Aug 4, 2010 at 10:47 pm #1261911
Hate to sound like an idiot but…
Can anyone help me explain to me, (other than weight concerns) why I should buy a platypus hydration bladder over a camelbak. Specifically, I was thinking about getting either a Platypus 2 liter big Zip or a Camelbak OMEGA 70 fl. oz. reservoir). I'm asking because after doing a little google research, It appears that (correct me if i'm wrong) that camelbak bladders appear to be more durable than platypus bladders.
I've read about a bunch of people having to replace their platypus bladders after about a year. And although i feel like i am trying to make a move towards (at least lightweight backpacking), i am hesitant to buy a product that i will have to rebuy every year.
I was also wondering (for those who have an MSR miniworks), how troublesome or not refilling either platypus or camelbak bladders are. I currently have a miniworks and was just wondering if either product had an advantage over the other (at least in the respect of "re-fillablity").
I've also heard that platypus bladders lack the rubber like taste that is characteristic of camelbak bladders. I was wondering for those who have tried camelbak products, if the taste is very much noticeable or is it just over hyped.
I guess overall, I'm wondering whether i should just go with the weight savings (at the possible cost of durability) or just get a camelbak bladder.Aug 4, 2010 at 10:56 pm #1634992
@b-g-2-2Locale: Silicon Valley
Let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute.
Why do you want a Camelbak or Platypus bladder at all?
As an example, on Tuesday I was doing a long hike, and a friend came along. The friend had a Camelbak pack with bladder, and I think it had a 3L capacity. Suppose the friend used it until 1L of water was remaining, and we came upon a stream. What are we going to do? First of all, it is difficult to fill it from a 1-inch deep stream. Second, we would have to refill it to capacity, and then treat the entire 3L with water treatment.
In contrast, I had three 1L traditional Nalgene water bottles. I could refill any one independently and treat it without any bearing on the other two. On a different trip, for weight savings I would carry three collapsible Platypus 1L water containers.
–B.G.–Aug 4, 2010 at 11:05 pm #1634993
You bring up a very good point,
I myself do currently use a big o klean kanteen 40 oz. metal bottle and was thinking about trying to switch to something lighter. Just from reading some of the past threads on this forum it seems like hydration bladders seem fairly popular and i guess i was thinking that since i should try to lessen some weight, I could start with my method of storing water. But if anyone has any other ideas I'm more than happy to listen to.Aug 5, 2010 at 12:15 am #1635000
Nick GatelBPL Member
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
No, you do not sound like an idiot…
I think the hydration systems started out designed for runners. Small packs that could hold little more than the bladder and hugged the body, to make running easy with it. They had a tube which clipped to a shoulder strap, so the runner could drink without stopping.
For many BPers, the hydration tube is at first glance, a nice thing to have. Hydration systems weigh more than many other options, so for many of us here on BPL, they are not as desirable… many of us are fixated on gram reduction.
As to the practical side and functionality of day after day hiking, Bob brings up some excellent points. Three 1-liter platys weigh 2.7 ounces and provide a lot of flexibility. The 2 liter Platy Big Zip weighs 5.5 oz and provides 1/3 less capacity. That is more than double the weight of the 3 soft bottles. Now a weight savings of 2.8 ounces may not sound like a lot, but to some people it is.
I cannot comment on the durability of the Big Zip, as I have no experience with it. But my platy soft bags have lasted for several years.
For some people the convenience of the hydration tube system far out weighs the weight penalty. 3 platys are going to cost a little more than the Big Zip. Or you can just use 3 Aquafina or similar water bottles, which are almost free and weigh around 1.1 ounce each.
Ah… choices, choices, choices.Aug 5, 2010 at 2:01 am #1635005
Alex GilmanBPL Member
You can use a pump filter to top the bladder off via drinking hose…
I do this when I'm at camp and collecting water for cooking and all around hydrating for the next day.
It all depends on your system but for me having great tasting clean water is a luxury I'm willing to pay the weight penalty for.Aug 5, 2010 at 4:44 am #1635019
This may be an atypical experience, but back in 2007 on the LT my hiking partners Platypus Big Zip bladder opened up on top of Mt Ab and we had to spend a couple hours at the top drying out her gear. Was it user error? Yes; there didn't seem to be any defect and it didn't happen again. That said, she was pretty careful with how she closed it (as I said, it never happened before or again), but it still opened up. Thus, I prefer the closer system on the Camelbak, even if it is a bit heavier.Aug 5, 2010 at 5:24 am #1635023
Ken CharpieBPL Member
@kencharpieLocale: Western Oregon
I have a 3 Liter Platypus hydration system, but hike with friends that use the camelbak system. I borrow my wife's camelbak often for running, as well. After a year of hiking with my platypus on close to ten weekend trips, I've decided I like the Platypus design better for a few reasons:
1- I for one do feel that there is slightly less plastic flavor imparted to the water than the camelbak.
