Rucksack for backpacking - where to begin?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Tall Clare 09 Mar 2015
(hope this is in the right forum)

We've been discussing backpacking lately, and have a three day trip to somewhere relatively remote in Scotland (details to be confirmed) pencilled in for a couple of months time. Whilst I have many rucksacks, I'm not sure I have one that's suitable, so I'm in the market for a new one. I do have an elderly 65l rucksack (20 years old, to be precise) that has been round much of Europe and a few further-flung places, but it's pretty knackered now, and anyway I think 65l might possibly be too big...? My next size down is a 36l cragging sack.

Am I right in thinking that for the weekend backpacker, 50/55l is perfectly adequate? I'm aware that one tends to fill available space (and then you have to carry the extra weight!) We'd be splitting things like a tent between us (if we're with the dog, the tent would be a TN Super Quasar; if without the dog, a TN Voyager), and have sleeping bags, roll mats etc that all pack down small.

I find women-specific rucksacks more comfortable, particularly so for larger sacks.

So - any thoughts on where to begin with deciding on size, model, etc, to narrow down before I start trying on?
 The Lemming 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

My tuppence worth would be to go the other way and consider a 85+l size sac.

I'd never get my backpacking kit into a 50/55l sac unless I was carrying everything important in the boot of a car.
3
OP Tall Clare 09 Mar 2015
In reply to The Lemming:

Haha! If I needed 85l+ for a summer weekend in Scotland (for example) I'd be doing something very wrong, I reckon!
 Mountain Llama 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I think 60 to 70 litres is a good size.

http://www.outdoorgearlab.com/Backpacks-Womens-Reviews

Davey
 OwenM 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Not woman specific but these are very well made and light. http://www.lightwave.uk.com/ I have the Ultrahike 60 and really like it.
oggi 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

You don't need a huge rucsac, I get by with 40L for trips up to 2 weeks. Bear in mind that your sac is one of the big 3 (sac, sleeping bag and tent). Save weight here and you will make things more comfortable and easier on the body. I reckon for a 3 day trip I would be carrying 7k without food. Look at some of the backpacking sites for ideas and comparisons. My current backpacking sac is a OMM which weighs around 1k empty. A typical 85L sac might weigh up to 4K!
 LucaC 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

To counter the other opinions calling for larger bags - I can get kit for a 2 day walk/camp in a 30l sac in the summer, and the only thing different for 3 days is more food. Around 50l would be perfect for ease of packing, and for the fact that larger packs tend to be designed to carry heavier loads more comfortably.

I can only comment on mens rucksacks, but have found Black Diamond (speed and epic series) and Osprey (mutant and talon) to both make good bags and would buy either brand again.
 The New NickB 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I think you are probably on the money size wise. I know TNF do a female specific version of the Terra 55. I've got a TNF of a similar size and it has been a pretty decent sack, especially as it is reasonably cheap.

 marsbar 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I think you should make Mr TC get a bigger rucksack and panniers for the dog.

I think my ancient one is 60 or 65. I could get everything in that camping in my own tent and with my own stove etc, so smaller should be fine as you are sharing, and kit is smaller and lighter than the last time I went non car camping!

Fit is everything, but I think you will know that. Make sure it doesn't dig in your bra strap adjustment things, or you will have strange bruises.

Have fun.
 Welsh Kate 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

For summer backpacking I use a Deuter ACT Lite 35 + 10SL (women's specific), in which I can get a superlight Voyager in addition to all other kit, though I do try to keep my kit small and light. For winter I use a Deuter 50+10, so unless you're kit is really bulky I'd aim at something in the 40-50 litre mark and no bigger.

I tried a LOT of rucksacks when I was looking, and ended up with Deuters which were by no means the lightest, but were the most comfortable, so they don't feel as heavy as a lighter, less comfortable pack. There is a basic but functional adjustment system for back length which adds a bit more flexibility with sizing.

I'd take all the stuff I'm going to be carrying to several outdoors shops and just play!
 Denzil 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare: I've found the Pod Alpine 50 to be very versatile - everything from weekend backpacking to 1 week in an Alpine mountain hut. It's also survived almost 4 years of use in MR, with only minor scrapes.

