Lets talk pack space/size

I have a SMD Starlite pack. I bought during my transition to UL.

As my pack contents became smaller, I found that I could cinch it up to a size that was small and firm. This made the pack stiff and gave great support.

If your pack doesn't compress well, you could maybe supplement with extra straps or cordage.

I now use a ULA CDT, which is much smaller and find that for three season 4 day trips it works well for me.

The Starlite sits in my closet for friends to use or for times when I think I might like the capacity, eg. winter, long resupply sections, dry climates,…

Also, the larger packs can be good for people who carry light, but large displacement items like closed cell pads, synthetic sleeping bags, freeze dried and/or other light fluffy foods, …

CCF pads are a great way to use up empty space and stay light. Personally I am down to 33L for 4 days with bear can and big camera. For over nighters I could go much smaller. I can see owning a couple of packs to enable covering a large range of days on the trail.

some folks simply need additional volume even though they have light base weights- think shoulder season/winter camping- bigger bags/quilts, more clothing, etc

also those on long (5+ days) trips or thru hikes often need additional volume for food stuffs

I do wholeheartedly agree though w/ your overall thought-when given a choice I'll always take a small pack if feasible, but sometimes the "right" pack is a larger pack

a small (and light) pack allows me to venture places that would be tougher to do w/ a larger pack (even given the same weight)

Perhaps the nature of UL/SUL causes a pack conundrum.

Where I often hike there is about a 6 month period where my Murmur is way too big, because all my other gear has gotten so small and light. But if I need to carry a lot of water it is not up to the task. A bear canister presents a whole new set of challenges. Winter snow camping another set of issues. So for many people a selection of different sized and featured packs is a solution.

Last year I went with the "one pack" to fit all trips route and bought a McHale LBP 36. It has pretty much been my go to pack ever since. But on summer weekend trips it is cavernous, even if I need to carry 2 gallons of water, but I need the superior suspension. On other trips I need the volume. So I have come the the conclusion that I need a pack in the 26L – 30L range that at times can carry up to 20lbs of water. So I am working with Dan McHale to build one. But I will still have some weekend trips where all my gear weighs under 2 pounds and the volume of the gear is minimal, and if water is plentiful I only need something like a Zpacks Zero small.

For the most part, the UL pack manufacturers are just meeting the demand of consumers, and there has not been much leading edge innovation (Chris Zimmer and Thom Darrah are exceptions among others). I don't think they are driving people to purchase large volume packs. What I see is a focus on different materials and some light frame stays. Many of the cottage packs really look similar to me.

With all the new offerings in gear, other than packs, volume can be incredibly small and light. I am absolutely thrilled with what is available to us. On most trips I just fluff my down gear to help fill up the space which helps some, but it does settle some when hiking.

"Murmur is way too big"

Then there is the Whisper, but I don't believe that Gossamer Gear makes them anymore. Mine weighs 4 oz, I think. I like the Murmur better than the Whisper.

The next one they make will probably be called the Barking Spider or something.

–B.G.–

I use the GG Riksak, which I think is 15 liters.
Weights 2 ounces. Carries what I need.

I would find it hard to fit a bear canister in a Riksak.

–B.G.–

I prefer a big pack that compresses well to carry small loads, if needed. Sometimes you just need to carry more stuff. Packing is easier too.

I think that there are enough packs out there that you can really choose a pack or multiple packs to suit your specific needs. I think this is why a common recomendation is that you buy your pack last. I think that many people don't do this because the pack is such low hanging fruit in terms of $/oz. This leads to having to buy multiple packs as you downsize.

I think a big factor in pack size for an unframed pack really depends on how much weight you are will to carry on an unframed pack. I don't particularly like unframed packs for loads over about 15 lbs. After that point for me stays greatly improve performance for the cost of a 1lb. But many here report carrying 25lb and 30lb loads with their unframed packs so if you are at that load a 50l volume doesn't seem that unreasonable.

Also if you have a 10lb base weight and want 7 days of food 40 – 50l of pack space is required.

So I think there is definately a need for packs in that 40-50l range.

I think there are also a wide enough variety of packs being made that you can find more or less whay you need for the weigh and volume you need to carry.

Hey Greg,

I use an approximately 40 liter pack(ULA Conduit/CDT) with 7 days worth of food, approx 12 lb base weight, but I use high density foods.

Of course this is only for 3 season use.