2- I like the pop-off tubing, this saves me some hassle when filling up on the trail because I can pull the reservoir out of my pack without messing around with the hose.
3- I prefer the soft bite valve of the platypus to the harder camelbak mouthpiece. I also like how the platypus valve comes apart for cleaning.
4- I prefer the zip-type opening when filling on the trail. It seems (to me) to require much less manipulation to fill completely than the camelbak and it's easier to seal without any air inside the reservoir, which helps prevent sloshing weight. The side opening to the camelbak reservoir always feels awkward to me while filling.
5- The slicker plastic of the platypus slides back into a stuffed pack much easier than the more rubbery sides of a camelbak reservoir. I hate having to pull gear out of my pack just to get a reservoir back into it.
6- The wide plastic handle of the platypus is easier to hang on short stubby branches of trees than the camelbak's smaller plastic hook. I like to hang the reservoir when using water to wash my face, clean something, etc
After a year of moderate use I have no concerns about it failing anytime soon. And it has spent a bit of time out of my pack tossed around on the ground or rubbing on tree bark.
Also, in regards to the water filtration and multiple bottles: I carry an empty 1L Platypus bottle that I can transfer clean water into before filling my main reservoir for treatment. This involves a minimal weight penalty and allows greater flexibility or extended water capacity if I ever get out into the desert for some hiking!Aug 5, 2010 at 5:33 am #1635025
chris arvinBPL Member
@kychrisLocale: Red River Gorge Area
A couple of gatorade bottles are much lighter, dependable, versatile, and cheaper. I can reach mine in my ULA Conduit while walking. The one liter size is perfect for Aquamira.Aug 5, 2010 at 7:18 am #1635043
Mike WhitesellBPL Member
It all comes down to preference….
I prefer aquafina bottles in my accessible Ohm pockets.
I tried using a camelback for a while, but found that I was overly concerned about puncturing the bag in my pack and disliked the plastic taste imparted to the water. I also disliked the bag cleaning aspect. Too much of a post trip hassle for me.
To each their own though. The guys I go hiking with swear by their insulated camelbacks.Aug 5, 2010 at 7:49 am #1635049
Dale WambaughBPL Member
@dwambaughLocale: Pacific Northwest
Choosing some ultralight items seems to be hair-splitting at times, but the real issue is the aggregate weight savings: an ounce here, two ounces there, and you find that you base weight has gone up a couple pounds. A Camelbak 70oz rig is 6.5oz vs the Platypus 2L Hoser at 3.5oz and an $8 cost savings too.
If you have everything else tweaked to your satisfaction, there's nothing wrong with adding an item that would seem heavy because you like the features or comforts. Sleeping pads are a good example. It's your hike! The bottom line is being conscious of your choices.
IMHO, bladders in the pack work better for day hikes. I do like having the water available on the fly. But they are pain to extract, refill and replace and they do have their weak points. If there is a leak, it's buried in the pack, so something is going to get wet. The best arrangement I have seen is when using a filter with quick-disconnect fittings on the hose, so you can treat and refill without removing the bladder. I don't care for the zip-type closures– I don't trust them.
Like some others, I prefer a couple one liter containers in side pockets– recycled wide mouth bottles or Platypus, depending on the treatment system used. With the Platypus it is easy to carry a spare for more capacityAug 5, 2010 at 9:06 am #1635069
Kate MagillBPL Member
I'd be hesitant to say Camelbaks are more durable than Platypuses. I tried a 2L Camelbak for cycling and backpacking a few years back, and I really liked having a reservoir on the bike for hands-free hydration. However, within one season I blew through two bite valves, and then started having problems with leaky seams on the reservoir itself (not the plastic ridges in the cap, but in the rubber body).
Instead of replacing the whole thing, I just went back to using recycled 1L bottles and Platys, which are way more convenient for hiking, and lighter. The Camelbak is also quite hard to fill at streams, especially if you pump your water, because there is no way to stand it up. With a Platypus, once you get an inch or two of water in the bottom, it'll stand more or less on its own. Also, for $10 (or maybe a little more now) you can get a hydration hose to fit a Platy softbottle–I've ended up with one of those for bike trips, but when I'm hiking I usually leave it at home to save that tiny bit of weight. Bottom line is, find a pack with easily accessible bottle holsters, or fashion a bungee system and loop your bottles onto the shoulder straps (ala ULA packs). Good for the weight distribution.Aug 5, 2010 at 9:16 am #1635072
Hikin’ JimBPL Member
@hikin_jimLocale: Orange County, CA, USA
I like having a hydration system. It's just so danged nice to be able to drink on the move, particularly when I'm hiking with a group that keeps up a fast pace.
