Chad_A Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 I've whittled my choices for a slightly bigger alpine pack down to these two choices. They are different in size, but not much, and they both have features that I like. I'm pretty sold on the CCW Chaos (Since I have the Chernobyl already...unfortunately, I'm a "short torso" person, so I have to use the small 2500ci version of it). I saw the Climbing mag review on the Shadow, but it seems like the gripes they had would be manageable. The reason I like the idea of it is, on a long approach, the Shadow would have an actual frame, whereas the Chaos would not. Anyway, feel free to post what you know. I hope to get into ClimbMax with my stuff to pack them both up and see how they feel. In the meantime... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 The shadow looks like a great pack, but I've never used one. After much experimentation I have finally decided I am willing to spend an extra pound to have a frame and suspension. It makes packing the pack easier (which is nice for frequently pulling things out and putting things in the pack, and it just carries better all and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 I haven't used either pack, but when I fondled them in the store, my initial impression what that the new buckles are useless. I had trouble rebuckling them in the store, with bare hands. If I bought on of those packs, the first thing I'd do would be to slice them off, and get a normal fastex buckle on there, extended by a bit of webbing. I'm fond of my frameless pack. If I were to buy something to replace it I'd get the Wild Things Icesac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ade Posted May 8, 2004 Share Posted May 8, 2004 I have a Chaos. I used it to drag stuff up to 14k on Denali. For a pack that size it's pretty light because it has no frame. It carries OK when loaded but obviously not as good as a framed pack. It was the biggest pack I could find that actually seemed to be designed to climb with. For the Cascades I have another pack that's smaller and has a removable hip belt and frame (a POD Black Ice). It's a much better option for the Cascades where long approaches but shorter climbs are more common. The Chaos is a good design but definitely not state of the art materials but they are durable. A lot of the very lightest packs are made of lighter materials which aren't going to last as well. This might be worth a read too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Frieh Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 A frameless pack will just keep you honest on what you should and shouldn’t' take on those long approaches. The BD price tag makes it a sweet deal, but it seems like you could do with out a lot of the extra stuff (a.k.a weight) on the bag. I'd recommend trying out the Chaos and the Wild Things Ice Sac and buy the one that feels better. I love my ice sac (and andinista for that matter). Also check out granite gear and grivel's offering in alpine packs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted May 9, 2004 Share Posted May 9, 2004 You can always slice useless/extraneous features off a pack, though. The only time I've used/needed a frame is when carrying skis and boots on the pack. The external 25 lbs compresses the pack too much otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ade Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I agree a frameless pack will keep you honest in the summer but in winter it's much harder to cut the load down. I used to carry a frameless pack all the time but got pissed off with it for heavier loads so I got a pack with a removable frame. I'd still use a frameless pack in the summer though (Serratus Genie). I also happened to look at a Shadow this weekend. Nice looking but very thin fabric, lots of stitching, and the buckles are very tricky to undo. Why spend $200 on a pack only to have to take a knife to it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cracked Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Why spend $200 on a pack only to have to take a knife to it? I just wanna be like Andy Kirkpatrick! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshK Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I still think the frame offers more than just load carrying capibilities. It allows you to just stuff crap in and out of the pack a lot without distoring the shape. My small pack is light, with a frame and nobody would ever accuse me of carrying too much. Also, the thing about skis is true...a suspension makes things way nicer for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpine_Tom Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I still think the frame offers more than just load carrying capibilities. It allows you to just stuff crap in and out of the pack a lot without distoring the shape. I'd have to agree with this. I got myself a golite pack last year, figuring I'd go, y'know, light. The lack of a frame is a major pain, particularly with digging into it trying to find something. It just collapses all over itself. Plus, if it's less than completely full, it droops and the ice axe doesn't carry properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziff Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 If you call up or email Cold Cold World, they will custom fit the pack to your size (most of their packs are made to order). Did it for me at no extra cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fromage Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 To divert the discussion ever further from your original question... Have you considered a Lowe Alpine Attack? They come in three volumes (40, 50, 60 liter) and are a pretty good value. I have a 50 and can offer the following critique: Pros- 1. pretty darn cheap (~$179?) 2. light without being flimsy 3. three frame options that you can change yourself (a) two aluminum stays and foam pad (b) foam pad (it is comfy to sleep on, too) © nothing 4. removable hip belt 5. tool holsters actually work 6. simple, no frivolous features 7. more comfy than any Dana or Archaeopteryx pack I have ever worn 8. works reasonably well when climbing with it Cons- 1. lid is kinda small 2. long bivy sleeve makes reaching into the bottom of the pack a drag 3. if not packed well lid hits the back of your head Otherwise, for the price it is a sweet pack. Second Ascent had a few of these the last time I was there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad_A Posted May 13, 2004 Author Share Posted May 13, 2004 Thanks for all the replies! I thought about the IceSac, but have kinda ruled it out. The reason is the size, and the fact that it won't do well with over 30 lbs in it, according to the manufacturer. The BD Shadow is of similar size, but has a frame; I, too have heard many complain of the buckles, now, and some of the features. But, the basics of the pack would be what I need. I haven't ruled out the Chaos. I really love my Chernobyl, and if I can load it without the 4000 c.i. seeming to big, it'll probably be what I'll get. I would like to do some stuff up in Alaska sometime, and it could cross over to that. Maybe next year BD will hear what we're saying, and make a few changes??? The Lowe sounds good; If I can find one here in town before my next trip, I might get that. A pal of mine, Donn, has one, and seems to like it lots. The POD looks nice, as well, but the small size (the one I need) is 42L, and probably smaller than the Chernobyl I already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.