24 Lt. pack for the camino frances

[Malabar Circle AS]

Hi everybody,
i have this idea as a thorn in my side. I own an osprey atmos 50 AG, great pack, but there's just something...something unconvincing in the way it embraces my hips in such a fashion that i feel constricted, awkward..
Also 50 lt is definitely an overkill, at least for me. My question is, could i make it through with a pack of around 21/24 lt such as the Camelbak Pursuit 24Lr., which has an external lumbar reservoir and a similar trampoline sytem as the atmos but is much smaller ?! I normally carry 24lbs including my snugpak. Would i be able to fit everything in the Pursuit or will i have serious troubles?
Any advice would be immensely apreciated.
MC

 

[edandjoan]

I not sure anyone can tell you if you can pack all your stuff in any pack...seems pretty personal to me. I can tell you I pack fairly light (6.5 kilos) and have a Gregory 28 liter that works well for me. Osprey has some smaller packs with external water reservoirs..my husbands carries one that is 36 liters, but it is not fully loaded.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

frankly...i was going to do it with a camelbak motherlode, tactical assault pack, 37lt, great pack for organization, resistance (cordura 500D) but heavy at 2,2 kg and not conceived for prolonged extended range hikes as in the camino. I like camelbak though, they used to make the vantage ft at 35 lt which would have been perfect. Now, the pursuit is their larger pack, but can't try before buying it so...i appreciate your thoughts. My load is typical, no fancy stuff, 2 t shirts, 2 underwear, snugpak sleeping bag, short pants, personal hygene stuff, boonie, scarf, sunscreen, waterproof softshell jacket, gaiters and a first aid kit,

 

[C clearly]

My 6.5 kg (13 lb) load fits nicely into a 31L pack. I would be surprised if you could fit 25 lb into 21-24L unless you are carrying things that are very heavy for their size. The list you gave shouldn't add up to 25 lb. Perhaps your weight estimates are wrong.

You have 2 packs with known volume. Look at how much spare room they have. If your 50 L pack is only half-full, you might be OK.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

Your comment is right on. The weight is exactly 8,5 kg, without water. The camelbak motherlode has molle webbing which allows for a modularity unheard in conventional packs. At 37lt with my load i have just a bit od free space available. However its conception is not aimed at something like the camino.
The Atmos 50, is not only too big for me it generates a akward feeling at the hips.
So, you are right, a 24lt won't do, no doubt about it now. I might have to get something in your range, like 31 to 37. Wanted ot stay with camelbak, but they do not offer such capacity. So, Osprey kestrel 38.....maybe. Any thoughts?

 

[Mike Savage]

I use a Talon 22 in small/medium size which is actually 20ltrs and carry 10-15 lbs depending on how much water and food I have with me at the time. I don't have much room left over for more volume and don't think it would be nearly as comfortable with 25 lbs. When I chose the pack I gathered all that I wanted to pack and measured it for weight and volume.

Good luck with your decision.

Mike

 

[Mark Lee]

A 38L backpack, of any brand would more than suffice for walking the Camino Frances during the warmer, milder summer months. You could actually walk it with the 24L pack if you bare minimum your equipment to the maximum. I have seen several pilgrims walking the Camino with the smallest and cheapest of packs. On my first one, I walked it with a cheap ($40.00) frameless pack (reference photo) with no problem. I carried no rain gear and no sleeping bag/liner of any kind. I even ditched the fleece I had with me.
Nothing technical or tactical about walking the CF. Nothing like a wilderness hike or a military forced march. Look at it more like a month or so of long day walks/hikes with the ability to buy anything along the Way you may have forgotten, or in my case ditching a bunch of stuff I didn't need.
cheers and ultreia

 

[Mike Savage]

When I was looking at packs I found the Talon and Kestrel to both be very comfortable on me. The Talon is lighter and designed to carry a lighter load. If I were carrying more weight I would be very happy with the Kestrel.

