Toughest Rucksac Ever?
It's matt black, it's rubbery and it's as tough as old boots. Karrimor's Boma might just be the butchest pack ever to hit the rock
Posted: 22 August 2002
by Jon
Every so often you come across a bit of kit that makes you go wow.
Walk into the reception of Karrimor's Accrington HQ and you'll do it
several times...
One reason is a cluster of rucksacs from history - the original
1964 Don Whillans Alpiniste sits on one wall, while directly opposite
a battered Alpiniste 65 with a scrawled signature turns out to be the
very same pack Stephen Venables took to the top of Everest when he
made the first British Ascent without oxygen back in 1988, and over
there's the elder statesman of Karrimor packs - an original, 1957
Pinnacle.
The first sac that Karrimor ever made, it's a simple canvas tube
that looks primitive now, but at the time was a cutting edge
development, being longer, closer fitting and more stable than
anything else around.
Mad Stealth Sac
The other thing that stops you dead in your tracks is the
mad-looking, mega-techy, matt black, futuristic sight of the new
Karrimor Boma pack. The one on the wall in reception actually bears
the legend 'Bomber', which is how it's pronounced, but Boma is the
real name. The misspelling came courtesy of faulty Korean
prognostication on a pre-production pack.
What makes the Boma really different is the fabric. Hypalon is a
thick, rubbery-feeling material that looks great, but also happens to
be massively tough - we reckon it's similar to the reinforcement used
by MHW on their mountain gloves. The result is a pack that ought to
be one of the toughest rucksacs ever made and looks it too.
Made from three weights of the super-tough fabric - they had to be
developed specially for the sac - the Boma's a technical climbing
pack closely based on the Alpiniste range, so it gets all the usual
stuff like a SuperCool back with Fformat malleable frame, padded
hip-belt with gear loops, wand pockets, compression straps and a big
haul loop for ease of use with gloves.
On top of that, there's a neat side-zipper entry on both sides of
the main compartment and a full-width outside pocket running right
down the back of the pack, which should take a snow shovel or several
large-format magazines.
It's got a fantastic, heavy duty industrial feel, an interesting,
slightly rubbery aroma, and should be ideal for hauling up rough
crags or simply hurling down scree slopes. It's available in a 45+10
normal version and a 30+10 ladies fit with re-designed geometry to
suit the female frame.
If there's a downside, it's that the heavy material means that the
Boma's not exactly light at 2550 grammes and 2250 grammes depending
on size, but if toughness is your main priority, you won't be that
bothered.
In the shops from next month, prices are £140 for the 45+10
version and £120 for the 30+10. It comes with Karrimor's
two-year Gold Star Guarantee, which means they'll repair it free of
charge no matter how you damage the pack and might just be the
toughest rucksac ever made...
We have a pre-production model on test now - which is great
because it's badged 'Bomber' rather than Boma, and we'll let you know
whether we manage to destroy it. This one could run and run...
Karrimor web
site
Discuss this story
Yeah, everyone knows that it's the bloke's job to carry the ropes and any heavy hardware, so it makes a certain amount of sense...
But seriously, I take your point. I'm not going to knock Karrimor for producing a women's specific rucksac - and they've done more than just tweaking the harness spacings btw, stuf like the curve of the hip-belt has been altered etc - but I suspect it's something that was developed on the hoof as the project devloped. The good thing is that there's a new Ladies Fit version of the Alpiniste S in a 45+10 size because one of the Karrimor testing team is Nancy Brookes and she specifically asked for one.
Most of the thinking behind the smaller capacity will simply be that women have shorter back lengths and consequently if you want to keep a technical sack close fitting and narrow, you end up losing capacity. If you look at Macpac's sacs, they're the same, the capacity varies acccording to the back length.
I'd also guess that realistically there's going to be quite a small market for a £120 women's specific, super tough, 30+10 technical climbing pack. Not that that's any excuse, but I'd guess retailers will be shifting more of the men's version.
Use it long enough and you'll associate the outdoors with the smell of... rubber. Perhaps there's scope for a whole range of 'olfactory friendly' packs with a choice of aromas, preferably not too 'Magic Tree' though. Ooops, we gone random.
Posted: 23/08/2002 08:29
OK on request from Dan I'll chuck my 2 pennorth in...
