Traditional daypack recommendations

Here are a couple more American, craftsman-made bags in traditional styles and materials.

Collected Works Co
01-BP_RT_Front_1200x-750x500.jpg


Mercy Supply Co
TravelPack-595x595.jpg
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
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?
Click to expand...
Yes. Misery is one. Regardless of if you pack ultralight, lightweight, or heavy there is no reason to be unnecessarily uncomfortable. In backpacking how you carry your load is the number one determinant of that.

It's no skin off my back, literally or figuratively, what pack another chooses, but there are much better packs to carry your load (whatever that load may be or however heavy or light it may be) these days than in the old days.
 
For traditional packs one could never go wrong with Duluth, or Frost River. It was a tough decision for me between the two. Both of company's products will truly last a "lifetime and Beyond"
 
I like the traditional look, and I like the durability/water resistance of waxed canvas. I wish, however, that someone made a more modern designed pack in the material. Maybe they do, and I just haven't found them yet. Something in the daypack size with a framesheet or stays and some comfortable straps.

I have one traditional bag (duluth pack haversack) for solo tramps in the woods when all I need is a fire to make some coffee and chew down a couple of granola bars while I relax and clear my head. Otherwise my packs are all modern, but none of that ultralight nonsense... I'm too rough on my stuff for those.
 
I agree. Something like the Arc'teryx frame with a waxed canvas bag would be nice. But it'd most likely be in the 700 range and have a small following. I don't know if it'd be that much more durable though, except around the fire. And it may last a lifetime rather than the plastic-based materials which can degrade after 10-20 years.

I think Fjallraven makes something like that, I don't know how the quality compares though.
 
I recently (yesterday :D) snagged a used Frost River Summit- I was also looking for something a bit more traditional in nature and it definitely fit that bill; I'll let you know if it's worth a hoot after I get a couple of trips under my belt w/ it

with a light load, no suspension is needed- I do plenty of 2-3 day trips with a 30-ish liter pack w/ no suspension, granted my loads are on the light side for those trips

a daypack loadout (even winter) should be pretty darn light, light enough no frame is needed- if you need a little structure- take a ccf pad and cut it to size to use as a "frame"- you'll get a ton of use out of it additionally as a sit/kneel pad

there certainly is a need for a well designed framed pack, in addition to decently padded waist belts and shoulder straps; but that is out of the realm for a daypack- long multi-day trips or trips that necessitate heavier loads, certainly
 
Yeah, I thought their fabric might be a mix. Supposed to be very good though.

Another perspective:
[video=youtube;S4s_jaGIv88]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4s_jaGIv88[/video]

Like mtwarden suggests, you can use a pad for a very lightweight support in the frame. And Mors suggests that the central connection to the straps is much better for the body, as well as seatbelt-like straps rather than foam. With a tumpline and the central connection of the straps you could make this better than most modern packs if you have to carry a lot. Some hipbelt system would have to be made though.

The other advantage here is that you can pack very quickly while using your cover or blanket as the pack itself, and the load can be customized for each trip rather than having to plan out how many litres you can carry.

So to get back to what the OP is looking for, maybe there are benefits to a pack basket?
 
As the op, there has been speculation on my intent. I already own a Gregory multi day pack and northface surge ii (33 liters)for work and edc that can double as a large daypack. I was searching for unique and smaller (25-28 liters) for light hikes or change of clothes. Something that might double as an overnight bag and not overly taticool. Bigger than a cinch bag smaller than surge ii. Unique and different but still functional.

I appreciate all the cool posts.
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
[video=youtube;S4s_jaGIv88]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4s_jaGIv88[/video]
Click to expand...
Pack that sucker any appreciable distance in the mountains then tell me you'll no longer use a modern pack with a modern suspension system. He says he's just as happy as people with modern packs. Maybe so, but he certainly isn't as comfortable on the slog nor nearly as efficient. Like he says, based upon how "the Koreans USED TO CARRY..."
 
Last edited:
Check out Granite Gear's "Crown60".;)
mtwarden said:
I recently (yesterday :D)

there certainly is a need for a well designed framed pack, in addition to decently padded waist belts and shoulder straps; but that is out of the realm for a daypack- long multi-day trips or trips that necessitate heavier loads, certainly
Click to expand...
 
leghog said:
Pack that sucker any appreciable distance in the mountains then tell me you'll no longer use a modern pack with a modern suspension system. He says he's just as happy as people with modern packs. Maybe so, but he certainly isn't as comfortable on the slog nor nearly as efficient. Like he says, based upon how "the Koreans USED TO CARRY..."
Click to expand...

