Pack size reccomendations?

[rabbit]

Hi,
I am getting a pack soon and I will probably get a 60L.
I am only 13 and I weigh about 55 kilos and am fairly tall. Would this be big enough for trips like the Overland track if sharing gear like tents and stove with other people?

Ryan

[Robbo]

Hello Ryan

In respect of pack size, for someone of your age the rule of thumb is around 25% body weight - 55 kgs = 13.5 to 14 kgs. A 60 litre pack would be sufficient for this amount of gear. It is quite easy to pack to this weight if you share cooking and camping gear, carry dehydrated food, and take quality thermal and water proof clothing. For places such as the Walls of Jerusalem and Overland Track you do not have to carry much water, so this helps with weight.

You should be able to carry sufficient food and gear for a 5 to 6 day walk with a pack this size.

Hope this helps

Tony Robinson

[rabbit]

Thanks,
I thought it would be OK but I just wanted to be 100% sure before I went out and bought a pack incase it was too small for what I wanted.

[Son of a Beach]

I agree that 60 litres should be fine for the OT or the walls (I think my wife's pack is 60 or 65 litres). However, do you plan to get into longer (or colder) walks in the future? I lean towards larger packs for myself, because they can always carry the same gear that a smaller pack can carry (ie, you don't have to fill it up and can adjust it to be less tall and less bulky), but a smaller pack would be a problem on the few occasions when (if) you really need the extra space.

Of course a larger pack will weigh a little more than a smaller pack, so you have to decide if that little extra weight is worth the extra capacity for you (and this is different for each individual - to me that little extra weight is worth it for a greater capacity which I do need sometimes; for others, keeping the weight down is more of a priority).

On long walks where I've had to carry additional clothing for extreme weather, and a lot of food, I've filled my 85 litre pack so full that I've had to carry my fresh packed lunch for the first day in my hand because I just couldn't squish it into the pack.

[Nuts]

On the other hand- You could buy a smaller pack, then you wont be able to take too much. You will think about everything that goes in and learn how to pack properly from the start. You can save a good 1-1.5kg just in the pack weight. You can buy 110L packs....

I consider 60L a large(week plus) pack these days. In theory they should carry 60kg! Impossible, I know, however the more you pack it the closer you get.

You will never need to learn unless you try- the option is carrying several extra kg's about with you for the hell of it. It has been shown many times that you don't need a massive pack for modern/lightweight gear. It is not simply a matter of experience- It is a determination to learn properly from the start.

I would suggest, with all respect Nik, that carrying an 85L pack (with hand luggage) is ridiculous. It may also be far more dangerous than going light (If you haven't done a knee or your back, it will happen).

A case to consider: 'in the good ol' days' Craclair guides would carry their gear, group food,camping gear and sometimes 2/3 tents. The standard pack- 60L WE expedition. The standard weight 30-40kg.....

[Singe]

60L is ample capacity IMO. If you ever need extra capacity, a lightweight daypack attached to the back of the pack can add 10-15L for stuff that can get wet (rubbish bag, rain jacket etc). I normally carry a Kathmandu pocket pack; also comes in handy for summits/sidetracks.

I did a knee carrying two tents + most gear for three people, on an overnighter with two others who only had day packs. From memory that was a 75L pack with 15L daypack clipped on. Pushing the limits of what you can safely carry is not worth the risk of pain, expense and downtime!

[Son of a Beach]

Nuts & Singe - I do agree with you guys in prinicipal, however in practice for me personally, I cannot afford to buy the more expensive gear that would fit in a 60 litre pack for a 15 day walk, and feel safe and comfortable (or when catering for newbie walk-mates on some shorter walks where I like to treat them a bit).

Sure 60 litres is fine for 7 days for taking all the essential gear. However, I occasionally walk somewhat longer than that, and I like to take enough gear to feel safe and comfortable on the longs walks as well as on the short walks, and also to take some non-essential gear (eg, camera, book, etc). My finances are limited, and I can't afford to replace my existing gear with anything that compresses more than what I've already got.