 

[owms2323]

Your comment is right on. The weight is exactly 8,5 kg, without water. The camelbak motherlode has molle webbing which allows for a modularity unheard in conventional packs. At 37lt with my load i have just a bit od free space available. However its conception is not aimed at something like the camino.
The Atmos 50, is not only too big for me it generates a akward feeling at the hips.
So, you are right, a 24lt won't do, no doubt about it now. I might have to get something in your range, like 31 to 37. Wanted ot stay with camelbak, but they do not offer such capacity. So, Osprey kestrel 38.....maybe. Any thoughts?

I carried an Osprey Sirrus 36L. It was just right and packed weighed about 17-18 lbs. The Sirrus is for women, but I believe it is the same as the Kyte for men.

 

[SYates]

Yes, you can ;-) Your main challenge would be volume, especially sleeping bag and clothes but with the help of compression bags that should be possible. Buen Camino, SY

 

[Jeff Crawley]

A 38L backpack, of any brand would more than suffice for walking the Camino Frances during the warmer, milder summer months. You could actually walk it with the 24L pack if you bare minimum your equipment to the maximum. I have seen several pilgrims walking the Camino with the smallest and cheapest of packs. On my first one, I walked it with a cheap ($40.00) frameless pack (reference photo) with no problem. I carried no rain gear and no sleeping bag/liner of any kind. I even ditched the fleece I had with me.
Nothing technical or tactical about walking the CF. Nothing like a wilderness hike or a military forced march. Look at it more like a month or so of long day walks/hikes with the ability to buy anything along the Way you may have forgotten, or in my case ditching a bunch of stuff I didn't need.
cheers and ultreia

Mark,

Your photo could start a trend (like weiner legs) - Pilgrim feet at the end of the Camino (in boots/shoes please)!
View attachment 27265

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

A 38L backpack, of any brand would more than suffice for walking the Camino Frances during the warmer, milder summer months. You could actually walk it with the 24L pack if you bare minimum your equipment to the maximum. I have seen several pilgrims walking the Camino with the smallest and cheapest of packs. On my first one, I walked it with a cheap ($40.00) frameless pack (reference photo) with no problem. I carried no rain gear and no sleeping bag/liner of any kind. I even ditched the fleece I had with me.
Nothing technical or tactical about walking the CF. Nothing like a wilderness hike or a military forced march. Look at it more like a month or so of long day walks/hikes with the ability to buy anything along the Way you may have forgotten, or in my case ditching a bunch of stuff I didn't need.
cheers and ultreia
View attachment 27265

I appreciate your insight sir. I don't think i want to do without a sleeping bag, liner or a fleece, but to each his own. BTW your pack might be cheap but it's a tactical one, notice the molle webbing. Also your shoes are quiet appropriate for the walk

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

I'd like to thank you all for sharing your thoughts with me. I appreciate that.

 

[Mark Lee]

I appreciate your insight sir. I don't think i want to do without a sleeping bag, liner or a fleece, but to each his own. BTW your pack might be cheap but it's a tactical one, notice the molle webbing. Also your shoes are quiet appropriate for the walk

Yeah, the shoes were perfect, and held up so well I could have probably walked another one in them. They now hold a place of honor in the garage and have weekly duty when I mow the lawn, ha ha.
The pack was not out of choice. I walked that Camino on a spur of the moment. No real planning and that was the only pack I could find to buy while working overseas. The MOLLE webbing served no purpose really, and I felt like a bit of a tool walking with it sometimes (a 3-day military assault pack stands out like a t**d in the proverbial punch-bowl on the CF), but it got me to Santiago.
I did not know one could buy everything one needs to walk the CF in St. Jean or Pamplona. Had I known I would have arrived in St. Jean with just the clothes on my back, ducked in the nearest outdoor shop, and popped out as a fully equipped, modern peregrino, ha ha.

