Ultralight pack suitable for international travel
Display Avatars Sort By:
J R
(RavenUL) - F
Ultralight pack suitable for international travel on 12/31/2005 22:56:05 MST Print View

To get back to the original question...

I like the Eagle Creek Explorer Trek.
Slightly heavy at 3lbs, but considering its a fully functional travel pack, with a proper legal carry-on size (a 3000ci pack isnt big, but its big enough to get the stink eye when boarding. The explorer trek meets FAA regulations) and can double as a quality off trail backpack.

Plus the durability of the bag makes the 3lbs negligable. A 4oz pack might be OK for on-trail wanderings, but for international travel you never know what you might encounter, or who, and having a rugged bag is worth the weight.

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: Ultralight pack suitable for international travel on 12/31/2005 23:02:26 MST Print View

Oh, and make room in your pack by carrying less stuff, and carrying more cash.

Anything you NEED, you can buy. If you NEED it, so do the locals. If they dont NEED it, you might reconsider why you NEED it so bad. This has the added benefit of ensuring that you have A) fully experienced the area your travelling through and B) that you have the "proper" things (like clothes) for the area, and dont stick out like a sore thumb.

Anything you TAKE, you should be ok with it getting lost, stolen, damaged, or sold for pennies on the dollar for the trip home.

Sai
(saizai) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ultralight pack suitable for international travel on 01/01/2006 04:09:27 MST Print View

[double post]

Edited by saizai on 01/01/2006 04:11:38 MST.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Ultralight pack suitable for international travel on 01/01/2006 04:13:17 MST Print View

I wouldn't buy a pack that is right up to the carry-on limit (adding to 45), but instead would get one slightly smaller than carry-on dimensions, say 40-43.

Ben Tang and others, please link to some brown/black shoes to use for a trip like this. The link you gave was only to a pic of the shoe.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Ultralight pack suitable for international travel on 01/01/2006 10:50:38 MST Print View

John:

Here it is (also comes in black color):

http://www.happyfeet.com/istar.asp?a=6&id=6414-942!208&csurl=/iStar.asp?a%3D29%26manufacturer%3D208

You can occasionally find these -- new, of course -- on Ebay for about 1/3 the price.

Channing Sze
(eeyore) - F
suggestion on 01/01/2006 15:14:51 MST Print View

i use a golite breeze. its around the maximum carry-on dimensions (7x14x21). i carry a rain cover to prevent thefts and snags.

some european carriers have a much lower carry-on weight.

http://www.thetravelinsider.com/travelaccessories/internationalcarryonluggageallowances.htm

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 17:35:08 MST Print View

The minimum weight listed is still 11lbs, so thats not too bad.

Travel light on the way out, buy what you need when you get there, and mail it home (or check it) on the return trip.

All good.

Sai
(saizai) - F
Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 19:36:16 MST Print View

Here's a summary of suggested packs so far w/ cuin/oz:
Eagle Creek Explorer Trek 2400/51
Eagle Creek Subcontinental 2575/52
Mountainsmith Ghost 2800/34
Mountainsmith Auspex 3850/63
Granite Gear Virga 3200/21
Granite Gear Vapor Trail 3600/32
REI Tour travel pack 3950/57
Gossamer Gear G4 3100-4600/16
Gossamer Gear Mariposa 2900-4200/17
Six Moon Designs StarLite 4100/23
GoLite Breeze - not listed on website
GoLite Infinity 2550-3050/38
Arcteryx Bora 50 2800/70
Arcteryx Needle 45 2745/56
Osprey Transporter T46 2800/46
Osprey Atmos 50 3000/49
Gregory Z-Pack 3300/51
Gregory G-Pack 2700/39


Right now I'm leaning towards the Ghost - for being the lightest ~3kcuin pack that still seems durable enough to be abused. (Silnylon exteriors are light, but make me feel like they need to be treated gently - fine for clothing, but not for my pack.)

It also appears to be mostly waterproof, hydration-compatible, and the access is via one pair of zippers - which don't seem to have the little nubs for passing a lock through, but that could be kludged.

Edited by saizai on 01/01/2006 20:01:44 MST.

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:07:39 MST Print View

For what its worth, I have a MS Ghost (the more durable blue-grey version) and I wouldnt carry it as a travel pack. Its too big for carry-on, and the delrin hoop wouldnt likely survive many mishandlings by baggage gorillas.

If MS still made their "Dyno" pack, THAT would be an EXCELLENT travel pack.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:12:35 MST Print View

Rest easy... the Ghost has two "hidden" openings near the top -- one on each side -- for you to thread your hydration tube through. The Medium size will generally qualify as carry on -- but not the Large size. BTW, size in this case is determined by your torso length -- so it's not a matter of choosing one based on carry on size or not.

I LOVE my MS Ghost. However, I'm not a fan of internal bladder pouch. When you need to refill the pouch, you invariable will have to repack the contents a bit in order slip the full water bladder back in.

