Canvas or Lightweight Rucksack?

[Beardy Adam]

Hello folks. I'm looking at storing away my Lowe Alpine TFX Expedition 75+20 rucksack in the next few weeks. It is super comfy and carries a heavy load well but it weighs 3.3kg when empty and I will not be carrying 20+kg loads for a long time now that I've decided to strip my gear. I've seen a lot of talk about canvas rucksacks such as Duluth Packs and Frost River and I really like the look of them. They look very durable to me and they look like beautiful pieces of workmanship too. So its either a canvas rucksack or a ultralight rucksack from the states or one by OMM.

Thing is, after doing some research on the net I'm just not assured that these modern ultralight rucksacks will last me on a lengthy trip. I even saw a report by somebody who had a Go Lite pack and he added up the days he has used his rucksack and quite proudly stated "My rucksack lasted me 169 days before it started to go weak at the stitching and show serious wear". If I buy a rucksack I want it to last me years, not days!!

So my question is, does anyone have a canvas rucksack by any of these companies or other and if so, would you be able to tell me how much it weighed? I've checked the Duluth and Frost River websites but all they give you is the volume and no mention of weight. Also what is your opinion of them in general with regard to load carrying etc.

Cheers!

 

[eel28]

Thing is, after doing some research on the net I'm just not assured that these modern ultralight rucksacks will last me on a lengthy trip. I even saw a report by somebody who had a Go Lite pack and he added up the days he has used his rucksack and quite proudly stated "My rucksack lasted me 169 days before it started to go weak at the stitching and show serious wear". If I buy a rucksack I want it to last me years, not days!!

But if that rucksack had only been used for a fortnight or so a year, then it could be 10+ years old! Sorry I can't answer your question though.

 

[woof]

I've got one of the rugged river packs(check out my previous posts) thats canvas & leather, i'll weigh it. The only thing i've found with them, well 2 things, you have to be careful how its packed, and the fact that they hang low, which when you're used to packs that ride on the hips, takes a bit of getting used to.

Rob

 

[woof]

I'm struggling to weigh it properly, but with out the side pockets, but with extra straps, it looks to weigh about 1.5-2 kilos.

Hope that helps, Rob

 

[Fin]

I've just bought a waxed canvas Duluth Bushcrafter second hand from Salad on this forum and it's a beaut! I haven't weighed it personally but an independent review on a US website put the weight at 4lbs 9oz (a hair over 2Kg) which feels about right.

The thing you have to ask is what you want the pack to do. Salad sold it because he regularly hikes 20+ miles and he's getting a dodgy knee (so I would guess that he's looking at going down the ultralight route).
My longest hike to my camp is about 8 miles (though typically half that) and I normally stay 2 nights - so at a little over 60 litres - not including the external pockets - it's perfect.

One other bonus I wasn't expecting - it's probably the most comfortable pack I've had - I tested it on the 8 miler this weekend - with my normal load (room to spare) and I hardly noticed it. If you take care with the packing - and the YouTube video made by the designer has got his advice spot on IMO - the frameless design kind of moulds to your back and the padded straps, waist belt and sternum strap combine to make a heavy load as light as can be.

I can't recommend it enough apart from two things:

A pack, IMO is as individual as a good pair of boots. In an ideal world every pack should be tailored to the individual - try before you buy is my normal advice - which I ignored this time and got lucky!

This pack, brand new, is obscenely priced! - although it does come with a lifetime guarantee - again I was lucky to get it second hand - and therefore more affordable.

Good Luck

Fin

 

[Paul_B]

Said previously you need to work out how many days a year you are really going tto use the pack as 169 days of actual use isn't too bad really. A mate had a best you can buy Rucksack at the time from TNF that weighed probably close on 3kg despite only being 50litres that the hipbelt ripped off on his first weekend use after cathing it slightly on a fence post. It was made up of heavy duty fabric a heavy cordura type of nylon as they were back in the 90s. Anyway. I have a £12.50 alpkit gourdon that has suffered worse yet still goes on. Anyway I know ppl who have omm type sacks that say they are absolutely bombproof. You have to realised it is the fabric and reinforcement that makes it tough despite being light. However the OMM sacks aren't really light. I have a traditional style 50 litre alpine aiguille sack that is lighter than the equivalent OMM sack. It is bombproof too.

