70L Pack Weight.

[Mechanic-AL]

Beginning to think its time for a new pack before the old one carks it altogether.

Just wondering what sort of (empty) weight would be acceptable for a 70 litre pack without entering into the UL domain ?
My old one is a DMH 70L which weighs around 3 ton ( or 4.5 soaking wet ) so just about anything will be an improvement.

(probably 1.5 million posts addressing this question already but there is nothing like up to date info

[wayno]

around 2.5 kilo

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

Without pushing the UL barrow, there's absolutely no need to have a heavy pack anymore. Unless you're doing a heap of scrub bashing, canvas or heavier cordura is unnecessary. Would personally be looking at 1.5 kg max. 70l is huge too - I find 60l is more than enough for even my week + and/or colder weather trips?

[FatCanyoner]

+1 for 70L being unnecessarily large. I can do a 7 day canyoning trip (so all the regular bushwalking gear, plus rope and harness) with a 55L pack. Smaller packs force you to be more selective with your packing, reducing your overall pack weight.

[wayno]

depends if you're still using bulky gear of old or you actually have newer compact gear to fit into afore mentioned smaller pack.

[Lamont]

For what it's worth I'd venture-choose your budget first of all, then establish your baseweight, then last find the lightest one that'll do the job with comfort. https://seekoutside.com/lightweight-backpacks/ seem to be highly regarded for great comfort with big loads and 'lightweight' ruckies.

[Mechanic-AL]

The old pack was bought as a 70L but looks much smaller when I compare it to other 70 L packs. Could be the case of someone telling whoppers when I first bought it !!
My Base LIST for 7-8 day walks is pretty stable and hasnt really varied much for years....Ive just never bothered to weigh it sans back pack. Sounds like a good place to start.
Appreciate this advice and will begin looking at smaller pack size with 1.5 kg up to 2.5 on the heavier side.

I feel very nervous when looking at this sort of thing online and really cant imagine every purchasing ANY sort of bushwalking equipment without eyeballing it first.

[crollsurf]

UL doesn't mean uncomfortable but packs are a very personal thing. Some like lots of pockets and stuff, others like simple no-hookup designs. My Granite Gear 60L Crown suits me and is everything I want in a pack except being waterproof. It's great value because it is a very good, well made pack that weighs in at just over a kg. https://drop.com/buy/drop-granite-gear-crown-x60

Money isn't an issue... maybe I'm just a tightass but my dream pack would be a Hyperlight Mountain Gear pack. They make 70L packs as well. https://www.hyperlitemountaingear.com/collections/4400-series-70-liter-hiking-backpacks
I'd get either the Southwest or the Northrim, once again, just over a kg in weight.

[ChrisJHC]

I find a 70-L pack useful for the odd occasion I either want to do a longer hike without resupply or if I’m carrying gear for other people (kids or beginners).

My Osprey Aether 70 weighs around 2.3 kg which is on the heavy side but very comfortable.

Note: just because you carry a 70L pack doesn’t mean you have to fill it up!

[Lamont]

The old pack was bought as a 70L but looks much smaller when I compare it to other 70 L packs.

Yeah it's worth having a really good check -even if you look at the HMG and the SeekOutside ruckies you'll see the Litreage they give is for the total pockets including the large internal one-so perhaps your 70L may be 50 in the big internal pocket and the others make up the difference?
This is very common practice and a huge pain in the khyber when looking.

I feel very nervous when looking at this sort of thing online and really cant imagine every purchasing ANY sort of bushwalking equipment without eyeballing it first.

Yep, that's the rub.