 Billhook 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Just because your sac is 65 ltrs doesn't men you have to fill it up do you? The weight difference between sacs isn't going to bust your back.
 Pedro50 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Currently in favour is my Osprey Exos 58 which comes in 3 back lengths. 3lbs in weight but super comfy. Am planning a 4 week trip on the GR11 with this
mackfras 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Osprey something or other 48l is more than enough for me. Light and access to bottom via zip is really useful when raining (tent in bottom folded flat). Downside is too many straps. Hipbelt pockets a must for long hikes and should take a whole bag of jelly babies at minimum! With tent, stove and (1) pot split between 2 no excuse for a bigger pack.
Removed User 09 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

50/55 is defo the sweet spot for less than a week. A diddy tent like a Voyager can be strapped to the outside in the compression straps also.
In reply to Tall Clare:

> So - any thoughts on where to begin with deciding on size

Start by taking a very hard look at what you need to take. And that's a very personal list, depending on your approach to backpacking. Then see how much space it takes up, and how much it weighs. Beware of the slippery slope of heading down the ultralight road; expensive & obsessive...

I know it sounds trite, but it really is the only sensible starting point.
In reply to Tall Clare:

Clare, a bit cheeky I know but should you be interested I have a 3 year old Deuter Aircontact SL 60+10l in excellent condition for sale surplus to requirement. Excellent padding for the girly frame! Looking for £80 posted ovno. 😉
 Siward 10 Mar 2015
 The Lemming 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

> Haha! If I needed 85l+ for a summer weekend in Scotland (for example) I'd be doing something very wrong, I reckon!

I must be the odd one out on this site, as I like my creature comforts, or did when I was fit enough to play on the hill. My 65+20 sac allowed me to either go minimal or allowed me the option of not having to play 3d Tetris trying to pack everything in or rummage for stuff and repack on the hoof.

I just had more options, if the need ever arose. I could always compress my sac, but obviously I could never expand it. Maybe I got lazy.
 kathrync 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I tend to go slightly larger than I think I need though for two reasons. Firstly, I generally find I am more comfortable carrying an under-full bag (compressed) than an over-stuffed bag, and secondly, the harnesses on larger bags are often a little more comfortable. For weekend backpacking, 50-55l is indeed perfectly adequate, even including what I have said above - my Crux AK47 is perfect for a joint trip and just about big enough for a solo trip.

Model is more difficult - like boots it mostly depends on what you personally find comfortable.

I'm probably already speaking to the converted here, but when you try them on, make sure they are weighted. Most shops have bean bags or something available for loading rucksacks, but some just pad them out with air bags so they look full, which doesn't really give you an adequate idea of how they feel fully loaded.
 redscotti 10 Mar 2015
Size depends on what sort of backpacker you are. Sort out what YOU want to take, then see what size bag it will fit into. Personally, I wouldn't take more then 30L for a solo three day trip. Yes, that's with lightweight kit and little margin for error but the gear I take suits my style of backpacking (I prefer long walks with little time in camp, others prefer the other way round). I trust my skills and experience to manage what I take. It might mean choosing a low, sheltered camp site or even bailing out if the weather gets too freaky. But I know with a heavier pack, I just wouldn't enjoy myself.
 The New NickB 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I think 50/55l is a sensible size, not so small that it has to be ultra light compact kit and not so big that you are temped to take loads of stuff you don't need.

Walking with super light kit in a 30l is nice, camping, wishing you had another layer, warmer sleeping bag, more and more appealing food isn't so much fun. Lots of extra kit and home comforts is nice in camp, not so much fun to walk with an 80l sack.
 summo 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

40l to be light with just enough gear for comfort. 50-60l for luxury. Anything bigger is just wasting energy, I can fit enough stuff for 2 people in a 65l bag when I go wild camping with my eldest (7 yrs), as he doesn't carry everything he might need himself.

Think of your back and knees over the decades of future mountaineering, rather than have a luxurious night camping.
 Ramblin dave 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I'd be really interested to see rough kitlists (at least the big stuff) for people who are happy with less than, say, 40l, and what sort of trip you'd be happy doing with that sort of set-up...

Presumably a lot of space saving comes down to being able to i) accurately judge how much warm stuff you'll actually need for given conditions and b) having enough kit that you can actually do that fine tuning. Eg if your only sensible sleeping bag is 4 season then you're pretty much stuck with it even if you know you could actually get away with something a lot lighter...

I'd err on the side of too big, though, in the name of flexibility. A 30l pack might be survivable on short trips in good weather, but it'd be annoying to be back to square one if it looked a bit nippy or you fancied a higher-level route and you needed a warmer sleeping bag and an extra fleece that wouldn't fit.
 Ramblin dave 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Removed User:

> 50/55 is defo the sweet spot for less than a week. A diddy tent like a Voyager can be strapped to the outside in the compression straps also.

