|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 2:54 PM
Post #1 of 29
(30844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Looking to go lighter and faster (Expedition/Alpine). Few bells and whistles, minimalist at heart, easily adjustable with gloves...no tinkering with little fastex buckles and chord in 50MPH winds and 5 below zero. Easy to compress and climb with after dumping it out at camp. Does this one fit the bill??
I understand that with a frameless pack that I will sacrifice some comfort on the long hauls, but much of that can be negated with mindful packing and tryig to keep loads at or below 45 lbs.
I am looking for bare bones, nice lines, no brainer alpine sack with haul loops that actually work and materials that can take it.
Comment or suggestions?
Thanks folks
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Apr 4, 2008, 3:46 PM
Post #2 of 29
(30832 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
It's a great pack. Love, Love, LOVE mine. It totally fits the bill.
Ask about the universal tool carrying system when you visit/call. I didn't know it existed when I bought mine. I realize you're probably not carrying radically bent mixed climbing tools or anything, but after I bought mine they told me the universal system is actually a few ounces less.
*note: I've never seen the uni system, only talked to them about it.
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 3:55 PM
Post #3 of 29
(30830 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Hey thanks Basilisk!
Yes, the Universal tool holders are just the tool loops with fastex buckles for the shaft. It does shave a few ounces and I have considered that option. I live in North Conway and swing into Wild Things often. They have been very helpful with this whole process. Just want to make sure that in the end, I have made a wise and informed decision!
Does it hump a load pretty well? I hear that it can be a little painful after a few hours, but others say that it really isn't too bad!?!?
Cheers! 
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
mtselman
Apr 4, 2008, 4:12 PM
Post #4 of 29
(30815 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Posts: 134
|
retro wrote: Does it hump a load pretty well? I hear that it can be a little painful after a few hours, but others say that it really isn't too bad!?!? Cheers! Chris
Depends on how much you are willing to suffer.
I have a REALLY OLD version - the one with pre-VX (or whatever the name is) fabric. No matter how you pack it, with heavy load, most of the weight will end up on your shoulders after a while. BUT... This is a fantastic universal pack for alpine climbing. On a couple of occasions I even used it as an emergency bivy-sack (the collar extends pretty far out). The tool tubes will only take straight or very moderately curved tools and the "fangs" and "triggers" on modern tools may create a challenge with those tubes. I'd go with the "universal" system.
The bivy pad is actually quite usable.
Lastly, the pack sits relatively high and it is a tall pack, which means you may have a "helmet clearance" problem when climbing with it. Check for that when trying the pack on.
--Misha
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Apr 4, 2008, 4:34 PM
Post #5 of 29
(30803 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
It's alright for humping loads. As I'm sure you've noticed, the padding in the shoulder straps/waist belt is very minimalist. That combined with the lack of a frame does make it a bit rough is you're carrying heavy loads long distances. I certainly wouldn't take the Andinista on a long backpacking trip (well, I probably would actually, but I'd rather not).
I'd recommend looking into a Cilogear if you want a comparable alternative. (This is not meant to sway you, I own everything Wild Things makes, so I'm more than a fan of the company. But for the sake of getting the best pack for you, I'd look into a cilogear as well.)
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 4:39 PM
Post #6 of 29
(30801 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
I have tried them on, and yes there is a bit of an issue with helmet clearance. The new design has scooped the lid out a bit so it isn't quite so obtrusive.
I would drop the lid out if I were heading into technical terrain more than likely. So I don't think it would be too much of an issue!
Thanks for that red flag!
I will try it on again today and focus on that aspect and see if there is an easy remedy.
|
|
|
|
|
fenderfour
Apr 4, 2008, 5:00 PM
Post #8 of 29
(30783 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2005
Posts: 177
|
Also have a look at Cold Cold World Packs. They are all very similar. The Cilogear is the most gadgety of the bunch.
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 5:06 PM
Post #9 of 29
(30780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
fenderfour wrote: Also have a look at Cold Cold World Packs. They are all very similar. The Cilogear is the most gadgety of the bunch.
I own the Chernobyl for ice climbing and cragging (primarily my daypack with a couple of overnights in it). Occassionaly I throw the rock rack in it and use it for that too! Another good local product for sure!! Great little pack and built like a brick sh#!house!
(This post was edited by retro on Apr 4, 2008, 5:06 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
dps
Apr 4, 2008, 5:48 PM
Post #10 of 29
(30758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 116
|
Cilogear shouldn't just be in the running, it should be what you are buying.
Let's break the weights down for Cilogear vs. Wild Things vs Cold Cold World.
Cilogear 60L with no straps (because you can compress with the d-clips), lid, hipbelt, and the framesheet + bivy pad: 1740 g
Andinista with lid, hip-belt, and bivy pad: 1790 g
Chaos with lid, hip-belt, and bivy pad: 1700 g
Furthermore, I'd argue if you are really interested in going light, you should be using a Cilogear 45L. This is my pack of choice for alpine climbing.
