My first focus in planning my cross-continent walk has been the pack I will be living out of fer the majority of a year. That seems like a decent place to start in my reckoning, and I've been assaulting myself with information on a plethora of packs, large, small, and ridiculous alike.
Modern packs are amazing. In the mid to late 80's, almost everyone abandoned external, traditional frames fer much more structured, capable, and above all comfortable internal frame designs. Internal frames allow fer greater capacity, better weight distribution, increased load stability and capability, and generally decreased pack weight. I will be focusing on internal frame packs, though there are many people who prefer the fit and feel of externals to this day. In general, it's not a good idea at all to go completely frame-less.
Step One: Figure Out What You Need!
The first thing to consider when looking into a serious pack fer field travel, werk, or life, is size. How long will you be in back-country before you can restock yer supplies? Will you be able to comfortably carry those consumable supplies and any other equipment necessary? What is the expected climate? Cold weather gear is a great deal more cumbersome and heavier than hot weather gear. There is a current trend away from larger packs, what is known as ultra-light hiking. The theory behind this practice is that by reducing load and pack size along with it, we are able to move faster, over longer distances, decreasing our time between restocking to make up fer our decreased capacity in the field.
I personally see several flaws in this logic, though as always, I remain steadfastly in the camp of everyone having their own methods. The first flaw I see is that any pack should be comfortable. Fit is foremost, and there are many packs designed fer a massive capacity and load range while maintaining a surprising level of comfort. The versatility of being able to carry any load you or others may need you to seems you outweigh personal agility in almost every instance. There is no such thing as being over prepared. That said, my second major misunderstanding with ultra-light hiking is that again, it bases its logic on another, more general hiking rule of thumb, in that anything you have in yer ruck should be essential to a worst case scenario situation over the time you'll be in country. To cut anything from this list adds an unnecessary degree of danger, which leads me to my third point. Ultra-light, as much as I respect it, seems to have an element of extremism to it. Yes, man was able to survive hikes and migrations with even less, but with modern innovation in pack design, it would be illogical to regress. So, fer my purposes, I'll be looking at packs towards the large to huge end of the spectrum.
Sizing: Now In Completely Random Units!
Backpacks are measured fer internal capacity in units of either liters (L) or cubic inches (in3) depending on country of origin, personal preference fer remembering, or, as I've seen in my research, totally at random. Most of the packs I've short-listed lie between 75 and 85 liters, or 4,500 and 5,200 in3. This is generally agreed on to be a decent size fer a week-long period, though some within this range are able to hold much, much more. The largest packs on the market generally top out at around 120L or about 6,337 in3. Enough fer the baby, the bathwater, and the kitchen sink, without a doubt!
Major Features
Other important features to consider in a pack are the access points, hydration system compatibility, what kind of lid it has, compression strapping, and hip-belt/suspension/quick release. Access points are crucial to maintaining organization and ease of loading/unloading yer pack as needed daily. Most decent packs have top openings with sand/snow "spindrift" collars, mid-level main-compartment side or front access, and either a completely separate sleep system compartment with its own access or quick-access to the bottom of the main compartment. Many packs on the market today are also compatible out-of-the-box with a hydration system, usually composed of a bladder (1.5-3L), tubing routed through the pack, and a mouth piece which rests on the shoulder strap fer ease of use while the pack is on. This blows my mind, personally, but I'm easily amused. And a fan of not dehydrating. Am I right?
Lids are another matter, entirely. Any decent pack has a removable lid, most of which serve as small day packs in their own right. A good solid, weather-proofed lid, preferably with top-compression straps to the rest of the pack, is a must. Extra storage, necessary protection, and a neat fanny pack. Two of these factors make a good lid a must.
Compression straps are exactly what they sound like. They make it easy to cinch the pack up, which not only stabilizes the load, making dangerous and annoying shifting during a hike less of an issue, but also draw in the weight of the load, redirecting and balancing it, which makes a world of difference in comfort of carry. These do not negate the benefit of "stuff sacks" with their own compression straps fer items like clothing and sleep systems/sacks.
Hip-belts are another necessity fer spending any real amount of time living out of a pack while on the move. After the compression straps draw the weight of a load in, the heavily padded oh-so-cushy hip belts on modern packs redistribute it over a wide surface area over your hips, keeping even a hulking pack properly situated fer maximum carrying comfort.
Military versus Civilian
Military surplus is a great way to save some cash, liberate some equipment, and get bomb-proof, high-capacity packs in the process. The general downside to this is that military packs are themselves generally much heavier than their civilian counter-parts, and also set up to allow fer the effective use of firearms. This means that the load is bottom heavy, and tapers toward the top of the pack, which many people find less comfortable than civilian packs with an opposing load theory.
Excellent examples of military surplus rucks are the ILBE by Arcteryx/Propper International, the Gregory UM21, and the British Army's Bergen 120L Ruck. The UM21, with a capacity of 6,330 cubic inches is generally agreed on as the best out of the three listed, though weighing in at thirteen pounds, there is still some consideration to be made. The ILBE, while on the smaller side, at 75L, is a great middle-of the road tank of a ruck, capable of a 120 pound load.
While hitch-hiking in my younger years, I used a frame-less medium ALICE ruck. It was horrible on my back, neck, shoulders, knees, and feet. Following the logic river, it was just as bad or worse on my morale at times. Looking back makes me smile at my inexperience
There are also many great, economical packs offered privately by companies which have put in a great amount of research to maximize comfort, and minimize unloaded weight. The Osprey Aether 85, fer example with a spacious 5,200 cubic inches, weighs in at a mere four pound, fifteen ounces. Unfortunately, many examples of civilian packs have more durability issues than their mil-spec rivals, due to cuts in production cost, in spite of increases in retail cost. The most gritty, durable civilian packs include those by makers such as Kifaru, though the price tags associated place them easily outside the range of almost anyone.
There is definitely a lot to consider when looking fer the perfect pack fer you and yer situation, from a bug-out or emergency kit, to a thru-hike, to living in the field. As the current market goes, expect to pay between $80-$150 on a decent, durable pack. While it may seem like a steep price to pay fer a bag, the investment in quality gear will pay off time after time. Of course, if you find a way not to pay a damned dime fer a pack which suits you and yers just fine... well- Let me know!
As always, if you have any questions, or experience with any of these rucksacks, feel free to comment or e-mail me directly.
0 comments:
Post a Comment