Strapping stuff to the outside is sort of cheating, though, surely? I mean, a 50l rucksack with a 10l tent strapped to the outside is basically a 60l rucksack with worse load distribution. It's like claiming to have reduced your pack weight by moving heavy things to your pockets.
 Andy Manthorpe 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

If you just want the sack just for backpacking it might pay to go for something light.

Have a look here http://www.backpackinglight.co.uk/rucksacks-and-storage.html

and here

http://www.ultralightoutdoorgear.co.uk/equipment-c3/rucksacks-c19/all-rucks...

Andy
 wilkesley 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I used to carry my tent inside my sack (Pod Black ice). However, the last couple of trips I have strapped to the outside. I haven't noticed any difference in comfort when carrying it. It has a couple of advantages. Now easier to get the rest of my gear inside. When I stop for the night, the first thing I do is put the tent up and then put my gear inside. This is much less faff when the tent is easily accessible and a big advantage when it's raining. Similarly in the morning if the weather's bad I pack all my gear into the sack inside the tent, thus keeping out of the bad weather until the last moment.
Post edited at 12:19
 climbwhenready 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I use a 65l but don't pack it full of shite Personally, I wouldn't want to go much less than that to stay self-reliant (i.e. I could call mountain rescue if I fell in a river before getting hypothermia, but instead I take a change of clothes...)

My rucksack is not super light (it's Berghaus, I can't remember the model). However it's got a good load spreading back system which makes up for its extra weight, so bear that in mind if you go looking for a new rucksack. Loaded to the same degree, it feels lighter than some of the lighter rucksacks that have foamy back systems.
cb294 10 Mar 2015
In reply to The Lemming:

A 85l pack is suitable for either a) two weeks trekking in the arctic with my wife and kids where I have to carry a larger share of the food and kit, or b) for a three day hike so my porters can carry the cake, wine, cigars, and picknick kit.

Unfortunately I have only experience of one of these options.

CB
 The New NickB 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

One thing to remember is that not all 30/40/50/60l sacks are equal. The actual volumes can vary quite considerably, even if they are supposed to be the same size.
 Siward 10 Mar 2015
 Doad13 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:
Hi TC, for all its worth my view would be that a 50/55L would be perfectly fine and gives space for some luxuries. I find bags are a lot like boots and should be tried on (I always have a little jump and see if the bag squeaks, hate noisey bags!)

I am out this weekend for a two day however going rather minimal 25L pack, and the route I am doing I will be able to pick up fresh water each day. My kit list minus food and what I will be wearing when i set off (boots/pants/tshirt) is below, Additionally I have took an image of it here (https://instagram.com/p/z7mU3Pw1v8/ )

Waterproofs (Jacket/pants/gaiters)
Insulated jacket
Gloves/hat/scarf
Spare underwear
Sleeping bag
Sleeping mat
Tarp/guyline
pegs (testing a new type aswell)
Walking pole (used to support tarp)
Cooker/gas/windshield
Pan (the above fit inside)
2x 1L waterbottles

It wont be quite luxurious but will do for a weekend, anything longer i would go to a 45L pack which would include more food & water and probably split a tent between 2/3 of us. Hope this helps!!
Post edited at 14:05
 Lucy Wallace 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

You are right to look at women's specific packs- much more comfy, but even they vary hugely. Osprey have different back sizes in the women's designs, so they are good for getting a really spot on fit. Lowe Alpine also worth a look for adjustability.

size-wise- 50/55 is great for short trips in good weather or bothy trips, but longer trips and bad weather mean packing is less stressful with a 65l pack. Generally the back systems on a 65l pack are a bit more adjustable and sophisticated too but this isn't a hard and fast rule.

I tend to keep this under my hat when posting here, and deliberately stay out of the gear pages if I can, but I review for a couple of outdoor mags, and have just written a review of some women's exped packs. Hopefully the mods will forgive me in this case: http://www.oe-mag.co.uk/oemag/imag/oemarchapril2015/
 nutme 10 Mar 2015
It is very personal. Some don't bother with spare underwear for 3 days. Others take sleepers for tent.

For 3 days backpacking I use Lowe Alpine Eclipse 35L if it's hiking, scrambling, sport climbing. Or Deuter Guide 45L for alpine climbing or skiing.

