UKH

Hello,
I am looking to buy a backpack for Alps - mostly for summer trips, but I would like to also use it in winter (for ice climbing, if/when I finally get courage to start doing it!). Probably 35-45L is the most versatile size..

I have done some research, looked through this and other fora and the following seems to be the list of most often recommended backpacks:

(1) Montane Torque 40

(2) Lowe Alpine Attack 35:45
-------Probably the most famous/popular backpack

(3) Lowe Alpine Peak Attack 35:45
-------I have no clue how it differs from the aforementioned and the company's website is quite unhelpful.

(4) Black Diamond Speed 40
-------allegedly low durability

(5) Osprey Mutant 38
-------cannot remove the hip belt, allegedly worse than Osprey Mutant (at least two people made a swap according to other forum threads).

(6) Pod Black Ice
-------heavier than some of the alternatives.

(7) Arcteryx Nozone 35
-------discontinued, so no longer an option.

I would appreciate your help with choosing among them. I am leaning towards Montane Torque or Lowe Alpine (either Attack or Peak Attack, once I learn the difference).

Thank you all for help!

In reply to theriel:

Nothing to contribute in terms of experience, but this may be of interest: http://www.rockrun.com/deals/rucksacks
Some good deals on both the BD Speed 40 and Deuter Guide 45.

In reply to theriel:

BD speed 30, they come up pretty big.

I use mine for cragging, alpine climbing, walking and overnighting when working on MLs, it's the perfect all round bag for me. I have a brand new one ready to use when this one dies.

I also have a 40, the only time I've used it was overnighting on a winter ML, easier to pack with freezing cold hands.

You may want to check out Deuter Guide Lite 32+ as well. Waterproof and durable. Good loops for axes, skies and rope.

Never met anyone who would bother to remove the hip belt or strip the back.

In reply to theriel:

If you're interested I'll be selling my Alpine Attack 35-45 (2013 model) shortly, look for a post on the FS forums tomorrow. Used, £42 inc postage.

Andrew.

In reply to planetmarshall: just to make your choice harder:

Patagonia Alpinist 35L (or 45L) : http://www.patagonia.com/eu/enGB/product/ascensionist-pack-35-liter?p=47995...

Cilogear Worksac 30L (or 30:30 which adds 10L) http://www.cilogear.com/30lws.html

In reply to theriel:

Patagonia Ascentionist 25L for day trips, tonnes of room. If I'm using the rope and rack almost straight away, I'll use it for overnight routes.

Patagonia Ascentionist 35L for multiday where rack and rope are in bag for some time.

Neither can be beat.

Six responses and even more doubts/questions! Thank you .

Could anyone please make some comparisons between the listed backpacks (whether by me or the others?). They all look "nice", but I have been hoping to learn some pros/cons, to avoid having to pick a backpack based on which colour suits best my Nalgene bottle... !

In reply to theriel:

I've got the Black Diamond Speed (can't remember what size, 30 or 40). As mentioned before, I use it for everything and hasn't let me down, has done everything that I have asked it to, and it's bright orange

As to your concern about durability, I haven't noticed any concerns and would suggest the opposite, the material it's constructed from seems pretty tough. It's also thicker in the places you would want it to.

I have seen the latest design and they appear to have improved it a bit, the way axes attach is a bit better on the new one, and the latest design has 2 drawcords instead of a drawcord and a roll top.

In reply to theriel:

Best try some packs with a realistic load. I have tested some otherwise excellent packs that just don´t fit my upper body. Currently I have an old Mammut Alpinist, completely indestructible and instantly recognizable by its clashing blue and orange colour scheme.

If I had to buy a new one today I would probably go with Mammut again, but would first give the Ortlieb Elevation a try. The Ortlieb one is completely water proof. My first series Ortlieb bike panniers are now almost 30 years old and still in perfect working order.

CB

In reply to theriel:

You don't want a 45l sack for Alpine day routes, circa 25l is ideal. The Blue Ice Warthog 26 is the best I've ever used for day routes, I've got a few lighter day sacks but they don't respond well to being dragged against Chamonix granite.

For Winter climbing 45l and upwards makes a lot of sense. I'm pretty keen on my Lowe Alpine Alpine Attack 45:55 but there are lots of great alternatives discussed above.