As far as comfort with frameless packs go with heavier weights. Careful packing can make a huge difference. I've been comfy with 25+ lbs with my Conduit, but I was very careful to pack accordingly and tighten down the straps so the pack is good and solid/rigid, with no floppiness.

A good stiffly packed pack basically doesn't require a frame, up to a point of course.

I am not sure if some people are misunderstanding me or if I am misunderstanding you.

Let me put this simply:

Let us say a 15oz lightweight pack requires a base weight of 20lb or less to provide a comfortable multi day trek.

Let us say the gear is down to 10lbs for base weight.

This leaves 10lbs for consumables.

At 1.4lb/day food (very conservative for my treks, normally 2lbs/day due to constant bushwhacking) , a 7 day trek (reference to the previous comment) would be add to 9.8lb (14lb).

Let us include 4l of water (average for me on the treks I do) at 2.2lb per liter, there is 8.8lbs worth of water.

10+9.8 (14lb)+8.8=28.6lbs (32.8) (This does not include fuel)

As the days go on, pack weight will reduce by the lbs/day of food. However, as should be clear, the pack weight will be above the comfort range for most of the days.

Now, lets relate this to pack size. I see now that some people use the extra space for a large pad or stuff their down into. I do not use a large pad and use stuff sacks for my down gear. Neither is right or wrong, but that is my gear choice.

With ~15-20L of gear volume at 10lbs, a 15oz 56L pack leaves me with 36-41L for consumables and 10lbs until reaching limit of comfort range.

It is simply not possible for me to make 10lbs of consumables 36-41Ls volume unless I am just ridiculously trying.

Thus, I must use a more beefier pack (of the same volume) that can handle higher comfort weight ranges. i.e., I could make 25-30lbs of consumables fit into 30-40Ls.

Or, keep the same weight pack, 15oz, but reduce the volume to the appropriate size (i.e. 20-30L).

I see now that people compress their packs when extra space exists. If this works for you then awesome. For me, using compression straps does not compare with equally sized gear volume to pack volume in terms of comfort and trek ride. The comfort and ride after compression becomes even worse (for me) as the extra space increases (what happens as food decreases).

Opinions?

Chase,

Forgetting volume for now, lets consider two packs… one handles above 15lbs with a frame the other is uncomfortable above 15lbs and has no frame. If we just grab a number… say 20%, 25%, 30% of the time you are above 15lbs. Use that percentage to determine a point where you need the framed pack.

Volume does not necessarily equate to weight. A gallon of water may take up as much space as a sleeping bag, maybe less depending upon how compressed the owner is willing to scrunch down an expensive piece of equipment. Same goes for shelter. Some cuben tarps fold down to very small size, and some lightweight shelters might take 4 times a much space. A Neo Air folds down very compact, but takes up much less space than some foam pads that might weigh 1/2 or less.

4 liters of water is a lot to carry

I normally carry 1/2 liter = 1 pound max

i think the question is how much high bulk, low weight item one carries …

the worst case scenario i can think of is a synthetic bag, double wall tent, synthetic puffy, ridgerest, bear canister (not low weight, but big) and extra clothes … and eat mr noodles all day long (bulky but light food)

if one isnt carrying that much bulk, i would agree with the OP … i personally dont see too much point myself in a high capacity pack that may not have the frame to support the load

on the other hand the funny named after a bird BPL pack was touted as being able to carry a high weight load comfortably, but doesnt seem to have the volume to support such weight for many people IMO … different end of the spectrum

4 liters of water is a lot to carry

I normally carry 1/2 liter = 1 pound max

"4 liters of water is a lot to carry

I normally carry 1/2 liter = 1 pound max"

Depends. You are in Oregon/Washington. Not sure where the OP is, but here in South Texas, most everywhere I would go is completely dry, has uncertain water sources, or the sources are far enough apart (with dry camps) that you need to carry a lot of water (especially if it's hot). For me, 4 liters is on the low side. (E.g., a recent trip where I spent all day hiking into a dry camp, sleeping, getting up, and then the next morning hiking 7 miles to the spring to refill, etc., in 90 degree temps.). I would LOVE to only carry a liter or so, but it's not possible for me around here (unless they've finally developed powdered water and I missed it).

