Mid-sized woman's rucksack recommendations

[the_camera_poser]

Hi all, I'm debating replacing my wife's Jackaroo pack with something a bit more sturdy and reliable. She's got a bad back, so it needs to be something well-suspended, in the 2-3 night range (50-60 litres). I'll carry the bulky stuff like the tent and sleeping stuff, and heavy stuff like fuel, so she'd have clothing and around 1/2 the food (for three of us, one child). So medium weight range.

I'd like something dependable, but she doesn't need a super-tough ultra-reliable expedition pack. Water-resistance would be good too.

Any recommendations?

[juney]

Have a look at the Osprey Ariel 55. http://www.ospreypacks.com I am not computer savvy, so thats just the website, not a link. I think its a really good combo of adjustability, weight, features and price. Fabric is PU coated, but not seam sealed, so not waterproof, but thats pretty standard. Stick with pack liner &/or pack cover for that. I find it a super comfy pack. I think they're around $350.
Cheers,
Juney.

[photohiker]

For a bad back (or any back for that matter) I think I'd suggest one of the Aarn balance packs like the Featherlite Freedom

Two things impress me about these packs: The whole front pocket and balance system and harness that takes the weight off the shoulders and allows the wearer to stand more naturally upright; and also the built-in waterproof dri-liner that gives 100% waterproofness. You can specify 'Dri' balance pockets as well - There's a photo on the Aarn site here of a pack and wearer almost totally submerged in a river...

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[rabbit]

Hi,
You might want to have a look at the Mountain Designs packs as they are on sale at the moment.
I have one and find it very comfortable and it is called a Tellus 70. They also come in a women's version.


Ryan

[r3volution]

Was going to suggest that your best hopes in terms of getting a good mid-size pack in that 55-65l range with some water-resistance and being reasonably tough would be something like the One Planet Mungo Womens model (60L) or the Macpac Esprit series (55L & 65L). Both have poly-canvas construction so they'll last well and be pretty damn water-resistant. Lastly I've got a fairly dodgy back and my One Planet Mungo 65L has been very kind to it so far.

[the_camera_poser]

She really didn't like the One Planet Mungo- she found the lower back system very uncomfortable. It could be that it wasn't properly adjusted, but it was a pretty quick and authoritative rejection.

We've now tried about 20 different packs. Here's what we've found: (the caps sections reflect wife's reactions)

Mountain Designs Tellus- terribly uncomfortable- tries to cut off the jubbly bits at the front that us guys don't want cut off, and the sample pack in the store had seams pulling apart, the manufacturer hadn't backstitched half the joins, so they'd come unsewn pretty quickly. Grossly overpriced. REJECTED HARD.

One Planet Mungo- uncomfy lower back, more than she was willing to spend, sits too tall on her. Bad overall impression. FIRMLY REJECTED.

Blackwolf Packs- Skimpy hip belts and uncomfortable harness. REJECTED

Vango- Wow- that thing would last like 20 minutes in the scrub. Maybe it was just hte model we looked at, but man, that warn't no pack I'd go walking with, unless it was around Eurodisney. REJECTED WITH DISDAIN

Roman 50 lt Hiking Pack- she actually liked this one, but it was a bit too flimsy, and a bit too small. REJECTED.

DMH 70 Lt Ambassador Hybrid Pack- she actually liked this one. Not going to last forever, but for a few years, it'd do. POSSIBLE.

Macpac and Lowe- rejected as being too expensive. She's a worse Scrooge than me, I fear.... But we will look into them if she doesn't like the Wilderness Equipment Outbreak or Tatonka Yukon Light on second examination. REJECTED DUE TO SCROOGINESS

White Mountains Packs- Extremely interesting, but no practical way to try them on, so have to give them a miss. REJECTED AS IMPRACTICAL