I've got a Platy 3.0 L Big Zip. I like the Big Zip for a number of reasons:
1. The Big Zip style is easier to fill up all the way.
2. The Big Zip style is easier to dry out (prevents mold).
3. The Big Zip makes a handy in-camp water carrier with its handle and is easy to pour from. Multi-use = good.
Water treatment is not big deal. I carry a "bottle water" bottle with me that I use for making electrolyte drinks. If I need to treat some water while still having some water to drink, I can just do it on the bottle. Or I can carry a filter. Or I can just not treat my water which is also a pretty safe option in the mountains of western N. America despite what filter companies et al. may say.
I've never had a problem with bladders leaking whether they were Camelbak or Platy. You do need to be careful when not wearing the bladder to turn off the bite valve. I have had water come out in my trunk because I set the pack on top of the bite valve, but that's user error not equipment failure. With the Big Zip, I always turn it over after sealing and give it a couple of quick squeezes just to make sure that I sealed it correctly
By the way, I really like the 3.0 L size and prefer it to the 2.0 L size. That extra liter is really handy for peak bagging side trips and such. The weight penalty between a 3.0 L size and a 2.0 L size is minimal and is certainly less than having to carry an additional water container when one does need more water than 2 liters.
HJAug 5, 2010 at 10:26 am #1635093
Luke MoffatBPL Member
I went the reverse direction than most here. I started with a platypus but after more a couple zipper failures I went with the camelbak. I like it better. I don't have a probably filling in little creeks. I have the 3L, but usually only fill to 2L as I don't usually want or need the extra volume or weight of 3L, but I have found times when the option to do so is nice. So most of the time filling the bladder fully isn't an issue. I just don't trust the big zip seals as much, I know MANY others have had great luck, but I haven't found a real reason to justify changing back to Platypus style for my purposes. If filtering water I have a hiker-pro filter that allows the quick connect to the drinking hose. Also my pack isn't conducive for quick easy access to water bottles to hydration bladders it is for me.Aug 5, 2010 at 10:29 am #1635094
I've had issues with every Platy I've owned. Switched back to Camelbak and have yet to have an issue with any bladders or bite valves. I've been using the same two camelbak bladders for 4+ years. Definitely worth the extra ounces IMO.Aug 5, 2010 at 12:30 pm #1635131
@elpeebeeLocale: Too far south of the Pyrenees
Another vote for bottles rather than Camelbaks or Platypuses. (Platypi?) Mold in the bladder or tube is a PITA. It's nice to be able to put a bottle in the recycling bin rather than worry about drying, disassembling, cleaning, etc.
Also, a full bag makes it difficult to pull a bladder out of the hydration sleeve, much less put it back in. And if you didn't completely 100% seal it properly you'll get water dripping out all over your gear and won't notice until you feel dripping on your lower back, which means that everything on the inside and the pack itself have soaked through. Not that I learned that by experience or anything…Aug 5, 2010 at 2:29 pm #1635155
@psychbeatLocale: SF CA
I switch between my Nalgene 3L bladder
and gatorade bottles depending on how
much water access there is.
the Nalgene bladders have a quick release
for the drinking tube and they dont taste
as rubbery as the camelbaks do.
I notice I drink more with the bladder set up.
not sure if thats a good thing or not.
having a single 3L bag in camp is nice since
you dont need to go back n forth filling bottles
both systems work great.Aug 5, 2010 at 2:33 pm #1635159
@davecLocale: The West Slope
There is no correct answer here, either system works well, one better than the other depending on the circumstances. I prefer a MSR Dromedary bag to any other hydro system. No worries about bladder failure there.
It also continues to astound me that bladder users don't secure the hose onto the bladder itself. Heat shrink and/or a small ziptie go a long way towards not soaking your gear when you foolishly yard on the hose. Same thing goes for keeping track of the bite valve.Aug 5, 2010 at 2:40 pm #1635161
Jennifer WBPL Member
@tothetrailLocale: So. Cal.
Heat shrink, love it. Good idea, I'm going to do that, thanks.