Cilogear 45L with no straps, lid, hip-belt, and framesheet+bivy pad: 1505 g.
Realizing that the Cilogear weights include a plastic framesheet with a metal stay makes these weight comparisons impressive.
So for similar or less weight, you can have a pack that actually carries weight well. I used an Andinista for a couple years and really they just don't carry that well. However, I now use a Cilogear 45L pack and it carries extremely well. Then when you go to climb, just pull out the framesheet and suddenly your pack weighs less than all of the competitors offerings!
I've used my Cilogear packs in Peru, Alaska, and stateside for both load hauling into camps and climbing with the above method. It works very well. Much easier on my shoulders than my Andinista, which leaves me fresher to climb.
In terms of simplicity, the Cilogear without straps is much easier to use then the zippers on the Andinista. The tool attachment system is more secure and the pack can still be used a bivy bag because it is VX fabric.
Someone called the Cilogear "gadgety" and I agree it looks like it at first, but you can strip these packs down to bare functionality and it will weigh less than the competitors offerings.
I love Wild Things and Cold Cold World. I think they make great gear, but in my opinion the Cilogear packs are more versatile and better suited for what you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
basilisk
Apr 4, 2008, 5:49 PM
Post #11 of 29
(30757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Posts: 636
|
retro wrote: I have tried them on, and yes there is a bit of an issue with helmet clearance. The new design has scooped the lid out a bit so it isn't quite so obtrusive. I would drop the lid out if I were heading into technical terrain more than likely. So I don't think it would be too much of an issue!
Their lid attachment is horrendous in my opinion. I took it off and haven't replaced it since. That much less crap to deal with!
|
|
|
|
|
justinboening
Apr 4, 2008, 5:51 PM
Post #12 of 29
(30752 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 119
|
Retro,
As I understand it, the Universal Tool System doesn't have tool LOOPS, as you think it does, but rather an extra pocket with small holes in the bottom. The system as a whole acts in a similar fashion to many modern tool attachment systems (Cilo, BD, Osprey, the new CCW system, et cetera). Of course, they accomplish this secure tool holding design by sewing an extra zippered pocket on the back. If you want a large, extra pocket on your alpine pack, this is your design. If you're attracted to the slight profile of traditional, uncluttered alpine packs, then this pack doesn't have what you're looking for.
Also, in my experience, climbing with the Andinista, although doable, is horrible. It's a thin, tall pack that's frameless, so there's no head-room and no good way of creating a head space. The CCW Chaos is shorter, so it doesn't suffer this problem, but it's neither as durable, nor as weather resistant as the Wildthings packs.
If you want to go Himalaya big, and you really need something in this unwieldily size, then you should at least look at the Cilo 60L. It has a removable frame, so it can carry the big load. The tool attachments are trim and very functional. The haul loops are big and easy to use--very solid. Stripped, it weighs significantly less than the Andinista, while not sacrificing ANY durability (in fact it's MORE durable). It has a zipper-less compression system, that's, in my opinion, easier to use than the zippers. Plus it's a fraction of the cost.
All that said, unless you're going to Alaska, Peru, or the Himilaya, look at smaller packs like the the Cilo 45 (very light and trim), the Cilo 40B (extents to 60 liters to carry the approach load), the Wildthings Ice sac (I know a guy who used this pack on the Infinite Spur, a very long alpine route indeed. Overall, I think it's a much nicer pack to climb in than the Andinista), or the CCW Chernobyl, which is newly available with a more modern tool attachment system.
Cilogear.com. Check it out. Graham just got a new shipment in.
Good luck. (Most of this has already been said. I'm at work. It took me a while to finish the post. Sorry.)
(This post was edited by justinboening on Apr 4, 2008, 5:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 6:04 PM
Post #13 of 29
(30742 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
retro wrote: basilisk wrote: I'd recommend looking into a Cilogear if you want a comparable alternative. (This is not meant to sway you, I own everything Wild Things makes, so I'm more than a fan of the company. But for the sake of getting the best pack for you, I'd look into a cilogear as well.) Yep! Great packs for sure. I have a 40L and love it. For this particular type of climbing though, I like the simplicity of the Andinista. Simple, light and rugged. Cilo is still in the running though...
Thanks guys! Preaching to the choir here on Cilogear. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I own the 40L.
The Andinista is a bigger pack. Even with the 60L expanded...you get about 80L's? Roughy 4950 cubic inches or so...pardon my math?!?! The Andinista is just shy of 5600. Not a huge difference I suppose???
|
|
|
|
|
justinboening
Apr 4, 2008, 6:15 PM
Post #14 of 29
(30736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 119
|
Retro,
You've probably already noticed this, but just in case you haven't, you should examine the REAL volume difference of you 40L and the Andinista. I know the Wildthings is bigger, but it's not that much bigger. In fact, I'll bet the 45L is closer in volume to the Andinista than the 60L.
|
|
|
|
|
dps
Apr 4, 2008, 6:16 PM
Post #15 of 29
(30736 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2005
Posts: 116
|
retro wrote: Thanks guys! Preaching to the choir here on Cilogear. As mentioned earlier in the thread, I own the 40L. The Andinista is a bigger pack. Even with the 60L expanded...you get about 80L's? Roughy 4950 cubic inches or so...pardon my math?!?! The Andinista is just shy of 5600. Not a huge difference I suppose???