 

[Deacon Jason]

Your comment is right on. The weight is exactly 8,5 kg, without water. The camelbak motherlode has molle webbing which allows for a modularity unheard in conventional packs. At 37lt with my load i have just a bit od free space available. However its conception is not aimed at something like the camino.
The Atmos 50, is not only too big for me it generates a akward feeling at the hips.
So, you are right, a 24lt won't do, no doubt about it now. I might have to get something in your range, like 31 to 37. Wanted ot stay with camelbak, but they do not offer such capacity. So, Osprey kestrel 38.....maybe. Any thoughts?

I'm going to use a Gregory Z30 30L pack in September. Everything *just* fits...if I wanted to go smaller I would have to find higher-tech replaments for light-but-bulky items like my fleece jacket.

Ultreya,

-Jason

 

[Mark Lee]

I'm going to use a Gregory Z30 30L pack in September. Everything *just* fits...if I wanted to go smaller I would have to find higher-tech replaments for light-but-bulky items like my fleece jacket.

Ultreya,

-Jason

One great advantage of having a pack that small and light (besides the obvious) is that you can easily just travel with it as a carry-on all the way to Spain on your flights, and avoid having to check it in as stowed luggage. I did the carry-on bit with my pack on my last two CF's, and it is a bit of comfort knowing you won't have to worry about lost baggage. My pack was a 48L, but not full and it fit inside that measurement frame thing the airlines have at check-in counters.
Someone else on this forum once said that if your pack is too big to carry-on as luggage, you are probably carrying too much stuff.
cheers and ultreia

 

[Deacon Jason]

One great advantage of having a pack that small and light (besides the obvious) is that you can easily just travel with it as a carry-on all the way to Spain on your flights, and avoid having to check it in as stowed luggage. I did the carry-on bit with my pack on my last two CF's, and it is a bit of comfort knowing you won't have to worry about lost baggage. My pack was a 48L, but not full and it fit inside that measurement frame thing the airlines have at check-in counters.
Someone else on this forum once said that if your pack is too big to carry-on as luggage, you are probably carrying too much stuff.
cheers and ultreia

That was my reason for 'going small' as well... didn't want to risk having my pack lost or damaged in the baggage check. The trampoline frames are somewhat delicate and, even wrapped up well, it is risky having burly baggage guys tossing it around!

 

[edandjoan]

I'm going to use a Gregory Z30 30L pack in September. Everything *just* fits...if I wanted to go smaller I would have to find higher-tech replaments for light-but-bulky items like my fleece jacket.

Ultreya,

-Jason

That's a good pack. My husband walked 0ver 1200 kilometers of the camino with it and 3 weeks in Ireland and 3 weeks in Israel. He loved it, but it really stunk after that and even after washing it in-between trips was not helping.
We really like the trampoline backs on the Gregory and his newer Osprey Manta also has a trampoline back, but has a better setup for the water badder.

 

[Deacon Jason]

That's a good pack. My husband walked 0ver 1200 kilometers of the camino with it and 3 weeks in Ireland and 3 weeks in Israel. He loved it, but it really stunk after that and even after washing it in-between trips was not helping.
We really like the trampoline backs on the Gregory and his newer Osprey Manta also has a trampoline back, but has a better setup for the water badder.

The Ospreys are good packs, I was originally intending to get one...but when I tried them on at REI they just didn't fit my shape quite right (short, wide, long torso). The Gregory fit perfectly. Just goes to show how important it is to try them on first--the best pack us the one that fits you!

 

[MTtoCamino]

Both Gregory z packs or the Osprey Kestrel are good packs the Kestrel not as heavy of fabric. Either that fits best!

 

[Pong]

I walked mid April to mid May and carried between 13 & 14# (depending on how much food I carried) in a 32l North face pack. It was carry-on size, had a trampoline back panel, was heavier than some I tried, but fit me like the proverbial glove. I carried a sleeping bag, fleece, rain gear, sleeping clothes, a sweater, long johns, etc. I don't know when you will be walking, but suggest that warmth and comfort can be achieved, unless in winter, with a load of less than 25#. I think for most people, health and comfort on the Camino are inversely proportional to the weight carried. A well fitting pack and attention to the weight carried (and well fitting shoes) are more important than pack brand and are key to a healthy Camino. That, and taking it slowly to start.
I wish you Buen Camino.

