Backpack for longer treks

[corvus]

Adam,
Consider it done.
corvus

[etrangere]

My first post and it seems to have sparked a bit of debate, certainly not intended.

Adam yes I have noted the macpac cascade comes in 90L and wondered if it was more suited than the 75L for a 8 week walk. I gather the larger packs are perhaps more suited if you have alot of winter gear and/or need to carry more food for longer trips. I think recall reading that the longest section between availability to get food may be 10 days. I might search the forum or google it to see if thats correct. Has anyone any thoughts of a 75L vs 90L for what I intend. Any advice would be appreciated as havent backpacked/hiked since I was a kid. Although most of my camping gear is of the backpacking/hiking variety most of my experience is 4WD camping. It keeps my load smaller/lighter as I only have a short wheel base 4WD (Jeep Wrangler)

thanks, Mark

[tasadam]

I haven't studied the details of the walk you are intending, but if you are able to restock every 10 days (max), then 75L should be plenty. I did 15 days, and had 10KG's of camera gear as well.
But, best to lay your gear out then borrow a pack and see how it all fits in, then at least you'll have a better idea on size.

[etrangere]

Wow 10kgs of camera gear! I will just stick to my tiny pocket digital camera and increase the red wine quota

Agree with your point Adam, I actually bought a StS ultra-sil pack liner 90L yesterday with that exact idea in mind.

By the way thanks for all the feedback guys, no matter what manufacturers say about their products nothing beats first hand experience from people who have used them

[Tony]

Hi Mark.

If you have not already try this forum out http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hiking-wa/

It is a forum setup around the Bibbulmun Track, the forum founder Mark Mclauchlin and others will be able to give you some very good advice, tell Mark that I told you to contact him.

I personally think that a 90l pack is the last thing you need, do some reading up on light weight walking, here is a link to some web sites to help get you started. viewtopic.php?f=35&t=2588 I am sure that Mark Mclauchlin will also be able to help you with LW gear selection.

Tony

[frank_in_oz]

Hi Mark,
"treading carefully here"
We are on to our third pack -The One Planet Strezlecki (not even sure if they still make this model) - we wrote up why we decided on it here. We describe the selection process or what we wanted. http://ourhikingblog.com.au/2008/03/bes ... lanet.html

As per the Bibbulman Track - a mate of mine Dave wrote it up in great detail and we did about 5 posts on it. This should get you to them: http://ourhikingblog.com.au/category/bibbulman-track Dave writes really well and is very experienced. It is a walk on my "bucket list"

Have a great walk.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[etrangere]

Thanks for the links guys will check them out after work!

[Nuts]

etrangere, there are some good comments here but probably that which will prove most valuable is Tony's:

I personally think that a 90l pack is the last thing you need, do some reading up on light weight walking Tony

It is quite possible to fit 40kg in a sixty litre pack. There is nothing good about overloading no matter how fit (or young). Even without a lot of money there are a number of things that can be done to keep it light, reading and picking up concepts is cheap and easy! You will need to be carrying water, the upside is that you can probably get away with lighter gear for such a walk. Think about multiple use, the way you use clothing/temp rating of sleeping bags, lightweight shelters etc. As your questions revolve around a pack size you have already chosen these thoughts may already be wasted on you, however, I have found that its either the young, inexperienced or (as yet) uninjured who start by filling such a large pack.

[Drifting]

I only use a 95 litre pack because I am carrying my daughter's gear in addition to my own.

[sthughes]

Agreed, on my last 4 day walk my 85L had room to spare even with a 4L Cask of 'wine' (still in box), box of Christmas short bread and spacious 3 man tent. It is very convenient though to be able to do such things with ease. It also makes packing very easy. I wouldn't want ONLY a smaller one, but if I were to get a second pack it would be much smaller, primarily to use on shorter/harder/faster and less luxurious trips. But seem I can really only justify one it had to be pretty big so as to cover all eventualities. It all depends on your 'type' of walking and the type of gear going in as to how big you need, at least the packs you have mentioned should all give a pretty accurate figure unlike some cheaper ones which tend to be very optimistic (i.e. lie) about their sizing.
And what I actually clicked the reply button to say was that if you happen to go the One Planet route then a great way to save $125 is to wait for Mountain Designs to have a 25% of members sale and buy it there!

[Nuts]

Yer, true. If etrangere wants a 4l cask, to carry someone elses gear or just something easy to pack then of course a big heavy pack may be necessary.

[ollster]

And what I actually clicked the reply button to say was that if you happen to go the One Planet route then a great way to save $125 is to wait for Mountain Designs to have a 25% of members sale and buy it there!

