Zpacks Arc Blast, how well does it cinch down?

It only rolls down so far. Maybe don't stuff your sleeping bag etc.
Duane

I have a 52l the roll top actually reduces the volume quite a bit. I'm pretty sure the only difference among the 60, 52 and 45 bags is the length of the roll top. EDIT: As Ralph B points out below, in fact the only difference is the depth of the bags, 5.5, 6.5 and 7.5 inches respectively for the 45, 52 and 60-liter bags.

As Duane mentioned, I don't stuff things unnecessarily and my quilt ends up taking up the volume slack and naturally compresses or decompresses depending upon the amount of consumables carried.

The Arc Blast also has the side compression cords but I removed them because I found I never needed them. I suppose if you engaged those you could scrunch it down to a fairly tiny, back-hugging package.

I dont stuff my quilt in a stuff sack as of now, that wouldnt change. Any worry of the suspension not working properly with a half full pack?

Any worry of the suspension not working properly with a half full pack?

Zero.

I've used Arc Blasts for virtually all my 3-season hiking for several years. I own both 45L and 60L versions, and I use a 13" Bearikade.

Although a bear canister will fit in all of them, you are definitely right to choose the 60L for bearcan use. The weight penalty is de minimis, and it gives you a lot more room to arrange things conveniently. When using a bearcan, I put in a cut-down GG sitlight pad to make it more comfortable against my back, because to accommodate the volume of the bearcan you will not want to put too large a bend in the Arc struts. It does then carry very comfortably.

The 60L cinches down great when you're carrying a smaller volume – you don't need extra features – the standard zigzag cords on the side of the pack bring everything in close for a good center of gravity. And of course the rolltop brings the top right down. It weighs so little that more often than not I just grab it even when I'm dayhiking.

The two easy extras that I always ask Joe for, for minimal weight and cost:
(1) A "Large Repair Patch" on the interior base of the pack for extra reinforcement. That's always the area most susceptible to abrasion.
(2) A third base strap in the center, this makes anything strapped to the base much more secure.

Also, if you don't use a hydration pouch, have them omit the hydration port. The pack then becomes essentially a fully seam-taped drybag. I have a pack that is almost three years old that I still have to carefully expel the air from when rolling/cinching down, because it's virtually airtight.

"I'm pretty sure the only difference among the 60, 52 and 45 bags is the length of the roll top."

No, the height of the rolltop is exactly the same in all versions. So is the width. The difference is an extra one and two inches front-to-back.

—-

45L Pack Size:
Total Volume: 45 Liters / 2,750 cubic inches – 16.8 ounces (476 grams)
Main Body Volume: About 32 Liters / 2,000 cubic inches
Body dimensions: 5.5" x 12.5" x 30" (14 cm x 31.8 cm x 76 cm)

52L Pack Size (the original default size):
Total Volume: 52 Liters / 3,200 cubic inches – 17.0 ounces (482 grams)
Main Body Volume: About 39 Liters / 2,400 cubic inches
Body dimensions: 6.5" x 12.5" x 30" (16.5 cm x 31.8 cm x 76 cm)

60L Pack Size:
Total Volume: 60 Liters / 3,650 cubic inches – 17.2 ounces (488 grams)
Main Body Volume: About 47 Liters / 2,850 cubic inches
Body dimensions: 7.5" x 12.5" x 30" (19 cm x 31.8 cm x 76 cm)

I have the 60L and there is not a lot of room around the Bearikade to stuff in linear items like a (small) tent. I would not want a smaller circumference. The center of gravity is superb even with a 14.5" stuffed Bearikade. I added load lifters for a micro-adjustment.

I have the 52L and besides using it for longer treks I also have used it as a "daypack" when basecamping. Pull out the bear can, quilt, shelter, puffy jacket, cook kit and the pack is pretty empty but no problems with load shift.

I've found you don't need to worry much about load shift when there's hardly any weight to it. A half-full Arc Blast won't be half-full of bricks, it probably would add up to 4-8 lbs for most people/situations, load shift shouldn't affect you much.

No, the height of the rolltop is exactly the same in all versions. So is the width. The difference is an extra one and two inches front-to-back.

Ah, thanks for the correction.