In reply to highaltitudebarista:


Where on earth do people using such tiny sacks put their clothes, rack, rope, baguettes etc when walking up from the valley in the heat of the day?

In reply to theriel:

I've had a Pod Black Ice for some years. Awesome pack for longer routes or ones requiring a bivvy / large amount of gear. Can carry big loads to hut / bivvy site and then strip down sack for the route. Ability to strip back plate, waist belt and removable top lid very useful.
Personally, for day routes I regularly use a Patagonia Ascensionist 25l. Much better size for most routes and you don't know it is there when climbing. Very light and faff free!
To confuse things (sorry) I suggest you work the other way around when deciding about packs. What features are essential, desirable, can be done without. Then see which pack best matches your personal ultimate design. You can remove any features you don't need. Here are a few features I look for or avoid in an alpine pack.
- Avoid faff and features. I cut off axe loops and wand pockets as they are not needed. (Bang goes warranty)
- Don't use hydration pouch pocket, can be removed.
- Quick and easy access by turning the pack on its waist belt after taking shoulder straps off. (Assuming no chest coils)
- Very basic waist belt, no padding or gear loops.
- Very light but robust enough - I try to avoid too many chimneys!
- Single buckle access
- Chest strap
- Buckles and access easy with gloves
- Carries what is required - I suggest 25-35 litres is fine for the Alps - many people seem to carry too much. Apart from hut walks, you are likely to be wearing most of your kit most of the time.
- Facility to attach a rope to the outside.
- Easy access to harness, gear, chalk bag when wearing the rucksack.
- One that fits your size and shape. I suggest trying them all on in shops with some ropes in for a bit of weight

Hope this helps, good luck!

In reply to theriel:

Have you considered Force Ten Alpine range? They look like great rucksacks and Force Ten kit is brilliant.

In reply to Robert Durran:

My Lowe Alpine Eclipse 25 litre takes everything for day's mulitipitch in the UK but has no extra capacity to tempt you to pack it out with unnecessary items. Rope, rack, helmet, food, water, clothes, shoes, guidebook and maps, prussics and tat. It's truly a Tardis amongst sacs. Very light so perhaps not the most durable but it wasn't pricey and light is right.

In reply to theriel:

My personal advice is to go to the shop and try the pack before ordering/buying it.
Go to the shop, fill the pack and wear it for a few minutes to get a feeling how is it going to be when in action.
You don`t want a backpack that's gonna cause discomfort while hiking/climbing.
All of the listed packs are good but my personal favorites are Lowe Alpine and Deuter. If you can find Tashev somewhere you can try them out too. It's a Bulgarian brand that's been in the business for about half a century now and has proven to be quite sturdy and reliable.... and the prices are not too bad!

In reply to BnB:

It's actually 37.47 pounds in The Outdoor Shop. Pretty decent given good LA quality.

In reply to BnB:


Maybe, but that is not relevant to my question!

In reply to Robert Durran:

Most of lids perform very poorly if the rucksack is half empty (LA Mountain Attack 45:55 cinches down very well, but it doesn't solve the floating/swinging lid problem). The best rucksack I had was Lowe Alpine Quark Hyperlite 40 with roll-top design which I decided to sell in the end (I regret doing that). I had over 10 technical rucksacks over last half a decade or so because I am still looking for perfect sack for each activity (and I am waiting for two more to be delivered... while two were sold last week!).

To be fair, if you want to have a multi-purpose rucksack, I would try to find something that simply does not have a lid. Even though it provides more storage, it just doesn't work with half-empty rucksack. Osprey Mutant 38 comes to my mind with lots of options to pack outside of the bag, too.

Strapping to outside is not perfect either. Your rucksack becomes a mess and it just doesn't work in poor weather conditions. It's okay, I suppose, to strap your axes, rack or ropes outside. I managed to damage a tent that way when I slipped on the scree descent.

On the other hand, I wish Lomo could add few cool features to their sacks and kept their prices as they are just now. Currently they are completely opposite to Osprey which have (probably too many) features to accommodate any sort of use.

In reply to theriel:

I've got the Montane, I had a similar dilemma and it came out on top. Lightest, toughest bag. The Lowe alpine ones have far to many bells and whistles, too many straps, etc. BD I didn't know how they fitted, but friend has one and its falling apart. Osprey again to many features, and can't remove the hipbelt. Pod, too heavy. One thing I wanted was a tool holder that carried like the Montane and the BD.

