VIDEO: When To Use A Larger Pack

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This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.

Rachael Crewesmith talks us through the situations where it would be applicable to use a larger rucksack and examines some of the features that are often useful on a pack of this size.

Read more

7
 TobyA 29 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Anyone else very sceptical about putting tent poles in outside wand pockets in rucksacks - as Rachel suggests here? I always think anodized aluminium against slick nylon is pretty low friction and always imagine when I trip over my own feet (does happen) trip over a stone or clump of heather (does happen), go over on my dodgy ankle (does happen!), or trip over my own walking poles (yes, even that has happened!), the tent poles would eject themselves from side pocket at some velocity. At best possibly bashing me in the head, but letting me know they have escaped - at worse falling silently and unnoticed into a clump of heather/snowdrift. 

Rachel is probably just not nearly as much of a klutz as me, so doesn't fall over - but still, tent poles inside the rucksack for me!

3
 Andy Hardy 29 Sep 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I didn't watch the video because I'm pretty sure I know when I need a bigger rucksack already. 

1
 TMM 29 Sep 2021
In reply to TobyA:

Poles on outside only if the pack has side compression straps and wand pockets for me. There is also a risk of damage to the poles from pulling the compression straps too tightly.

I've come across a few bags of poles in remote spots which suggests someone had a bad night or got home very disappointed!

In reply to TobyA:

I lost a walking pole off the side of my bag just last week when I was on a callout thrashing through heavy undergrowth looking for someone.

1
 Robert Durran 29 Sep 2021
In reply to TobyA:

I watched the video hoping to be vindicated in my preference for large sacks. But only 40 litres? That's barely a day sack!

1
 More-On 29 Sep 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I watched the video hoping to be vindicated in my preference for large sacks. But only 40 litres? That's barely a day sack!

As my user name suggests, I'm with you all the way on this!

 rachcrewe 29 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

I hadn't really thought so hard about poles before... I have never lost poles off the side of a bag but it could happen. You make very valid points. I only put them on the outside if there isn't enough room on the inside, which might be the case on a 2-nighter in colder months (I use this pack for Mountain Leader assessment-type stuff where I like to be warm) I usually keep them in their pole bag (which maybe provides more grip?) but took it off for the purposes of illustration for this video, just as an example of things you could do with the pack. I think it works in this instance, as TMM says, if you have 'wand pockets' and good straps. The Cholatse has good side straps. You should trip over less, Toby Archer. 

If this vid can prompt discussion like this then I'm looking forward to the discussion on the "what to pack for wild camping" video, coming soon. 

Post edited at 14:08
3
 chris_r 30 Sep 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> I watched the video hoping to be vindicated in my preference for large sacks. But only 40 litres? That's barely a day sack!

I think I need to watch a video on "When To Use A Smaller Pack". My standard cragging sack for my trad rack is 65litres. Mostly just for flapjack.

Message Removed 30 Sep 2021
Reason: inappropriate content
 Chewie65 30 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

This is simple - when you weight 70kg and 1.4m talk and are told by DofE that you have to carry 30kg and a 65l rucksack. 
I’m really not sure of DofE kit list is now, but I’ve seen it and was told by a lad the other day that this is what he was told he had to do.  I do wonder if the instructor was still in the 80’s, when option was canvas force 10, trangia and bulky sleeping bags,

Or certain outdoor shops sell 65 ltr for DofE 

im sure this debate goes on . 

In reply to Chewie65:

> This is simple - when you weight 70kg and 1.4m talk and are told by DofE that you have to carry 30kg and a 65l rucksack.

These days, DofE shouldn't be asking you to carry more than 25% of your bodyweight...

I'm 1.74m tall and weigh 72kg...

 Robert Durran 30 Sep 2021
In reply to chris_r:

> I think I need to watch a video on "When To Use A Smaller Pack". My standard cragging sack for my trad rack is 65litres. Mostly just for flapjack.

My standard cragging sack is 100litres and has been for 30 years. it's great to be able to just chuck everything in. My Pod Black Ice (max about 60litres) does for pretty much everything else - bombproof and I have another stockpiled, so should do me for the rest of my life. Only time I prefer something smaller is for mountain cragging where the second carries a sack (got something around 30litres though smaller would be ok).

Post edited at 11:28
 Robert Durran 30 Sep 2021
In reply to Chewie65:

> This is simple - when you weight 70kg and 1.4m talk and are told by DofE that you have to carry 30kg and a 65l rucksack. 

