Bora 80 versus Bora 95 Backpacks?
 

Evaluating a new backpack primarily for hiking but also something I'll use
backcountry skiing. Bora 80 seems like plenty of room for most reasonable
scenarios, but I wonder about having the extra capacity of the 95 "just in
case." On the other hand, the 95 has a slightly higher center of gravity
because of its longer spine, and with anything in the day pack on top, I
expect I would feel that skiing. Any experience with these packs?

Tom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
klaus wrote:
wrote:
Evaluating a new backpack primarily for hiking but also something I'll use
backcountry skiing. Bora 80 seems like plenty of room for most reasonable
scenarios, but I wonder about having the extra capacity of the 95 "just in
case." On the other hand, the 95 has a slightly higher center of gravity
because of its longer spine, and with anything in the day pack on top, I
expect I would feel that skiing. Any experience with these packs?

Go for the smaller pack. If you have a bigger pack, you'll just carry
more shi^H^Htuff which you can do without. On cold days, you can always
tie layers on the outside and still end up lighter. But then, I ski in
the Wastash where people ski with just a shovel and probe.


_ In rec.backcountry I told him to go bigger. IMHO, either is
massive overkill for anything short of a multiday trip. However,
I've tried smaller on multiday trips and strapping crap to the
outside of the pack truly sucks if you're actually attempting
to make turns or even just get from A to B. The extra weight
of a big pack for multiday stuff is fairly trivial and being
able to put the weight of gear where you want to, rather than
where you have to makes the whole ordeal much simpler. However,
you do have to exercise extra diligence in keeping the crap to a
minimum and skiing with that big a pack and that much stuff is
never going to be much more than survival.

_ Booker C. Bense


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQwtOG2TWTAjn5N/lAQGluQQAhVUhnryPMU331xCjFNRF3iC7/SI5kIn4
w5FVY5f0cQoy7wjVodxm5Tp4e5JvWy0mavasSECrvNEuWx4Ivj e3nxNRSWadm/f8
Q/XrQAE13rzAY/nLrCoBro8I+qri22cz2yJXtH8lY1L9++xZKUJDR7ddsBHi6cPK
h+3INW1AW5A=
=cvne
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Booker C. Bense wrote:

In article ,
klaus wrote:

Go for the smaller pack. If you have a bigger pack, you'll just carry
more shi^H^Htuff which you can do without. On cold days, you can always
tie layers on the outside and still end up lighter. But then, I ski in
the Wastash where people ski with just a shovel and probe.



_ In rec.backcountry I told him to go bigger. IMHO, either is
massive overkill for anything short of a multiday trip.

Agreed. Which is why I said go smaller. If he's going multi day, he
should reconsider. Day tripping and multi day packeting require two
different packs.

However,
I've tried smaller on multiday trips and strapping crap to the
outside of the pack truly sucks if you're actually attempting
to make turns or even just get from A to B.

Which part sucks? I actually prefer it. But I avoid bushwhacking. Other
than eye gouging trees, I don't see a downside.

The extra weight
of a big pack for multiday stuff is fairly trivial and being
able to put the weight of gear where you want to, rather than
where you have to makes the whole ordeal much simpler.

I like having stuff on the outside where it is easy to get at and
trivial to attach. You already do it with ice ax, crampons, probe, etc.
But I most prefer leaving it behind. The main point I was trying to make
is that if you have the space, you'll tend to use it. If not, you'll
pare down to what is essential. But the pack should be big enough to
pack essentials. Also, use compressible clothing, in compression stuff
sacks. They make really light stuff sacks. And concentrate on volume as
much as weight. I.e. single malt instead of beer.

However,
you do have to exercise extra diligence in keeping the crap to a
minimum and skiing with that big a pack and that much stuff is
never going to be much more than survival.

My multi day pack is a Terraplane. Minimal pockets, lots of straps and
daisy chains. If you're going bigger than that, you need to consider a
sled. My day pack is a Black Diamond ATtack pack. Again, small, but all
the accutrements like crampon pockets, ice axe loopS, etc. The problem
with a little weight here, a little weight there is that it all adds up
quickly.

"Keep it as simple as possible, but no less" - Albert Einstein

-klaus

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article ,
klaus wrote:
Booker C. Bense wrote:

In article ,
klaus wrote:


However,
I've tried smaller on multiday trips and strapping crap to the
outside of the pack truly sucks if you're actually attempting
to make turns or even just get from A to B.

Which part sucks? I actually prefer it. But I avoid bushwhacking. Other
than eye gouging trees, I don't see a downside.


_ I've done it both ways and I much prefer everything inside
the pack if at all possible. For a given load it just seems
to balance and ski better. Crap doesn't come loose and fall
off and things are generally out of the way. Admittedly getting
the right straps and a little experience takes care of both
of these, but for me the whole thing just goes a lot smoother
with a little extra space in the pack.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQwt0lWTWTAjn5N/lAQEFfQQApOQJ+nKNOp+h7wzqVHHNXKOY1Y/QUzyn
dA4EXZ00ASl9VzCX/QMN5AOqNk4rhC2tPvE3Cvsm5VHSmdGLlxGhK6ByR2Eo7Pb2
Q10Pj7fc6A4IdIK4mqWx0Eikytk19YoUY4ugnBA8KIdQ9mRt5k GOrHu2S66N1SE7
9hGxdHPmuUo=
=Tp5l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----