Just remember that you can attach bulky things like helmet, sleeping mat and rope outside the pack. Compressible sleeping bags save a lot of space as well. Things like water filter, gas cooker and food can be spread across the party.
 CurlyStevo 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:
I've done quite a few multi day summer wild camping and climbing trips in scotland. 45-50 litres is the optimal size as I find I can still climb effectively with the same bag I use to carry stuff in. I find I don't need a bigger bag than that if I'm shareing kit with someone else.
Post edited at 15:14
 fimm 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

When trying to buy a rucksack for my boyfriend, we found that there were not very many/any 50l sacks available and so ended up getting him a 65l one. I have a very nice MacPac 65l - but it is rather heavy as an object and I wouldn't necessarily get another if something happened to this one (on the other hand it is really solid and I don't see myself wearing it out!) I find 65l is quite generous for backpacking but it makes it easy to pack.
 CurlyStevo 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Ramblin dave:
> Strapping stuff to the outside is sort of cheating, though, surely? I mean, a 50l rucksack with a 10l tent strapped to the outside is basically a 60l rucksack with worse load distribution. It's like claiming to have reduced your pack weight by moving heavy things to your pockets.

It's not cheating it's common sense especially if you intend to climb wearing a rucksack as it cuts down on weight not only using a 50l bag over a 65l but also in not needing to carry another smaller bag for climbing (IMO 65 litres is too big for climbing in, yes it can be done but it's far from optimal, I'd rather make the load distribution a little less comfortable on the way in and the climbing easier myself, but it does depend somewhat on yout itenary).
Post edited at 15:07
 anaesthetic 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I'm female 5'3" and use Exos48 size S. So far used only for overnighters but plan to use for 3-4 day expeds. I've nearly filled it and it weighed in at 12.5kg (including 2L of drinks in side pockets), at my bodyweight I wouldn't want to go over that (new lightweight sleeping bag on horizon!). There's a 58L version as well. Its a nice light pack and will strip down a bit further if needed. I'd recommend trying lots of packs til you find the best fit that matches requirements.
 Fat Bumbly2 10 Mar 2015
Lowe


I have an Alpamayo - it has been used in Greater Ranges, hut to hut ski touring, lots of backpacking and, yes it is big and heavy. A small pack is no use for bringing in the food and drink for a weeks New Year celebrations in a bothy or that luxury camping up Glen Midhebaight with the missus. Bombproof and it appears to have outlasted my legs.

A smaller pack comes out for summer one or two nighters.

 Dauphin 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

GraniteGear 50-60l in women's - big extentable lid for gear / rope/ food depending what kind of capers you find yourself involved in. Keep it all inside the pack. Not a bird but I imagine they put all that effort into creating lady fittings for a reason. No weight in the pack that doesn't need to be there.

D
 jezb1 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I did a blog in the subject a while ago, specifically for ML courses but it is relevant for any short trips.

http://www.jbmountainskills.co.uk/news/mountain-leader-assesment

By the way, 85L, no way! Where's the fun in lugging unnecessary kit around?!
 Welsh Kate 10 Mar 2015
In reply to anaesthetic:

anaesthetic - if you've got the budget, take a look at PHD Designs' spring sale which has just started; their minimus series offers great quality lightweight stuff at a reasonable price.
 Alan M 10 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:
For an overnight trip (1 night 2 days) in to the hills I normally use a 35L crag sack I can get everything I need in to that

for 2 nights/3 days I would up it to somewhere between 45/55L for ease of packing and allowing me to take an extra layer/ slightly more comfortable sleeping bag/mat combination etc. Though saying that I could probably do 2 nights/3 days from the 35L sack in summer. Many times in good weather I have camped out in the hills and not bothered with putting the tent up etc deciding to just sleep in the open (weather forecast was perfect on those trips) Any other time of the year winter, spring, autumn I wouldn't just because the weather is more variable and I would want to be more comfortable.

From personal experience I have never used a sack larger than 55L for any hill based activity.
Post edited at 00:00
 lizard-16-07 11 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

I use an OMM 45+10 litre which is great! https://www.theomm.com/products/packs/adventure45/ Used it for several multi-day backpacking trips with no refueling en route (max 4 days), and one week long trip around some Scottish islands, with some restocking of food but carrying extra clothes and a pair of sandals as well and it worked well. The bag is really comfy and super lightweight, but the fabric isn't rubbish either, seems to bead a bit as well, and dries out quickly after rain which is nice. Very simple, very few bells and whistles, the features it does have are very useful - massive mesh pockets on the side and hip belt pockets are very handy when on the move. I haven't done a solo trip with the pack, but have carried various arrangments of 2/3man tent or the stove and food quite easily.