To me, some of the extra things I like to carry (eg, bulky fresh food) make the walk more comfortable and/or enjoyable than would the reduction in weight if I left them out. This is why I tried to make it clear that different people have different priorities, and each person just needs to think about their needs and priorities carefully before making a decision either way.

EDIT:

Note that on the walks I mentioned earlier where I needed to carry my lunch in a plastic bag in my hand due to it not fitting in my pack...
1. It would have fitted into my pack if it was a more boring lunch. I like to have a good fresh lunch on the first day, and in this case the lunch was bulky.
2. By the end of the walk, I had lots of spare room in my pack, and what was left would have very nearly fitted into a 60 litre pack. That's about 15 litres of food & packaging. Not all of it boring food, and some of it requires a bit of space to be packed without being crushed. (For a 15 day walk, I'll cater for 17 days.)

Other people have other needs. I have a friend who always carries very bulky waders, including neoprene booties, amongst a lot of other fishing gear. He used to borrow my wife's 65 litre pack, and ended up having to either strap the waders to the outside (risking getting caught in trees), or wear them while he walked (risking getting very hot). They wouldn't fit in the pack, because it was already filled with large amounts of gourmet food (amongst other things), such as two whole venison scotch fillets.

Different strokes for different folks, I reckon.

[johnw]

Initially I started with a smaller, cheaper pack but found that I struggled to get everything in. Before each trip and on breaking camp I would end up having to taking everything out and repack it several times before I got a satisfactory result. I resolved that I would get a bigger pack, and now have one that's about 100L capacity with a good harness that can take that size load if necessary. I don't aim to fill it up and haven't yet, but I no longer have packing problems. Just roll the top down and secure the straps to suit the size of the load.

I aim to travel as light as I sensibly can, and would love to buy all the best and lightest gear on the market. If money was no object I would do just that. But unfortunately it is, and I already own some bulkier/heavier gear that is perfectly OK and does the job. When shopping for new equipment I always look for the smallest, lightest and best quality that I can afford. Which usually means some sort of compromise.

[Penguin]

I am a bit with JohnW

I recently went from a 70l pack to an 80l. The 70l ha done good service and was starting to suffer. The 80l weighs 2.8kg, slightly lighter than my 70, but I love tehe ability to just put things in rather than having to carefully pack. The total weight of my pack is comming down, but I can easily put bulky light items in (such as Crocs) and everything goes inside the pack. Everything on the inside is great when going off track.

Going lighter does not necessarily mean going smaller.

[Kainas]

I would like to jump in on this topic if I can (or perhaps I should start my own 'pack size recommendations 2").

We just bought Black Wolf Mountain Ash 65l & 75l bags for our two week trip. (this has to fit day clothes for being in town). The saleman assured me that 65litres was more then enough for me, and talked me out of the 75litre that I (female) wanted.

I am very disappointed with the bag. The drink bottle pockets push the bottles out if the pack is too full, the harness material is scratchy, the front pocket is useless if the bag is full. The lid pocket is divide into two, making both small, and one of those is very difficult to access.

I have been reading alot on this site, and someone commented that the Black Wolf brand overstate their capacity. Whic I believe as I can only fit my gear in if the extender section which means that I have no room to move. I don't know how people pack with less. By the time by sleeping bag, sleeping mat, sleeping liner & pillow go into the bag it is half full. I hardley think I am being excessive. I keep hearing (reading) that you only need 55litres for a five day hike...I need 70litres for an overnight hike!

[Nuts]

The old saying 'you get what you pay for' is alive in the gear world. Some of these brands weren't even considered in the race several years ago when Macpac Mont OP, WE etc. were dominant. Wouldn't expect them to be much better now...

Fill it with water and see how close to 65L it goes... If you want something to compare try WE expedition 60. If you carn't get everything in that cavernous hole (and the standard ol style garbage bin was 47L!!) then I would suggest leaving the 'pillow' behind as in reality it may as well weigh a couple of kg's.

