|
|
Post by DyanTX on Mar 4, 2016 18:00:19 GMT -8
Backpacks are sized in liters. Okay - conversion to cubic inches is approx. 60:1 so a 40 liter backpack is 2400 cubic inches. I seem to remember a discussion (10+ years ago?) about what the pouind-to-cubic inch conversion was. Is that 1 pound per 100 cubic inches? Meaning the 40 L pack would carry max. of 24 pounds?
I haven't bought a new backpackk for at least 10 years but I'm currently looking for a ladies fit backpack, 16.5 " torso to carry approx. 20 pounds. Needs to have a waistbelt and good suspension (not a daypack style). Prefer separate sleeping bag compartment and built-in raincover. And as light as possible, too. Any thoughts or personal recommendations?
Thanks for the assistance!
|
|
tigger
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,547 
|
Post by tigger on Mar 4, 2016 21:39:03 GMT -8
It's about fit first. Don't do volume to pounds. The frame and your waist carry the weight. Less material equals a lighter pack so your idea of separate compartments will lead to a heavier pack. I would also skip the built-in raincover - They wear out, get snagged, etc. Just buy one and be prepared to replace it every few years.
Take your gear down to your nearest gear store (like REI) and put your gear in packs and see what fits and what your gear fits in. Narrow it down to three packs that fit like a glove and ride comfortably with your body shape. That is your pack.
You don't buy a pair of shoes and then force your feet into them. Same applies to packs.
|
|
mk
Trail Wise!
North Texas
Posts: 1,217 
|
Post by mk on Mar 5, 2016 14:31:53 GMT -8
You don't buy a pair of shoes and then force your feet into them. Same applies to packs. Best analogy ever! |
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,062
|
Post by jazzmom on Mar 6, 2016 7:48:56 GMT -8
Built-in raincover aside, if you like a pack with pockets and organization, take a look at an Osprey Talon 44. It's what my son carries and it's a nice compromise between the no-frills UL packs (that I like) and the tank-with-a-pocket-for-every-purpose conventional pack. Decently lightweight - his weighs 38oz. Lightly framed; it handles 25lb just fine.
Keep in mind that features like separate sleeping bag compartments and built-in raincovers usually don't reconcile with "as light as possible."
If you're willing to set aside the pockets criteria, look at a ULA Ohm. UL but still lightly framed, really versatile, including adjustable torso length, your choice of shoulder strap style and hipbelts. I use a ULA Circuit and love my pack. www.ula-equipment.com/product_p/ohm-2.0.htm
|
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on Mar 6, 2016 11:07:39 GMT -8
Using a breathable eVent compression sack for the sleeping bag can be a useful substitute for a separate compartment. The bag being at the bottom of the pack is not accessed all that frequently anyway.
|
|
crawford
Trail Wise!
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.--Edison
Posts: 1,775
|
Post by crawford on Mar 7, 2016 7:25:54 GMT -8
the tank-with-a-pocket-for-every-purpose conventional pack That is great....I guess I sometimes fall into that sort of backpacker. I agree with tigger on the fit piece. The military sort of taught me to get used to my gear, simply make due with what you have, but the luxury of being able to work out comfort and fit before you buy is well worth it. |
|
swmtnbackpacker
Trail Wise!
Back but probably posting soon under my real name ... Rico Sauve
Posts: 4,886
|
Post by swmtnbackpacker on Mar 7, 2016 8:44:46 GMT -8
The conversion was just how much pack volume one gets per weight. Once you determine the volume needed (remembering consumables vary), more relevant is how the frame (or lack thereof) carries the weight IMO.
Then there's the extras. Typical summer trail in the northern hemisphere might require a simple packbag, while a snowy winter trip may require lids, pockets, electronics-carrying shoulder pounches, etc..
|
|
|
|
Post by DyanTX on Mar 13, 2016 10:51:53 GMT -8
Thanks for all the tips! I guess the original question wasn't too clear either. I totally understand about correct pack fit - struggled with bad packs before so won't do that again. My current big pack is great - for those week-plus trips with all the usual backpacking gear- it is 70L and I've carried 45 lbs in it with food and water. This pack will have a different use - airplane travel (possibly as carry-on) and hostel-hiking for 500+ miles - rain more of a certainty than a probability. Carrying basics only - clothes - various layers, raingear, lightweight sleeping bag, Target is 15 - 20 pounds. So it's gotta be comfortable - big enough to carry what I need but not so big as to encourage me to throw in more stuff "just in case"! And size matters if I need to use it carry-on style. I'll take a look at the suggested packs. I've been impressed by Osprey and will check out the other ones suggested. Definitely have a trip to REI in my future!  |
|
franco
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,297
|
Post by franco on Mar 13, 2016 15:50:30 GMT -8
Be careful with carry-on luggage if travelling with several airlines.
It can vary from 11 lbs all the way up to 40 lbs (most around 20-25 lbs) and from 41" to 51" linear inches however often it needs to fit inside their "shape" even if your total in inches is less than theirs.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheaptentguy on Mar 13, 2016 15:57:57 GMT -8
Not to thread highjack, have many of you had experiences checking (luggage) backpack on flights? I'm a bit worried with the hip belts and all.
|
|
almostthere
Trail Wise!
putting on my hiking shoes....
Posts: 696
|
Post by almostthere on Mar 13, 2016 15:59:42 GMT -8
That's why those large tote bags exist. To stuff your backpack in.
|
|
jazzmom
Trail Wise!
a.k.a. TigerFan
Posts: 3,062
|
Post by jazzmom on Mar 14, 2016 10:00:28 GMT -8
Not to thread highjack, have many of you had experiences checking (luggage) backpack on flights? I'm a bit worried with the hip belts and all. My pack always goes inside a big sturdy wheeled duffel. |
|
reuben
Trail Wise!
Gonna need more Camels at the next refugio...
Posts: 11,160
|
Post by reuben on Mar 14, 2016 10:03:10 GMT -8
At some overseas airports there are companies that will basically shrinkwrap your bags, including backpacks. I've never used them, but I probably should. I don't do the duffel bag thing because that's just another thing that takes up space and weighs a few pounds that I'll have to carry when I get to my destination.
|
|
rebeccad
Trail Wise!
Writing like a maniac
Posts: 12,684
|
Post by rebeccad on Mar 14, 2016 18:56:08 GMT -8
That's the issue, Reuben. Though we have been known to use very large duffels, and pack 2 peoples' packs and gear into each, thus saving a checked back fee. Usually when flying we are also renting a car, so the extra bag isn't a problem.
I have also seen big sturdy plastic bags at some airports, so that you can bag the whole pack and protect the straps.
Worst case, if you have to check it "naked," fasten all straps (consider bending the hip belt backwards around the pack and fastening it), tuck in or even tape loose ends. You don't want anything hanging out to catch on conveyers, etc.
|
|
tigger
Trail Wise!
Posts: 2,547
|
Post by tigger on Mar 14, 2016 19:34:06 GMT -8
I've used cheap large REI duffels and I've gone bare (like Rebecca said - Strapping the hipbelt backward around the pack and all straps tightened and tucked in). I've been successful both ways.
I've also packed my pack tight enough that I've been able to use it as carry on so I can just travel and go - my full size pack and a book bag with my quick access items. This, is my favorite way to go.
|
|