[Moondog55]

I dunno about 70l being huge, it depends on your body size.
I need at least that much room in a summer pack. My daypack is 42litres and only just big enough.
I had an Osprey Aether that was supposed to be 80+ litres and it was much smaller than my WE pack of purportedly the same volume and far too small for my winter needs.
My old Macpac external frame is about 65 litres and OK for summer but only just

[Al M]

OP, looks like you are in WA so if the pack is mostly being used local the likely hikes are the 950km 8 week and 5-7 day resupply Bibbulmun or parts of it on mostly cleared path flat or partly rolling terrain and need for larger 15kg+ carrying capacity; Coast to Coast 5 day hike in cleared path coastal vege, several smaller 1-2 day overnight hikes like the Stirling Range Ridge Walk with about 10-12kg pack in rough and hilly Tasmanian Western Arthurs like terrain bush bashing.

Anything from 45-70L pack could be used for such conditions and if you look at most available pack brands anything from 1-2.2kg pack weight will do. Examples, are Osprey Exos 45 or 58L at 1.2kg with light hip belt system, Aether 70L 2.4kg with heavy and more comfy system, Wilderness Equipment around 2.8kg heavy duty packs etc.

Perhaps have a closer think about what gear and weights you would like or carry from sites like https://gearhunts.com/how-much-should-m ... ack-weigh/ and https://www.backpacker.com/skills/5-mil ... hould-know

I switched about 10 years ago from a 15kg+ pack scenario to around 10-12kg and never looked back as it reduced physical effort dramatically and made it safer. If one ever needs to strap extra gear to the outside of the smaller pack that can be easily done at the intended pack design load so have got by with a 45L pack.

[JohnnoMcJohnno]

Great question and interesting to read the various responses. Sounds like you're happy with a 70 litre pack. I had a good look at the market two years ago and there were many 70-75 l packs weighing anywhere between 2 and 3 kg, but there wasn't much under 2 kg. The lightest I found amongst main stream manufacturers (ie packs you could try on in the shops) were the Osprey Aether Pro at 1.8 kg and the Exped Thunder at 1.6 kg. Neither felt right for me. They were both nominally 70 litre packs but the Exped looked a lot smaller that the Osprey for what it's worth.

Where you're going and how much weight you are carrying is pretty important though. By way of explanation I have a 75 litre pack that weighs 2.5 kg, its multi-adjustable, can handle an 18kg load no problem, it's robust and it's comfortable. I also have a lightweight 60 litre pack that weighs 1.2 kg but it's not really adjustable, I'm wary of taking it off-track, and if I put 18kg in it it feels like it's about to break. I know a lot of people will rightly push lightweight but If I go out for 5-6 days 18kg is about right for me so the lightweight pack isn't necessarily the best option. Good luck with your purchasing.

[Huntsman247]

Without pushing the UL barrow, there's absolutely no need to have a heavy pack anymore. Unless you're doing a heap of scrub bashing, canvas or heavier cordura is unnecessary. Would personally be looking at 1.5 kg max. 70l is huge too - I find 60l is more than enough for even my week + and/or colder weather trips?

That all depends on your gear. Anyone starting off or having cheaper gear will not have anything that compact. Compact, UL gear is not cheap...
Just with a sleeping bag, the volume difference between down & synthetic is huge. Then others might have a self inflating mat and the list goes on.

[Dexter]

I just bought a 70L One Planet Styx 2. At the risk of trying to justify my purchase... I just like the idea that it's made locally and that I'm supporting a great Aussie company. Not to mention their excellent after sales support. I feel like I've potentially purchased a pack for decades to come, and always try to buy gear that's built to last. Having said that, I'm well aware that it's quite heavy for a pack. As mentioned by ChrisJHC, I don't have to fill it. Those are some of the reasons for my justification and decision anyway. Almost all of my other gear is either UL or approaching it. A few bits and pieces I will eventually replace with lighter items when they need replacing.

[wayno]

better to buy too big than too small and struggle to cram all your gear in the pack... I've done trips with small packs, i've gotten away with cramming the gear in, but I hated the process of cramming it all in , stuffing it up and then having to repack so i could fit it all in... if you're only getting one pack especially better to make it big enough for all the types of trips you're going to do.. sick to death of people saying oh thats so heavy... nothing like as heavy as i started tramping with, with canvas packs and big tubular external frames... nothing wrong with ultralighting in general but i hate ultralighters who ear bash you about their light weight gear, like you've never heard it before ad nauseum from so many other born again ultralighters ...