[sthughes]

I found myself in the exact same position as Johnw and Penguin. Had a 70l and my bulky gear just wouldn't fit without hanging the tent off the outside. I upped it to a 90l and now can just chuck everything in no probs. It's also fantastic if you want to do a short cushy walk to stay at a hut or something too - like SOAB said you can add real food like fruit, vegies, meat, eggs and muffins!I know all that weighs a ton but if it's only a short walk to a "basecamp" then who cares.

Having said that, if I had all the small gear and didn't care for the convienience then I'd get a 60 or whatever just for the comfort and extra freedom of movement. Also if you are sharing stuff with others then you don't need nearly the same space because a tent each is a space killer, as is most cooking stuff - both of which are often shared and hence halved. Also freeze dried food takes up less space and require less conking pots - but it's pricey and in some cases tastes horrible (eg. Backcountry Cooked Breakfast!).
Summary - I like theversatility of a big pack. You can make a big one small but you can't make a small one big. For the small weight/price gain I think it's worth it. But I understand the no more than 60l advocates as well.

Edit - My sister has a 60l Black Wolf (different model) and it is fantastic - but she says it's a bit small (doesn't have all the cool small modern gear either). Luckily her hubby has a 110l pack so he gets the sleeping bags and bulk while she carries the high density stuff.

[Penguin]

You can make a big one small but you can't make a small one big.

I have a single compartment cnavass/cordura pack with compression straps. It is easy to make the pack thinner and shorter if I am not carrying much. Last weekend I had it as the short version with the tent at the height of my shoulders - very comfortable and it would have been fine for off track work, had we done any. I am not a big frame but do not find teh foot print of the pack on my back cumbersome. If it is fully packed it is a bit high for easily getting under some bracnhes etc, but otherwise okay.

The pack has only one external pounch and smooth sides so it does not get caught on branches and rocks if I am scambering around. The design of the pack is as important s the size.

Also manufacturers vary tremondously about what they call a 60L pack. I understand that MacPac and WE are the gold standards for getting it right. What is other opinions?

[Robbo]

I understand that MacPac and WE are the gold standards for getting it right. What is other opinions?

My understanding is that MacPac has lost some of its appeal with its new range, but that WE and One Planet are the standard at the moment.

Tony Robinson

[norts]

I am another advocate for a larger pack than is necessary. I carry a WE Expedition2 I only carry my water bottle on the outside. I love having enough room to put every thing in easily without worrying.
I do not like to have things hanging on the outside of my pack. My pet hate is finding pieces of blue mat.
I love doing a 4 day walk and cynching(spelling) the lid right down and not having to use the throat. My body groans once the throat starts to raise out of the depths on longer walks.
I am always carrying all my own gear and sometimes gear for my sons.

Go big and be firm about what needs to go on the walk. Dont take it just because you have the room.

Roger

[Nuts]

So.... rabbit, there you have it... the big pack lovers still outnumber the lightweights it seems.
Though i'm sure they would agree that 'Yes' the pack size you mention would indeed "be suitable for walks such as the Overland Track"....especially if it true to size
Also that it would not be so crucial to have everything inside on such a walk.

(and i'm still pondering where smaller doesn't equal lighter)
I'd suggest probably more-so that lighter doesn't necessarily mean dearer! In fact most brands seem to bump the price up with larger packs to start with.

[Taurë-rana]

I carried a small, light (weight of pack) and comfortable pack last weekend, but I'm not sure exactly how big so I can't comment on volume. Actually it's about the size of a garbage bag, so it is probably smaller than 60L.
I managed to carry everything I needed but more food, or a tent, definitely would not have fitted. I wouldn't want to carry much more weight, but it would be much easier to have a bigger pack. On the other hand, I agree with Robbo that if you have a small pack, it's much harder to take too much. The other thing is that, unlike me, you will most likely grow very rapidly both up and in strength/bulk in the next few years!

[Son of a Beach]

So.... rabbit, there you have it... the big pack lovers still outnumber the lightweights it seems.

