65L or 80L pack?

[The MAX]

Hi all,
Looking at buying a new pack, and I think I've settled on the MEC Ibex. It's in the right price range, had proper back support, and is accessible from the side and bottom. Sure it's not mil-spec with molle straps or OD green, but a Karrimor isn't in my budget right now.

I've got not such a great back so that's my drive to get a new pack. My main question is should I get the 65L or 80L? I recognize the first string of comments will be "DON'T GET AN 80L PACK IF YOU HAVE A BAD BACK, GET A 2L PACK AND GO UL." While my goal is to carry less this pack has to be a multifunction meaning I will use it for day hikes, overnights, weekend and longer trips, including winter camping. Winter camping is my main concern. I have no doubt that the 65L would be fine for everything else, but my concern is that with winter camping I will need the extra few litres. I'd rather have them and leave them empty then need them and not have them.

What are your thoughts? Should I get the 65L and pack better and lighter? Or should I get the 80L and be safe?

Anyone else have just 1 good pack?

 

[Johnnyboy1971]

Get the 80 and don't fill it. It will still give the option to carry more when needed.

 

[MertzMan]

Get the 80 and don't fill it. It will still give the option to carry more when needed.

Beat me to it. I always used a 70L but found there wasn't much 'wiggle' room inside the pack to get things out. Q a 90L bag and it's much easier to retrieve things hidden inside. I found the larger back fitting great, even considering the extra weight of the bag.

 

[Shewie]

If your kit needs 80L get that one, if you can get away with the smaller one then I'd go for that. Everybody's kit is different so there's no right or wrong choice really.

My winter packs are either a 64L or a 70L depending on what I'm doing, it sounds daft having two packs of similar size but one is for the open hills and the other for bushy trips. The 64L only weighs 800g empty but wouldn't last two minutes if I was bushwhacking, the other one weighs nearly 3kg empty but can stand plenty of abuse.

 

[copper_head]

You could always get both, the Lowe Alpine Appalachian 65-80 is the younger brother of my LA Outback. It's a great pack, you might be able to find it cheaper than the link too?

The compression system works well and the back system is excellent.

 

[rg598]

It really depends on your gear. On most winter trips I use a 62L pack. I also have a 80L pack, which I use from time to time. Again, it depends on your other gear. Here you can see the conditions under which I use the two different packs: http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2013/03/my-winter-backpacking-and-bushcraft-gear.html

 

[bushytoo]

I have to Lowe Alpine cerro terro 65-80 and it is a great pack and very comfortable, I have used it to it's full capacity too many times.

 

[rik_uk3]

Buy big, fill small. You never know though when you may need the extra space.

 

[Ahjno]

Depends on what you plan on doing. If just go to Meets by car to sit next to a fire, a duffle will do. If you plan on walking some fair distances I'd take one that takes my (carefully selected) kit. Having stuff on the outside is pretty naff, image is everything you know

 

[Trig]

I have to Lowe Alpine cerro terro 65-80 and it is a great pack and very comfortable, I have used it to it's full capacity too many times.

I use one of these also. My last pack was a 65+20 and it fitted my gear, but with no spare room. Which meant any odd extras or even just getting stuff out could be a bit of a bugger.
The cerro torre's 65 section however seems far bigger than the old pack and fits my winter gear with no problems. Though i think its similar in price to a karrimor.

But then it all depends how big your gear is, but id echo the "buy big,fill small" posts.

 

[bushytoo]

I use one of these also. My last pack was a 65+20 and it fitted my gear, but with no spare room. Which meant any odd extras or even just getting stuff out could be a bit of a bugger.
The cerro torre's 65 section however seems far bigger than the old pack and fits my winter gear with no problems. Though i think its similar in price to a karrimor.

But then it all depends how big your gear is, but id echo the "buy big,fill small" posts.

LOL made mistake in my post I meant NOT too many times.
I can put all my gear inside it with shopping. I do like the way that the extension can be just rolled out. You just have to know how to adjust the pack properly so that it is comfortable.

 

[Trig]

Stumbled on this, should be big enough for some. http://www.kontraband.com/videos/31712/The-Flextrek-Whipsnake.
Not too handy for caving though

LOL made mistake in my post I meant NOT too many times.
I can put all my gear inside it with shopping. I do like the way that the extension can be just rolled out. You just have to know how to adjust the pack properly so that it is comfortable.

Yea, it is pretty comfy once adjusted, though i did get sore/rubbed raw hips before that..
When you got yours, did you get a detachable hip belt pocket/gps holder? If so, was it loose inside the pack? Not sure if i just cant find or it never came with one.

 

[tallywhacker]

id echo the "buy big,fill small" posts.

+1 on this, i would go 80L+ opposed to 65L+.

Better to have spare room than have to strap things on the outside of a pack imo. I think my winter kit (lightly compressed) comes in between 80-100 litres at a guess. I could pack it smaller but i don't like to over compress my stuff if i can avoid it.

I can see a strong argument for hiking with a small pack if it offered a significant weight saving for a specific, set, ultra lightweight/compact kit list and still allowed a little spare room. Or maybe as a secondary bag if you had spare money.

