Traditional daypack recommendations

J_mcrane

J_mcrane

Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
580
Do any of you have a recommendation for a more traditional day pack. Perhaps smaller in nature and space. I was looking at a rei klettersac and Duluth scout. Any out there? Pics?
 
Do you have a material or price range in mind? I assume zippers are the main 'no-no'

Frost River Goods are very similar to Duluth goods and also based out of Duluth MN. I perfer the waxed canvas look of the Frost River and they seem to have more styles that fit your bill.
frost-river-summit-pack-02.jpg

Crafted_American_Frost_River_Arrowhead_Rolltop_Pack_2.jpg


A company out of Colorado called Topo Designs makes a Klettersac that - imo - blows the REI version out of the water.
topo_designs_klettersack_coyote_e0842eab-a1b2-43ea-9a35-c4d8fb1b7aaa_grande.jpg


They also do cool collaborations with other USA companies like Woolrich:
topo_designs_rover_pack_woolrich_plaid_2_20544459346_o_1024x1024.jpg


The Tanner Goods Voyager Daypack and Wilderness Rucksack are both very nice.
daypack_field_tan_2015_01_2048x2048.jpg

rucksack_salt_pepper_2015_01_2048x2048.jpg


JW Hulme makes a nice men's daypack in leather.

I suggest taking a look at the Colonel Littleton Dispatch bag as well. It's not your usual daypack but it is an excellent and unique piece of superb craftsmanship.
 
Last edited:
Klettersacks are great. I've had one from NorthFace for over 20 years now. They really come into there own when hauling rope. If I were buying a new daypack today, I'd definitely look at what Osprey offers. For a medium packpack (45-50L/2500-3000 cu in) I have the Osprey Kestrel 48. It was the most comfortable one I found. I'm now all about functionality while comfortably carrying a load. At this stage in my life, I no longer need to practice misery. You don't carry an Osprey. You wear it.

For day packs, I definitely try Ospreys offerings: http://www.ospreypacks.com/en/segmentation/backpacks

The number indicates volume in liters.

Ospreys best selling day hiker: Daylight (13)

In day packs/day hikers, Osprey also offers:

Escapist
Tempest 20/16/9
Talon 22/18/11
Kestrel 28
Sirrus 24.

Ospreys can be pricey, and you rarely see them for sale used (that says something right there). Shop around as it's not uncommon to find online vendors who will sell them at 70% of retail. Osprey's warrantee is also second to none and truly is a no BS lifetime (of the product) guarantee. They'll repair or replace your product regardless of how old it is or how many hands/owners it has passed through. It just needs to have their logo on it. Should you ever need it repaired while you wait, Osprey has sewers and machines at events like the annual Trail Days in Damascus, VA.
 
Last edited:
If you must go traditional I'd recommend something from Duluth Pack like you are considering; however, they are very pricey and you almost never see these for sale used either (again, that says something). Their biggest cons, like most traditional packs, are that they just aren't comfortable and they are heavy. Sometimes the traditional ways are not always the best ways. Such a traditional pack will look cool but aesthetics just aren't what a pack is about. This is best illustrated by packs with available tamp lines as options. That alone tells you how dated the design is and that you should look for another pack if you will haul it any appreciable distance. Instead consider functionality coupled with ergonomics. I will never again buy a pricey pack a can't first check for fit and comfort with a load.
 
Last edited:
I would not recommend a traditional daypack. For the same reasons already listed... Out of date features and carrying systems.

This one is fairly sexy though in my eyes. Fjällräven vintage 20L / 30L.
fjallraven_vintage_20l_backpack.jpg
 
I like panel loading packs myself, because rummaging around for things in top loading bags gets old after a while. Top loader/bag type packs are sturdier, less prone to open, and look nice, but I figure zipper technology is so much better (i.e. stronger), so I'm willing to bet panel loaders hold up well. It's great to be able to open your pack, either fully opened or partially, to pack and unpack your things. Compression straps probably add strength to keep panel loaders closed. The Kelty Redwing is a half panel loader (best of both worlds)...I've been eyeing this for a while and seems like a solid choice.
 
