BootsnAll Travel Community

G'day fellow travelers,

Well, I have made a big step tonight in preparation for my 7 week long trek around Asia. I went out and got me a pack.

In doing so, I wanted to get some feedback from someone who either has this backpack, or someone who is knowledgable in the backpack department, seems there is no shortage of that on this board.

I got the Gregory Triconi 62L due to the exceptional comfort of the pack, 3D harness system, pockets, etc.

Love the pack, however, I am in a bit of a dillema on the compartment space. From reading countless posts, it seems almost everyone likes to travel light and therefore, goes with packs in the range of 30-60L.

I'm one of those people that packs too many shirts, pants, etc. I know, it's not right! I also like to have extra space for a souvenir or two, or three. lol. So my question is, will I be better off with the:

1) Gregory Triconi 62L > $212 +taxes
2) Gregory Palisade 84L > $255 +taxes
3) Gregory Whitney 89L > $289 +taxes

For those that have the larger packs [80L+] are they that much more of a hassle to carry around?


Cheers,
Eastbound1

quote:

For those that have the larger packs [80L+] are they that much more of a hassle to carry around?

They are WAY more of a hassle to carry around. They hurt your back and they're a pain to wear anywhere it's crowded. I would definitely go with the smallest pack.

I took one trip with a large pack (an 85L monster), and that was enough. After that I've travelled with a 45L pack, and I would never go back. Sure, sometimes it would be nice to have a larger pack or to have brought something that I didn't have room for, but every time I travel I'm extremely grateful to have the smaller, lighter pack. I would never go back to the larger one.

For 7 weeks in Asia, 40-60 Liters should be your goal. 62 liters is not much more, and Gregory does make great packs.

Stick with your 62 L Gregory. Leave home with it 2/3 full. And save room for souvenirs.

That's a nice looking pack. I especially like that it doesn't look like it has thousands of straps sticking out all over it.

That's one thing that drives me nuts with my current pack is that it's really not a travel pack, but a real backpack, meaning it has loops and tie downs and all sorts of junk all over the outside. It looks a right mess!

(off topic... Comenius, you need one of these: http://www.gonesewin.com/C1-033.jpg Rip those seams holding on the straps you don't like... Check the inside to make sure they didn't sew a few extra layers together with those straps.)

mikeym:

Understandable. I agree with you about the crowded places. It must be darn hard to maneuver with a pack of that size.

How long a period do you travel with your 45L if you don't mind me asking?

Skimaxpower:

I was thinking that 40-60L would be the goal, afterall, there are people who travel with 20-30L packs for much longer periods of time. It's good to get an idea of what size is suitable for a 7 week trek so thanks for the input.

And I agree, it makes absolute sense to pack it 2/3 full and have that 1/3 space left for souvenirs.

Comenius:

Agreed. Part of the reason I really liked this pack is due to the low visibility of straps, not that there are many in the first place. All the necessary ones are there and that's what counts. I also love the suspension/harness on the bag. It really customizes to your neck, shoulders, and back.


..........


Well, it looks like I will likely be sticking to this size.

The plan is to do a 'trail' pack and see how much room I'm left with.

Having said all that, is there anyone in favour of the larger packs?