Author Topic: Bag Size  (Read 3100 times)

astaman

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 166
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #15 on: 16:08:53, 05/11/18 »
A faithful Karrimor 30L bag from the old days in the summer. This also does a lot of walks in the winter too but if I need the extra capacity I take a 40L Deuter pack aimed at climbers - which I'm not/

BuzyG

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3761
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #16 on: 20:39:02, 05/11/18 »
I was using a 30 as my day sack.  But found that it was too small for my gear on winter treks.  Meant I was lugging my old 65 on winter day trips.  So when my 30 started to look a bit ropey, this year, I replaced it with a Low Alpine Airzone 45:55 .great sack and perfect for all my needs summer and winter.

Maggot

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #17 on: 22:57:06, 13/11/18 »
I would buy one bag that you are confident will carry all your day to day walking gubbins.  Probably a 45l one is as big as you will need for walking (not mountaineering).


On some days when you won't need so much just don't fill it up!


Easy


I walk with a friend who has a compulsion to fill his bag, so he has got himself a 20l one because he knows he will take a pile of un-needed kit if he takes a bigger bag!

forgotmyoldpassword

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1017
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #18 on: 13:30:00, 14/11/18 »
Prob 20L is fine for 3 season, 30L for winter and 40L+ for when you want to add in things like crampons, larger water carrying capacity/group sheters etc.   I try to get a hipbelt regardless of the size of the pack as I'm not impressed when it is sliding around your back whilst scrambling + it is a minimum weight penalty.  That said, the price of some 20L packs is scandalous, I can only assume they think they have an audience who won't walk away from their kit addiction!

Dyffryn Ardudwy

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2576
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #19 on: 12:56:37, 16/11/18 »
I still use a very old Berghaus Dart 45L sac, for most of my walks.
Having a sac that is too large is preferable to one that is too small, and even if you find the sac is a bit too large for your current needs, at least you can use the compression straps to make the sac more comfortable.
A 45L sac can be used for weekends away, and a good capacity for a winter sac, where you know extra gear will be needed.
You do not have to use the full capacity of your sac of choice, but knowing there is extra space when you need it, is a good thing, and will result in not buying a sac that is too small, when extra purchase of kit inevitably engulfs your sac.


Somewhere between 40-45L makes a good size choice.
« Last Edit: 13:02:26, 16/11/18 by Dyffryn Ardudwy »

AFANASIEW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #20 on: 13:07:14, 16/11/18 »
Having a sac that is too large is preferable to one that is too small
Plus you can do your shopping on the way home!
It's simple - one foot in front of the other.

alan de enfield

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #21 on: 14:35:12, 16/11/18 »
Plus you can do your shopping on the way home!



Knowing your walking area can pay dividends - during the last 2 or 3 months I have come home with my pack 'several pounds' heavier than when I set out.


There are a number of fruit trees dotted around the area as a result of the Lancaster pilots either sitting at the end of the runway waiting to take off, or just taken off and throwing the 'cores' out of the window.


Apples (domestic Apples - not Crab Apples)
Pears
Cherries


Then wild ,


Blackberries
Elderberries,
Rasberries
Hips & haws,

Sloes,
Mushrooms etc.


A bit 'naughty' but growing alongside tracks and footpaths :


Potatoes
Leeks
Onions
Corn-On-The-Cob
Oats


Its not often that the 'Scavenging Carrier Bag' comes back empty.
« Last Edit: 15:08:42, 16/11/18 by alan de enfield »

AFANASIEW

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 469
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #22 on: 15:15:07, 16/11/18 »
Its not often that the 'Scavenging Carrier Bag' comes back empty.


Not fungi? I was briefly tempted by a small clump of psilocybe yesterday.
It's simple - one foot in front of the other.

alan de enfield

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 940
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #23 on: 15:21:11, 16/11/18 »

Not fungi? I was briefly tempted by a small clump of psilocybe yesterday.



I guess I'm not really a FUN-GUY
Mushrooms are my limit.

Bigfoot_Mike

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2407
Re: Bag Size
« Reply #24 on: 16:50:53, 16/11/18 »

Having a sac that is too large is preferable to one that is too small, and even if you find the sac is a bit too large for your current needs, at least you can use the compression straps to make the sac more comfortable.
A 45L sac can be used for weekends away, and a good capacity for a winter sac, where you know extra gear will be needed.
You do not have to use the full capacity of your sac of choice, but knowing there is extra space when you need it, is a good thing, and will result in not buying a sac that is too small, when extra purchase of kit inevitably engulfs your sac.


Somewhere between 40-45L makes a good size choice.


That was pretty much my take on it. I recently bought an Osprey Talon 44. I may not always fill it, but I have space when required. I do have a larger old Karrimor rucksack that is approaching 30 years old. This was great for hiking in the Alps, when I was carrying a rucksack and tent, clothes for 2 weeks and food for a few days. It has also been useful for winter hikes in Scotland. My smaller sack was of a similar vintage and slightly past its best, so it has been replaced. If you are a larger person like me, everything you carry is also larger (especially lunch  :) ), so a larger pack is more useful.

 

Terms of Use     Privacy Policy