Ultraman said:
I like panel loading packs myself, because rummaging around for things in top loading bags gets old after a while. Top loader/bag type packs are sturdier, less prone to open, and look nice, but I figure zipper technology is so much better (i.e. stronger), so I'm willing to bet panel loaders hold up well. It's great to be able to open your pack, either fully opened or partially, to pack and unpack your things. Compression straps probably add strength to keep panel loaders closed. The Kelty Redwing is a half panel loader (best of both worlds)...I've been eyeing this for a while and seems like a solid choice.
Click to expand...
When I first tried the Osprey Kestrel 48 I actually went into an outfitter thinking I'd be picking up a Kelty Redwing 50. Didn't take but a second to screen out the Kelty from the packs I was considering. Never even put a load in it to try it on. For me the Kelty would probably make a good travel pack (airports, airplane carry on, and such), but that isn't what I was after. Bottom line is you have to load it and tote it before making a decision.
 
ilten said:
http://alderstream.wcha.org/packs.html
I don't own any of their packs, but I had a chance to check them out personally and they are top quality.
Click to expand...
Notice the tumplines. Do you really want to use the crown of your head, neck, and spine as part of the load bearing? There are valid reasons we found four even large capacity packs a way to transfer much of the load off your shoulders and to your hips rather than to your head, neck, and spine. Tumplines were/are part of a life of drudgery and danger. Not much nostalgic about them.

p-1729-Tumpline.png
 
Last edited:
@leghog: I don't own any of the Alderstream packs because I'm a sucker for new and light backpacks. In subdued colors. And I always tell myself I don't need anymore until a new one comes out..... I have way too many from Gregory, TNF, Macpac, LLBean, Karrimor you name it. But the OP was looking for a traditional backpack, and I thought the Alder stream are nicely made, just a bit too traditional for me : )
 
We're talking a daypack, so if you're worried about the lack of modern suspension systems you may be carrying too much.

An option for the old-style large packs would be to combine them with a Roycroft pack frame. This could be made as comfortable as most of the modern packs for heavy loads. As well, a large pack does not necessarily mean heavy - you may just want ease of packing (put your dry sack in, stuff the sleeping bag, and put the rest on top, and you have a slightly more bulky but 5 times faster system which is easier on your bag too) - and tumplines are actually for comfort rather than 'drudgery and danger' (but how progressive to think how everything contemporary is better). The tumpline will keep your head aligned and save some strain on your hips and back. They just have to be used properly and they can be a great tool. Even with the best modern systems they are helpful, especially going uphill.

And that is nothing against modern stuff. I have an Arc'teryx Altra which is pretty much the best suspension system you can get, although it's not an ultralite pack with its system, heavy material, and waterproofing; so my biases may still be clear. I like tough stuff that is versatile, and I can see the advantages of old systems as. One should remember that most old-timers were not travelling green-pilgrimage trails and posting their daily distance on Facebook, they were building camps, going to work, and hunting. This did not provide for clear, premade paths, and an ultralite pack would get torn to shreds from the brush. Canoeing and winter trekking also tend to be better with traditional systems, mainly because the shapes pack better and the materials do not degrade so readily from the elements.
 
Last edited:
Chignecto Woodsman said:
We're talking a daypack, so if you're worried about the lack of modern suspension systems you may be carrying too much.

An option for the old-style large packs would be to combine them with a Roycroft pack frame. This could be made as comfortable as most of the modern packs for heavy loads. As well, a large pack does not necessarily mean heavy - you may just want ease of packing (put your dry sack in, stuff the sleeping bag, and put the rest on top, and you have a slightly more bulky but 5 times faster system which is easier on your bag too) - and tumplines are actually for comfort rather than 'drudgery and danger' (but how progressive to think how everything contemporary is better). The tumpline will keep your head aligned and save some strain on your hips and back. They just have to be used properly and they can be a great tool. Even with the best modern systems they are helpful, especially going uphill.