[Moondog55]

Just for my own satisfaction I weighed my old Macpac H-frame.
2900 grams but this is with the US surplus hip belt and padded harness.
It just doesn't feel heavy when I'm wearing it.

[Tazz81]

+1 Wayno.... it’s a personal preference. I’m a big guy, so I can carry big weights. I had the Mont Pioneer for years - Canvas and bombproof - weighed a bit but I’ve been carrying those loads since I started hiking in the 90s when everything weighed a tonne! That being said though, it met its match when my wife got a pet rabbit - chewed through the bottom! I’ve now gone Aarn and it’s honestly the best pack I’ve ever owned.

[wildwanderer]

Imo most of the choices presented above are not strictly ultralight. They are just modern packs for trail/light scrub conditions which will suit the majority of multi day trip users well.

Mostly these type of packs will be in 1kg to 2kg+ bracket and be about 45-65L.

The 2.5-3kg+ packs are still available but really with advances in materials/design its just extra weight for no purpose.. unless you need a pack for regular rough use/heavy scrub or carrying very heavy loads.

I'm still using a osprey exos 48L and it's held up for over 3 years of trail/light scrub and occasionally heavy scrub. It's relatively lightweight, comfortable and was easy to try on before purchase as its stocked in majority of city locations. Its quite cheap too.

5 days even with non compact, winter gear is quite easily doable in the exos.

I've fitted 9 days (no food drop) in it but that was using a tarp and a quilt.
Using a packing system it isn't hard to quickly access things or pack up in the morning.

On that trip I would have preferred a bigger pack (60L) as the conditions were more suitable for a tent than a tarp but I couldn't fit the tent in and strapping gear on the top or side would have been a good candidate for a tree branch spear encounter.

So I think there is a place for the 65-75 litre packs but I'd reserve it for 7+ day trips without a food drop or shorter multiday carrying gear for exposed alpine conditions. (Or if you're the hard-working dad carrying gear for junior bushwalkers)

My 2 cents

[Mechanic-AL]

So after looking through some old trip notes etc I can happily say my base weight for 7 day trip is around the 9 -10 kg mark. Throw in 3kg of consumables and 2litres of water and this comes up to 14 - 15 kgs. When walking in Tas I generally pack 4 seasons worth of clothes regardless so the time of year doesn't greatly affect this total. Im sure some people would be horrified by these numbers but Im being honest with myself here. A lot of clothing I have is perhaps bulkier and heavier than it needs to be but hey, ya cant just have the latest of everything. At least I cant !!

Now at least I have determined the expected payload this thing will have to manage. Looking back over a few specs I can see that a load of 14-15 kgs puts me into a bit of a cusp zone where some smaller packs could be expected to do the job no worries or a bigger capacity (ie heavier ) pack will carry the load easily.Given my propensity for bulkier clothing I'm still firmly in the 60- 70 litre range just for the added room.
If I add around 2 kgs of pack weight to my 14/15 kgs of load then the total for a 7 day walk is going to be around 16/17 kgs which is a total I feel quite comfortable with regardless of lighter options being available.

None of this is rocket science I guess and the totals Im looking at havent done much to reduce the choices available. As has been stated, backpacks can be very personal pieces of equipment so now I'm just left with design as the most major consideration ( I have accepted what I will have to pay and if you divided the purchase price by kms/hrs travelled then I think even a more expensive pack would be a pretty good investment over time, at least my old one has been !) Packs like the HMG ones with the single entry through the top would do my head in.....I always seem to be looking for something down the bottom. There are numerous other design features that would influence my decision but i feel more comfortable now knowing that if I purchase a pack around the 2kg mark it's not going to be something I'll live to regret !

Some of the advice here has been invaluable and much appreciated !