The Montane is the lighest, and cleanest pack. The hipbelt can be removed, and also comes with a thin 1 inch webbsing strap that can be attached instead which is a plus! They only pack I would trad it for would be a Cilogear NWD 45 Worksack.

In reply to PPP:


Stick lid inside rucksack and pull drawcord tight. Use compression straps. No Problem.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yeah, and get things wet inside if it rains.

In reply to theriel:

I have an old version Mutant 38. Pretty big (ideal for winter), a little faffy but carries really well - and that's why I got it. I wanted one of the new (at the time) BD Speed sacks but they were the most uncomfortable things I'd ever worn. A poster above (who I believe is an instructor) seems think they're the best pack ever so as always, pick the sack that's comfy on you have tried a load (with weight) on.

As to size, the 38 is a big 38 and great on winter. Probably too big for alpine summer if you're a tiny pack convert but using the age old method suggested by Rob of sticking the Los inside has worked fine for me so far......

In reply to theriel:






I've compared the Attack with the Peak Attack next to each other in the shop. They're quite different, the latter being different materials, very light, feeling pretty flimsy. The former is much more of a traditional alpine pack. It also has those steel hook closures, which I find fiddly to insert, instead of buckles.

The Lowe Alpine website puts the respective weights at 1.2kg v 900g, which tells part of the story.

I have a Pod Black Ice and it's a much bigger pack than either of these two - too big and heavy for regular Alpine climbing.

The new Mutant 38 is quite different in design and fit than the old model and probably a good all-round alpine pack, if it fits.

In reply to theriel:
I considered a lot of the bags your talking about and ended up with a warthog 26 and a warthog 37. They are both very light but, importantly for me, extremely robust.

Features are just right for me, particularly the helmet net which allows carrying some decent sized loads, even in the 26. I can't fault the 26 but the 37 is a bit floppy when unloaded, careful packing required. I'd recomend both.

I use the 37 for winter and overnights and the 26 for everything else.

In reply to Robert Durran:


How not relevant? What is so different in your pack contents between alpine and UK multipitch? More clothes for UK. Maybe an axe on a strap for Alps. Same bulk.

I climb Scottish winter up to III with the same 25l pack. Try one!!

In reply to BnB:


Odd, while being a punter, I managed to lug all the needed stuff for Scottish winter (up to VI) routes in my 26l Warthog.

In reply to BnB:

When walking up from the valley in the heat of the day, I might be wearing nothing more than a pair of shorts in the Alps but with all my warm clothing for sub zero temperatures in the sack.


I might have boots, crampons in the sack while climbing in the Alps. More spare clothing than UK summer. Often much longer days so more food, water. I might get away with a tiny sack for relatively trivial stuff (straighforward snow plods or non serious rock routes with abseil descents) but would certainly need something much bigger for general use. I just use my Black Ice. It squashes up fine when not full. Also I just don't like the faff of getting stuff in and out of a crammed full sack.


No thanks. I doubt I'd even fit my clothing in it on the walk in. I find my Black Ice ideal.

In reply to Robert Durran:


And then you wonder where the "british climbers luggin' everything with them, including a bath tub" reputation comes from.

In reply to HeMa:


I don't take a bath tub. I take what I need to stay reasonably comfortable and safe.

In reply to Robert Durran:


As do majority of other national climbers as well... They just seem to cope with smaller sacks. Eg. quite a lot of people seem to manage Gervasutti pillar on Tacul with Warthogs (26l), and it does not in my opinion constitute as an easy day trip with rappel descent. Rather a really long alpine rock route with nasty and long mixed portion to reach the summit and then a long slog back down.

In reply to HeMa:

I can't remember what sack I was wearing when I did the Gervasutti Pillar in 1984, but, if I were to do it again, I would want a sack that boots, crampons, axe, spare clothing, bothy bag, miscellaneous bit and pieces, food and water fitted comfortably into. And I'd prefer not to have everything strapped to the outside on the approach. Maybe I could "cope" with a tiny sack, but I'd rather not put up with the faff. In the end its personal preference and how much clothing one needs, but there does seem to be a bit of a "mine's smaller than yours" fetish for shaving a few grams off the weight of a sack (the actual sack, not the contents) at the expense of convenience.

