Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Question About Pack Size
Display Avatars Sort By:
Joohn Oldenborg
(steezplease) - F
Question About Pack Size on 02/01/2012 14:45:11 MST Print View

I am contemplating buying the MLD Newt but i'm not sure if it will be too small. My base weight is around 6 pounds but i still wonder. Does anyone one use the pack? From what i see there seems to be little buzz about the pack but i really like the design compared to other packs. Does anyone have experience with the Newt?

Mary D
(hikinggranny) - MLife

Locale: Gateway to Columbia River Gorge
Question About Pack Size on 02/01/2012 14:58:04 MST Print View

Measure the volume of your gear plus the amount of food (by bulk) and water you usually carry. Use a box with straight sides and be sure the top surface of your gear is level. Measure length, width, height; multiply them by each other. Assuming you measured in inches, 60 cubic inches equals approximately one liter (close enough for estimating purposes).

As the SOTM articles have shown, pack capacity is not always accurately measured by the manufacturers. Have all your gear (including the equivalent of food and water) ready to load the pack as soon as it arrives. Also do a "hike" around the house for several hours, to be sure the pack is comfortable for you as well as holding your gear.

Edited by hikinggranny on 02/01/2012 15:00:07 MST.

Joohn Oldenborg
(steezplease) - F
RE: Pack Size on 02/01/2012 15:25:52 MST Print View

Thanks alot for the tips.

Mike W
(skopeo) - F

Locale: British Columbia
MLD Newt... on 02/02/2012 01:13:21 MST Print View

You didn't mention what kind of trip you will use the Newt for.

It would be fine with your base weight if you were just planning a weekend trip, but with the Newt's roll top and no bottle pockets it wouldn't be my first choice. Spend the extra bucks and get the MLD Burn if you are interested in Ron's packs. The Newt is just a slightly scaled down and stripped version of the Burn.

I carry my Newt an average of 5 days per week (to and from work and weekend day hikes) and love it but I'd take my Burn on an over-nighter.

Here's a couple of pictures that I posted elsewhere on this site that shows the size difference between the Burn and Newt. The Newt in the picture is from Ron's original run of these packs. Ron has updated the Newt since these photos were taken and added a mesh pocket and improved the roll top which has made it much more useful for overnight trips IMO (I've added the mesh pocket to mine as well and it's made the pack much more user friendly).

Burn and Newt

Burn and Newt profile

Joohn Oldenborg
(steezplease) - F
RE: Pack Size on 02/02/2012 09:42:03 MST Print View

Thanks a ton Mike. Those pictures are really helpful. Now that i look at it it does seem like the Burn would be a better fit, but i really like the Newt especially since the 2012 Newt has the exterior mesh pocket and has no hip belt which i really like. Thanks again!!

Seth Brewer
(Whistler) - MLife

Newt vs. Burn on 02/03/2012 09:14:27 MST Print View

I have used the Burn for over 1,500 miles of hiking last year and loved using it. A great lightweight and rugged long weekend bag (or thru-hiking). I just got the new 2012 Newt to use for my 2-3 day fastpacks with my SUL set-up and think that it will work out great. With a lack of bottle pockets, I added on the shoulder strap pocket for a half liter bottle. You'd need to have a fairly compact set-up with no more than 3 days of food for this bag to be suitable IMO.

Not filled to capacity - but a 2-3 day food bag would max it out.2012 Newt

This view shows the bottle pocket on the shoulder strap - also have the shoulder zipper pocket for my camera.Bottle Pocket

Edited by Whistler on 02/03/2012 09:19:59 MST.