newbie looking for a new pack...

i'm hoping for your insights here. i'm at a near mental breaking point. i've been looking at so many sites, researching so many places and reading so many reviews that my brain is mush, has been turned upside down, and any touch i had on reality is nearly gone.

i posted a week or so ago about looking into doing some short, extended backpacking trips in west virginia, having limited myself to dayhikes in the past. i have read a great deal and i know that packs are an individual choice and that fit is very important, unfortunately for me, i don't live very close to a genuine outdoor store to personally "test drive" different packs. gander mountain is about as close as it gets for me. anyhow, i find myself struggling with several issues.

one, how big of a pack should i buy? as much as i think i will like extended backpacking, i can't imagine that i'd ever take a trip longer than 3 or 4 days. i don't want a pack that will be too large because it will be overkill; however, it also needs to be large enough to be useful to a beginner. i have seen it suggested that a 3-5 day pack should be anywhere between 3000-4500 cu in. part of my problem is that that is a pretty big range and so many packs fit in there. i find myself torn. i'm looking at a variety of osprey packs because reviews have consistently been solid. i'm looking at the atmos 50 (my question is whether 3000-3200 cu in is enough, but i have no basis for comparison to know if it is too small for my needs), the aether 60 (3700-3900 cu in sounds like a good medium in the aforementioned range), and the aether 70 (i LOVE the idea of a separate compartment for the sleeping bag, but i wonder if 4200-4400 cu in is too much pack). can you help in this area? how much difference in pack space is there really between 3200 and 4400 cu in? i'm not talking about the simple math of it. i'm talking practicality here. is a separate compartment for a sleeping bag that useful? while bigger is probably safer, will i regret going bigger later with a bit more experience? am i off the mark totally and should i be looking elsewhere in regard to make?

second, i have read conflicting information on this. when deciding between a regular and large sized pack, what is the proper measurement to make? from where to where on the back and what is your suggested cutoffs between a medium and large? i'm of average build around 5'9", if that is important.

i'm sorry if i sound paniced, but if i'm going to spend $150-$240, i'd like to make an informed decision and be confident in the long run fruitfulness of my purchase. you good souls have been awesome with advice to others, and i'm hoping you can make some good suggestions to help me make a good choice. with so many places i hope to see in the future (glacier ranks high among them), i'll be living with this decision for awhile.

thanks in advance and take care of yourselves,

chamberlain

While size plays a role, fit is actually more important. The measurement that is used for length fit (deciding between SMLXL) is from the top of the pelvis (on the spine, that is, not the sides of the pelvis) to the nape of the neck (usually designated by counting vertebrae, but most people can't tell where to start the count and end it). If the pack doesn't fit, it doesn't matter what the capacity is, you will be very uncomfortable after a few miles and miserable after a day of hiking. Length isn't the only thing in fit - matching the shape of your back, width, shoulder strap separation, placement and shape of the hip belt, etc are important as well. Don't be take in by lots of "adjustments" - if the pack isn't shaped right for you to begin with, all the adjustments in the world won't make it fit any better. I really strongly advise making the trip to a good outdoor shop that can fit a pack properly, even if it means an overnight trip of a few hundred miles. My recollection is that Gander Mountain is a good shop, but I haven't dealt with them much in years. DC is close enough to WV and has several good shops.

As for size, remember that if you have the space, you will fill it, which makes the pack more heavy. If the pack is smaller, you will have to think your gear through more thoroughly. I have an Aether 60, which I am finding a bit on the large size of 3-5 day backpacks (I have a dozen other packs as well, from day packs and summit packs through a couple the size of the Aether to expedition packs). I cut the size of my sleeping bags for 3-season hikes (weight as well), and other things as well. So I can eat well, have sturdy shelter, and still carry my DSLR and 2 extra lenses. But you may have a big sleeping bag that doesn't stuff well. My expedition packs are in the 5000-6500 cu in range, and carry everything including the climbing gear. If I leave the big camera gear out, the Aether will take enough climbing gear for relatively easy technical peaks in the Sierra or Rockies (usually split with a partner, of course).

By the way, despite the current fashion for internal fram packs, I prefer external frame packs for the type of backpacking you describe intending to do - cooler in summer, more flexible choice and arrangement in packing the gear, and more comfortable (no hard objects sticking through the pack to poke you in the back). If you look closely, a lot of the internals are borrowing heavily from externals in terms of attempts at ventilation and construction of the frames.