And the Gervasutti Pilllar is an atypical example because it doesn't involve walking up from the valley in the heat of the day.

Oh, and the "if you take a bigger sack then you'll fill it up with stuff you don't need" is just silly and patronising.

In reply to HeMa:


Whilst a great robust pack with very little bells and whistles. It was always a struggle and at times I personally couldn't fit all my "gear" into the Warthog for a day's Scottish winter climbing even with a half rope and helmet on the outside of the pack.
I suppose everyone is different in what they take with them but I needed something a little bigger.

OP

I've had

Warthog 26l (too small)

Black Diamond Axis 33l (size was great but didn't fit very well)

I used a Lowe Alpine Attack 35/45l for most of this season and my first impressions are that it's very comfortable and is like a tardis maybe even too big. Not sure about the buckle system yet but it might be because I'm not used to it.

I think the most important thing is that it fits well and can accomadate your "essential gear"

good luck

Gaz

In reply to theriel:

Take a look at the new for 2015 Mammut Trion guide 35+7. Removable lid, roll top closure, removable hip belt with spare straps for climbing.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Bet you'd have done it in a day if you were wearing HeMa's Warthog 26L though..........

Speaking of Lowe Alpine Eclipse packs I have 35L version like that:
http://lowealpine.com/eclipse-281

It's decent pack and I own it for 9 months now.

I have gave it a go in Alps last September, but wasn't very happy. Main issue is the rope. Where's no convenient and stable way to attach the rope outside the pack. And it you put 60 - 70 meters of rope inside it will take half of the space. Pack is durable, but mesh pockets outside of pack are rubbish. I have few holes in those already. It gets wet straight away even in drizzle. It comes with a bag to put it over, but if it is's full and/or something is attached outside overbag can't cover the whole pack. In fact overbag ripped apart recently as well, replaced it with bigger one, much better. Pack is not gloves friendly either.

Good thing is the zip. It has very wide opening and getting something from the bottom is easy. Weight of 800g is more or less okey for a pack like that as well. I use it for day rock climbing or trekking and via ferratas. But will not ever take it for alpine climb.

Montane Torque 40 looks very good. Feels solid and passed waterproof test in bath. My girlfriend was willing to get one last year. We had it for two weeks before returning. She couldn't fit it for her back at all. I gave it a go for a day hike and it was supper inconvenient for me as well. We came to conclusion that pack is designed for someone at least 180cm with narrow shoulders.

Osprey Mutant 38 is decent pack. But few years ago then my friend was buying a pack we were comparing in shop Mutant and Variant. The last one won that round and my friend was very happy with it since. He still uses it. It is as durable as mine Deuter Guide. Took a crampon hit then I landed on him in avalanche, has good attachment points for gear. And amazing big outside pocket.

In reply to theriel:

How about an Exped Work&Rescue 50? Simple, tough, light, waterproof

In reply to theriel:

If you don't want to get different sacs for different purposes, then get a tough, well-designed (ie no needless frills), 45-50L one.

Some of the newer, super-light ones sacrifice robustness for weight saving, but if weight isn't at an absolute premium (as for most of us, it isn't), then buying a rucsac that'll last 10+ years is the better option, in my view. Better to spend a bit more than you can really afford now on a strong pack than to spend less but have to replace it in 3 or 4 years. And, if you do turn out to be Ueli Steck, with the money saved by getting a strong pack, in a few years time you'll be able to afford a super-light-weight one for the record attempts.

I'm not up-to-date on sacs, but that's because I've got a POD Black Ice that does everything I want it to* and won't need replacing for a good few years yet. But from what I've seen in the shops, Blue Ice look very good.

* Except multi-day trekking.

In reply to Solaris:


I couldn't have put it better myself!

In reply to theriel:

I have tried a lot of packs, and ended up with a Blue Ice Warthog 26 for day trips (Rock/Ice/Alpine) and a Macpac Pursuit 40 for winter/multi-day trips. Both are very simple, sturdy and light.

Some toughs on packs I have experiences with:

BD Speed 30 (current model): Shoulder straps move (makes it feel unstable) and attachments cut into my neck

Lowe Alpine Alpine Attack 45:55: Big volume is not for me, and the ice axe attachment is less than ideal

Patagonia Ascentionist 35: Thin materials, Small lid pocket, lid closure is not the most intuitive

Millet Prolighter 25 and Mammut Trion Light: Both are comfy packs, but the Warthog has the same functionality with lower weight and more durability.