And that is nothing against modern stuff. I have an Arc'teryx Altra which is pretty much the best suspension system you can get, although it's not an ultralite pack with its system, heavy material, and waterproofing; so my biases may still be clear. I like tough stuff that is versatile, and I can see the advantages of old systems as. One should remember that most old-timers were not travelling green-pilgrimage trails and posting their daily distance on Facebook, they were building camps, going to work, and hunting. This did not provide for clear, premade paths, and an ultralite pack would get torn to shreds from the brush. Canoeing and winter trekking also tend to be better with traditional systems, mainly because the shapes pack better and the materials do not degrade so readily from the elements.
Click to expand...

I'm often a traditionalist, but not so when it comes to packs. There are so many better options than top loaders made of heavy materials and neither designed for fit, ergonomics, nor stowage of gear --- even in smaller packs. Traditional packs look cool but really just aren't as well designed/convenient or comfortable.

Let's also remember those old timers were living lives filled with times of drudgery. And packing loads was one of those times. If they had an option between the pack they were carrying or a modern pack (most of which don't fill the bill for lightweight backpacking and certainly not ultralight backpacking), which do you think they'd choose and why?
 
Last edited:
If the OP is looking for an urban/suburban EDC bag, then lifestyle image projection is the central issue. That's not a slam. That's an honest assessment of how I approach my own EDC or laptop bags.

If the OP is looking for a backcountry bag - I think it's hard to argue against the advantages that modern designs bring.
 
leghog said:
I'm often a traditionalist, but not so when it comes to packs. There are so many better options than top loaders made of heavy materials and neither designed for fit, ergonomics, nor stowage of gear --- even in smaller packs. Traditional packs look cool but really just aren't as well designed/convenient or comfortable.

Let's also remember those old timers were living lives filled with times of drudgery. And packing loads was one of those times. If they had an option between the pack they were carrying or a modern pack (most of which don't fill the bill for lightweight backpacking and certainly not ultralight backpacking), which do you think they'd choose and why?
Click to expand...

Well there is no doubt that in terms of comfort of the pack itself that modern systems are superior, but this seems also to be a problem of reductionism. What is carrying a pack compared with the whole of the trip? And is there anything that modern backpackers miss out on? There is a huge environmentalist influence on backpacking, very religious in nature, and one could argue that for many it is less about existing in the woods than achieving as many achievements on a list as possible. You might say it is very emotional and individualistic.

The attitude is that of ultralight, but if you are on a trail for a month trying to get as far as possible how does the pack list compare in terms of real weight to those old-timers who were enduring drudgery? My -32 C sleeping bag is just over 3 pounds or something, lots of people have packs that are only a few pounds and they try for the minimal weight within that pack. By contrast, a good wool blanket is five pounds or more and may only be good to 0 C when conditioned to the cold, and your pack would be 7 pounds or so (I'm guessing at this one, don't have one of those huge canvas packs).

However, at what point does food start to eat away at that ultralight poundage? If you can easily fish and hunt the whole time then a huge amount of weight is saved, you only carry grain staples and spices. A lot of old-timers camped this way and few contemporary backpackers do. As well, how much comfort in camp does that extra weight return on the investment? An axe is a good example, as the difference between a felling axe and a small forest axe is mere calories which will be made up in the first few minutes after a full day's hike, and from thereon does four times as much work. Similarly, the drudgery on the trail may be made up for in camp with large canvas tents/lean-tos or wood stoves. It is much nicer to be able to stand up and change easily in a full-sized shelter, and a stove improves life in camp immeasurably.

One big difference would also be having open fires around materials which can handle sparks, good woodsmanship can come close to acting like a stove. And there is also the possibility of roughing it and saving weight on shelter altogether.

I'm not saying you're wrong, just that perhaps you are misinterpreting an image. Perhaps the guy with the tumpline pack only has ammo, fishing gear, and a rabbit blanket in there - which wouldn't be all that heavy.

And how is the taste of titanium boiled food compared to fried meat in a stew in a dutch oven? The former sounds like pure drudgery to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top