Tatonka Yukon Light 60+10 lt- she really liked this pack- it sat comfortably, the harness was comfy without trying to perform a masectomy, doesn't have the exact configuration she wants (ready access for food and water for our little troll), but she could add a couple of accessory pouches for that. Price is good. Very rugged construction, and a brand she has good history with (she has a much-loved Tatonka daypack that she really puts through the paces). She could possibly go for the Yukon, rather than the Yukon Light, which has the same harness, but a bit better of a configuration. DEFINITE MAYBE

Wilderness Equipment Breakout- she hasn't tried this one yet- I'll have to drag her back to Burnie where maybe the eternally patient Taswaterfalls will let her try one on. This one gets my vote- it's the same price (roughly) as the Tatonka Yukon, and it's canvas. PERHAPS

Ones to still check on, if we could be bothered (she's starting to get a bit testy with pack shopping):

Osprey (too dear though- I'd go for the canvas Wilderness Expedition bag for less $$$$)

Mont- have to have a look at the Escape and Backcountry. Once again, I'm not sure it's good value compared to the WE Breakout.

Berghaus (just have to check it out)
You think this is fun, you should try shopping for boots with her.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[the_camera_poser]

I was pretty impressed with the Tatonka too. I tried the big one they've been selling- around 85+ litres, and it was uncomfortable for me, but the smaller one for her was good. I think I'll have to go to Hobart one weekend and do a bit more shopping- try out some of the others I can't find up here.

[johnw]

Wilderness Equipment Breakout- she hasn't tried this one yet- I'll have to drag her back to Burnie where maybe the eternally patient Taswaterfalls will let her try one on. This one gets my vote- it's the same price (roughly) as the Tatonka Yukon, and it's canvas. PERHAPS

In case you haven't enough variety yet , it might also be worth looking at the WE Alpine Express (small 55L). I have the larger Mountain Expedition and very happy with it, harness comfort in particular even with a heavy load. The Alpine Express design is almost the same but more compact. Not canvas though if that's an issue, but should be a bit lighter.

[Nuts]

Just from another angle cp, (there are a few there that i havent seen so i assume they are similar capacity)-i wouldn't choose any of them... The WE you mention is a solid pack, the others (especially OP) have big beefy harnesses, sit too far out from your back etc etc. All designed to be comfortable carrying heavy loads. I would suggest that she lightens the load first then gets a very much smaller/lighter pack (lrg day pack even) where a heavy harness is not the decider and the weight is not an issue ... Carrying the pack is not usually the problem with back injuries (back stays warm), its getting it up and down that normally seems to cause the trouble. Personally, my thoughts are that if someone with (spinal?) back injury cant carry a pack with almost no harness padding (ie golite etc) (comfortably) then it's too heavy... (might mean you carry more for her though ) just thoughts thou, carry on...

[the_camera_poser]

Nuts- that's a very good point, and a conclusion I'm starting to come to myself. I might be better to spend money on down bags and ultralight stuff and not on a load-carrying bag for her.

Also, choosing "base camp" style hikes like the Walls, and doing a series of day hikes form Pelion or Scott Kilvert Huts might be a good solution too. I carry all the stuff in, and then we go from there.

I better hit the gym......

[sml_12]

Hi CP.

Out of curiosity - which is the problematic part of her back?

I have herniated discs in my lumbar spine and more recently upper back and neck issues - so I have recently had to think about reassessing my pack (probably at a later date as it becomes more necessary).
I used to find my pack VERY comfortable (it's a macpac - zambesi - nothing special), and the herniations were an existing problem back when I first got it - but I noticed on a short trip I took a couple of weeks back that the more recent upper back issues have completely altered the dynamic. I can certainly no longer cope with the same weight as I used to - even trying to mess around with the distribution... I don't feel that it's an issue with the straps or padding or anything - I think I just am not able to cope with the same amount of weight as I once did. I'm prepared to admit that age and fitness possibly have a bit to do with that too...

I still have no problem initially picking up or setting the pack down as I find that I have fairly good upper body and leg strength, and it's mostly a balance issue anyway... but I suffered carrying the pack - and I was not camping - so it's a little distressing imagining what it might be like carrying food and all the other associated gear....

I'm very interested in hearing what you end up going with.