I can recommend the packs that I currently own, although I can imagine that the Montane Torque would be more comfortable on long walk-ins with heavy gear. The Force 10 packs also look promising. The Lowe Alpine Crag Attack looks like a winner too (Light, roomy and affordable). There also seem to be a lot of Aiguille Alpine fans on this forum!

In reply to theriel:

I've had a Lowe Peak Attack for 3 years and it's due for replacement - the stiching has come apart where the shoulder straps are sewn into the bottom of the pack and all the plastic buckles are either broken or cracked.
Anyone else had problems like this? It's had a lot of (ab)use including a few ski montaineering trips, but I am a bit disappointed with how long it's lasted.

Thinking of getting a Deuter, but they seem relatively heavy and i'm not sure whether the diagonal zip on the main pack is of any real use?

In reply to Solaris:

Yep.

Crux sacs fit the bill here too, even if they have a few quirks.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes but countering the "Oh, my minute rucksack appears to be full, would you mind taking..." takes a little more robustness.

In reply to MG:

Well, in that case, I'll have to take my Speed 20 up the Frendo this summer!

In reply to MG:


Also annoying are the regular delays while they pack and repack their minute rucksack every time they have to get anything out of it.

In reply to galpinos:


I did do it in a day!

Dear all,
Thank you for all the replies!

I should think about writing a PhD on backpacks... I have looked through the opinions, eliminating single recommendations and summarizing others. For the benefit of the other mountaineers - voila!

-> Montane Torque
-----------Two/three votes in favour.
-----------"lightest", "cleanest"
-----------difficult to fit - allegedly "designed for somebody at least 180cm with narrow shoulders"
-> Lowe Alpine Attack
-----------Two votes in favour.
-----------very comfortable, but a weird buckle system
-> BD Speed 30
-----------Two votes in favour. A few against...
-----------"independent straps" feature makes it unstable.
-----------"the most uncomfortable thing in the world"
-----------One person believes it is not flimsy. The other that it is falling apart...
-> Patagonia Ascentionist
-----------Three votes in favour
-----------Thin materials, Small lid pocket, lid closure is not the most intuitive
-> Cilogear NWD 45 Worksack
-----------Two votes in favour. Crazy pricetag (495 USD+)

Eliminated:
-> Osprey Mutant
----------can't remove the hipbelt, "too many features"
----------people prefer Lowe Alpine Attack over it (2 people in other threads)
----------allegedly the new model is quite different from the old ones but... hey, you have to eliminate the options somehow?
-> Pod Black Ice
----------too heavy. Lots of fans, though.
-> Lowe Alpine Peak Attack
----------flimsy, better to go for Lowe Alpine Attack out of these two

Overall, I am leaning towards Montane Torque and Lowe Alpine Attack. I will try both in a shop and we will see... !

In reply to theriel:

The Cilo gear work sack is only £500 plus if buy the Dyneema version.

The standard version is $269 so about 170 quid.
http://www.cilogear.com/45lws.html


I would also consider a CRUX ak-47X - light, simple, super hard wearing.

In reply to edinburgh_man:

I love my Crux ak-47x but it's too big to really go climbing in. There is a crux ak37 http://www.crux.uk.com/en/rucksacks.php?range=1&product=1 but it only comes in grey .

I have a Speed 30 but the previous model with the annoying roll-top lid (which the latest model has dropped). It is comfortable to carry heavy loads in, and I've had no problems with robustness. It is heavier than the following which would be my top choices.

- Ascensionist 35L, but I think the lid looks too small; its clever bag closure looks great though. It might trade lightness too much against longevity, but it's hard to tell (and you might be happy with that trade-off).

- Cilogear 30 worksack does look very nice and people who have it rave about it. The dyneema version is slightly lighter but that's insignificant, instead it's the longevity you're paying the extra for.

In reply to theriel:

*Ryx Alpha FL 30 or 45.

In reply to HeMa:

Yeah, I was going to suggest them and predictably Aiguille Alpine sacs.

In reply to theriel:

Planet X have some good deals on Pod Sacs at the moment

In reply to Robert Durran:

I thought it said Day 4 on the picture, I humbly apologise.