This issue (water carry) has actually driven my pack choices – I mostly need to stick with packs that will be comfortable with a high pack weight because of the water thing. I have been extremely with the ULA Circuit so far, and the GG Gorilla has been good for shorter trips. It has also driven me to get as light as I can with everything else…

Yup, been there and still dancing around it. Most of my trips are day hikes and overnights. I think thru-hikes and multi-day trips need a whole different kind of pack. Bear cans will always spoil the mix. Insulation is the volume thief. I could do a mid-summer overnight trip with a 24 liter pack, using a Gatewood Cape shelter, a small pad, a 40F sleeping bag, a small cook kit and some minimal layers of clothing. Move off that mark to a 20F bag and some heavier clothing layers for cold nights and cool mornings and it blimps up to 40+ liters with no effort. But from there on it is space food for multi-day trips– the gear really doesn't change for 3-season use. Going to 4-season/sub-freezing trips and it blimps up again.

Some of those big-but-light packs allow hauling your sleeping bag and insulated clothing without a compressing them to black hole infinity. I think you are right about getting too large without having some reasonable ratio of volume to weight capacity.

"4 liters of water is a lot to carry

I normally carry 1/2 liter = 1 pound max"

How much water you carry depends to a very large extent on what kind of terrain you are hiking in. For Nick's desert hikes 4 liters doesn't sound like a lot to me. On my East Side approaches in the Southern Sierra I will usually start out with 2 liters, enough to get me to the first water source with a reasonable margin of safety(~16 oz). Farther north, e.g. Paiute Pass, 1/2 liter is reasonable. Up in the Cascades, I will carry anywhere from no water to 2 liters, depending on the route. Even the Cascades have some very dry hikes, believe it or not.

Different people have different likes, thats why theres all different flavors of ice cream. If you dont need a huge 15 oz pack, dont buy one. Your desire to pack small is your way. Others may be different.

Put that 9 oz 3/4 lenght ridgerest inside the pack and it takes up a great deal of room, and is still lighter than most inflatables. Dont stuff the sleeping bag and save the stuffsack wt, and have a pack that conforms to your back better and is self-adjusting for volume of packed gear, and doesnt de-loft the bag potentially.

A loosley packed pack, conforms to your back better and is more comfortable than a tightly packed one. That is one reason some mfgs make large UL packs. Again, different strokes. Find what you like that works for your style.

I think the bottom line here is that big frameless backpacks are for people who, for one reason or another, carry bulky insulation. Am I reading that right? Because actually up until now, I've avoided those kinds of backpacks out of not understanding a good use for them. You could even take a big frameless pack on an overnighter if you just liked the idea of not compressing your down–or you use a big synthetic bag. Doesn't sound like such a bad idea, actually.

I think Chase summed up my feelings toward frameless and light frame packs that led me to post the other thread about getting back into big backpacks. People say that they can fit two weeks' worth of gear and food into their ultralight backpacks, but I seem to lack the packing skills to do this, and would have to turn to a larger backpack to fit that kind of gear comfortably.

So its my first post so bare with me as I try and ask a question and maybe make a point. I must disclose first that I am not currently backpacking and haven't been in over 20 years but I have been bitten by the PCT bug and the challenge it will bring me. Any ways here it goes…..

I have been researching for over 6 months about what pack to get, which one would fit my PCT needs as well as your normal weekend trips around Socal or beyond. I have been leaning toward the Kifaru KU lightweight packs for many of the reasons listed in this particular post. Please keep in mind that I do not have one yet but am relying on data in the forums here and Kifaru for info. Now back to topic, the KU series are light and can carry the weight of any normal or heavy packed trip without issue (according to the folks that have them), but the most important feature to me is the fact that I can expand the pack with the various pods and pockets to modularly fit my needs on a trip by trip basis. I don't see any other pack on the market that can do this and be light weight. So if this pack fits me well and works well at a low carry weight and a heavy carry weight and can be expanded to fit my needs in all seasons or locations isn't that the perfect scenario? By having a modular pack it addresses the issue that the OP brought up and now there is no need for multiple packs or issues with one pack that can't carry weight correctly but it's light versus one that can but maybe is too big and your stuff isn't very secure….. so on and so on. Is my thinking logical here because it appears to me that this is the solution to the question and possible the direction I will be headed?

I vary my pack size by three methods:

1. cinching up or releasing the compression cords (2009 REI Cruise UL 60)
2. adding or removing two side pockets of 400 cu. in. each
3. adding or removing a Dana Wet Rib front pouch/water bottle holder to the lower shoulder strap webbing

This works for several different trip lengths.