Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Dr_Crash

Wild Things Icesac versus Cold Cold World Chernoby

Recommended Posts

Assuming they're the same price (they're not), which would you pick? Climbing picked the Icesac w/ the Chernobyl a close second apparently mostly because of the helmet issue.

 

Has anyone seen both? How's the Icesac for emergency bivy (how much of an expansion collar)?

 

Thanks guys,

drC

 

PS: and what is CCW's Web site again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cold Cold World

 

I have a Chernobyl and really like it ... I have never had much of the "helmet" issue others speak of and I have .... well a "high profile noggin" topped off with an Edelrid Ultralight brain bucket, nothing low profile about it.

 

My pack is an older version than what is made today ... perhaps the geometry has changed a little

 

I just went to Wild Things website, look like it just got an overhaul. Is the Ice Sac really $270 now ... WTF. I see they also have a new smaller version of the Ice Sac called the Ricesac ... shit it's still $250 Wild Things Ricesac

 

If I were to do it again I'd stick with CCW and save the 100 bones ... shit that half the cost of a good tool ... a set of skins ... 2 C4 Camalots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know much about the Chernobyl but I have the icesac and love it. Somewhat lightweight, removable lid, all the features needed. The only downside is it doesnt carry heavy loads over about 35 lbs very well but you shouldn't ever carry that much anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Turgid Sausage...

 

Have you ever used a frameless pack? If not you might want to stick to a semi-frame pack like the new(er) BD offerings.

 

They are comparable on weight, volume, and price, but have a frame goin on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My IceSack, despite not having a frame, carries better than the frame packs I've used (including the Arc'Teryx Khamsin series). The stiffness of the foam padding and the very stiff fabric make for a pack with a lot of rigidity without a frame. I carry skis and boots on this thing in total comfort, which is pretty much the worse possible load you can put on a pack. I love this pack. But it's a bit big for daytrips, so I plan on sewing a smaller daypack.

 

I am unfamiliar with the CCW pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming they're the same price (they're not), which would you pick? Climbing picked the Icesac w/ the Chernobyl a close second apparently mostly because of the helmet issue.

 

Has anyone seen both? How's the Icesac for emergency bivy (how much of an expansion collar)?

 

Thanks guys,

drC

 

PS: and what is CCW's Web site again?

 

I own the Chernobyl and love it. Never had a helmet issue with it; it's a great dayclimb pack. I've even overnighted with it, but it's easy to overload the carrying capacity, with the expansion sleeve 'n all. Love the waistbelt, too; very comfortable. Honestly, I would've considered the Icesac, but no one had one in stock at the time. Considering you can get the Chernobyl at 169 bucks here in Portland, I'd have a hard time paying 279 for the Icesac.

 

Someone here mentioned the BD packs; they're a good option, as well. When my "small torso" sized Chernobyl ended up being smaller in volume than the standard version (2500 vs. closer to 3000), I ended up needing a bigger, lightweight pack for overnights. I picked out the Shadow 55, and it made all the difference.

 

The small buckles didn't give me as much problem with cold hands as the reviews made them out to be. The Silnylon (sp?) material seems to be a bit fragile, but pretty waterproof for a rainy walk-out. Carries a nice sized load well for the weight of the pack (I did a carryover on Sunset Ridge on Rainier with it this past year, as well as a few overnighters in the Stuart Range, and it did great), and is very reasonable in price ( 3360 c.i., 179 bucks, I believe?) The only true drawback on it that I've had to deal with is the chest strap, which doesn't quite cut the "one size fits all" theory that they tout; my short torso makes it at the very bottom of it's adjustability (I took it off, and added my own standard style); oh, and the waistbelt, while very clean and uninhibiting, lacks reasonable padding, and tears my hips up a bit, after a couple of days on a climb. Do like the option of the ice clippers on the belt, though. Handy!

 

Well, there you have it. Too much coffee this morning; sorry if it's too much info.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not one of the ones you asked about, but I'll give a vote for the BD Shadow. Just got this winter & I love it. Did a lot of research between the two you mention and the BD packs. Shadow seemed like the best compromise of capacity, weight, and function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not one of the ones you asked about, but I'll give a vote for the BD Shadow. Just got this winter & I love it. Did a lot of research between the two you mention and the BD packs. Shadow seemed like the best compromise of capacity, weight, and function.