IF you are still worried that the lightweight sacks are still less durable (total BS IMHO) take a look at Crux sacks. They do the AK range that look like the heavy duty sacks but is reasonably light. They do them in strange sizes such as AK37, AK47, AK57 with the sizes in litres as indicated in the name for the standard back size (there are 3 sizes IIRC). They have a reputation of looking the same no matter how old they are. Basically after a few uses they start to look old and beaten but totally undamaged or worn then they stay looking the same no matter how long you have them. IMHO that is a very good look as I don't want a sack to look like it is still straight out of the gear shop with its tags only just cut off!!

Anyway IMHO go for a good make of lightweight sack and by that I mean the Crux ones are really worth it. Simple alpine style in that they have one main compartment, side wand pockets with side compression straps and one very big lid pocket. IMHO these styles of sacks are very handy and also lighter as theere is no excess fabric that youu get iwith pockets. Besides IME I never fully use pockets but a simple one compartment sack allows everything to be packed efficiently, using all the space.

I really can't unnderstand the popularity of the canvaas and leather sacks. To me it seems like they are only about some kind of false nostalgia. I mean the climbers and pioneers who used them to say climb the Eiger or pioneer some new area or peak would have thought of them as the latest and best of their day. However things move on and I am certain that those same people would have been using Lightweight sacks like Crux and OMM if they had been around then. You have to realise that the some of the firsts in this country (such as first winter round ofmunros or something like that that wasa done in 70s had a Karriomr tent weighing 1kg! Those people looked for light gear too. It is the 80s and 90s that screwed with that idea. The original canvas and leather sacks that these are based on would probably have been the light ones of their day. Go modern not retro if you want performance, go for canvas if you want to walk around as iff you were from the 50s!!

 

[Paul_B]

BTW i have a traditional looking alpine sack that is 1kg in weight that was made to my back length, it is unwearable if loaded. I have a 1.6kg Berhaus sack that also hurt me when loaded when I first used it. I didn't use it for about 5 or more years then I had to use it as my ancient heavy Karrimor 65l sack had been lent to a friend and not come back. I loaded proabably in excess of 28kg into it and strapped ot the ouutside. It was sore for the first half of the first day then was comfortable forever since. What happened I think was that the uncofortable pad were moulded to my back due to the high weight. It was the last trip out I carried anywhere near that weight again.

Anyway in my rambling way I am kind of saying you have to find the sack that fits you and is comfortable. If that is a lightweight sack like a OMM or Osprey or Crux then so be it, it will be durable enough. If that is a 2kg Lowe Alpine sack then that extra weight might be worth it. In my pursuit of weight loss I made a bad purchase just to save 600g. Not worth it. If the Duluth sacks suit you at over 2kg then that is good for you. Just I'd prefer to move forward as that is where the performance is.

 

[Beardy Adam]

Thank you all for your replies.

But if that rucksack had only been used for a fortnight or so a year, then it could be 10+ years old! Sorry I can't answer your question though.

No the reviewer stated he had purchased the pack a year ago, and hence he then counted the trip days.

I really can't understand the popularity of the canvas and leather sacks. To me it seems like they are only about some kind of false nostalgia. Go modern not retro if you want performance, go for canvas if you want to walk around as iff you were from the 50s!!

Bit of a sweeping statement that isn't it? Surely you must realise that people who buy the canvas rucksacks are not looking to act out some nostalgic fantasty (unless they explicitly want that) but are returning to a traditonal fabric that is tried and tested. There are videos on youtube of canvas rucksacks from the 1940's yet how long will modern rucksacks last I wonder? Only time will tell. Do not forget that 'performance' is only situational. If someone predominantly spends most of their time in the woods as most of the forum users do when practicing bushcraft, then he or she will not need a cut down bare bones alpine pack, will they?

169 days of actual use isn't too bad really

What?! How can you say that? If I went on a trail that involved me using a rucksack for months and months I need it to be durable and reliable. To pay over £100 for a rucksack, use it for 6 months and then have it break is completely absurd and does not cut it in my book.

I would also like to mention that pure aesthetics does not come into the equation. Although I like the nostalgic look of a canvas rucksack I wouldn't ever pick a rucksack just because it 'looked nice'. However, I will not buy a rucksack in these horrible and garish colours the outdoor industry seems to love painting them these days. I like neutral colours, green whenever I can have it. So if I look at a rucksack and the only colour is bright red or fluorescent green then I disregard it immediately.

