Gear

I have a bog standard Vango 50L rucksack. It's not the most comfortable beast in the world but still weighs 2100g. I'm thinking when I'm swapping gear to save 100g here and there with the aim of a pack weight of about 12kg then the rucksack its-self is a whopping 1/6 of my overall weight and if I could lighten it then I wouldn't have to shed so much other stuff.

Can anyone recommend a rucksack (that isn't too expensive) that would save me some weight but still be comfy? Or is it just the fact that with comfort comes weight.

Jonno

in the classifieds is a Go-lite Breeze ultralite pack. It's only £20 inc p&p

It might be worth a punt just to see if you like that sort of pack.

Or is it just the fact that with comfort comes weight.

It depends what the weight is spent on.  If you're carrying a moderate to heavy load then there is often considerable advantage in a semi-rigid frame that transfers the weight to a big, padded hip belt, as that gets the weight off your shoulders (which aren't used to it) and onto your hips (which are).  That costs grammes, but the end result is still more comfortable (or at least it is if it's done well, it might not be!).

On the other hand, if you add to weight by using a really thick/tough fabric, adding lots of pockets and widgets and so on, then that will add to the weight while doing nothing for comfort (quite the reverse).

IMHO the best way to assess comfort is try a load of things on with apposite weights inside.  A harness that works well for Tom might not be right for Dick and Harry might be ambivalent, it's all down to your own shape against the pack's.

You should be able to save a bit of weight while not sacrificing anything in the way of durability or useful features.  For example, my wife's Macpac Pursuit is 50l, bombproof, comfortable and 1.75 Kg (still not light, but lighter than 2.1 Kg and that's a full-featured climbing pack with a proper harness system) .  Other, lighter designs may be superficially more comfortable but lose their edge when you start adding more kit.

Pete.

Jonno, try the Karrimor Alpiniste 45+10 thats in the F&T sale (£60) 1300g so not super lightweight but a decent backsystem and hipbelt so it should manage a 12kg load. It's a bit tall./narrow though as it's primarily a climbing sack.

http://www.fieldandtrek.com/karrimor-alpiniste-45-10-pack-714125

You can always send it back if you don't like it, no problem in that respect with F&T.

I have one and can recommend it, still made like the old Karrimor stuff unlike much of the rubbish wearing the Karrimor name. 

Frum wrote (see)

Here's an evil thought.  Others have pointed out that 12kg is too heavy to be comfortable in a frameless pack.  True.   So how about getting a frameless pack as an incentage to lighten the rest of your kit as well. 

Possibly because 12kg is a perfectly reasonable load to want to carry depending on the nature of the trip, your personal preferences, and indeed, your budget....

For that sort of weight though, I'd certainly be looking at framed packs. Personal comfort does vary - I've never found an Osprey pack that's comfortable on me, and I find Crux hipbelts not supportive enough for 12kg but I know of other folk who do, and OMM backlengths are too short for me.

My successes have been with these:

Haglofs LIM 45 - weighs 1kg, will carry 12 - 15kg very comfortably

Aarn Peak Aspiration (45 litres) - weighs about 1.6kg (including integral waterproof liner), also fine up to 15kg

POD Black Ice (53 litres, size 3) - weighs 1.7kg, carrys 15kg very comfortably and 20kg+ if / when necessary.

Of those, the Aarn is most probably going to be the cheapest if Outdoor Warehouse still have stock on offer (no current importer from NZ afaik)

I'm also looking at getting a lighter (probably framed) rucksack. Apart from the Osprey Exos 46/58 and Haglofs LIM sacks, the ones coming out this year that have caught my attention are:

Lowe Alpine Nanon /Zepton - weighing about 1.1-1.3kg and carrying 50/60 litres

Lightwave Ultrahike - weighing about 1.2kg and carrying 60 litres

Don't think either are available yet, and probably going to be ~£120-140 when they do come out, but should knock off a fair bit of weight to what i have at the moment.

The Haglofs LIM 45 is a great pack, quite a generous 45 I think although the shape may have a bearing on the effective capacity. It's currently my favourite although I don't find the hip belt particularily supportive once the weight is up around 10kg. Leaning forward with the shoulder straps loose I can tighten the hipbelt right up but the pack tends to drag/twist the belt down and back when I stand upright, I think it could do with being a bit stiffer where it attaches to the pack.

It's still worth trying though. It's a great pack if you use a CCF sleeping mat, as it doesn't have a curved back the mat can be rolled loosely inside and everything packed inside the roll. It helps keep the pack in shape and using a CCF mat will save another few hundered grams.  

   So how about getting a frameless pack as an incentage to lighten the rest of your kit as well. 

Those Lowe packs look interesting, the old external frame packs worked on a similar principle, a very light pack with a very stiff frame. I have an old Karrimor Annapurna ext frame pack which has a massive capacity but only weighs 1400g, not bad for a 25 year old pack. The pack is pretty light nylon but the frame takes the weight.

granite gear vapor trail

I chose it because I like to carry all the weight of my pack on my hips and at the time it was the lightest pack I could find which worked for me.

