
John, I haven't much to add to that chapter (glad you like it, by the way). There are new methods for shaping boots to your feet but the basic principles haven't changed.
There are many good boot fitters but I don't know any in Somerset. There is a list of stockists at http://www.anatom.co.uk/dealers_page.html
This gives the Superfeet level of training - no dealers in Somerset are listed as having any training at all!
The Brasher Rapids do fit into the scheme - I use Superfeet in them. My feet are generally Brasher footwear shaped so Brasher boots & shoes usually fit me well.
The more boots a shop stocks the more chance there is of finding ones that fit properly.
|
|