Give a lot of thought to what you plan to take. Lay it out and put it into a "book box" (the size defined by UHaul and moving companies is 12x12x18, or 2600 cu in,or 42 liters, 2/3 of the Aether 60). A standard 33 gal garbage bag is about 125 liters, or 7800 cu in or double the Aether 60. Try fitting your gear int the book box, and the garbage bag. If you fit the book box, great - with food a 3500 cu in pack should be fine. If it takes the garbage bag, you better think hard about cutting your gear by half.

Try very hard to have everything inside your pack. Junk strapped or hanging outside swings around and makes carrying the pack much harder for the same weight.

Hope this helps.

I have good news and bad news. The good news is, I love my pack and will tell you about it. The bad news is, you still have to try on backpacks.

I have the Kelty Red Cloud 6650. It holds 6650 ci of gear. That is great. I hike in CO and the weather can change at a moments notice and I can find myself in a snow storm in June. Therefore, I have the tendency to carry a bit more gear than the average hiker when backpacking. Even if it is just an over night trip.

I like this pack very much because it is adjustable in the back. It has the best lumbar support that I have seen. It rides on my hips and not my rib cage. As well, it has a good back pad that rides on my upper back where it should.

Kelty does make a smaller Red Cloud.

If you are going to hike 2 nights or more in unpredictable weather, then it is my opinion that a larger pack would be better. It is also important to note, I am not an ultralight. I will care 50+ pounds easily.

As for the seporate compartment for the sleeping bag; I to thought that was great. However, now I do not use it. My sleeping pad is 30" wide, so I have to open the shelf that seporates my sleeping bag compartment so that I can get the entire pad in my pack. Also, I have found that I do not waste as much space when I don't seporate my compartments. I pack around my larger gear with my smaller articles.

I am now looking for a pack that is about 3000+" just for day hikes. I like large packs with room to stow gear. Although I have the room, I do not have to use it all the time. With that said, 6650 cu inches is still too much for a day hike.

The other things that I like about the Kelty as well. Comfort when hiking is the #1 thing. I only paid $159.00 plus tax for it. I do see it in many stores for $200.00. I like the hydration ports and the pocket for my hydration system. Incidently, I use Kelty for that as well. I like to carry three liters. I find that I drink much more when I know I have it available. The Red Cloud also has a decent amount of small pockets for the quick to reach small items.

Kelty is nicely adjustable for the shoulders, lenght of torso and hips. I guess that was my biggest selling point. IT FITS. I am six feet tall and this pack fits my length nicely with room to move.

I don't know how tall you are or how well you are in shape for hiking, but you are not going to be able to settle on the best pack for you by the opinions of others.

Most any pack will work for short trips, but comfortable packs take some trying on.

I hope I helped a little at least.

-John

thanks for the information, gentlemen. once again i have quite a bit of food for thought. i have an additional question for you. is there anything you can tell me about lowe-alpine packs? i came across a few packs on sierra trading post, but i can't find much information via reviews on this site or others. the reviews i have read sound like they are large packs used for extended trips which doesn't exactly fit my need. does anyone have an experience with these packs you can share in regard to durability, suspension, fit, etc.?

thanks and take care of yourselves,

chamberlain

Lowe-Alpine makes a very full line of packs from fanny, er, excuse me, lumbar packs, day packs, summit packs, on up to full expedition packs. Go to the the Lowe Alpine website to get an idea of their range. The "Lowe" of Lowe Alpine (and the LowePro photo bags) is indeed one of the very famous Lowe cousins and brothers of climbing fame, although he has long since left the various companies using the name, and has had no connection with them for a number of years.

I have had several Lowe Alpine packs, mostly in the summit pack category. I finally wore out my Alpine Attack 40 (2 pounds, which is amazingly light for a summit pack with ice ax straps, top pocket, daisy loops, hydration pocket, etc) after 8 years of hard use. One great feature was the foam pad/stiffener. If you took it out, you got down to a pound for a 40 liter pack. The pad could be used during a ski tour (it had loops for the skis as well) to sit on during lunch, or it could serve as an emergency splint. But that pack is long gone from their line. I recently got a South Peak Centro 40, which is very similar, but uses a plastic sheet instead of the foam pad. Great pack, again, though a bit heavier.

Like all the pack companies, Lowe packs have become much more specialized in their features. They still are quite durable and pretty comfortable (if you fit them properly, as with any pack).

Do you have any access to old fashioned brick & mortar retailers that sell this stuff? Even if you have to drive an hour or two to get to an REI or similar, you *really* need to try these packs on and not try to buy one based on what you've read.

Try on every pack you can find that meets your basic criteria and buy the one that fits you best.

Tom