The gear I am purchasing soon is all going to be used on my long and continuous trek next year around the UK which will entail me walking many many long distance footpaths, climbing hills and fells and mountains in Scotland, England and Wales. So I am probably asking a lot because of the demanding requirements I am putting on it. But over everything else you are right in that it has to be comfortable. It's just a shame you don't find out whether or not a rucksack is a comfortable load carrier until you hit the trail and its too late! My weight limit is 15kg max but a good hip belt is something I think greatly helps so this is what will probably sway me away from canvas rucksacks.

Paul, I had a look at the Crux rucksacks and they are interesting. I have never heard of them before and I will look into them more. Thanks for the link.

 

[Pierr]

CactusClimbing's Miklat is not bad at 850 grams for 40L. Very robust polycotton canvas and cordura reinforcement. I only did 10 days hiking with it yet but so far so very good.

 

[Paul_B]

Beardy Adam - Forgive my sweeping statement but IMHO opinion how long certain materials have been around does not mean they are the best ones. I've got a mate with what I think is an old Herald. It as you can imagine been around a long time and has served its owner well (it was in the family from new). It was made out of materials that has lasted. It is also totally unsuitable for modern roads and traffic. I personally think those old canvas and leather rucksacks, whilst still useable for mountain and fell use, I very much doubt it is the best option. Compared to the canvas materials, it has only been relatively recently with the North American driven lightweight re-awakening that has led to the newer materials and designs to hit the UK market. There is probably still plenty of scope to improve their design. I think following the design cul-de-sac of the heavy 3kg+ bells and whistles "expedition" sacks in the 90s we are seeing a positive move.

As far as the length of time the sack lasted things like that is relative to how you use it. I for one have sacks that have been used a lot over the years without any damage and wear yet are light and made of modern materials. I think 6 months of hard use is not that bad. I guess that is a difference between us. I also think that you would get more life out of some of the better lightweight sacks than that guy who got just under 6 months of continuous use (or its equivalent). Perhaps the Golite sack isn't the right one for a hard user or someone who absolutely must have bombproof durability. My advice would then be Cruc AK47 or other one in that raange. I would also say that a lot of the Golite sacks are aimed at lighter use. By that I mean fast moving, lightweight gear freaks. A lot of their sacks struggle to comfortably carry once you get much above 12-15kg pack weights. With some I think you would hate them with aa pack weight into double figures. It is not a lightweiight expedition pack in the way that would most probably suit you.The Crux is.

Also look at POD sacs, the newer series that have dyneema reinfocement (the white grid on the black fabric). They are almost as tough as the Crux.

My use is closer to a short version of what you are planning instead of months it is up to 2 weeks (the longest time I can get off work in one go). I am close to my target of 6kg base load. That means golite would suit me. Also I have never had any sack fail on me. Somewhere I still have my first Karrimor sack which my Dad gave me when i went to uni. Only a smal sack that I used for files and shoppinng and day walks. It had light flimsy fabric and never failed.

It is really your decision but you should try sacks on and as far as testing them have you considered that a lot of shops will load it up for you. With the shops that often sell the Crux sacks they usually have bags containing known weights that you can put in the sack to the typical load weight you are aiming for. Whilst not a long term check you can usually get some idea of rub and poor fit. Although from the reviews and blogs that have hit the internet on the Crux AK sacks I have only heard good reviews and comments on how durable they are. I do think that if I was doig what you are i would have no qualms about trying the crux sacks out. Both in terms of design, fit/sizing and material/design durability. Besides these are so called alpine sacks designed for mouuntain use and probably being hauled up faces scragged on rock, etc.

 

[Fin]

Paul_B:

Each to his own I would say! Your comments are very valid for someone who has a tolerance to any materials (natural or synthetic) - which I'm guessing is the majority. I've been camping out for nigh on 30 years now and I've been in the military for 25 years (so I've worn outdoor kit for a living) and I've finally come to a long and very expensive conclusion that I have a very low physical tolerance to man made fibres or materials (just hearing the word "nylon" starts me sweating!). When Gortex first came out and everyone raved about it - I couldn't understand why I felt like I was dressed in a superheated crisp packet! I've tried all the latest technology - softshell this - superlight that - I've tried the latest packs with adjustable "breathable" yokes - they all, eventually cause physical discomfort to me.