The Ghost has two sizable side pockets. That's where I like to place my water bladders -- upside down -- making it easier to suck water from tube.

Many good selections above. However, for real hiking (i.e. hours at a time and not just "hiking" a few city blocks between train station and hostel) -- I would avoid any of the Eagle Creek packs. They are very will built (I own two of them), but they are travel packs -- not hiking packs. The myriad of zippable compartments and organization panels, etc. are very nice and well worth the weight for short, urban hikes. However, IMHO, for long hikes, comfort and lightweight will count more than features and conveniences.

Obviously, what counts is when you actually try them out and determine for yourself.

Edited by ben2world on 01/01/2006 20:21:08 MST.

Sai
(saizai) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:31:36 MST Print View

Hmm, one more to add:
GoLite Trek 3950+700/32

That's a lot more space for the same weight...

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:39:01 MST Print View

Sai:

Frameless packs have their place (again, it's a matter of matching the right tool to the task at hand). More space is good if you have particularly bulky, but lightweight pieces. But if throwing in more means a marked increase in weight, then the extra capacity is less meaningful. Regardless of the volume of the packbag itself, most frameless are good for hauling 15-20 lbs. more or less.

It's good that you are looking at all the pieces together. Once you have decided on what to buy (at least the major pieces), you will have a better idea about narrowing down choices to the packs that will handle YOUR gear weight and volume.

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:41:48 MST Print View

"I would avoid any of the Eagle Creek packs. They are very will built (I own two of them), but they are travel packs -- not hiking packs"

As a general rule, this is true. But the Exlopere Trek, when combined with the light weights were talking about, makes for an excellent trail worthy pack.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:53:20 MST Print View

Joe:

The Explorer Trek is certainly trailworthy -- but may be 'overbuilt'. Obviously, this is subjective, but I based this on my comparison of its smallish volume and heavy-ish weight (2,400 / 3.3 lbs) to larger volume but lighter weight and better comfort packs such as the aforementioned Ghost and also the Granite Gear Vapor Trail.

For traveling, I think the EC Exp. Trek is an excellent choice, and in many ways much more usable than Ghost or Vapor Trail. But for long hikes, I would skip the Explorer Trek -- there are better choices all around out there (again, my opinion).

There is very little one can do to compensate for a heavy-ish pack on a long trail, but there are things one can do to protect lighterweight and more fragile packs when traveling -- such as putting them inside a large nylon sack when traveling by air (or using those HUGE heavy-duty plastic bags that airlines provide at airports).

Edited by ben2world on 01/01/2006 20:56:17 MST.

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:56:12 MST Print View

I agree... if your trip is more "trail" focused than "travel" focused, its probably in your best interest to go with a more trail specific design.

Pros and cons pros and cons.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 20:58:14 MST Print View

Yeah, it's what happens when people want just one pack that can "do it all".

I bet you and I both have "a few" different packs for different occasions. :)

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 21:04:52 MST Print View

In regards to your edit, 3lbs is hardly heavy-ish, in my opinion. But thats just my opinion, and Im not quite so hung up on weight as some people can be. Its a concern, but not an absolute primary concern for me.

When travelling, my primary concern is knowing that my pack will be there when I get there, so I never check my bags. My secondary concern is that my bag will survive the rigors of "civilization" while I make my way to the fun stuff outdoors, so easily slashed/torn/etc bags are out.

pros and cons pros and cons.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 21:18:17 MST Print View

Good points, Joe.

I think we travel the same way. Each to his or her own, of course, but like you, I too travel with just one carry-on, and I think it's just so much easier that way!

I like the flexibility of being able to just "get up and go", and hopping off trains or buses at intermediate stops just because I see something interesting -- without worries of needing to find a hostel first and unloading a huge pack. To me, this trumps the rather dubious 'flexibility' of "having everything at hand".

I take a slightly different tack in dealing with "slashers" and other trials of civilization. I used to take my EC carry-on pack, but found that it was still too large -- where bus drivers often insist that it be relegated to the rooftop luggage rack or bottom cargo hold of the bus. Rather than choosing beefy packs, I now use a bookbag -- small enough that I can take it with me into buses, boats, etc. Even though my pack weight is only around 11-12 lbs., I still sewed on a hipbelt -- just in case I pick up heavier souvenirs along the way...

But the above works for me because I don't also pack camping gear for my travels.

Curious, Joe, where do you hail from? I live in Pasadena... home of the soon-to-be-rained-on Rose Parade.

Edited by ben2world on 01/01/2006 21:22:37 MST.

J R
(RavenUL) - F
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/01/2006 23:40:26 MST Print View

Ben, Im just outside Denver.

Enjoy the parade.

Ben 2 World
(ben2world) - MLife

Locale: So Cal
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: suggestion on 01/02/2006 00:24:10 MST Print View

Denver, I see.

Thanks, I'll watch the parade on TV. Hope you have an enjoyable day too.