> I’m really not sure of DofE kit list is now, but I’ve seen it and was told by a lad the other day that this is what he was told he had to do.  I do wonder if the instructor was still in the 80’s, when option was canvas force 10, trangia and bulky sleeping bags,

> Or certain outdoor shops sell 65 ltr for DofE 

I don't think anybody need be carrying more than 20kg for gold D of E. I don't think 65 litres is unreasonable for comfort and convenience though, but you could certainly manage fine with smaller. 

 Fat Bumbly2 30 Sep 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

Trying to find a large pack now - the packraft has certain volume implications especially as I have one of the larger models. 

One thing that video showed was how complicated packs can be - far too many failure points?  At least now I know that my next big pack should outlast me.

 nufkin 30 Sep 2021
In reply to Chewie65:

>  told by DofE that you have to carry 30kg and a 65l rucksack...force 10, trangia and bulky sleeping bags,

Isn't the point of DofE to learn how unpleasant it is to use all this stuff and get a Jetboil, Thermarest and superlight down bag as soon as possible afterwards?

 TobyA 30 Sep 2021
In reply to Robert Durran:

> My standard cragging sack is 100litres and has been for 30 years. 

Is it one of those Karrimor Condors from the late 80s? I seem to remember being amazingly impressed looking at them in the Karrimor catalogues of that era.

Fortunately as I grew out of my early teenage years, I realised that bigger isn't necessarily better in rucksacks and in other things!

Can you even buy 100 ltr rucksacks now? I presumed they in some way contravened the European Convention of Human Rights or some such...

 Toerag 30 Sep 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Can you even buy 100 ltr rucksacks now? I presumed they in some way contravened the European Convention of Human Rights or some such...

Yep, commonly for military / expedition applications.

 Toerag 30 Sep 2021
In reply to pancakeandchips:

> I lost a walking pole off the side of my bag just last week when I was on a callout thrashing through heavy undergrowth looking for someone.


I tied my gaiters onto my pack to dry on Queen's scout practice - they too disappeared after wading through head high bracken on Dartmoor .

 Toerag 30 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Not watched the vid as I'm at work, but the danger with wand pockets is not realising there's a hole in the bottom to let skis poke out. This also lets anything other than skis fall out!

Did the vid discuss strap-on pockets? This is potentially a good solution. My La Cerro Torre has bellows side pockets, but they're of little use when the pack is full. So I got a pair of large Aigulle side pockets and strapped them on for a 9 day trek, a good solution if you have light, bulky kit, or if your back system can take the weight of densely-packed stuff.

Post edited at 12:46
 matthew jones 30 Sep 2021
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Yeah, you've got to love it. If there is not room for all your clobber in your smaller pack, then use your larger pack. 

 Robert Durran 30 Sep 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Is it one of those Karrimor Condors from the late 80s?

It was a Karrimor prototype I got for a trip in 1989. Not sure whether it went into production. It eventually fell apart beyond use about 10 years ago. The prototype Alpinist I got at the same time is still going strong as my tatty wall sack.

> Fortunately as I grew out of my early teenage years, I realised that bigger isn't necessarily better in rucksacks and in other things!

But nor is smaller - basically you want a sack which allows you to pack all the stuff you need without too much stuff on the outside and without it being an endlessly repeated faff to stuff it all in or get anything out.

> Can you even buy 100 ltr rucksacks now? I presumed they in some way contravened the European Convention of Human Rights or some such...

My replacement is an American Dana Designs one. I bought it second hand off someone in here.

 Robert Durran 30 Sep 2021
In reply to matthew jones:

> Yeah, you've got to love it. If there is not room for all your clobber in your smaller pack, then use your larger pack. 

Although this seems obvious to some of us, it is clearly a difficult concept for many to grasp.

 Chewie65 30 Sep 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

If you are who I think you are 😄then you’d know Mole.  Few years ago he told me DofE wouldn’t let his groups use his tents or light weight gear as it wasn’t “kit list”,  but they could use it for Ten Tors. 

I used to teach and assess DofE until mid 90’s, and kit until then was shite. 
yes logic dictates a ratio, but I found the organisation lacking in it, maybe it’s changed. Have any of the rule makers done the award or even ML  (I’m sure they have) 
But ive seen kids on Dartmoor with 65l quite recently with sacks hanging well below the backsides. 
but as someone else said, yep the discomfort should make you a better person- or jack it in and return to your Xbox . 
 

ps - can I send you some of my excess weight 😄
 

 Chewie65 30 Sep 2021
In reply to captain paranoia:

If you are who I think you are 😄then you’d know Mole.  Few years ago he told me DofE wouldn’t let his groups use his tents or light weight gear as it wasn’t “kit list”,  but they could use it for Ten Tors. 

