UKH

So those who know me and have read posts will know that I am quite big, this results in things like clothes being quite big, so I tend to need a quite big rucksack if going away for several days if I want any hope of not looking like a DoE-er with stuff hanging all over the outside.

I currently have a Decathlon 90l rucksack, but it is a bit rubbish in terms of the very basic back system etc, and isn't very comfortable.  But it seems there are almost no 90-100l rucksacks on the market other than at the bottom of it, which is odd as there used to be plenty of them (Berghaus even went up to 130 if I recall).

I'm primarily after good main compartment capacity rather than a million side pockets or detachable bits.

So short of going for an Army bergen, what's out there that's any good?

In reply to Neil Williams:

There don't seem to be many made these days - I guess lighter tents, sleeping bags and other equipment means people just don't buy massive packs like back in the 80s/90s. 

What exactly are you putting in yours? Even if all your clothing is XXL or whatever, I don't think that takes up that much more space than the same in M or L does it?

A friend got one of these https://www.crux.uk.com/product/3g-ak70-rt for a multiweek Alaska ski mountaineering trip and has been impressed with it. Says it's massive, although it's still not close to 90!

In reply to Neil Williams:

I realise you want something bigger than most of the sacks reviewed here - https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/rucksacks/large/trekking+expedition_packs_5...

I have the Lowe Alpine 60:85ltr in that review and it is an absolute monster and a really well constructed sack with an excellent carrying system. They appeared to do a 75:100ltr version as well although it isn't on their current web site and the link to the slightly smaller one in that review is also now dead which indicates that the range may be changing.

However they do seem to still be available through other sites if you search for 'Lowe Alpine Cerro Torre 100ltr'. Here for example -https://www.needlesports.com/52605/products/lowe-alpine-cerro-torre-75-100-...

Certainly a quality product with a big main compartment that can be split if you want and a superb back and waist belt system.

Alan

In reply to TobyA:

I think you'd be surprised on clothing - there is a lot more fabric in XL/XXL than M if you look at it.

To some extent I'm going against modern practice because I don't mind carrying a lot of weight in order to have a comfortable time - e.g. proper food rather than dehydrated stuff.  But it's difficult to carry it if I don't have space.

Because I work remotely most of the time it's also not unusual for me to want to go away for a weekend to somewhere like Scotland but working a couple of days either side which requires more stuff, and it isn't always practical to leave some somewhere (e.g. because Fort William left luggage is only open in the afternoon on winter Sundays, but the only way to get back down South that day is to take the morning bus to Glasgow).

In reply to Neil Williams:

Trekking bags still get made up to that size. I have a 90l Fjällräven Kajka, but there is also a 100l version. It is HUGE, and I bought it for hiking trips in Scandinavia with the family, when I ended up carrying both tents and most of the food in exchange for my sleeping bag...

It has a yoke like carrying systems that either fits, in which case it is the best ever, or it doesn't in which case it is torture. The split hip belt is also genius. It has too many bits attached for my taste, but nothing that a razor blade could not solve.

Big bags (>100l) are also available from other Scandi trekking gear makers such as Klättermusen, which are more stripped than my Fjällräven.

CB

In reply to Neil Williams:

Expedition pack on

https://www.aiguillealpine.co.uk/products/rucksacks-bags/expedition/

In reply to Neil Williams:

What kind of use are you planning for it?

A proper multiday backpacking trip? Luggin' all gear to a *basecamp* and then doing day hikes or climbs in the vicinity? Something else?


The "proper" backpacks have nice suspension system, so are nice to carry. But they also tend to be spendy (See the Klättermusen for example).

But if the need is more about luggin' all the gear to a basecamp and later back... perhaps something more akin to a haulbag might suit ya. No fancy exterior stuff, but not the best of carry systems... can be big though, and also really robust.

In reply to HeMa:

I agree that a big haulbag can be fantastic for shifting huge loads around, but if the OP feels that the Decathlon 90l sac doesn't offer a comfortable carry he's hardly going to be happy lugging a 'pig' around.

For what it's worth, we have a couple of the Decathlon 90l bags we use for our group trek support and I find them completely fine with loads up to about 30kg, and oddly more comfortable than the 70l version, although being a short-arse the carry will feel different to me than it will to the OP.

In reply to john arran:

True, which is why asked for the purpose.

And to be honest, when you fill up a big rucksack or pig, neither is going to be comfortable no matter how good the carry... but I'm not that big either.

In reply to john arran:

It's mixed use, really...so I'm not going to get perfect.  I don't tend to go as heavy as 30kg (though I have done) and I find the straps on the Decathlon ones slip and bunch in the buckles.  Maybe replacing the buckles would be improvement enough?