[commando]

For me the best size for multi day is 60 Litres as i have nothing on the outside and everything is there when i pull up.
My day pack is 40 litres for the occasional helmet , not quite sure how people run 45 litre weekend packs, there must be risk
travelling so small and light or something left out, it looks like i wont be welcome in the Ultralight forum
I met people on the Overland trail with 10 KG packs, mine was 26 kg, it worked out i had 20 days food, packed for 10 but wasn't really hungry that much.
as i was prepared to sit out the bad weather if need be.

[Al M]

It’s OK to stick with one pack for all occasions, but unless your house living conditions are so small, there’s no problem having another pack or two for lighter conditions and shorter trips. Good condition used packs like Osprey Exos 46L can be found in Gumtree for around $90, I’ve seen ones at $60.

There is also uncertainty with buying packs online paying decent money and finding out it doesn’t suit one’s hippo back when it arrives in the post.

My first pack in 1986 was a mistake due to bad sales advice but the second one was a good condition used top of the line Lowe bought in the expedition seconds shop of downtown Kathmandu, Nepal. It weighted about 2.5kg, 90L with extendable top, dual entry, part corduroy and thick nylon with the traditional Lowe frame webbing and bendable aluminium frame stirrup insert. It lasted for 30 years for a total use of about 5 years travel and hike time on and off and extended periods backpacking overland from SEA, Nepal, India, East Africa to Capetown, EU, across Russia and China and a South America, until it finally succumbed to mildew rot and evil smell in the garage. It really did last amazingly well being thrown off the top of third world buses and trucks, numerous hikes, plane cargo holds, soaked in rainwater like a sponge and carried loads of up to 18-27kg for 7 day hikes because no light weight food was avaible in some third world places. I recall in one place all one could find was bread sticks and sardine cans so the pack was extended, half the pack occupied by bread sticks to last 7 days hike. Those days are long gone now and I’m not likely to be repeating them.

I am open to other pack makes and many suggested here look very nice. My current packs are several 900-1200g Osprey Exos packs bought used or new for around $100 - 170 of various volume size 38, 46 and 58L size. The 46L size is my most used pack on average for 2-5 day hikes in mostly steep terrain, 9-16kg usual loads in Nepal teahouse treks and general overseas travel with short treks squeezed in where possible in those local areas down to about 0 to -10 C conditions. This weight range puts me in the easy to achieve lightweight category, not UL. Any heavier would start to affect my level of effort and enjoyment in steep terrain and ability to get complete hikes and margin of safety.

For the last 10 years I now never carry or double up on anything I don’t need but also ensure a reasonable level of comfort, enough food and warmth as there are so many lighter options available with little or no major extra cost - it’s a no brainer, those days of heavier packs are well in the past.

[wayno]

depends on what people are and arent taking, depending on when and where they are going. A lot of people don't take any spare clothes. where I hike thats not a sound idea, because of low temperatures and rain, but a lot of people still do it... does all their gear need to be inside the pack, a lot of people have a fair bit of gear on the outside. for a 3 day trip I take at least a 50L pack with no tent just a bivy bag or emergency shelter. and keep going up in size for tenting or longer trips.

[Lamont]

So after looking through some old trip notes etc I can happily say my base weight for 7 day trip is around the 9 -10 kg mark. Throw in 3kg of consumables and 2litres of water and this comes up to 14 - 15 kgs. When walking in Tas I generally pack 4 seasons worth of clothes regardless so the time of year doesn't greatly affect this total. Im sure some people would be horrified by these numbers but Im being honest with myself here. A lot of clothing I have is perhaps bulkier and heavier than it needs to be but hey, ya cant just have the latest of everything. At least I cant !!

Now at least I have determined the expected payload this thing will have to manage. Looking back over a few specs I can see that a load of 14-15 kgs puts me into a bit of a cusp zone where some smaller packs could be expected to do the job no worries or a bigger capacity (ie heavier ) pack will carry the load easily.Given my propensity for bulkier clothing I'm still firmly in the 60- 70 litre range just for the added room.
If I add around 2 kgs of pack weight to my 14/15 kgs of load then the total for a 7 day walk is going to be around 16/17 kgs which is a total I feel quite comfortable with regardless of lighter options being available.

