Thoughts on Compression sacks?

[Cody Croslow]

So what is the UBL philosophy on using compression sacks for clothes or sleeping bag? I could see skipping them if volume wasn't an issue… in my case it is. Does it affect the down loft?

[Jace Mullen]

I think compression sacks are silly.

The stuff in your pack is going to compress to however small it needs to be, and because with something like a sleeping bag will "flow" you will actually have it more efficiently filling the same volume. Also, many UL (read: frameless) packs carry better when full, this will helo keep your pack more comfortable.

You also "add lightness" as another thread mentioned by making due without the stuff sack.

Win-Win-Win.

[EndoftheTrail]

Cody:

I started backpacking with different sacks and cubes for different things: tent, sleeping bag, pad, clothing, food, and one for the tiny misc. stuff. I found it both tedious and time consuming wrestling things into their proper stuff sacks — and the so-called compression actually made my pack "lumpy" overall.

Reading comments here, I experimented with the "shove everything into that one big hole" method. Truthfully, it saved me BOTH time and effort — and instead of different "bricks and cylinders" — the contents conformed themselves much better to the overall shape of my backpack! Now, I use only two stuff sacks: one for my tent (which I always attach to the outside of my pack) — and then just a small sack to house the various little misc. items.

Leaving out the stuff sacks truly is one of those "rare" instances where you save weight AND get a better result faster and with less effort!

[EndoftheTrail]

Forgot to mention… leaving out the stuff sacks, I can actually pack more stuff — meaning it's actually more efficient not to use multiple stuff sacks.

[John Nausieda]

Except in the case of an eVent compression dry bag you are making sure that your down sleeping bag can sustain that disaster of landing under a waterfall yet remaining dry. Also there is the matter of shape. Some compression sacks are more rectangular than others . Some are rounder. They may conform or not to your pack. They may enable you to turn a vertically stored bag into a horizontally stored bag for much left over room. My Sierra Designs Myst down bag came stock with one. I just like the eVent models better-faster to compress, and less resistance to really cinching down using your knees and weight and less beating on your thumbs and fingers.

[EndoftheTrail]

Not saying this is the "end all" — but a sturdy "contractor bag" liner twisted and rubber banded will protect not just the precious sleeping bag, but all other contents as well — without introducing 'lumpiness' or hampering packing time.

[Nigel Healy]

I moved from compression sacks to the eVent base type stuffsac. There's only gain to be had (less weight, shapes to your pack so you can use a smaller and hence lighter pack, less lumpy so comfier, etc) but one downside – finding something when its all in there together. Probably a happy compromise of 2 or 3 eVent stuffsacs of different size/color to separate different type of kit. Currently on 3 dry bags, a 3L one thick-material non-event for gadgets (cellphone, ipod, wallet, etc), a 16L eVent for clothing and a 7L eVent for sleeping bag, the argument is the sleeping bag is ONLY taken out inside the tent as part of preparing to sleep, whilst through the day there may be a reason to open either clothing bag or gadget bag and if something wet were to happen it would never get to the sleeping bag. Sleeping bag at bottom of the pack as last to be needed. Having non-eVent non-compression for gadgets is so there's a bubble of air to protect the gadgets. None of them are compression, they get compressed by each other and the compression straps of the frameless backpack.

Its also worthwhile as there is little weight penalty getting dry bags over-sized, they more easily shape to whatever is around them and less forced to take the shape of the dry bag itself. When you look at weights for slightly bigger its a tiny few grammes more.

[Terry Trimble]

I used to use all kinds of compression sacks to make bulky items smaller. But I do one thing I read about in Ray Jardien light backpacking book. I made two custom stuff sacks different colors of Ray's design he showed in his book out of silnylon that fit on top of each other one for my personal items, clothes,quilt and other things in the bottom sack. My bivy ,ground sheet, rain wear, and food bags and other stuff I need in a hurry in the top bag.
The system works out pretty good so you don't have stuff sitting on the direct ground.That's what nice about MYOG sewing.
Terry

[Ben F]

I think it's irresponsible not to carry your down bag in a waterproof stuff sack. I tend to just stuff all my dry clothes into the same bag as my sleeping bag.

[Justin Baker]

Yep, just shove it all down there. I do keep a stuff bag for my gloves, socks, and beanie because they are harder to find.

[Gregory Petliski]

I prefer to use just a few ultra-sil dry sacks for my sleeping bag, clothes, and electronics (camera and sometimes ipod). For the clothes and bag, its just a matter of rolling the dry sack down and squeezing the air out. I can compress the sack pretty well like this, dont see a need for a dedicated compression sack. just my 2c.

[Cody Croslow]

So it sounds like a resounding "no!" on the compression sacks, and most people are taking one or two stuff sacks. I'll probably continue to keep my sleeping bag in a stuff sack (or garbage bag), but I'll try fitting all my gear into the pack without using the compression sacks and see how it goes. I'm using an osprey bag now (i know, 2lbs 3oz is heavy for most of you folks) and the volume is only a 46 liter, so I've ran into that before. I'll definitely try to shove it all down and see how it all fits. It certainly strikes me as a quicker method of "stuff" management. And I'll probably just use my extra pockets to manage electronics/gloves/etc.

Thanks for all the pointers!

[Michael Cheifetz]

I had some similar questions and am still debating this with myself. Take a look at http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=57909

and see that @francodarioli put some pics that show the effect people were talking about where the hard cylinders dont pack well.

I personally only have 2 concerns with that style:
1)water – just the compactor bag aint enough for me…a sleeping bag could be the diff btw life and death…literally…and i want it dry as a bone. maybe what franco suggested (putting your bag in a big loose silbag and the whole pack with liner) is a good compromise
2) abrasion from other stuff in the pack..again – careful packing and the aforementioned sack would mitigate this

Also regarding the eVent bottomed drybags (as opposed to eVenet bottomed dry bags with compression straps) – i dont get it – the eVent is barely breathable and i cant see it really compressing easily in the rucksack…i find i can compress regular drybags really well

YMMV

[Rakesh Malik]

I don't use a stuff sack any longer, but I do find that squashing my sleeping bag makes packing it easier. It really doesn't want to stay squashed, so stuffing things in it didn't end up working well for me; it kept puffing itself back up and basically fighting me.

My alternative is to use what I think is a very clever feature in my backpack. Instead of having a dedicated lumbar support, it has a pair of webbing straps that rest against the part of the pack facing the lower back. The idea is that if you stuff a sleeping bag in there and then cinch the straps down nice and tight, the sleeping bag becomes a lumbar support, and I've found that it also does a pretty nice job of compressing the sleeping bag to make packing easier.

[Author]

Posts