Don't think you watched the video. He says it is more efficient and that you can outcarry someone with an improperly set up pack, which most modern packs are.

This could partly be experience in carrying as well as packing, but one should keep in mind that much of the bulk is the pack itself and weighs very little. The weight need only be distributed properly, and with a wide pack you can do this better, although it takes more packing skill.

What pack are you suggesting for mountains? And what weight are we talking?
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
Don't think you watched the video. He says it is more efficient and that you can outcarry someone with an improperly set up pack, which most modern packs are.
Click to expand...
I did indeed watched the entire video. and he does say he's just as happy as people with modern packs and say the frame is based upon how "the Koreans USED TO CARRY..."

This could partly be experience in carrying as well as packing, but one should keep in mind that much of the bulk is the pack itself and weighs very little. The weight need only be distributed properly, and with a wide pack you can do this better, although it takes more packing skill.
Click to expand...
Three things matter in carry a load on your back. The weight, the distribution of that weight in the pack, and the distribution of the weight on your body.

What pack are you suggesting for mountains? And what weight are we talking?
Click to expand...
The modern alpinist/mountaineering packs have one shape in common. Tall and narrow in shape. Needs to be lightweight, simple in design, lower in profile allowing for better balance and freedom of movement/agility. Same for alpine day packs.

Every pack is a compromise in design. I'm one of those who sees no need to compromise performance and comfort of contemporary designs and engineering for tradition when it comes to toting a burden on your back. The old ways are not always the best ways.
 
leghog said:
Three things matter in carry a load on your back. The weight, the distribution of that weight in the pack, and the distribution of the weight on your body.
Click to expand...

You forgot image.

There is really only one reason for a man to hold out bloodyminded, wanting to stick his fingers in a dyke despite the sea of information that says it's a bad idea, and that is the image it evokes.
 
I'd go with EMS, I have one of their daypacks/frame pack combos that has been long discontinued from 1988 and it's still running strong!
 
Skrapmetal, Take a look at OnePlanet and Wilderness Equipment bags from australia. They are canvas, (modern colors) but tough as nails. modern packs designed to bushwhack through wait-a-while vines.

as for the vid. Sure, if that works for you. I think its a great skill to know how to improvise a pack if needed, but I like to be able to get stuff in and out reasonably quickly. I'd be a K down the trail by the time he's packed to go. (okay, maybe just finishing my coffee, but you know) No disrespect to Mors but there are a few logical fallacies that he bases his statements on. But he does say that a custom built packframe is better than a store-bought packframe. Well yes, it would be. He makes a big deal of how customizable it is, and compared to old style frame packs, I'd say he's correct, not so much when it comes to a modern pack. Everything he says is basic pack fitting, it works for a modern soft pack, internal frame or external. Although how thats supposed to matter with stretcher carry, I'm beat. I'm sure he's carried heavy loads, but what is heavy to him? What where they carrying?

I think there is a lot of romanticism to old gear, but you have to think that they called brachial paralysis "backpackers palsy" for a reason. how much of that gear was carried in on horseback or by dog-sled. Very few lived fully off the land even in the mountain man days, mostly it was operating from a basecamp, moving light to move fast, but the main camp was not mobile. Even the Lewis and Clark expedition was on an industrial scale to keep the party fed and moving. The stories of guys covering huge amounts of terrain with little kit are remembered because they were so uncommon. Now people do ultra-light trips so commonly its not noticed. Lastly a lot of the old ways are very inefficient from a resource use standpoint. A lean-to that is used for one night, a long fire that is kept burning, all use up more resources than a good tent, good insulation and 50ml of alcohol for cooking. Yes there is an argument to be made for the environmental impacts of plastics, but at the end of the day, most environments cannot handle very many people for long. The acreage required for a hunter-gatherer tribe is quite astonishing.
 
Last edited:
cchu518 said:
I'd go with EMS, I have one of their daypacks/frame pack combos that has been long discontinued from 1988 and it's still running strong!
Click to expand...

My work laptop day pack is an EMS pack. Great value. Toughest pack I own though is my Jandd Zoor Alpinist. I sort of wish it would wear out just out of boredom. Not a good city or travel pack though.