 

[spursfan]

Easy as long as you can go with a sleeping bag liner and not a full sleeping bag and ditch the horrible bulky fleece with something like a Merino shirt and just rain jacket

 

[t2andreo]

The answer is...it depends...on whether the pack:

• Fits your torso and hips, with the hip belt resting on the Iliac Loop of your hips for support;
• Holds what you need it to hold, without too many "dangly bits."

- Smaller persons have an advantage over us "larger-boned" folks. Their clothing is smaller and relatively lighter, even when compressed.
- FYI "Dangly bits" are the things you must fix to the exterior of the pack because they do not fit inside.

• Is comfortable when fully packed and configured, complete with water in the bladder.

Only YOU can determine the correct volume, size, and features that work best for you. There is no, one 'correct" rucksack.

My personal rucksack for my first three Caminos has been an Osprey Kestrel 48 liter in M/L torso size. After three years, on as many Caminos, constantly testing alternative clothing and gear choices and trying alternative packing schemes, I thought I might try a 35 liter pack for my 2016 Madrid Route attempt.

However, at the last minute, while packing the "new" rucksack the day before departure, I found that one cannot cram about 45 liters of needed stuff into a 35 liter volume...thank you DougFitz for your several scholarly and thorough posts about determining optimum pack size. So, I just went back to my "old faithful" rucksack, the Osprey Kestrel 48-liter, with some "slack space." My conclusion was that, even with fine-tuning my packing plan and gear choices, my rucksack "sweet spot" for a Camino is about 46 liters.

As my Kestrel in M/L is adjusted to it's smallest possible harness position (achievable by shifting the huge Velcro attached shoulder harness up or down), and even a tad beyond what the factory intended, when I replace it, I will likely opt for the same rucksack in the S/M size. According to Osprey, the same rucksack is actually about 46 liters in the S/M torso size, as opposed to the advertised 48 liters in the M/L size. FYI, this relationship holds true for almost all of their rucksacks. But, as this rucksack wears like steel, and I can soak-wash it in my tub after each Camino, using Nik Wax detergent, I shall probably limp along with it, indefinitely. Besides, it has all my Camino patches sewn-on.

I hope this helps.

 

[obinjatoo]

Hi everybody,
i have this idea as a thorn in my side. I own an osprey atmos 50 AG, great pack, but there's just something...something unconvincing in the way it embraces my hips in such a fashion that i feel constricted, awkward..
Also 50 lt is definitely an overkill, at least for me. My question is, could i make it through with a pack of around 21/24 lt such as the Camelbak Pursuit 24Lr., which has an external lumbar reservoir and a similar trampoline sytem as the atmos but is much smaller ?! I normally carry 24lbs including my snugpak. Would i be able to fit everything in the Pursuit or will i have serious troubles?
Any advice would be immensely apreciated.
MC

Less is more. It is amazing to discover all the things we can live without. Only one way to find out. If it does not work, you will have successfully discovered something that does not work.
Buen Camino

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

Ok. Less is more. True. However, after a close analysis of at least the majority of variables, a 35-38 lt pack is the most versatile choice under any perspective. This for me obviously. My camino will be early sept. to early oct.
The Kestrel 48 is just an overkill as the Atmos 50, there's just no need to go that far in liter capacity, unless you plan to bring things to sleep on the outside.
Bag liner vs full bag, we've seen this b4, it's risky if you can't find blankets in the albergue or if the blanket is bug infested. I use a tropical snugpak whose weight under the kg is well acceptable.
This morning i returned the Atmos 50 Ag, a so glorified backpack that this maneuver appears reckless. I put on my camelbak motherlode 37lt and did 10km, yeah it's heavy, 9,8 kg with water, almost 22lbs everything included, but i can find my things nice and easy, water bladder is in a separate compartment, the rip away medical pouch is right there when u need it and the protruded lumbar pad fits just mighty fine into my lower spine concave part of my body. So unless i find another camelbak, maybe civilian/conventional i'll stick with my "old glory".
Just my 2 cents people, when i can i'll post some pics.