You guys are great, thanks for the quick replies. I am now leaning toward the 60l size to give me maximum flexability with little weight penalty.

My only concern with going 4th season with this pack is hanging some snowshoes from it. Anyone have any experience with this? Is the mesh durable enough to just stick them in the pocket? I may go with a custom that has dynema for the bottom and front part of the pack. Still not sure though. Realistically my winter camping would consist of snowshoeing into some lakes or maybe an overnighter climbing Shasta. Nothing super technical.

I attached snowshoes (Northern Lites) to mine with a bungee cord hooking onto the CF frame. Worked well.

The mesh pocket would definitely not work for that purpose… it would get shredded pretty quickly.

Thanks for the great pic Mr. Moulder. I really hope this pack will be the "one" for me :)

Regarding your original question about "cinching" down the sides, I have never tried it but it but have the impression that the side cords exist only for attaching stuff. I imagine that the widely spaced zig-zag attachments would not be very effective for cinching.

I use all 60L for winter, but during the summer even with a long Bearikade I can roll down the top to the shoulders and the frame/strap attachments, giving a "rucksack" feel. Great for peripheral vision and breezes.

Jeff, if you think there will be times you need the larger volume then go for the 60L. But if your typical loads are smaller than that and you're thinking of getting the 60L "just in case", keep in mind that, as Ralph pointed out earlier, the extra volume comes from the pack main body being deeper. That means the 60L pack will be "fatter" off your back than the 52L would when fully stuffed and that might affect center-of-gravity.

In all honesty, I think the 45l is the perfect size for my normal 3 season setup with tarp, bivy and quilt. Maybe even a hair big but easily accomidate extra food and water for long hauls. I doubt the 45l would work for me if I needed a bear canister and would really start to get tight if I tried to squeeze a winter campout with it. The 52l would probably be just about perfect for winter but still not sure how well my kit would fit with a bear canister. I am also keeping in mind that my girls are getting interested in camping and backpacking and if they came a long I would certainly need some extra volume to carry all the food, bigger shelter and any extra water needed.

Studying the pack I notice some nice line lock pull tabs in some pics on the bottom to cinch the load down. Maybe putting these on the sides in 3 spots were the bungee tabs already are would really help reign in the excess volume when not needed?

Or maybe I just need to go with a 45 for my 3 season and get something bigger for those other times? Trying to get away with one pack but sometimes I need a kick back into reality.

I don't want to complicate matters, but also take a look at the Arc Haul if you're likely going to be carrying heavier loads for the family. It is spec'ed for 40lbs or so.

The max load I've carried in mine (Arc Blast) is about 24 lbs for winter, and it carried incredibly well without lumbar pad or load lifters. But if you might be crossing a desert and carrying 7 or 8 liters of water, something like the Arc Haul might be more appropriate.

Normally my reckoning would be like yours — 45l Arc Blast would do fine for most of the stuff I do, but when I first got it I had no idea and just decided to "split the difference" and get the 52l. Turns out it was no big deal and the extra volume is perfect for a lot of the winter stuff I do.

Do you ever use a bear canister? If you had gone for the 60 would you still think its no big deal? Just curious :)

Anyone got a 52 with a canister care to point me at the gear list that fits with it in this pack?

I have thought of the hauler and really can only see maybe one or 2 trips I would make that I would come close to that kind of weight. I am thinking about more of hybrid in terms of material as I love the dyneema X material. But I really dont think I want load lifters or harness adjustments.

The funny thing is even the 60l which is almost double my pack volume now, is still almost an entire 2 pounds lighter then my current pack. I do fill the 35l to the max with food and water for solo weekend trips but this pack has wasted pocket space and I dislike the way its set up with no side pockets at all. The suspension is overkill for the weight I carry.

>> "Anyone got a 52 with a canister care to point me at the gear list that fits with it in this pack?"

I've carried a bear canister in my 52L no problem. And that's with pretty much everything inside, nothing strapped on the outside. I don't have a gear list posted, if you PM me a real e-mail address I can send the list to you.

@Jeff, I have not used a bear canister…

BUT…

@JR, I plan to get one since they’re required in the Adirondacks. Which one are you using with your 52l? I’m thinking about getting a BV450.

EDIT: comparison/review of Bare Boxer and others