I'm hoping that increasing my core strength will alter at least some of the issues I'm having with the pack. And I agree at least in part regards the warmth issue. I have far fewer dodgy moments with my back if I stay warm (and don't spend too much time sitting).

It's a shame you can't do a real "test drive" with the packs - mine still feels excellent when I first put it on... sadly the feeling doesn't last.

Anyway - I hope you have some luck!

[Nuts]

sml could be more the way the shoulder staps pull back? do you wear a chest strap? Do you tighten the hip belt (over your pelvis) while there is No weight on the shoulder straps? properly fitted (ive found), a pack shouldnt really give too much upper back trouble...

i guess the balance pockets (/pack^) might work if you do need to carry full weights?

[sml_12]

Hey Nuts...
Hmm... yeah, I DO wear a chest strap...
A mate helped me with my pack selection years ago - and like I said it was an awesome fit initially - but I AM older now.. so I guess the pack hasn't changed any, but I have.. Other than that - I know for sure that I have a tendency to overload myself (probably at least in part why I have a bad back...). I usually am fairly conscious about making sure the pack "fits" in my lumbar region in an attempt to reduce the weight bearing on my shoulders - but truly - I wouldn't know if I was doing it right or not. It seemed to be just fine before... Not sure if that's what you were getting at???

The sensation I have when carrying the pack is mostly one of compression of my thoracic vertebrae, but I have issues with the cervical ones as I tend to have my head forward some (I think). I only get lumbar issues if I REALLY overload the pack. I haven't had to hoof it with a pack on for years - I wear a "crumpler" on my bike around town and that's it. You could be right with the strap issue - but I find it difficult to tell to be honest. I actually find I prefer to carry things in front of me these days - or to the side rather than on my back. It causes me far less discomfort (at least as far as I can ascertain thus far) - but it is a little awkward etc. as you can imagine.
Years of sitting in an office in front of a computer haven't helped. Like I said - pretty sure that improving my overall back strength will help at least a little.

Thank god I'm towing a bike trailer to Tassie eh??

[the_camera_poser]

Helen's back injuries are to her neck and lower back- she was in a humongeous car accident when she was 19- her then-boyfriend's fully-loaded steel toolbox hit her in the back when someone pulled in front of them as they were travelling at 120 kph. Ouch. She generally goes very well- she was working in the ocnstruction trade when I met her an was a little brute- a tiny slip of a girl who was, at 5'2", way stronger than me- a beefy 6 footer. She just tries to be careful. also, she had long-term illness issues, and no longer is in peak health.

I think the answer is going to be going ultralight for her as much as possible, and working on a base camp principle- hiking into a place where we set up a central camp and then go off for day walks. I'll carry the heavy stuff, and she takes the sleeping bags. That was the original idea anyhow.

But then I might worry too much too- last time we went to Melbourne we literally walked everywhere- probably at least 12-15 kilometres, and she had a standard daypack with something like 11 kilos in it (she bought a couple of huge books, and I was carrying the camera bag), so she's not that bad off.

[sml_12]

Ouch indeed...!!
My upper back issues were similarly caused by being hit by my own tool box in a traffic accident... not at that sort of speed though. Holy cow!
Like I said - I sure hope that Helen finds something that works for her. Sounds like she has the biggest part of the problem licked anyway.. Attitude is such a big factor I think.
I did better as soon as I stopped listening to all the people who were hell bent on telling me what I couldn't do anymore.
Raspberries to them I say.

And truly - good luck and good health both to Helen.

[the_camera_poser]

Yeah- that's why she took up working in the building trade. She saw it as getting paid to get physiotherapy. She scares me a little bit....

I'm sure she'll be fine- she's tougher than I am by yards, I'm just trying to find the best solution for the money, and taking into consideration her total hatred of shopping for anything, especially backpacks...

[sml_12]

Go Helen!

I don't like shopping either (well - except for tools and stuff like that...). Your wife sounds excellent. I like to excavate my back yard for "physiotherapy"... Maybe we're related...