 

[Pong]

Ok. Less is more. True. However, after a close analysis of at least the majority of variables, a 35-38 lt pack is the most versatile choice under any perspective. This for me obviously. My camino will be early sept. to early oct.
The Kestrel 48 is just an overkill as the Atmos 50, there's just no need to go that far in liter capacity, unless you plan to bring things to sleep on the outside.
Bag liner vs full bag, we've seen this b4, it's risky if you can't find blankets in the albergue or if the blanket is bug infested. I use a tropical snugpak whose weight under the kg is well acceptable.
This morning i returned the Atmos 50 Ag, a so glorified backpack that this maneuver appears reckless. I put on my camelbak motherlode 37lt and did 10km, yeah it's heavy, 9,8 kg with water, almost 22lbs everything included, but i can find my things nice and easy, water bladder is in a separate compartment, the rip away medical pouch is right there when u need it and the protruded lumbar pad fits just mighty fine into my lower spine concave part of my body. So unless i find another camelbak, maybe civilian/conventional i'll stick with my "old glory".
Just my 2 cents people, when i can i'll post some pics.

Malabar: Keeping a well fitting pack makes sense. But do you think you can reduce the weight you will carry?Wondering how much water you have loaded. With a few exceptions you can do fine carrying one liter, sometimes less, on the Frances. Water is heavy and it's worth trying to lighten the load in every way consistent with health and safety. I'd say great that you find the 22# comfortable at 10km, but you will likely be doing twice that, and day after day. That takes a toll on even the fittest among us.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

I hear you Pong, today was just a try, tomorrow i'll push harder. My water bladder is 100oz or 3 lt, but i fill up to 1,5lt. I can shave off a few grams but not much, as such is the nature of tactical packs. The whole point of this, is that the bag itself weighs 2,2kg empty!! and that's the trade off i was talking about, between a tactical and a conventional pack. Like i said i'll keep looking for a different bag, but for training i stick this one. the Atmos was a nightmare to me.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

This was my original idea. please help me sort it out. Look at the video, the pack is only 21 lt so truly inadequate at least for me, but looking at it...it seems way bigger and more capable than what stated. Just look at how many things he got inside it. Please le me know your thoughts.

 

[C clearly]

Just look at how many things he got inside it.

Yes, but no sleeping bag, spare clothes, and evening footwear.

the trade off... between a tactical and a conventional pack.

You have lost me here. But I'd agree, if you are saying that the compartmentalization is great for organization but it is not as efficient in terms of volume or weight. That's why I like my Osprey Talon 33 - it has one main top loading compartment.

 

[Mike Savage]

. . . and I like my Osprey Talon 22 because it is a panel loader!

 

[trecile]

You might want to look at the Marmot Graviton 34. It weighs just over 1 kg, and is a panel loading pack. I have the women's version.

 

[Pong]

I hear you Pong, today was just a try, tomorrow i'll push harder. My water bladder is 100oz or 3 lt, but i fill up to 1,5lt. I can shave off a few grams but not much, as such is the nature of tactical packs. The whole point of this, is that the bag itself weighs 2,2kg empty!! and that's the trade off i was talking about, between a tactical and a conventional pack. Like i said i'll keep looking for a different bag, but for training i stick this one. the Atmos was a nightmare to me.

I just looked at a picture of the "motherlode" and it appears to only have a webbing belt rather than a proper weight supporting/transferring hip belt. I think you would be sacrificing a critical feature by choosing a bag without a true hip belt. No amount of "cool" or organization could make up for the loss of hip belt support - my humble opinion only, of course

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

Hey Pong, thanks for taking the time.... . Negative, on the waistbelt, you saw the newer model which has been lightened quite a bit, mostly in the area you mentioned. Mine has a padded waistbelt. I finally found the time to upload some pics, this should help. remember the pack is 2.2 kg empty, and that's where you start crippled. Nonetheless is not as uncofortable as one may think.