The relative size of the pack Bob and I carry depends on the activity and our level of expertise / qualifications, hang on, I'll give examples.
Climbing trip.
Bob is a 'proper' climber (SPA/MPA) and I just 'climb a bit' at a fairly easy level. He carries most of the gear, although I did carry the rope on a backpacking trip in May until my bad knee went and then Ben took it for me. (and on my ML-style training trip one of the group had a 'teensy-weensy' rucsac and another didn't feel very well so I carried the rope for 2 days) So, I often carry a rope, Bob carries the rack which is heavier.
Fellwalking.
This is my forte, so Bob has a little daypac with his lunch and waterproofs in and I have the 40 litre one with first aid kit, survival bag, sleeping bag for winter conditions, extra rations for the whole group etc.
Backpacking.
Bob and I both have large Lowe packs, but, as stated above, because the ND one is shorter, the capacity is correspondingly less. Having said that, I weigh less than 9 stone with skinny little arms and shoulders and Bob weighs much more and has huuuuge arm and shoulder muscles. If I carried the same weight as him I would be suffering from exhaustion while he would be skipping along. Of course, if we had the same size / strength ratio, it would be a more equal split.
How we split it is that he has the tent and I carry the food, wine, guidebooks, crockery and cutlery etc. Obviously as the trip goes on my pack gets lighter as my knee begins to give me gip so that's OK.
Understood all that? Good. I'll be asking questions later.....
First question - does this sound fair to you MEN?
Posted: 23/08/2002 09:19
A late entry on the women's sizing debate (and I'm afraid I also remember Jollity farm).
This is a matter close to my heart, and probably the reason why I let the guys go off to the top of Mont Blanc without me the other week. A third of my body weight is 17kg, and camping stuff, climbing stuff, cold weather stuff and lots of water comes to that or more - I simply couldn't safely climb with all that lot on my back, whereas the guys (all 6ft plus, 80kg plus)could. Women don't carry 30%less kit, there is only so much stuff that you can cut out, and only so much shared kit that can be given proportionately to the bigger members of the group. There comes a point when at 5' 4" and 8st you have to admit defeat.
I have a Pod Black Ice, which is 20% smaller than my husband's, but a) a bigger sack wouldn't have fitted and stayed close to my body , and b) I wouldn't have been able to carry it any distance anyway.
So I think that in principal women's fit sacks have to be smaller, but 30 +10 is no more than a big daysack. And as women probably take better care of their kit (or get the chance to use it less...?) the demand for a totally bombproof ladies sack has to be pretty small whatever the size.
And I totally agree that everyone ought to carry according to their size, weight and ability, so that everyone in a group can keep up the same pace. It seriously pisses me off trying to keep up with the guys sometimes (or in the case of MB deciding that something that is relatively safe for them just isn't for me), but at least I can beat most of them down a ski slope if I want to!
Posted: 29/08/2002 15:35
Karin (what a lovely name!) thank you for putting in another girl's viewpoint. Sometimes I feel really rotten when Bob carries more than me on a backpacking trip, but I am about the same size as you and once I had an 18Kg pack to Bob's 22Kg (and even then I felt guilty) and until we started eating some of the food and drinking the first litre of wine (a whole kilo in one fell swoop!), I was quite wobbly when crossing streams, my centre of gravity was all effed up.
We have improved since then by buying lightweight kit when it's been really cheap so we don't have to lug round a big fleece jacket and bulky, heavy shell any more.
On holiday this summer we were doing our usual diving-fest and the instructor guy was whinging about 'When I'm reincarnated I want to be a woman' because one girl on one of the dives claimed to be a wimp and asked if someone would carry out her kit for her (which I don't agree with, actually, she was no smaller than me and I always take my share).
He was 6'4" tall with huuuuuuuuuuge muscles and could carry two tanks without drawing breath. What's his problem? I would come back as a man, no doubt at all. I could buy mountaineering boots to fit me, I would be a lot stronger, and childbirth would be a spectator sport. And I could have fun with boobs.
Oh, and I know about the 'men work for 40 years and women have years and years off' remarks. I didn't, OK?
<rant mode off>
<small voice> sorry
Posted: 29/08/2002 16:03
See more comments...
|
|