I've since learned that, for me, in hot weather, loose cotton is the way to go. In cold weather it's wool - and on my recent 8 mile hike with the Duluth pack - the usual wet stripe down my back from the pack was completely absent.

So the lessons I've learned are - it's not about false nostalgia, it's about comfort and ,secondly, never underestimate the power of marketing when it comes to selling the "latest" outdoor tech. It's like I said - what do you want it to do? If I was a long distance hiker - I might have to sacrifice some comfort for weight loss - but I'm not so this pack suits me perfectly - the aesthetics are a bonus!

Beardy Adam:

My pack does have a hip belt - very effective with a modern quick release buckle - but having seen what you plan to do (i.e. long distance hiking) - and assuming you're tolerant to man made materials - I would generally concur with Paul_B's comments.

Fin

 

[Paul_B]

All the canvas sacks I've seen online and in shops look to me to be an uncomfortable shape, design and carry when loaded and used for long walks in thee mountains. I am probably wrong but perhaps they are more for woods and the more typical bushcraft uses that you mentioned. Tried and tested for that. IMHO thher is better for your requirement.

http://www.crux.uk.com/en/crux_rucksacks_ak47.php

Although not as good for your requirement I think Lightwave is another good make, I think it is a sister company to Crux or is owned by the same people. They are more aimed at lightweight users I think not the bombproof requirements that you probably want. That is the Crux. They both make excellent tents too. I nearly got a factory reconditioned Crux Bomb once from the a camping show for £100. Biggest gear buying regret not to snap their hands off.

 

[Beardy Adam]

Paul you make some good points with regards to mountain use. I think a hip belt is also crucial in stopping the load from wobbling or shifting side to side when scrambling. I mainly posted this topic to find out what peoples opinions are of the canvas rucksacks as I have seem them in use and wondered just how comfortable they are. I would try on one of the Crux packs before I bought it, although with my current TFX Expedition I ordered it straight off the internet because as we all know Lowe Alpine use the adjustable back systems which I think work quite well. Although I have noticed the back panel can shift around slightly when loaded close to its limit. I suppose our ideas of durability and reliability are bound to differ if we want different things. Each to his own as Fin said.

 

[Paul_B]

IIRC TFX system is an adjustable back that allows a more free movement of you and the sack. I.e. it kind of had a more natural movement. Is that what you noticed with it?
Kind of simmilar to the Berghaus bioflex I think.

 

[Beardy Adam]

Yes Paul I'm aware of how it works But no, I mean you could jiggle it freely from side to side with your hands after you had adjusted it. It wasn't an issue, just something I noticed. As I've said the rucksack is great at carrying heavy loads. It just happens that I never again want to carry 30kgs whilst backpacking because it takes some fun out of the experience.

 

[Fin]

Paul_B:

I checked out that Crux link - is it frameless? I'm a recent convert to frameless/ yokeless packs - I think that framed/ yoked packs (even the adjustable ones) assume a certain back size and shape - which doesn't necessarily conform to your own. Having said that - the kevlar/ cordura construction - whilst an impressive spec with regards to longevity - would have me sweating like... a...um...sweaty thing! after 1 mile and 47 litres is a touch on the small side for me - good price though! Good comment on lightweight versus load carrying ability - Beardy Adam's thread starter queried just this point - which leads me to...

Beardy Adam:

The weight of my pack would appear to be lighter than some of the high tech packs featured in this thread (though not the crux) - it is bombproof though (like I said - guaranteed for life - and feels it!). It's very stable with a heavy-ish load (my load is 40-60lbs depending on food items - the 8 mile test hike was with a 43 lb load - including the weight of the pack) - padded leather shoulder straps are the most comfortable I've tried and like I said it has a hip belt and sternum strap too.

I'll make a bold judgement here and say that with frameless packs you could probably get away with not trying before you buy because, if you don't mind having all that material against your back - with careful packing you can make it fit you - especially with the addition of side compression straps to stabilise the load - another thing I like about my pack - which is missing on many traditional canvas packs.

Fin

 

[Paul_B]

You're not kidding, my old 50 litre sack on one trip weighed 28kg and that was after I'd reduced the amount of kit carried after the previous kit. It was that 28kg overnighter that made me look seriously at my kit. I did a recent overnighter with about 6kg pack of which about 1kg was actually water!! Now I enjoy trips. A two week trip (with re-stock half way) was a max load of 18kg a couple of years ago. now I reckon on a base load of up to 9kg for a two week trip which means more spare clothes than a shorter one so I can wash a set, wear a set and keep another set dry. I do reduce weight only to add a few luxuries hence the 9kg (some of which is cooking stuff over the 5-6kg minimum on an overnighter where I didn't take cooking stuff). I did like the process to get wwhere I am now and am still getting to where Iwant to be weight wise.