I always think it'd be interesting to see what people recommend compared to howich climbing they do and what standard they operate at. The Internet tells me that I should be able to get by with a 25L sac but the reality is I can't.

In reply to galpinos:


It did say Day 4, but the picture was not taken on the Gervasutti Pillar!


I suspect the reality is that nobody could sensibly get by with a 25 litre sack for general alpine use unless they stick to fairly trivial routes relative to their ability (ie they can confidently keep moving and be up and down very fast) and either always use huts or stick to routes which can be done from a telepherique ( ie they severely limit their objectives).




ƒ÷

In reply to Robert Durran:


Well, I bivysack and lightweight sleepingbag are around 4 to 5 liters. That still leaves 20 for food, rack or stove, and harness. Rope, helmet, belay jacket and the rest of the clothing go outside. As would crampons & axes.

In reply to HeMa:

Why stop at that? If you used a 5 litre sack you could strap everything except the sleeping bag to the outside. Might be a bit annoying if it rained and would be a real faff, but at least you would be sticking to your principles. Sorry, I just don't get this obsession with tiny sacks. I suspect that it is mostly about marketing; Ueli Steck can do such and such a route in 30 mins with this microscopic sack (made of such light weight and expensive gossamer that it only lasts one route - but of course that's not a problem if you are a sponsored god) so you might as well get one too for your heroic fast n'lite push on the Cosmiques arête (you'll look like a "real" alpinist clambering over the railings at the top).

In reply to theriel: to start with I'm no alpinist! I use my packs for cragging,mountaineering,walking, and the odd overnighters. So this is how I've experienced them.

I've got the BD speed 30, I've found no problems with the wear on the fabrics, although they do feel flimsy. Volume wise it's spot on, the straps on the rear of the lid can slip. I've no problem with harness system. I'd give it 6/10.

I've also got the new macpac pursuit in ketchup? The fabric is bullet proof, I love the stripped down design, the harness is really comfortable, the compression strap system for rope is ok, having zip top is really convenient, as long as it proves to be robust. I'd like macpac to design the. Next version so you can compress it better when you have a smaller load. 8/10

My favourite pack has been the previous macpac pursuit.

I looked at the mutant, but found it a bit fussy.

Just my penny worth, if it helps?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Oh come on, Robert. Man up, won't you!

In reply to theriel:

I have a Deuter Guide 45+ and it is an excellent bit of kit. Very good ice axe mounts. Has mounts for skis too. Very tough. Seems to be quite waterproof too. Downside is that it is quite heavy - but you can make it lighter by removing the hip belt and alpine back system cross members.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Doesn't sound like you are doing day routes, which was what Mr K originally stated.

Personally I would go with the smallest sack I can get away with, but that will depend on a number if factors.

In reply to The New NickB:


The standard format for an alpine day route is to walk up from the valley to a hut (or bivi if saving money), then do the route next day. Approach one day, the actual route the next. Only some relatively "trivial" semi-alpine rock routes or the rare special cases with telepherique approach would be routinely done from the valley in a day and I assumed the OP was not limiting himself to these.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Thanks Robert, I know how alpine climbing works. Probably best to assess based on each route.

I know you are a fan of a big bag, but others have equally valid alternative ideas.

In reply to The New NickB:

Hmm... I think the to-ing and fro-ing may be getting a bit muddled. Mr K was replying to the OP and making his recommendation for day routes. The OP says: "I am looking to buy a backpack for Alps - mostly for summer trips".

And to the OP (if s/he's still following this): your shortlist plus the POD Black Ice for comparison:

Montane Torque 40 – Weight: 1325 g; Stripped weight: 885 g RRP >£100
Lowe Alpine Attack 35:45 – Weight 1.15kg/Min 0.85kg MSRP £90
POD Black Ice 50+12L – Weight: 1.78kg, Stripped 1kg (size 2) RRP from £79.99

So, stripped, there's 15 grams in it, and the Black Ice still works out looking cheapest and has the greatest capacity too.

In reply to The New NickB:

There was nothing in what you quoted ("When walking up from the valley in the heat of the day, I might be wearing nothing more than a pair of shorts in the Alps but with all my warm clothing for sub zero temperatures in the sack.") which suggested I wasn't talking about day routes, so it sounded like maybe you didn't............never mind............