FYI: MDs in Hobart can't stock OP due to some anti-competative rubbish about other stores (Passion8 and something else) already stocking OP or something.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Son of a Beach]

As for what weight, on this site it amazes me how much or little weight various people carry and when they post their gear lists you can learn a lot, even if it is their trade-off are not the ones you would make.

Totally agree. I have been surprised to learn how many people are able to do well carrying less than 10kg, but also just as surprised to find out how many people carry more than 20kg on shortish walks. (I always thought I was towards the heavy end of the spectrum, but it seems I'm more in the middle).

[photohiker]

Having three years back spent nine months in constant pain hoping to avoid major back surgery waiting for the offending disc to shrink back from the spinal column I am a little hypersensitive to getting a harness that suits me. The back problem was caused by too many hours hunched over a desk and chair that were too low with no fitness regime rather than any dramatic event. It was interesting talking to the orthopaedic surgeon on ways of getting fit and he recommended the best is walking, up hill, so bush walking in Tassie sounded a natural fit

Mate, you are describing my condition about 6 years ago. Repeated visits to the doc, locked up spine and unable to move for pain. 30 years behind a desk did it. I spent 2 years getting fit and removing weight, then rediscovered bushwalking as one of the few activities that maintain my fitness without putting undue stress on my body. I'm no 20 year old, but I can outpace most people I meet on the trail, although there are quite a few here I'd be eating their dust...

The back problem is degenerative - surgery might help, but it could also bring other issues. We need to regain muscle tone so that what we do have has adequate support, and we need to remove excess weight from our frames. I dropped back to my school leaving weight - no intention, that's just where the scales stopped dropping. I was very fit at school 1'st eight, 1'st 15, so pretty sure that's a good weight for me to be, YMMV. I have to admit that I then went straight to an Aarn pack because by then I understood that load on the shoulders = load on the back and I was on a mission to reduce that as much as possible. Not saying that a good traditional harness isn't good - just that the Aarn harness is designed specifically around getting the weight off the shoulders and allowing as much freedom of movement as possible while balancing the load so you stand up straight. Something that cannot be done with a traditional harness. I also started looking seriously at the kit to make as many sensible weight reductions as possible, and I regard this as an ongoing process.

So, back on topic. Which pack for longer treks? I'd assemble the gear and expected provisions load and buy the smallest Aarn pack it would all fit into. Easy

[Nuts]

I'd assemble the gear and expected provisions load and buy the smallest Aarn pack it would all fit into. Easy

Or buy the pack first?

To me, there has always been something 'just not right' in seeing people struggling under a backpack... Anything that needs to extend above your shoulders just looks like an ironic burden to bare for a 'hobby'. What is the history of people carrying weight on their back (military routes?) I spent some time in the military, I have freinds from those days who still suffer the consequences of being made to carry 'whatever would fit'....

No ancient culture comes to mind that has come to the conclusion that it's a good place to carry stuff...(?)

It just seems to make sense to carry the least possible. Sure there are no end of compromises... i'm sure most would admit that, after a point, these compromises are mostly comfort driven rather than by necessity.
I would suggest that many people would care so much less about harness design if they could keep a pack below 10-15kg. That just wont 'happen' it really needs to be worked at! Jumping in at the deep end and starting with a small pack is one way to bring about some quick changes. There is nothing 'wrong' with making such suggestions to those just starting out. To me, it beats coming to the realization after many years of struggle and the resulting injuries Caused by a 'hobby'....

I have some bigger packs (60+L), someone has always been paying me to carry them.....

[photohiker]

Or buy the pack first?

Good Point.

I was kinda assuming discerning gear choices based on weight and necessity, which is what I would be doing on an extended trek.

[Macca81]

No ancient culture comes to mind that has come to the conclusion that it's a good place to carry stuff...(?)

a number of ancient cultures carried/carry quite considerable loads on their heads... does that not count as a load on the back?? it has also been scientifically proven that those who carry loads on their heads rather than in their hands maintain a proper spine curvature and posture throughout there lifetimes. it might not be "on the back" in the sense that you mean, but it is sure loading up the spine with 100% of the load.

its all about positioning the downward forces in the right places...

[Nuts]

Yer, was thinking of the head and the way porters take the weight on the forehead. There are also a number of crude small shoulder (dili) bags. Nothing of a tradition of heavy loads. Definitely not that I can imagine for 'recreation'...