Would be great if the OP chimed in to clarify more what he was looking for. Otherwise, we (me included) are just listing stuff we like. ... Which is fun. So that's ok
 
gadgetgeek said:
Skrapmetal, Take a look at OnePlanet and Wilderness Equipment bags from australia. They are canvas, (modern colors) but tough as nails. modern packs designed to bushwhack through wait-a-while vines.

as for the vid. Sure, if that works for you. I think its a great skill to know how to improvise a pack if needed, but I like to be able to get stuff in and out reasonably quickly. I'd be a K down the trail by the time he's packed to go. (okay, maybe just finishing my coffee, but you know) No disrespect to Mors but there are a few logical fallacies that he bases his statements on. But he does say that a custom built packframe is better than a store-bought packframe. Well yes, it would be. He makes a big deal of how customizable it is, and compared to old style frame packs, I'd say he's correct, not so much when it comes to a modern pack. Everything he says is basic pack fitting, it works for a modern soft pack, internal frame or external. Although how thats supposed to matter with stretcher carry, I'm beat. I'm sure he's carried heavy loads, but what is heavy to him? What where they carrying?

I think there is a lot of romanticism to old gear, but you have to think that they called brachial paralysis "backpackers palsy" for a reason. how much of that gear was carried in on horseback or by dog-sled. Very few lived fully off the land even in the mountain man days, mostly it was operating from a basecamp, moving light to move fast, but the main camp was not mobile. Even the Lewis and Clark expedition was on an industrial scale to keep the party fed and moving. The stories of guys covering huge amounts of terrain with little kit are remembered because they were so uncommon. Now people do ultra-light trips so commonly its not noticed. Lastly a lot of the old ways are very inefficient from a resource use standpoint. A lean-to that is used for one night, a long fire that is kept burning, all use up more resources than a good tent, good insulation and 50ml of alcohol for cooking. Yes there is an argument to be made for the environmental impacts of plastics, but at the end of the day, most environments cannot handle very many people for long. The acreage required for a hunter-gatherer tribe is quite astonishing.
Click to expand...

Very biased perspective. There's no way that contemporary materials have less impact on the environment than making your own lean-to. One can easily choose cull and dead trees to improve the forest while making the lean-to. Plastic-based materials are derived from countless places, shipped countless places, and need permanent acreage to maintain the output. There is a huge amount of waste that goes into the production of such gear, every time it is washed it releases plastics into the ecosystem/drinking water, and it does not last very long for its intended purpose but then lasts for thousands of years as waste in the environment. You have no input in regards to where the materials come from and where they end up; not at all comparable to building your own shelters with materials you can see the origin and endpoint of.

An argument can be made for the ultra-light mentality being the most destructive to the environment. Kochanski should be required reading on that.

As for 'backpackers palsy', much of this seems to come from setups which localize pressure (as well as extreme loads, especially in the military), which is exactly what some are arguing against with respect for old systems. It is indeed the point Kochanski makes in regards to the foam centralizing pressure and the straps forcing the shoulders into a hunched position. A proper system should maximise the muscle groups used while allowing the hiker to determine a proper posture. Many contemporary systems actually inhibit this, even forcing the body to conform to the packs predetermined measurements.

There is also a romanticism in regards to the contemporary ultra-light systems (one of the most romantic being that people think they are saving the environment by choosing plastics and gases they have no idea the origin of), and I find it remarkable that we are comparing them to a full frame, homemade or otherwise. Ultra-light packs generally have quite poor hip and back support and often begin to fail around 30-40 pounds. And there is no reason you could not make the storage tall and slender. The pack could also be made much lighter than even the modern ultra-light packs (this seems to be what people are really missing, it is a frame while also being lighter than the frameless packs).

Again, the point was not to discuss whether or not Mors was doing it right according to contemporary backpacker code, but rather there are general principles in his discussion which apply to any pack. Notice that there are people using modern systems who also use a tumpline. Why? Because it can help with posture and at times one can use an extra muscle group to alleviate ten or twenty pounds, making a huge difference if you need a break or have to switch according to the terrain.

And I highly doubt you'd be packing more quickly. But why not just make stuff up to prove how everything new is better?

(And again, not saying old is definitely better, just that even the best modern packs have their shortcomings. I have both old and new systems, and indeed like a pack that can be easily set up so I can go, but they are also fragile and not multi-functional.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top