Indeed, but a bigger sack squashes up when not full, while a smaller one can't grow, so, if you only own one sack, its probably best to err on the larger size in my opinion.


I am only trying to counter the currently fashionable orthodoxy for cramming everything into (or not into....) a tiny sack which always gets wheeled out, often for the ridiculous non-argument of "if you take a bigger sack, you'll take more stuff in it", without considering the disadvantages.

In reply to Robert Durran:
'Big guys' wear big boots, big clothes, big helmets, big acessories, big harnesses, need more food than the alpine shortarses, thus a bigger sac is required to hump it in?!.....not to mention that collection of camera gear ☺

In reply to dek:

Yup, that was one of my thoughts. Also it does depend somewhat on how light/small your gear actually is. Some people could pack exactly the same gear but one need a much bigger sack as their stuff isn't the lightest or smallest.

In reply to dek:


Absolutely. As you will appreciate, getting size 50 boots in 25L sac just doesn't happen!

In reply to MG:


It's one of the problems with alpine climbing, the ideal sack for the walk in, probably isn't the ideal sack for climbing. Personally I'll do all I can to avoid climbing with an oversized sack, even one that is clinched down. I always a bit torn on carrying boots, I'm not convinced it saves much effort, very much depends on the walk in though.

In reply to Solaris:

One point not mentioned: Getting at your harness/gear with a bulky waist belt is a pain. Loops on the waist belt only partly help with this., So consider going for a slightly shorter back over a slightly longer one if you are between sizes, and look for a clean, uncluttered design regardless.

I am going to again recommend the Crux Ak47x. Significantly lighter than any other pack mentioned, indestructible (even my cats can't shred it), and very cleanly designed.

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm not convinced it saves much effort, very much depends on the walk in though.

Personal preference, but for me much more comfortable and cooler (rather than effort saving). Also you don't wear out £300+ boots on easy ground. A cinched down pack is much better than small one with its strapped on everywhere IMO.

In reply to MG:


And some people feel the cold more and need to carry more clothes.

Really the only sensible advice is to decide what you (personally) will be carrying and get a sack that it fits into (what you will be carrying for a given route obviously depends on numerous factors).

In reply to The New NickB:


What do you see as the problem with a cinched down sack? Presumably you have the same back size whatever the volume of the sack. If anything, cinching down allows you to distribute the load optimally. I just don't buy (within reason) the "such and such a sack is too big to climb with". My 60 litre odd Black Ice is as good as any I have used.


I had more in mind carrying your boots in your sack while climbing in rock boots (eg on the Gervasutti Pillar mentioned earlier in the thread). Obviously it is always a judgement call whether to take rock boots on any given route though.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Back too long, often bulky waist belts, just generally having too much on your back. At the end of the day it's personal preference, largest sack I've climbed with is a Macpac Pursuit (circa 1993) which was a spacious 45l, I generally I found this too big. I'm not trying to change your opinion, just give a different perspective.

In reply to Robert Durran:

If your taking the car to the Alps, you'd probably have a choice of Sacs with you, to suit the objectives in mind, anyhoo?
The old biggish Karrimor Alpinist, was very popular for obvious reasons

In reply to The New NickB:


Or just doesn't look cool for the Japanese tourists

In reply to dek:


Yes, though it's hard to think of any "proper" alpine routes for which I wouldn't choose my Black Ice.


Indeed. I used to have a prototype 100 litre one which was ideal for non-mountain cragging in the UK. Now replaced with an equally huge one.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'm beyond worrying about that!

In reply to Robert Durran:



Christ,100 Ltr?!....you could get more than just your feet and lower legs, in that size of monster!

In reply to theriel:

Email news just in: Blue Ice Yeti 30 on sale for 60 squid at Rock & Run....

b

In reply to MG:

One of the things I really like about my Black Ice is that it's possible to strip it down to a very minimal waist belt that keeps the pack stable but doesn't get in the way of the gear loops on my harness. My AK47's waist belt (which wasn't removable; perhaps they are now) always got in the way of my harness loops. But this is largely a matter of personal preference, and use of a bandolier makes sense on many alpine routes and overcomes potential problems.

Another point in favour of larger sacs: if you have a forced bivi, you can get your legs into it for greater insulation.

In reply to Solaris:

When doing technical climbing I either remove a waist belt entirely or wrap it round the back of the sack out of the way depending on the situation.