[the_camera_poser]

If you are meaner than a cut snake you could be related.

There's a pack by Wilderness Equipment, the Echo, which carrier 75 litres and weighs between 1.7 and 2.1 kg depending on your use of optional bits. That's an interesting option....

[sml_12]

I'm also 5'2" - and I'm.... um.... shall we say DIFFICULT at the best of times.
But I have a sense of humour about it - mostly. I was a secretary for years. It knocked some of the funny out of me.

Optional bits???!
That IS interesting!!

[the_camera_poser]

I'm also 5'2" - and I'm.... um.... shall we say DIFFICULT at the best of times.
But I have a sense of humour about it - mostly. I was a secretary for years. It knocked some of the funny out of me.

Optional bits???!
That IS interesting!!

You can remove the top and the pouch on the front- takes the weight to 1.7 kg.

[sml_12]

Yep - Googled it. I was paying attention, despite the silliness.
Seriously - interesting. But I'd just want to fill those bits up... not leave them behind... there goes the weight issue again. I'm not the kind of girl you should ever give extra pockets to.
I collect stuff...

Trying desperately to adhere to the KISS principle...

[sml_12]

This is my pack apparently - although I don't carry the zip-off day pack anymore - the zip failed a couple of years ago and I've been told it's not worth the repair... Being without it hasn't been an issue to date.
http://www.livingsimply.co.nz/itemdetail423.html
(So apparently it's about 2.9kg or thereabouts - give or take.)

I've only backpacked with this pack - no real bushwalking. Who knows - might be time for a change. Tasmania will be the test of many such things for me.
I'll be listening with much interest.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[photohiker]

I found the belt strap extremely useful and set the pack to hang loosely from the shoulders more to stop it falling backwards. Strangely I found the big pack easier on the back due to the load being transferred to the hips by the harness. The pack enabled the day pack to be clipped to the front for ready access which was great when going through check ins or digging around for maps. However, this put the day pack weight on the shoulders so after fifteen minutes it become rather unpleasant. Zipping it on the back of the pack (not easy as it needed to be compressed) no problems then carry the load.

These are the sort of reasons I suggested the Aarn Packs earlier. They are generally in the lightweight category without being in the sticks and tar-paper crazy lightweight end of the spectrum. When they are loaded as intended, with the balance pockets on, the front load is carried on the hip belt, not the shoulders. Additionally, the lower ends of the shoulder straps are linked through the bottom of the pack so that raising one shoulder as you climb an obstacle is not as restrictive as it is with a fixed harness - it moves with your body and there is give in the system that removes some stresses from the body whilst still carrying the required load.

Worth a look IMO

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[photohiker]

I've only had one for a couple of seasons, and I cannot say that I have done much rock hugging with it.

A couple of things. First, balance seems more natural and you don't need to lean into the load with this pack, so you are not into a situation of constant preload of your musculature. You can stand upright. There's a shot on BPL recently with our Franco wearing one, I'll see if I can find it.

Second, I think Aarn say that if you are in close proximity to rock faces etc, the balance pockets can be unclipped and attached to the sides of the pack, thereby rendering it into the same league as normal packs in that situation although it still retains the shoulder strap feature in that configuration.

As far as heat is concerned, it's not a vest arrangement. Unless you are very busty I don't think you are going to be in contact with the pockets. I certainly have not noticed any difference compared to a normal pack and it has always been a case of adjusting clothing to suit the conditions and your body. For me, that means a longsleeve poly or wool top with a vest if it's cold or rain jacket if it's wet. If it's hot, the balance pockets can carry more water where you can easily get to it.

I'm going to see if I can get hold of a pair of the 'Dri' pockets and attempt to stow camera gear in there safely. The Sport pockets will fit a 5D with short lens in a drybag (or not)

[photohiker]

Here's the thread on BPL with the picture of Franco wearing an Aarn pack. (it's the fourth post down)

I'm not linking the picture directly as I'm sure that breaks some rule or other The discussion there may also be relevant.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster