SummitPost.org

I'm looking to get a new large-ish pack (60-80L). I want some feedback on packs that lack a solid frame, such as CCW or Cilogear. Is there a weight limit? How uncomfortable are long treks without a solid frame? I've read the rave reviews for CWW and CG, but wonder whether those were referring to mid or small packs and more fulsome trips.

Background info, in case it matters:

- I have a 30L CG Worksack, which is great. I use it for days at the crag or on ice. Not to be used for high altitude mountaineering because not enough room for all necessary gear.

- I have a 55L pack, which I use for longer hikes. Good pack, but I don't love it. It was from a new company (Boreas) and it was on clearance at REI, so I figure I'd give it a go at $80. Minimalist and its serves my hiking needs but lacks some features that I would prefer for alpine activity.

- I've rented a 75L pack on guided climbs of Rainier and on a week-long training course with Alpine Ascents in the Cascades. For the course, the pack was full and loaded on the outside (due to resource sharing needs among the group, i.e. pickets, shovels, wands, etc.)


I'm looking to get a good pack for mountaineering trips, where I need to cart a decent amount to base camp. I assumed that means 75L or so, but much of the research I do seems to suggest the 50-60L range is preferred. However, based on my albeit limited climbs (2) of Rainier and of the course, 75L seems the right size.

I am looking at the Cilogear 60L or 75L Worksacks and the CCW Chaos (either 66L or 70L). But from what I can tell, these packs don't have solid frames (correct me if I'm wrong). If I am carrying 50+ lbs of gear and food, is the lack of solid frame a problem?

Terrain/climbs I have in mind are those in the Cordillera Blancas (Andes). I'm probably going there for 1-2 months next summer. I've bought Brad Johnson's book and am considering climbs from PD thru D.

Thanks for sharing any advice or input.

CCW Chaos is a fine pack, but it is completely frameless and does not carry heavy weight well. Much more than 45lbs and you will not be enjoying the experience. Very few packs out there that can carry a load into basecamp and still climb well.

I have a lot of friends who like CiloGear for their ability to carry weight and still climb well. I have also never seen so many beaten down, falling apart packs. Maybe they have fixed the serious durability issues, but I would personally not buy one. I would look into McHale packs. They are completely custom and you can get a stripped down, very light weight SARC or Super SARC that will carry heavy weight extremely well and climb technical alpine terrain better than CCW Chaos or WT Andinista (based on my experience with all of these packs). FWIW, I find a 75 liter pack is a perfect size for big technical routes in AK (and I would presume would work well for the Andes as well).

Thanks EB.

McHale is a bit out of my budget. It seems that 75L is the way to go, so from what I've seen of framed options, I'm looking at BD Mission 75 or the Gregory Denali 75. My issue with the Mission is the lack of tie points/daisy chain (I like just one or two spots to attach gear outside if needed). My issue with the Denali is its weight (6.25 lbs vs 3.75 lbs for the Mission). The search continues...

McHale's are not cheap, that is certain and Dan is quite a character. In 1997 I had him build me (at the time) a light weight, stripped down SARC using a single buckle hip belt from his smaller packs. When I asked him how supportive he thought it would be, he answered "Better than the Andinista or some such shit". After 18 years of use, it still looks brand new, not a single stitch has pulled and it survived a vicious, unprovoked Snafflehound attack without a scratch, so I consider them a life time investment, much like a Feathered Friends of Western Mountaineering sleeping bag. Big up front costs, but I will never need another 75 liter pack (or sleeping bag).

I like BD packs quite a bit, and have owned a 45L Ice pack and currently use a 45L Shadow. For their price they are very well constructed and climb and carry very well. I have heard negative things about the 'reACTIV' suspension though. Gregory also makes solid packs, but if you plan on doing technical climbing, the Denali is not the best choice.

Have you looked at Crux packs? They have a 70 liter pack that looks great. Very stripped down, no daisy chains but it looks like you could easily rig a bungee for crampons. http://www.crux.uk.com/en/rucksacks.php ... &product=5 Their smaller packs have received very good reviews

I've had great luck with Deuter in a framed pack. Currently have a 60+15 version & it carries really well. Check the NOLS store as they have a larger capacity Deuter that might be a better price. Or reconsider the Chaos and work with Randy to rig a removable frame sheet.