None of this is rocket science I guess and the totals Im looking at havent done much to reduce the choices available. As has been stated, backpacks can be very personal pieces of equipment so now I'm just left with design as the most major consideration ( I have accepted what I will have to pay and if you divided the purchase price by kms/hrs travelled then I think even a more expensive pack would be a pretty good investment over time, at least my old one has been !) Packs like the HMG ones with the single entry through the top would do my head in.....I always seem to be looking for something down the bottom. There are numerous other design features that would influence my decision but i feel more comfortable now knowing that if I purchase a pack around the 2kg mark it's not going to be something I'll live to regret !

Some of the advice here has been invaluable and much appreciated !

Onya Al. Now might be worth measuring the physical dimensions of your ruckie your happy with, and combined with the weight you've determined you need to cater for, you can go shopping. Good hunting.

[wildwanderer]

This pack might be an option.

Just released from One Planet.'Tussock'
1.5kg, 60L base but be 65L+ once you add the hip belt pockets and the 'trash & treasure' 4L pack bumbag attachment (pictured). About 1.7Kg with the mentioned accessories.
Looks fairly bombproof. Love that big protected rear pocket and the bumbag attachment is handy as well. (no affliation with OP)
https://www.oneplanet.com.au/product/tussock/

OP.png (450.14 KiB) Viewed 30972 times

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

This pack might be an option.

Just released from One Planet.'Tussock'
1.5kg, 60L base but be 65L+ once you add the hip belt pockets and the 'trash & treasure' 4L pack bumbag attachment (pictured). About 1.7Kg with the mentioned accessories.
Looks fairly bombproof. Love that big protected rear pocket and the bumbag attachment is handy as well. (no affliation with OP)
https://www.oneplanet.com.au/product/tussock/

OP.png

Yeh that does look good. I've always said OP harnesses but with lighter materials (still fine for whatever you can throw at it) would be a good combo. Personally wouldn't bother with the bum bag though. Belt pockets are pretty much a must these days imo (something my current OP pack doesn't have)

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk

[wildwanderer]

Personally wouldn't bother with the bum bag though. Belt pockets are pretty much a must these days imo (something my current OP pack doesn't have)

You might be able to add the hip belt pockets. They sell them seperately on the OP site and say they are compatible with old and new OP harnesses. They are more expensive buying afterwards though.. $35 each. Bought with a pack its $35 for both.
Water resistant zip is a nice touch.

https://www.oneplanet.com.au/product/hip-belt-pocket/

I dont mind the bumbag on the back.. Its a good way to add capacity without adding to the overall "branch snagability' of the pack. Be good for water runs/short walks from base camp as well. The only worry Id have is remembering not to store lollies in it. My bushwalking partner would eat them all and I wouldnt find out till that evening

[Mechanic-AL]

Thanks for that WW. It certainly appears to tick all the boxes on paper........and scores bonus brownie points for being a good Aussie product !
I'll be sure to have a look at one before buying anything else.
Cheers.

[andrewa]

1.5kg would be pretty good.

I like a larger volume pack for winter trips where I might put my ski boots in the pack, and for longer NZ fly fishing/ packrafting trips, where I’d like the raft to fit in the pack, loosely packed, and there’s some bulky gear to be be packed, albeit lighter in weight.

I’ve gone for MYO rucksacks, with roll tops, but I haven’t got below about 1400g for the what I like to use for these sort of trips.

A

[Walk_fat boy_walk]

Thanks for that WW. It certainly appears to tick all the boxes on paper........and scores bonus brownie points for being a good Aussie product !
I'll be sure to have a look at one before buying anything else.
Cheers.

Their after sales service is unrivalled too

Sent from my SM-G977B using Tapatalk