 

[Beardy Adam]

Beardy Adam:

The weight of my pack would appear to be lighter than some of the high tech packs featured in this thread (though not the crux) - it is bombproof though (like I said - guaranteed for life - and feels it!). It's very stable with a heavy-ish load (my load is 40-60lbs depending on food items - the 8 mile test hike was with a 43 lb load - including the weight of the pack) - padded leather shoulder straps are the most comfortable I've tried and like I said it has a hip belt and sternum strap too.

I'll make a bold judgement here and say that with frameless packs you could probably get away with not trying before you buy because, if you don't mind having all that material against your back - with careful packing you can make it fit you - especially with the addition of side compression straps to stabilise the load - another thing I like about my pack - which is missing on many traditional canvas packs.

Fin

I did notice the lack of side compression straps on the old canvas rucksacks. Its interesting to see that one person loves the more traditional pack and others not so! I'm not sure if you've seen me mention it in my others posts but I recently came back from my first backpacking trip around Scotland this summer. That was carrying between 26-30kg and I really disliked carrying it around towards the end of the trip, especially with tired legs! I even nicknamed it 'the motherload' I suspect Paul knows exactly what I mean! The only thing I have told myself so far is that I want to carry a maximum of 15kg with every piece of equipment inside the rucksack, 2 litres of water and 2 days worth of food. I think that is quite reasonable especially if you use a bivvy and tarp.

I suppose I am fortunate because I am able to be critical and realistic on what I really need after just one trip, rather than go lighter and lighter over the years as most people do. Although as with anything it will take more experience, many journeys and a lot of fine tuning before I can proclaim "I have the perfect loadout!"

 

[Fin]

I did notice the lack of side compression straps on the old canvas rucksacks. Its interesting to see that one person loves the more traditional pack and others not so! I'm not sure if you've seen me mention it in my others posts but I recently came back from my first backpacking trip around Scotland this summer. That was carrying between 26-30kg and I really disliked carrying it around towards the end of the trip, especially with tired legs! I even nicknamed it 'the motherload' I suspect Paul knows exactly what I mean! The only thing I have told myself so far is that I want to carry a maximum of 15kg with every piece of equipment inside the rucksack, 2 litres of water and 2 days worth of food. I think that is quite reasonable especially if you use a bivvy and tarp.

I suppose I am fortunate because I am able to be critical and realistic on what I really need after just one trip, rather than go lighter and lighter over the years as most people do. Although as with anything it will take more experience, many journeys and a lot of fine tuning before I can proclaim "I have the perfect loadout!"

Aaaah! Now I see where you (and Paul_B) are coming from! Yep! - the eternal weight versus comfort conundrum. You two clearly like cantering up mountains in your spare time! In my experience you will never stop experimenting with this problem. At least you now know that 30Kg isn't fun on any day at any distance! (well done - by the way - that load around bonny Scotland is a bloody good effort!). For example I trade the weight of my kit for the comfort of wearing it (and the knowledge that I'm not going to be sprinting up the vertical side of some Munroe!) - also, I refuse to function without a real Italian espresso at least once a day. The kit for that weighs a bit - but I would carry it to the summit of Everest - discarding less important items like shelter, sleeping bag etc along the way!

 

[harryhaller]

If I went on a trail that involved me using a rucksack for months and months I need it to be durable and reliable. To pay over £100 for a rucksack, use it for 6 months and then have it break is completely absurd and does not cut it in my book.

I would also like to mention that pure aesthetics does not come into the equation. Although I like the nostalgic look of a canvas rucksack I wouldn't ever pick a rucksack just because it 'looked nice'. However, I will not buy a rucksack in these horrible and garish colours the outdoor industry seems to love painting them these days. I like neutral colours, green whenever I can have it. So if I look at a rucksack and the only colour is bright red or fluorescent green then I disregard it immediately.

Sounds like you want one of these:
http://www.wolverine.com.pl/en/produkty.htm

With pouches:

3 sizes:

I have the 50l and it's top quality - 5 years guarantee.