Ok, so right now I am pack-less. I've been eyeing the cold cold world packs and the cilogear packs. both in the 40L-45L range. Alas I am still a little undecided. I've only found one bad review of CCW and that was because the user lost an ice tool and randy didn't buy him a new one. other than that, stellar complements of both companies.

I am not much of a climber, more of a backpacker who prefers the higher mountains. (yeah, i know I live in Missouri) But the thing is I really like the blend of quality and lightweight that these packs offer.

Any thoughts you guys have about these would be appreciated.

You can't go wrong with either pack. I can't pick a clear winner, but one of them might be better suited to you and your philosophy on gear:

CCW: Clean, simple, classic designs. Bomber construction, nothing fiddly or loose. Best crampon attachments, easiest to use straps.

Cilogear: Extremely modular, customizable packs. Best (most versatile) compression system, best tool attachments.

I like Cilogear. I also have a massive spreadsheet of all my gear, and customize each packing list down to the smallest item for big trips. If you tend to be less detail-oriented and want to just throw stuff in a bag and go, the CCW might be better. Neither will disappoint. If you took my 45L and replaced it with a Chernobyl, I probably wouldn't bother swapping back.

Autoxfil wrote:You can't go wrong with either pack. I can't pick a clear winner, but one of them might be better suited to you and your philosophy on gear:

CCW: Clean, simple, classic designs. Bomber construction, nothing fiddly or loose. Best crampon attachments, easiest to use straps.

Cilogear: Extremely modular, customizable packs. Best (most versatile) compression system, best tool attachments.

I like Cilogear. I also have a massive spreadsheet of all my gear, and customize each packing list down to the smallest item for big trips. If you tend to be less detail-oriented and want to just throw stuff in a bag and go, the CCW might be better. Neither will disappoint. If you took my 45L and replaced it with a Chernobyl, I probably wouldn't bother swapping back.

Right on man, that's the kind of response I was hoping for. I have made spreadsheets and find them to be excruciating. I don't really want to fiddle, I'm more of the throw it in the bag and go. I like simple and easy. Even when I spend hours and hours planning it all out, I wind up just kinda throwing it all in there later.


thanks-

Cilo and CCW both make fine, lightweight alpine packs. In the 40-45 range I would look at the Montbell Blance Light 40. I have one and really like it. It is inexpensive, light , and has all the things you want and none you don't. http://promountainsports.com/index.php/ ... ht-40.html

uk based brands both extremly lightwight around 2.7lbs

http://www.aiguillealpine.co.uk/cgi-bin ... wprod_R048

http://www.crux.uk.com/en/rucksacks.php ... &product=3

any opinios?

p.s: i got the chernobyl two years ago so im set for the next decade.

etai101 wrote:uk based brands both extremly lightwight around 2.7lbs

http://www.aiguillealpine.co.uk/cgi-bin ... wprod_R048

http://www.crux.uk.com/en/rucksacks.php ... &product=3

any opinios?

p.s: i got the chernobyl two years ago so im set for the next decade.

thanks man, they are both cool, but i think I'm gonna go with the CCW Valdez. I re-heally like it.