erewhon Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 Has anybody had the chance to give one of these things a good beating? Any better than the Wild Things Andinista? Ive tortured my Cloud 6500 with many happy days carrying a 1.2lb 4500 cu in pack for a summit day. Just wanted to bring up some other's pro's vs con's of these coveted packs. How well do these carry? YOUR IDEAS? Quote
layton Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 what's the price difference between the two? Quote
iain Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 they carry like shit! don't put too much weight in the andinista or you will break your clavicle. but you shouldn't be carrying heavy stuff anyways right Quote
Ade Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 michael_layton said: what's the price difference between the two? A brief web search reveals: Andinista $350 Max volume 5500cu so it's smaller than the cloud. Max weight 4lbs 2oz Cloud 6500 $600 1lb 8oz to 4lb 11oz - depending on how many bits you take on/off Quote
specialed Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 If you're carrying enough weight in an Andanista to overload its suspension system you're carrying way too much weight. I've used this pack extensively on multi-day climbs in Alaska and Washington and its been great. The only negative thing I could say is that it isn't very durable. I don't like taking it on sub-alpine climbs because it gets thrashed in the brush and shit. I'd say its best for snow and ice climbs. Also, the Andanista slims down really well for summit bids, technical climbing, etc. Quote
Sphinx Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 Seems like the problem with the Cloud is once you put it in the snow you can't find it again! Quote
Ade Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 specialed said: If you're carrying enough weight in an Andanista to overload its suspension system you're carrying way too much weight. This is what I don't get about the Wild Things line of thinking... Seems that the Andinista carrys heavy loads very badly so why is it so big? 5500cu of pretty much anything is going to weigh a lot, especially climbing gear. Quote
layton Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 I've NEVER needed a pack bigger than 50L on weeklong climbing overnights or multiday winter climbing trips, even in Alaska. The only time I've used anything bigger was when I hiked the appalachian trail years ago and I took way way way way too much shit. Quote
cracked Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 michael_layton said: I've NEVER needed a pack bigger than 50L on weeklong climbing overnights or multiday winter climbing trips, even in Alaska. The only time I've used anything bigger was when I hiked the appalachian trail years ago and I took way way way way too much shit. Wow.You go climbing for a week with 3000 cubic inches? Impressive. Just curious, with what pack? Quote
Attitude Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 Ade said: A brief web search reveals: Andinista $350 Max volume 5500cu so it's smaller than the cloud. Max weight 4lbs 2oz Cloud 6500 $600 1lb 8oz to 4lb 11oz - depending on how many bits you take on/off GoLite Gust $99 retail Max volume 4800cu, Max weight 1lbs 4oz Quote
layton Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 Attitude's got it right. My friend guided a season on denali w/that thing. GoLite rocks, hope they stay cheap. Quote
Bronco Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 Andinista - 'cause Mark Twight says so and he's EXTREME! Quote
cracked Posted September 11, 2003 Posted September 11, 2003 michael_layton said: Attitude's got it right. My friend guided a season on denali w/that thing. GoLite rocks, hope they stay cheap. Agreed. I've to two of their jackets and they rawk. Very cheap, too. And light, of course. Quote
Ade Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 I'd been told that the Gust has the same problem as the Andinista. Namely that if you filled it then it would be too heavy to carry with any comfort. Don't GoLite say it's really only good for 30lbs or so (if not then I read this in a review elsewhere). Quote
Beck Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 (edited) i'd reccommend looking for lightweight packs with actual framesheets and stays, there are a few mid 3 pound packs that carry weight extremely well, and don't feel like a pack of potatoes. and I'm curious as to what "suspension" system in the andinista the poster is talking about? the shoulder straps? it's a RUCKSACK. no frame or otherwise contrived suspension other than straps and a wasitbelt, maybe some padding in the back. same with the golite. id definetly recommend a framesheet. but go lightly, and buy on the smallish side. however, you can get a full winter weeklong pack that is light. one of my packs is a carbon "x" stays, minimal back padded 4,800 CU + extendible that comes in at the mid threes. good for a week midwinter easy. look at the arcteryx kamshin series or the nozone (sweet! best alpine pack, IMO) and kelty has a few good lightweight packs, the really expensive ones, then some that are a pound or so heavier at half the price... but the packs with frames will ALWAYS carry weight better than the frameless. let us not delude ourselves. and they don't climb half bad. Edited September 12, 2003 by Beck Quote