But both points of view are worth noting (numbers do not necessarily equate to wisdom ), you just need to decide which way your own priorities and practices are best suited. In particular, if you are buying all new gear, you may be able to buy gear that more easily fits into a smaller pack than those of us who have older bulkier gear (and can't justify replacing it all before it wears out).

Though i'm sure they would agree that 'Yes' the pack size you mention would indeed "be suitable for walks such as the Overland Track"....especially if it true to size

Absolutely (as I said in my initial post in this topic)! For 5 days (or so) on the OT, 60 litres would be sufficient (for the necessities), especially if your are sharing tent, stove, etc with somebody else...

Also that it would not be so crucial to have everything inside on such a walk.

...and yes, the OT is fairly clear, and not much of a problem for items strapped to the outside of packs.

(and i'm still pondering where smaller doesn't equal lighter)
I'd suggest probably more-so that lighter doesn't necessarily mean dearer! In fact most brands seem to bump the price up with larger packs to start with.

Smaller packs are generally cheaper, I think. Some of the other gear that you might want to put into it may be expensive (if it's not expensive, then it might not be durable or of good quality). When I mentioned cost earlier, I was referring more to my own situation, I guess - Ie, I already own all the gear I need, and can't afford to replace it all with smaller/lighter gear when it all works perfectly well as it is.

As I said in my earlier post, the only reason I really raised the question of a larger pack was to consider what else you may want to do with your pack in the future. A 60 litre would be OK for the OT, but do you ever plan to do any other walks? If so, you need to assess your priorities. For some people a 60 litre pack is fine for a wide variety of walks and helps decrease the weight they carry, and some people prefer a larger capacity for longer walks, or more comforable/enjoyable/luxurious items or easier packing, etc. So you need to assess your own future needs (post-OT) and determine your own priorities. Hopefully there's enough of all perspectives here to give you enough information to make up your mind.

[Tony]

Hi Rabbit,

I come from the minority (on this forum) lightweight side, go lightweight from the start, do some research, going lightweight can be no more expensive than heavier gear and in many cases cheaper. I use Golite packs and have for many years now, (75l Trek 1kg and a 50l Jam2 626g) they are very light tough and comfortable, I usually have room to spare and have no difficulty with packing and finding gear. I am going to purchase a golite pinnacale 72l 710g soon to replace my trek, US$130.

Going lightweight has improved my enjoyment of bushwalking immensely, no sore back or shoulders, feet and legs suffer less, going up big hills is much easier, leaving some luxuries behind and going a bit rougher can be very enjoyable in itsself.

Last weekend I did a summer trip in winter conditions using my 50l Jam2 pack viewtopic.php?f=15&t=1368 and viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1359 I had room to spare my total weight was 9.5kg including food and water, I probably could have fitted 5-7 days food in the pack if I used dehydrated food.

A good forum to read is http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin ... ecent.html on BPL it is all about going lightweight and it has some very good tips and are welcoming to new participants with questions, many of the BPL forum participants do long distant walks carrying very light base loads of 2.5-5kg + food.

Tony

[Nuts]

Tony, I have a few pinnacles if you need one. (They were just a bit too light for our use.)

Nik, as usual, you present a balanced view.

Despite all the options available, I would probably still choose something bigger and heavier (ie. The WE packs in canvas) as a single 'all-rounder' that could handle off-track (60L that is). It's a good kilo heavier than the pack I use most now, but I'd be sure it would take the abuse.

[rabbit]

Thanks for the replies everyone.
I have decided to go with a 70L pack. It is a Mountain Designs Tellus 70. I think it is a good pack for the price and I am happy with it.

Ryan

[Robbo]

Looking forward to a report on how it goes for you, Rabbit.

Cheers

Tony Robinson

[rabbit]

Yeah, I will post up a report on the pack after some field testing.

Ryan

[Kainas]

ha, thanks for asking the question...it got me some answers I was after. I got the guts (determination) to return our two (unused) Mountain Ash packs today. I feel better already, we are going to go check out the One Planet McMillan on Saturday.... The store was very good about it, which is good...after all they gave us the advice to buy them (plus I suspect they know I have bought most of my other gear there!).