 

Just curious, have you hauled skis with it? I looked at the picture on the website and can't tell if those are compression straps or ski loops? Looks like a great pack, but BD's packs are relatively new and I hadn't heard that much about them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ricesac might be a good idea to make sure I don't overpack smile.gif Though an overnighter might be tough (I am not as hardcore as my friend Chris yet smile.gif)

 

drC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CCW Chernobyl is a great pack. I like the fit and fabric better than the ice sack. I use it on overnight alpine climbs and find that it carries and climbs well even with fairly heavy loads. It is super strong and the design details are just right. It carries skis very well and has super long side compression straps that make it easy to strap a tent and full size sleeping pad to each side for approaches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cold cold world packs are perfect. Randy Radcliff makes them in the Mount Washington Valley in New hampshire (not far from where wild things packs are made) I have the valdez and chernobyl. Love em both. I tend to pull out the chernobyl more, and its really an amazing pack. Everyting you need, nothing more. I think to use it as a bivy would suck, but could be done. But a forced bivy shouldnt be comfy. Get the CCW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can you make a rectangle into a square? (Confused.) And yes, I can always buy a different pad.

 

So far, the Ricesac (smaller Icesac) sounds like a good idea, or a Valdez modified to add the Chernobyl goodies (ice tubes, crampon patch). I think I can live with 40 to 45 liters and if I get 50-52 I know I'll fill them...

 

drC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think to use it as a bivy would suck, but could be done.

 

Definitly not as good as a real bivi sack but I've done it on several occasions both planned and unplanned ... really not that bad. Pair it with a hip length shell and it works pretty good. I'm 6'0" and the Chernobyl bivi sleeve comes up over the top of my hip bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you make a rectangle into a square? (Confused.)

by using a folded 22" x 23" pad instead of the folded 11" x 46" pad that the pack is currently marketed with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chernobyl pad is a nice thick square one, good to sleep or sit upon. I have the Valdez also, and love it. It already has crampon straps like the Chernobyl, and the ice axe loops are fine; no need to add the weight of tool tubes to this nice, smaller pack. The Valdez also has a pretty good sized extension sleeve, which is handy for the extra volume of a rack, rock shoes, etc. on approaches.

 

The Bora 80 is a radically differrent pack. The Bora is over-complicated, much heavier, and has a frame which makes the climber wearing it much clumsier, restricting movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I carry upwards of 60 pounds in a Granite Gear Alpine Light frameless pack, with no padded hip belt, occaisionally and find it to be as comfortable as any internal or external frame pack I have used. If the frameless pack fits right and is packed right it works fine. I try to keep my loads much lighter though; comfort is less of an issue than speed of travel. I have carried 45 pounds comfortably in my CCW Chernobyl as well. I am only 155 pounds, but my long torso fits a size large pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boras are good hiking packs, cushy suspension = not really a climbing pack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah since we mention the Icesac did anyone say "turgid sausage" yet HCL.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a Chernobyl and love it. I used it on a 9 day climbing trip through the chilliwacks and n pickets last summer and the thing was a champ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ordered a ricesac. (Yes, dear SnowByrd, I made a decision and I won't and can't return it). Randy was fine with adding tool tubes to a Valdez (and I say Randy rocks for that! It is cool to offer to customize packs) but I want the ability to load 30 lbs in the thing. Once I get comfortable reducing my load to 30 lbs for an overnight I'll move down to something like a modified Valdez.

 

drC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cracked,

I do not live in the us, so it is difficult to shop for a backpack when you can have it in your hands to check it out, specially when the site doesn't provide many views about it.

So I was wondering if by any chance you do have some close pictures of your pack that you could share with a fellow climber.

I contact the sales team at WTG and they said they don't have any at the moment... not to great if you ask me, they also said the pack roughly measure about 27" tall, 13" wide and 8 inches deep.

27" tall is way too long even compared to other pack I own, including a 60lts Cilogear which is a tall 24". Do you have an opinion about this matter?

How does the pack behaves while skiing? or while carrying skis and the pack has only a low volume load like for a single day ski touring?

 

Thanks for your time and help.

Looking forward from your reply.

Cheers from Switzerland!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×