I guess that the point (in this topic) was more that many people now realise that you dont necessarily need a 80-90L (or even 70L) pack 'for a longer trek'. By all means, if someone 'wants' to go that way then that's their choice. Hey I believe there's even a few 100+L packs around... 'One' should be able to easily fit 60-70kg's of gear in them!

[Macca81]

if someone has a 100l pack, i want them to carry ME on their trips...

however, i do agree that a big pack is not necessarily needed.

[Nuts]

No, There could be perhaps one or two good reasons though



:

daleys-backpack.jpg (147.28 KiB) Viewed 11831 times

[corvus]

I am 63 weigh 70kg, stand all of 174 cm tall and use a 90lt WE Karijini pack, it weighs 3.1 kg and I find it suits most of my walking requirements (have a 30lt WE Canvas pack for day walks) as it has the capacity to take everthing inside the pack including Microlite or Stellar or Snowcave tent plus all of the other gear and food you need for up to a seven day Stroll
This pack has a harness that fits my body and when I did "paid pack mule thing I managed just 27kg "so I know it will do the job for heavy loads ,also being core-spun canvas it stands up to rough scrub bashing ,not cheap but you get what you pay for and my old WE Expedition served me well for 16 years and I still use it on occassions,hope this helps.
corvus

[Nuts]

OK... Now, just for the sake of the topic (and hopefully not at the risk of ruffling feathers ) I have done that same trip with a wilderness equipment expedition11 (60L), with around 45kg. At that sort of weight I cant remember ever even considering the harness, too worried about the ache felt in the bones from the waist down (with a real concern as to whether they would 'hold'). There are many people around who could likely relate to this feeling. I have done that trip (with weight like that) on many occasions, its not so unusual for those that worked guiding in the area (well... last century anyhow...).

I still do it now and then.. (just works out that way sometimes...) but not as a rule. (Main point is that large packs are not necessary for overloading. It can be done in something much smaller....)

I guess there will come a time when I cant. I have patella Chondromalacia in both knees (they grind constantly and can ache for days after a heavy load. Bad knees affect mobility and can lead to many other complications). I dread seeing a chiropractor, not much stays in alignment any more. I know people who are worst. Not only people carrying a backpack for a 'living'. For some the above condition (if not hip problems ) can happen supprising early in their bushwalking life.

I never though too much about carrying a heavy pack. Right up until i started to notice the effects I didnt give 'cutting the end off the toothbrush' another thought. Only Those weirdos did that

Anyhow..too late now... These thoughts may be (hopefully not) lost on the young but might help someone. There is pleanty of info around about reducing weight (and other topics), too many ideas to drag them all out here. The concept itself should be high on the list of priorities. Thought of as the 'ounce of prevention' as important as any other single ounce in a first aid kit....

PS.. Gerry, your about as close to 145cm (4'8") as that pack would be to holding 90L of liquid

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[ninjapuppet]

i was in the army myself for 4 years, and yes their backpacks are totally crap in design. The standard issue backpack carries 40kg well enough, and is very durable, but i think military gear designers can learn a thing or two, from latest civilian designs. back in my army days, i thought the army backpack was a marvelous design..... until i discovered macpac.

I had a 65L macpac Traverse loaded up to 32kg sometimes, and didnt have any major issues with it for many years..... until one day i discovered a OP McMillan, and after 2 years, i'm as happy as i was with the army backpack and macpac. (until something else better comes along) The McMillan waistbelt is thicker and more comfortable.

**I read an advertisment somewhere saying that the top lid on the McMillan can be used as a detachable bum bag?? i dont remember my instructions saying anything about that. I just got it out and tried to attach a separate belt through. it rests on the actual bum and seems to restrict movement abit.... but not sure how it'll be on the track.

has anyone tried using the lid as a bum bag yet? i think if it works, then it'll be very handy for side trips from basecamp.

[sthughes]

Some of the WE packs are designed to do that (well the Karinji at least). I didn't know the OP McMillan was though.

[Ent]

Content removed by poster

[Robbo]

I read an advertisment somewhere saying that the top lid on the McMillan can be used as a detachable bum bag??

Not with the McMillan. The Sidetrack does enable the back pocket to be removed and act as a day pack, I believe.

TR

[Lindsay]

I have a 70 lt Osprey Aether that has a detatchable lid and waist belt that turns into a bum bag, and while I a happy with the pack so far (early days yet) I find this feature to be a waste of time. Far easier to carry a small daypack (S2S ultrasil perhaps) than stuff around undoing all the buckles on the lid and removing the waist belt to set the thing up, then doing it all in reverse later on.