I spent quite a lot of time following videos made by lightweight backpackers over the past few months as my old kit was MAHOOSIVE. In the majority of what i viewed they had a tendency to strap things into mesh pockets on the outside of packs, which i personally think is counter intuitive to load carrying and i doubt it will do your back any favours.

Stu

 

[sandbender]

"...Anyone else have just 1 good pack?.."

Yes.

The Crux AK47 (47 litres, tough as old nails and weighs just over a kilogram) I can hang a couple of Ortlieb bags on each side if I need to carry more. On my last serious winter trip in Transylvania the 47 litres of the pack was sufficient.

I wear Buffalo gear which cuts down on the amount of stuff I have to carry, most of my gear isn't really UL although I do have a titanium pot and such.

A smaller and lighter pack just makes for a more enjoyable trip, I spend more time looking at the scenery and less looking at the ground two meters in front of me, I do tend to walk further than most though.

 

[tamoko]

One point.
You can 80 lit. rucksack compress about 20/30 lit. to smaller volume.
But it is not comfortable strich 65 lit. to 80 (sure it possible with external pocket but not optimal)
I have 47 CRUX which i can compress to 30, and 70 Mystery Ranch Trance XXX which i can compress to 40.
This what work for me.

 

[Uilleachan]

I use as small a pack as possible, I have a 35lt and a 70lt, both very old now (the 70lt needs quite a bit of repair before it goes anywhere else again), I now have an AK47, great sack and a great size, the only utility not afforded by the 47lt sack that the 70lt has, other than the facility to overload it , is the ability to use the sack as the bottom part of an improvised sleeping system.

So for trips up the hill, overnighting or multi overnights the 47lt sack is more than adequate, takes all my (elitist, apparently) kit, stove, pit, bivvi bag, tent, food and space for nick knacks and the clothes I'm not wearing, and theres still space. Sleeping mat attaches on the exterior.

If using bulkier kit (less elitist, apparently) and carrying for relatively short distances get a bigger sack. It's all relative and the only way to sort it out is to try things out for yourself and learn by your own experience.

 

[bushytoo]

Stumbled on this, should be big enough for some. http://www.kontraband.com/videos/31712/The-Flextrek-Whipsnake.
Not too handy for caving though



Yea, it is pretty comfy once adjusted, though i did get sore/rubbed raw hips before that..
When you got yours, did you get a detachable hip belt pocket/gps holder? If so, was it loose inside the pack? Not sure if i just cant find or it never came with one.

Nope I didn't get any of those, maybe yours is a newer model. I bought mine in Sports direct around a year ago.

 

[Paulm]

Got one of these delivered yesterday http://www.polimil.co.uk/highlander-forces-88-l-rucksack-olive.html Only £54 plus p&p, great price and thought I would give it a go rather than spending £140 or so on a Karrimor SF Sabre 45 and pouches.

I've got a Karrimor SF Sabre 35 daysack for out walking or mountain biking, but needed something big enough as well to take the kit for occasional long weekends rather than the car and tent camping I tend to do for longer trips.

Didn't expect too much for the money, but did read a lot of comments about the Highlander bags being decent kit for the money, and would have to agree so far. I can see they have used lighter weight straps and buckles than the Karrimor, and the shock cord and attachments on the lid are lighter weight too, but it still all looks fit for purpose and well put together.

The adjustable back system is a big plus compared to the larger Karrimor too, and the extra capacity of 88l versus 70 litres will probably get used in autumn/winter when a bit more rain and cold kit is needed.

So very pleased indeed so far, although yet to use it in anger, but have packed it up with gear to try it out. I don't expect to be walking miles with it and if it does decent service at a few meets and short trips for the next few years then will have more than got the value out of it. The Karrimor is definitely great kit and would probably last much longer, but for less intensive use like mine the Highlander looks to be excellent value.

Meant to ask though, what do others use the utility daisy chain system down the back for ? Obviously for fastening stuff too but can't think how I might use it in reality ?!

Cheers, Paul

 

[The MAX]

I ended up buying a expedition bag from MEC after. They're stuff is usually pretty good value compared to competitors. I didn't need milspec, or anything. So I ordered the MEC Ibex 80L (but to please my bushy side, it is in a forest green colour )

Due to arrive tomorrow, I'll post pics and a report when i check it out.

 

[simplefool]

I ended up buying a expedition bag from MEC after. They're stuff is usually pretty good value compared to competitors. I didn't need milspec, or anything. So I ordered the MEC Ibex 80L (but to please my bushy side, it is in a forest green colour )

Due to arrive tomorrow, I'll post pics and a report when i check it out.

IMHO you made the right choice, you can make a big bag smaller but you can't make a small bag bigger as others have said above. You might find that the extra space provides opportunity to use the pack in less 'bushy' situations as well - my LA Cerro Torre was pressed into service for grocery hauling when my car was being fixed and I had to take the bus to the shops - made an annoying task slightly less so!

Also, I find 'milspec' is, in the main, a clever marketing buzzword primarily now used by certain brands to make it sound like a pack has some grandiose ultra-durable/life-saving/female-bedding capability not on offer with other packs. Whilst there are cheap, crappy packs available on the market, my twenty year old Karrimor civvy pack puts paid to the notion that something has to be designed to survive being crapped on by a tank to be useful. Here's hoping you enjoy your new purchase, be sure to update us on how you get on with it!