mattp Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 So the Andinista weighs 4 pounds, and the Kelty may be less, but doesn't the HEAVIEST pack out there weigh something like 7 pounds? What is 3 or 4 pounds' difference, when you are carrying 30 or more? Whatever the answer to the question of this thread is, I say get the pack that is (1) the most comfortable and (2) has the features that you want (this may be that it is tough, or that it has the special shovel pocket, or that it is your favorite color, or that it is lighter), but don't sweat over the ounces if you are going to be carrying bivvy gear, food, water, a climbing rack and a rope. Off topic, I know. But ???? In my view, the lighter weight of the Go Lite or the Cloud are not an important advantage -- if you are going to be carring a significant load. If you are speed-hiking the PCT, or if you are going to be making a summit climb on 5.11 rock with just a sandwich and a windbreaker in your pack, worry about the empty weight of your pack. Quote
Coopah Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 mattp said: So the Andinista weighs 4 pounds, and the Kelty may be less, but doesn't the HEAVIEST pack out there weigh something like 7 pounds? What is 3 or 4 pounds' difference, when you are carrying 30 or more? Whatever the answer to the question of this thread is, I say get the pack that is (1) the most comfortable and (2) has the features that you want (this may be that it is tough, or that it has the special shovel pocket, or that it is your favorite color, or that it is lighter), but don't sweat over the ounces if you are going to be carrying bivvy gear, food, water, a climbing rack and a rope. Off topic, I know. But ???? In my view, the lighter weight of the Go Lite or the Cloud are not an important advantage -- if you are going to be carring a significant load. Matt is right on...find out how much you carry and then find the pack that carries it in the most comfortable way to you. I personally went ahead and spent the $$ for a McHale custom pack. Most comfortable and best made pack I have seen and used. If you ask (and with a deposit) you can usually demo one prior to buying. Worth checking out http://www.mchalepacks.com/index.htm If you want the full spectra pack like the Kelty, it is in the same ballpark as far as cost goes... Quote
Attitude Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Ade said: I'd been told that the Gust has the same problem as the Andinista. Namely that if you filled it then it would be too heavy to carry with any comfort. Don't GoLite say it's really only good for 30lbs or so (if not then I read this in a review elsewhere). True. The GoLite is rated only for up to 30 lbs. And by the looks, it probably wouldn't reliably carry twice that comfortably. But if your load is only 30 lbs, why carry it in a 4-6 lb pack? The difference is about 10% of the weight on your back, or 1-2 days more food. Quote
Beck Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 most mchale packs of assault size, like the SARC series and larger, all have a framesheet or stays system,though. At least i believe so. and no, matt the heaviest pack is the military gig by gregory that weighs in at a measely 28 pounds! but the packs made by mystery ranch for Spec forces are significantly lighter. buy one with a framesheet if you carry over 30. don't go ruck unless you like potato sacks (Yvon Chounaird used to steal potatos out of farmers fields to sell to other climbers at camp 4, early origins of the phrase dirtbag.. oop, off topic..!) a lightest pack quest is sheer folly! buy one that does the job. lightly. Quote
lummox Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 erewhon said: YOUR IDEAS? you carry massive fuckin packs dude. get sumpin smaller and youll carry less. Quote
Ade Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Rucks are completely fine for lighter loads. Provided you pack it carefully. Granted the latest generation of packs are much lighter even with a frame so maybe you can have both, or a frame at minimal additional weight. Crux are making very light packs with a frame for example. WRT GoLite my point is I don't see the point of making a pack that holds a large volume if it can't carry the weight that volume will hold comfortably. This seems to go for the Andinista and Gust - fill them with typical climbing gear to capacity and they'll be very heavy and uncomfortable. I have a CCW Chaos and at 4300cu this is pretty uncomfortable fully loaded - I don't think I even had the expansion sleeve full. This has a three layer foam padded back, much more than the Gust, and for me is the upper limit of what you can do with a non-framed pack and it's 1200cu smaller than the Andinista. As MattP says - If you want a pack for huge loads then buy a nice comfy one, you aren't going to notice the additional few pounds. -- The original poster might want to check out the CCW as it's very similar in terms of design philosophy to the Andinista and quite a bit cheaper although smaller. Quote
layton Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 The problem with a famesheat pack for me is they don't climb well. Every pack hurts like hell (esp my hips and lower back) so I figure get a light one that hurts vs. a heavy one that hurts. BD ice pack is a good choice cuz you can remove the framsheet. I replaced my worn out ice sack with it and am happy so far. If you must have a more rigid from, the serratus packs are the shit. I got one for my girlfriend and have borrowed it several times when the hike is more demanding than the climb. Quote
allthumbs Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 Arc'teryx Khamsins and Nozone Packs. Light, strong, lightly framed, comfortable, extremely well built, climb well, not too expensive, blah, blah, blah. Quote
Beck Posted September 12, 2003 Posted September 12, 2003 again, curious as to what "framsheet" the poster means about the BD ice sack as well. It's a RUCKSACK as well. it has a foam pad in there you can pull out to use as a bivy sheet. However, the nozone has both a framesheet AND a bivy pad. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.