I'd say don't get an overly large pack (nothing above 60l) because whilst you can compress it and don't have to fill it, there is always the danger that you will fill it with unnecessary items! Given that you'll be splitting kit I think 50/55l will be more than adequate.
 planetmarshall 11 Mar 2015
In reply to nutme:

> Things like water filter, gas cooker and food can be spread across the party.

A water filter? In the UK?

 galpinos 11 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Since starting doing Mountain Marathons and realising I can get everything into 25L I'd say a 40ish L sac is the way to go.

Whoever said 85L, mental!
Dorq 11 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Fok it just get the Flextrek 37 Trillion. Any edition would be fine.
 ranger*goy 11 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Try men's rucksacks too. I once bought a women's specific rucksack and it nearly killed me. Went straight on eBay when I got back from Spain. It felt too short in the back.
Zoro 11 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:
I'd go with a 50-55l size wise, although I'd make sure it has side compression straps, and wand pockets. My wife use a macpac when we go back packing, we split the tent, and we still have plenty of room for books, and maybe a small bottle of wine/beers.

Just to add my wife tried all the women's specific packs, but found the men's more comfortable. The straps on the ladies pack were not comfortable aroundy wife's er.....ample...... Chest....and dug in under her arms.

 arch 11 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

Without wanting to offend anyone, are you all midgets ?? There is no way I can get my kit in anything less than 60L. I'm a big chap and all my stuff is XL/XXL. I'm not lucky enough to have more than one of everything either, so what I've got is it.

My last trip,
Rab Neutrino 600 with extender baffle.
Exped Downmat 7 LW.
Terra Nova Voyager.
Spare baselayer to sleep in.
ME Primaloft jacket.
Paclite jacket + over trousers.
Optimus crux weekender cook set.
LWWF meals X2
Wayfairer puddings X2
3 Tortilla wraps for day one lunch.

All the above in drybags. All inside (Apart from pole and pegs for tent) a large Gregory Z55 61 litre model. But only just.
 Dr.S at work 11 Mar 2015
In reply to arch:

Interesting - I think the voyager (certainly the older model that i have) is pretty bulky - but split between two then I think 45 litres is about right.

I've done 4 day backpacking trips carrying half of a lightweight tent with a 35 litre pack - but that was pushing things - food soon bulks up for that sort of period. Winterbackpacking with an AK47-x seems ok - again splitting a tent.
OP Tall Clare 12 Mar 2015
Thanks everyone - some really useful thoughts.

Will gather our kit together and start from there. Mr TC has a 65l Osprey pack, and most of our kit is pretty compact, so that's a start. Needing the Super Quasar when with doggy means we can't be super 'fast and light' (it's a logistical impossibility to get a 5'10 person, a 6'4 person and a sprawling pointer into the Voyager for a bearable night's sleep, and no, we're not buying yet another tent!)
 Max factor 12 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

The Osprey 44 Talon is great, really light at 1.3, maybe 1.4kgs and comfortable. Wee bit fiddly with the straps and buckles, but that is Osprey sacks for you.

Plenty big enough for a 3 day trip, and should save you taking too much stuff.
 Mouflon 12 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

How about something like the Montane Grand Tour 70. It's quite compact, not too big as the side pockets are extendable.
It's very light for its size, so you're not losing anything over many smaller sacks.
It also means that if you ever plan to do a longer backpacking trip, you don't need to go and get another sack.
needvert 12 Mar 2015
In reply to Tall Clare:

https://www.hyperlitemountaingear.com/ultralight-packs.html - most excellent packs. Especially when it rains.
 anaesthetic 12 Mar 2015
In reply to Welsh Kate:

Yep, got the email and its now a PhD Minim 350 v Rab Neutrino 400w. Is hydrophobic down worth a bit more money and weight?
 Welsh Kate 13 Mar 2015
In reply to anaesthetic:

When I first started using down sleeping bags I was paranoid about getting even a spot of dampness on them. Now I know they're actually pretty resilient and I don't need any further protection than the water resistant outer provided I don't throw my mug of coffee over it and use a proper drys a k in the rucksack.

I try to keep things as small and light as possible so personally I wouldn't bother with a bit more money and weight for hydrophobic down.
needvert 13 Mar 2015
In reply to anaesthetic:

Surely one wouldn't worry about the extra weight of hydrophobic down?
 anaesthetic 15 Mar 2015
In reply to needvert:

Just happens that the bag with the hydrophobic down is nearly 180g heavier for whatever reason
I went for the lighter PhD one, that has just water resistant outer but should be sufficient.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...