I used to teach and assess DofE until mid 90’s, and kit until then was bulky and heavy 
yes logic dictates a ratio, but I found the organisation lacking in it, maybe it’s changed. Have any of the rule makers done the award or even ML  (I’m sure they have) 
But ive seen kids on Dartmoor with 65l quite recently with sacks hanging well below the backsides. 
but as someone else said, yep the discomfort should make you a better person- or jack it in and return to your Xbox . 
 

ps - can I send you some of my excess weight 😄
 

 ScraggyGoat 30 Sep 2021
In reply to UKC/UKH Articles:

Let me just check, it’s a great winter pack despite oodles of mesh on the back system and large wand pockets, both guaranteed to trap lots of spindrift, your axe is attached via an insubstantial bit of elastic (unless you use the side compression straps) there was no mention of an external crampon attachment (yes I know the in or outside the sac is a marmite debate), has a weak point of a bloody great external zip opening waiting to get damaged if bum sliding, and due to the adjustable back is already a heavy sac.

It looks like a great comfortable, versatile  3 season do most things sac (if you don’t mind all the water back system and pockets might hold) but it wouldn’t even get on to my reject list of a winter sacs.

Post edited at 22:59
2
In reply to Chewie65:

> If you are who I think you are 😄then you’d know Mole.  Few years ago he told me DofE wouldn’t let his groups use his tents or light weight gear as it wasn’t “kit list”,  but they could use it for Ten Tors. 

I wouldn't let my DofE lot use a Squeezebox Stove or a Caldera Clone; they don't have the experience or sense to use them safely. So I do have some sympathy. Lightweight kit requires experience. The vast majority of DofE don't have that experience.

But I think most of the overloaded participants is down to some inexperienced leaders, who insist on sticking to 'the kit list', and participants who insist on taking six pairs of jeans, a hair dryer, large bag of make-up, litre bottle of skin cleanser, etc, etc. And that's just the boys...

'The kit list' isn't too unreasonable these days. It requires spares because they don't have the experience or sense to keep themselves dry. But there are plenty of ways the list can be met with lighter weight equivalents; that's what I suggest. And I tell them not to take a tea towel...

1
 65 30 Sep 2021
In reply to TobyA:

> Is it one of those Karrimor Condors from the late 80s? I seem to remember being amazingly impressed looking at them in the Karrimor catalogues of that era.

I had one of those. Very comfortable once adjusted correctly but on my first couple of backpacking trips I could barely stand up with it on. Steep hills and flights of steps were like gym sessions.

> Can you even buy 100 ltr rucksacks now? I presumed they in some way contravened the European Convention of Human Rights or some such...

I still have a POD sac which I think was also branded by Lowe Alpine, it's around 100l and weighs more empty than my current daysack does full, unless stuffed with photographic kit. It's good for walking into huts etc but I'm too weak to use it for proper journeys. Unless it's winter, I backpack with a 45l and my daypack is 30l. Both Patagonia Ascenscionists, best packs I've ever used.

 rachcrewe 03 Nov 2021
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

> Let me just check, it’s a great winter pack despite oodles of mesh on the back system and large wand pockets, both guaranteed to trap lots of spindrift, your axe is attached via an insubstantial bit of elastic (unless you use the side compression straps) there was no mention of an external crampon attachment (yes I know the in or outside the sac is a marmite debate), has a weak point of a bloody great external zip opening waiting to get damaged if bum sliding, and due to the adjustable back is already a heavy sac.

> It looks like a great comfortable, versatile  3 season do most things sac (if you don’t mind all the water back system and pockets might hold) but it wouldn’t even get on to my reject list of a winter sacs.

All your points are valid but only for very specific types of winter use. A standard winter hill walk will not feature loads of spindrift down the back, even on a really windy day. This is pretty climbing specific. 

A winter hillwalker generally shouldn't be carrying an axe attached to the elastic. It should be down the back and ready to use at all times. Maybe I should have stressed this. 

Keeping your crampons on the outside is recipe for dropping them. The most important piece of kit and you want to put them on the outside? 

The external zip could be a weak point but it is supported by some good buckled straps. Plus when I bum slide I don't lie on my back. 

It's quite a heavy bag but sometimes this makes it more comfortable. Fast and light and stripped back isn't for everybody. 

1
 rachcrewe 03 Nov 2021
In reply to ScraggyGoat:

I should also add that I reckon your over trousers will fail a long time before this bag, unless you have access to some magic bum-sliding gear that keeps your pants dry on consecutive days. If so, please send the link. 


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