Some of the old Karrimor sacks were 1.5kg or less but were still there main product line / top of the range load luggers. I have met people still using 20 year old 70litre sacks by Karrimor that are less than 1.5kg. All I am saying is that the rucksack manufacturers haven't been improving things just been working their way back to gear that we really want. I mean all I want for a sack is a comfortable carry. That means some means to carry the kit I need to carry that transfers weight to the hips. If you came across a sack that carried 70 litres easily, had a fully adjustable back system, transfers weight mainly to the hips, had user friendly pockets and two separate sack compartments and weighed about the same as or less than most walkers daysacks how much more would you need? If you could travel back to the 80s then Karrimor were making sacks like that.

Back to the present day, does anyone know why sacks are so heavy? Does anyone actually prefers to carry about 1 kg too much weight? Do you really need those 7 pockets or special pole carrying bungees that allow you to stow on the move? A radical idea for the original poster is to look at his 2.1kg sack and ask himself is there anything on the sak that he doesn't use that could be taken off? OMM actually sell sacks with the suggestion to cut stuff off.

Johnno,

 for the weight you are going to carry, a light pack if it means a bad hip belt will not be worth it, or at least it would not be for me. I do not like weight on my shoulders, hips are for carrying weight.

 According to research a sack with balance pockets like Aarn body packs can carry the same load with less effort. The point of lightening everything is less effort so it is worth carrying a heavier pack if it results in neutral balance which stops you leaning forward and can take all weight of your shoulders if you wish. Extrapolating the research if the balance pack weighs 0.5 kilo more than the alternative you need to carry about 5 kilo to make it worth the more energy efficient pack.

 you're a  tease frum

"So really the saving of .5-1kg could actually be significantly less comfortable if the rucksack has no system to distribute weight to the hips." absolutely correct. it could be absolute hell!!

frameless or very light packs are designed for light loads. at around 8kg or so they begin to struggle - personal preference aside. heavier packs will tend to have proper back and hip load systems in place albeit all this has a tendency to come at a cost.

if the pack likes you and you like it any actual pack weight difference will disappear in the comfort carry - 10kg in my omm32 is hell compared to the same weight in any of the gregory packs i've used.

i'd second what peter said.

you can get a lighter pack than you have but if doing so i would really stress getting one that is really, really comfy for you. i find osprey packs uncomfortable. i like gregory packs, a lot - 12-14kg no problem in great comfort.

to get really good carry comfort you would probably be looking at slicing about 500g at most of your current pack. if it's comfortable to carry you just won't notice an extra kilo or two.

I personally use an old Berghaus Extrem range of alpine climbing sacks for my backpacking (think it was called the Alpin Extrem and was the first one of the Extrem range to come out many years ago). Since it is basically just a single compartment sack with two allow staves (removable) for load transfer it is actually quite light. Being a climbing sack it is also bombproof. I think I got it because it was one of the best buys in a magazine. Back then one of the tests involved throwing it off a crag so it bounced off the rock then dragging it up on the end of a rope using just the grab loop not three points of support. All pointless tests really but show how tough it is despite it being a 50l +10l capacity sack weighing about 1300g.

My point is you can find simple sacxks that carry loads well (mine carried 25kg comfortably before I lightened my load to 9kg to 18kg depending on trip). This was bought as a winter day sack that could also be used some time in the future to do hut to huts or YHA trips or the odd backpacking trip with light gear (which I was planning to buy way back then).

Rather than concentrate on weight try looking at function and fit. I mean how do you use the sack? Do you need two compartments weighing more? Do you actually need side pockets? My preference is for a straight through sack with no pockets except a large lid pocket and a very simple fixed back system (must fit you well though which means length of back to match your length of back). I think a good design of hipbelt is also important but you don't always need that much padding in it that a lot of backpacking sacks have.

One thing to note is that Berghaus came out with the Sentinal which is probably the closest sack in their range to my old one. It weighs a lot because of the extras in it. The internal drybag for example is a bombproof liner. A simple Pod dry bag is much lighter. Or my preference is a load of the Outdoor Research sil-nylon dry bags. They are much better than the competition and lighter too. Outdoor Warehouse in Windermere sell them qute cheaply really. Plus they're a brand that is increasing its market presence in the UK.

JonnoS www.ni-wild.co.uk wrote (see)

So really the saving of .5-1kg could actually be significantly less comfortable if the rucksack has no system to distribute weight to the hips.

It's all about fit isn't it? I think of shoes/boots in the same way as packs. 

You'll get lots of suggestions on here, it's great for ideas but they're all other people's favourites.  Everyone has their own preference and you'll only find your 'perfect' pack by trying them on, preferably packed with your own kit.

I've heard Mike fae Dundee talk about 'wearing' his lightweight pack - it's a different  way of carrying and I guess if it suits you and your pack is 'light' it'll work fine. But that's not the case for the OP.  At the other end of the scale, if you're carrying a 'significant' weight (and that's going to depend on your size and strength) it's better to carry it on your hips. 

The Vapor Trail is half the weight of your current pack - all the weight is in the belt and back support - and it should take the weight you carry - all completely useless info if you don't like the pack, the price or the fit