I use the zip tie method, but heat shrink is much cleaner, no sharp edges to worry about.Aug 5, 2010 at 2:46 pm #1635164
I actually heat shrunk my whole dromeda bag one morning trying to melt ice for tea, still holding up 3 years later! Bombproof.Aug 5, 2010 at 2:48 pm #1635166
@bcrowellLocale: Southern California
+1 on bottles
The impression I get is that a lot of people have bought into the urban folktales about hydration (e.g., that "thirst is too late"). Because their fear of dehydration is so exaggerated, they feel like they need to be able to carry a large amount of water and drink from it constantly.Aug 5, 2010 at 2:59 pm #1635170
Ben 2 WorldBPL Member
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
Bottles vs. bladders — one will never drive the other off the market — there are pros and cons to both — and much of it subjective in any case.
As for bladders, seriously, I wouldn't worry at all whether Camelbak or Platy or MSR is better: all of them are extremely dependable — and yet, all of them will produce a lemon or two as well. Never hurts to double check your gear pieces prior to a trip.
It's pretty hard to go wrong with any of the major brands. But be it bottle or bladder — I highly recommend that you "pin down" your entire water procurement, filtering, and storage method(s) before you buy any particular container, filter, or hydration tube. Make sure you settle on the whole system first before you buy — so everything will work together.Aug 5, 2010 at 3:54 pm #1635185
Hikin’ JimBPL Member
@hikin_jimLocale: Orange County, CA, USA
> The impression I get is that a lot of people have bought into the urban folktales about hydration (e.g., that "thirst is too late"). Because their fear of dehydration is so exaggerated, they feel like they need to be able to carry a large amount of water and drink from it constantly
Ben, could you say more about this? What is your standard for how much you carry?
HJAug 5, 2010 at 3:54 pm #1635186
Gary DunckelBPL Member
I would caution against taking dehydration too lightly. It can be a fairly serious event should one get too low on water. And once the symptoms arrive, it's very hard to reverse things.
Last week, my Federal medical response team participated in a an outdoor field exercise in humid Hartford, CT. Temps were 85-90*F, and we were working hard outside in the sun. I probably drank 8 liters a day, and my pee still was always bright yellow. Several responders went down with various symptoms of mild heat exhaustion. Each night, we would all drink another 1-2 liters to try to catch up on our hydration. Since the body can only absorb maybe 1.0 ounce of water every 15 minutes, rehydration is not a quick thing. That's where a hydration bladder/hose setup makes it easy.
The best approach is to fully hydrate 2-3 days prior to your planned physical activity, and then continually sip on the Platypus while you exert (drinking lots of beer the night before the hike is a bad idea). Once you start feeling a mild headache, or feel quite thirsty, it's usually too late. While hiking in the heat, watch for a red flushness on your partner's face, which is an early warning sign. In Colorado, our dry air means we don't breathe in as much water vapor as we exhale, so we lose some that way. Also, I find that I don't get as thirsty at altitude, so sipping sometimes seems boring and silly. We have to encourage each other to drink more water.
So for me, at least, proper hydration is not an urban myth. Your sweating/relative humidity/transpiration/other fluid loss may vary.Aug 5, 2010 at 7:10 pm #1635232
@bcrowellLocale: Southern California
Jim Barbour wrote: "Ben, could you say more about this? What is your standard for how much you carry?"
My standard is that I trust my body to tell me whether it needs water. If I can manage things so that I never feel extremely thirsty, then I consider that OK. In the Sierra, water is usually pretty plentiful, so I can usually accomplish that while carrying zero water on my back. In the San Gabriels, for example, I often find that I have to carry much more water. E.g., when I did Iron Mountain in May, I drank 1 liter of water before starting, carried 4 liters, drank 2 liters on the trail, and dumped 2 liters because I ended up not needing it.
The "thirst is too late" myth is discussed in this paper: Heinz Valtin, "'Drink at least eight glasses of water a day.' Really? Is there scientific evidence for '8×8'?," Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 283: R993-R1004, 2002. http://ajpregu.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/283/5/R993
Gary Dunckel wrote: "So for me, at least, proper hydration is not an urban myth."
I absolutely agree with you that dehydration can be extremely dangerous. I didn't say that proper hydration was an urban myth. I said that "thirst is too late" was an urban myth.Aug 5, 2010 at 8:10 pm #1635243
@patientwolfLocale: South Western Oklahoma
I have a 3L Camelbak with a Sawyer inline filter. I use it in tandem with a 1L Aquafina Bottle. I drink from the Aquafina bottle first and when that is gone I sip from the Camelbak. When I find a water source I use the Camelbak as a gravity filter system and fill the Aquafina bottle and then refill the Camelbak. The bladder has a wide mouth that is set in the side of the bladder not on an end like a water bottle so it is easily filled even in shallow water, though admittedly I have never tried it in only 1" of water as one poster suggested. I have been using the Camelbak for about a year and it still in virtually new condition. So I think the Camelbaks are great and worth a few extra ounces.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.