I've got a Mission 75. The only complaint I have about it is that it lacks a roll top closure on the lid, because I like them.

I've hauled some loads with it (up to around 30kg for a week in the Bugs meaning rack, ropes, glacial kit and enough beer). It doesn't magically make heavy loads comfortable like some reviews will lead you to believe, but it's comfortable enough that you won't complain about the pack.

It's got two compression straps and two little daisy sets you can hang shit off if you like, but I find that putting stuff inside a backpack is a great idea. Don't be that guy

I also had a Deuter 60+15, which I sold because it weighs as much as a Mission and a sleeping bag. But man that is a comfortable pack. It DOES make heavy loads feel like a dream.

How about

http://www.rivendellmountainworks.com/p ... sen-packs/

I have never used the new Jensen pack, but I do still have one of the old ones - from the mid 70s. After carrying framed packs, Kelty's Jan Sports, and Alpenlite, I finally switched to the Jensen. I do not carry it any longer, I actually use a CCW Chaos and Chernobyl instead, but the Jensen is a worthy competitor. If properly packed it is the most comfortable pack I have ever carried. It is a bit difficult to pack and it is warm against the back. It does not use a frame or padding!

beean wrote:I've got a Mission 75. The only complaint I have about it is that it lacks a roll top closure on the lid, because I like them.

I've hauled some loads with it (up to around 30kg for a week in the Bugs meaning rack, ropes, glacial kit and enough beer). It doesn't magically make heavy loads comfortable like some reviews will lead you to believe, but it's comfortable enough that you won't complain about the pack.

It's got two compression straps and two little daisy sets you can hang shit off if you like, but I find that putting stuff inside a backpack is a great idea. Don't be that guy

I also had a Deuter 60+15, which I sold because it weighs as much as a Mission and a sleeping bag. But man that is a comfortable pack. It DOES make heavy loads feel like a dream.

Thanks. One of my guides on my AA course had one, and he had a similar generally positive (but not raving) review.

As for outside hauling, I am aware and a fully advocate putting everything inside, which seems standard alpine practice (stuff falling off is dangerous to other climbers, and irrecoverable to you). However, pickets, crampons, shovels, unused axes or trekking poles, and folded foam mats, are generally not placed inside. Not that I always expect to carry these, but if I do, I like to know I have ways of adhering them to the pack.

Leaning towards the mission 75. Based on generally good reviews, light weight, and a low price ($190 when on sale), it is hard to beat. McHale are too pricey for me now. Crux (ExcitableBoy's other recommendation) seem intriguing, but don't offer much in the way of latch points and when I last looked, were sold out in the size I wanted.

Thanks all for the continued input.

infinityjellyD wrote:However, pickets, crampons, shovels, unused axes or trekking poles, and folded foam mats, are generally not placed inside. Not that I always expect to carry these, but if I do, I like to know I have ways of adhering them to the pack.

I think this is pretty standard, I strap all those things on the outside too. Here is my 45L BD Shadow packed for mid September climb on Rainier.

A quick follow-up question:

Is convention to use a large pack (50-75L) to get to base camp and move up the mountain, and then to climb with that pack for summit day? This is what I've done on my handful of (guided) climbs in the Cascades. If so, then why do I see various pictures of climbers summiting high altitude peaks with 30-40L packs? Do they bring these as summit packs store INSIDE their large haul pack? Are they brought IN ADDITION to their large pack (on a mule or something)? When is this climbing approach appropriate?

infinityjellyD wrote:A quick follow-up question:

Is convention to use a large pack (50-75L) to get to base camp and move up the mountain, and then to climb with that pack for summit day? This is what I've done on my handful of (guided) climbs in the Cascades. If so, then why do I see various pictures of climbers summiting high altitude peaks with 30-40L packs? Do they bring these as summit packs store INSIDE their large haul pack? Are they brought IN ADDITION to their large pack (on a mule or something)? When is this climbing approach appropriate?

Typically when climbing high altitude peaks porters and/or pack animals are used to carry the expedition's equipment to base camp. From there the climbers can use the appropriate sized pack for the route they are climbing. In the AK Range, you get dropped off via ski plane with all your gear. From there you can use a big pack for big climbs or small packs for single day routes.