In reply to Neil Williams:

A fellow XXL-er here, and I spend a decent portion of my time lugging things around on my back for work. You're not wrong about the difference in weight and volume between a Medium and XXL garment.

There aren't many good large packs out there, but there are a couple of options that I've found:

https://karrimorsf.com/shop/predator-80-130/

https://www.snowleader.co.uk/en/bmg-105-outdry-noir-MOUH00213.html

https://www.jayjaysbrecon.co.uk/jayjays-jungle-bergan-multicam-c2x22244222

https://www.raymears.com/Bushcraft_Product/1501-Fjallraven-Kajka-100-Forest...

https://snigeldesign.nordicshops.com/product.html/120l-backpack-system--13-...

Lots of military-esque kit comes up when you search for larger rucksacks. Above 90L in capacity you are hitting a very niche market - expeditions where there is no other way of transporting kit (vehicles/porters/animals etc) or the military. For the latter market there has long been a trend towards MOLLE and other forms of webbing and attachments that make the packs modifiable or expandable. That webbing is also bloody heavy, and can also project the wrong image if working as a civvie in certain areas. 

I've found success with a 70L Osprey combined with sensible and bespoke outer attachments - custom bags for tent outers etc so I can make a horse-collar shape of kit that fits under the rucksack lid and down either side. This has the added benefit of not having a huge and flappy empty pack when working from a basecamp where I've dumped the heavy stuff and am heading out on shorter excursions.

There are also huge variances in what constitutes a 'litre'. There isn't MEANT to be, but a 50L Macpac rucksack is a very different beast to a 50L Berghaus or Deuter.

 

In reply to Neil Williams:

Cheers all, some good suggestions, if anyone else has any more options to look at that would also be appreciated.

To give people an idea on clothing size - my day sack for a full day in the hills is a Berghaus 45 litre (I'd say what model it was but it's so well worn that that isn't visible any more).  I have a couple of smaller ones but they're only really suitable for summer use or going to work!  I don't overly mind this because the longer back is more comfortable than a smaller one anyway.

I recall getting laughed at on Lakes in a Day because even when running I don't "do" lightweight - my bag must have been twice the size of everyone else's!   (I didn't regret a single piece of kit I was carrying in what were the worst conditions I have ever been in the hills for).

Must admit, actually, people my size get a good deal on clothing - rarely does XL/XXL cost extra (though once you get to 3X and above it sometimes does, fortunately I'm not quite *that* big), yet there must be twice as much fabric in an XXL jacket than a S one, and there's certainly a lot of boot in a size 13!

In reply to Neil Williams:

i''d hit ebay - berghaus do, or used to do - a series called Cyclops, and the three sacks in that class that are big are the Roc, which is the lightest at 70/80ltr (but big), and then the Crusader and the Vulcan that top in at about 120/130ltr, but again, big.

i've just sold a Vulcan that i bought in the mid-90's, that did a dozen tours, and is still in fantastic nick for £50. they are heavy relative to a much more modern sack - the Vulcan and Crusader roll in at about 3kg and the Roc at about 1.7kg - but they are genuinely bombproof. i have a roc i bought second hand in about 92 that i use as my backpacking sack, while the Berghaus extrem Expedition (90ltr?) that i bought in about 2001 or so is still ok, but my grandchildren will be able to use the Roc, not so the Expedition....

KarrimorSF do some fantastic sacks as well - the issue 120ltr rucksack, called the PLCE Infantry Bergen, is even more solid than a Vulcan or Crusader (the MOD nicked the design of the Crusader after the Falklands to produce the issue sack), but it is heavier, less comfortable over a t-shirt, and its designed to sit higher up the back to allow soldiers to wear it over belt-kit. if it happens to fit you, then they are fantastic sacks that you'll get for a song, but don't be surprised if it doesn't.

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

I also have that one. I improved its carrying capacity with a pair of strap-on Aguille sidepockets for a 9 day trek in the Rondane mountains in Norway.  The pack weighed 22kilos all up with nothing on the outside other than my ridgerest. The Aguille sidepockets come in 12 or 17 litres/pair versions, I can't remember which I have but they're miles bigger than the sack's own pockets. The Sack itself is good and comfy, although the floating lid is a bit rubbish - it's as if it's too small for the bag and if the main compartment isn't chokka then the top of the frame sits higher than the compartment if you know what I mean.

In reply to richprideaux:

Must admit the Mountain Hardwear one is looking a good bet - mostly one large sac rather than lots of side pockets which is what I was after, and properly waterproof (unlike many sacs) too, and a more attractive price than some of the others.

Cheers for all the suggestions.