I'm not sure, but I always felt that I could get as much stuff in my 45L with the spindrift collar up as I could get in my Andinista. I definitely can get more in my Cilogear 60L.
Also, one consequence of having no framesheet is that when you load up the spindrift collar on the Andinista it is VERY unstable with loads, even if you pack lightweight, fluffy gear in the spindrift collar.
(This post was edited by dps on Apr 4, 2008, 6:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 6:19 PM
Post #16 of 29
(30732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Hey...did Graham put you up to this?!?!! Is Graham out there??? I know you are out there man...
Anybody use the new Cilo 75L?
|
|
|
|
|
justinboening
Apr 4, 2008, 7:05 PM
Post #17 of 29
(30704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 119
|
He doesn't have to! The packs are just awesome. You've got to know that. I'll say this though, there's a big difference between the 40L and the 45L and 60L: the internal compression strap. The 40L forgoes this sweet little strap in order to give the user the front pocket, a feature that I view as mainly superfluous with the release of the V3 packs, which all have an internal pocket on the frame pocket flap. When talking to Graham about this, he said that people sometimes cut the fabric out of the front pocket so they can use the front zipper as total internal access.
As far as the 75L goes, it isn't comparable to the Andinista. In fact, it's probably closer to a Terraplane with a stripped alpine suspension. Graham told me that the circumference was practically identical to the Astraplane (the implication there being that the pack is shorter than the big daddies).
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 8:19 PM
Post #18 of 29
(30684 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Man oh man...the full court press from the Ciloarmy (or which I am a proud member)!!! LOL
OK OK///but now I have to sell my 40L and Astralplane to afford the 60L. Any takers??? Anyone...Buhler???? 
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 8:26 PM
Post #19 of 29
(30682 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
justinboening wrote: Retro, As I understand it, the Universal Tool System doesn't have tool LOOPS, as you think it does, but rather an extra pocket with small holes in the bottom. The system as a whole acts in a similar fashion to many modern tool attachment systems (Cilo, BD, Osprey, the new CCW system, et cetera). Of course, they accomplish this secure tool holding design by sewing an extra zippered pocket on the back.)
I think you are refering to the Gopher Pouch?!?! They make the andinista with just the tool loops like the center loop for the mountain axe. It shaves a little weight and is less likely to malfunction IMHO.
Probably will end up with the Cilogear 60L. Just weighing some options.
|
|
|
|
|
justinboening
Apr 4, 2008, 9:27 PM
Post #20 of 29
(30657 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 1, 2006
Posts: 119
|
Gopher pouch--I like that. Seems like an apt description. I'm happy to hear that Wildthings has brought back the standard loops, though. That does make the Andinista at least somewhat more appealing (although still $130 more for an inferior product, in my opinion). It's funny to me, my first Wildthings product was the Andinista. At the time, it was the best thing going. Now, even though it might seems as though I'm slagging them, I use a ton of their products and love them. I'm a big believer in their Epic/Primaloft clothing.
Good luck with your choice. If you can't make the right one at this point, however, you deserve what you get
|
|
|
|
|
retro
Apr 4, 2008, 9:35 PM
Post #21 of 29
(30651 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 310
|
Hey Justin!
I have to tell you, those Bozeman packs (my Dana Design "original" Astralplane) were also one of the best packs going, and hauled loads like you wouldn't believe. What a great design for the time. Unfortunately the days of the 8 lbs pack are over...
Looks like Cilogear has ushered in a new era..and it has once again earned my business
Thanks for your candor and information bro...
Chris
|
|
|
|
|
divnamite
Apr 5, 2008, 1:39 AM
Post #22 of 29
(30613 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 114
|
Why would you compare Cilo to Dana's Astraplane? There is no way you can haul as much heavy shit as Astraplane with Cilogear comfortably. That's at least my experience. I have my 40L cilo and it's been great. If i was to haul heavy stuff for long periods of time, I would much prefer my Osprey pack.
|
|
|
|
|
superbum
Apr 5, 2008, 2:44 AM
Post #23 of 29
(30593 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 19, 2002
Posts: 822
|
Mark Twight loves his and has been using one since 1987!
|
|
|
|
|
divnamite
Apr 6, 2008, 2:17 AM
Post #25 of 29
(30495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 20, 2007
Posts: 114
|
I assume the astraplane you are referring to is the 7000ci, which is 115L, way bigger than 70L. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't all Cilo packs share the same suspension system? Would you use it for example, Denali or Aconcagua push? If you extend your 60L to 90L, even with the same backplate, I would still think you are in for a long day. Post a review and let me know how it works out tho. Who knows, maybe 75L is a better solution for me than my Osprey Aether 80L
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