 

[Pong]

It does look burly! I'm relieved on your behalf to see that hip belt, and a nice lumbar pad too. Well, train on with the motherlode, but I would encourage you to continue the quest for a lighter total load. I sampled about 7 packs before my Camino - fully loaded, for long walks too, before finding my "perfect" fit. (I was able to order online or in stores with a free return policy). I tried out several sub 2# packs, but settled on the heavier North Face (about 3#) because it carried the weight so easily. Of course, it was only about 6 kilos total. I guess it helps I'm relatively small so my things are smaller and lighter. t2andreo mentioned that advantage. Good luck with the pack search and with lightening you total load (that water bladder looks really heavy). Remember, kilograms turn into kilos!

 

[cher99840]

I don't understand the question. You appear to have made up your mind that this is the bag for you. If it fits, feels good for day after day extended walks and holds all your stuff, then this is the bag for you. If not, you have lots of ideas for resolution of the missing factor.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

I don't understand the question. You appear to have made up your mind that this is the bag for you. If it fits, feels good for day after day extended walks and holds all your stuff, then this is the bag for you. If not, you have lots of ideas for resolution of the missing factor.

Hi cher, you have to read well, the question is clear. i would have gladly switched to the camelbak pursuit 21lt, a more conventional pack and was asking if the pack would allow enough capacity to transer my load into it while removing some stuff. But it is not the case, so as pong says, i'll use what i have now but will keep looking for a lighter alternative around. Hope you understood now.

 

[cher99840]

Hi cher, you have to read well, the question is clear. i would have gladly switched to the camelbak pursuit 21lt, a more conventional pack and was asking if the pack would allow enough capacity to transer my load into it while removing some stuff. But it is not the case, so as pong says, i'll use what i have now but will keep looking for a lighter alternative around. Hope you understood now.

So you were trying to decide between the Camelback 24l and the camelback 21l?? I did miss that. Sorry.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

It does look burly! I'm relieved on your behalf to see that hip belt, and a nice lumbar pad too. Well, train on with the motherlode, but I would encourage you to continue the quest for a lighter total load. I sampled about 7 packs before my Camino - fully loaded, for long walks too, before finding my "perfect" fit. (I was able to order online or in stores with a free return policy). I tried out several sub 2# packs, but settled on the heavier North Face (about 3#) because it carried the weight so easily. Of course, it was only about 6 kilos total. I guess it helps I'm relatively small so my things are smaller and lighter. t2andreo mentioned that advantage. Good luck with the pack search and with lightening you total load (that water bladder looks really heavy). Remember, kilograms turn into kilos!

A note on the bladders, they are not heavy at all!! the blue one is the civilian one and is 3 lt, the other is the mil-spec and is 2 lt and is the one i will use on the camino. There's no difference in the materials except for the fact that the blue mouth piece is easier and more convenient to use. However the other has a cover cap that is much more indicated for a month hike with dust, dirt and everything. ALso the hose is insulated

 

[t2andreo]

The comment was made early-on in this thread about your not liking the way in which a hip belt "grabbed" your hips in a sort of embrace. The purpose of the padded hip belt is to support most of the rucksack weigh on your HIPS, not your shoulders. Trust me when I say that you would rather be "hugged" about the hips than to have to deal with sore and aching shoulders at the end of a 30 km day.

A properly fitted rucksack, of ANY VOLUME, should ride on the upper Iliac Loop of your hip bones. That is the large upper loop of the skeleton. Note, that women always rest a young child there for support when holding the child with one hand. The reason is apparent. This bone acts like a shelf.

This is also the reason most better made rucksacks are designed to employ a padded hipbone to "hug" you at the top of the hip bones to support most of the rucksack's loaded weight. So, the "embrace" you do not like is there for your own good. That is also why the inside of the padded belt should be made of ventilated material or fine mesh so it wicks perspiration. The shoulder straps support the upper part of the rucksack and provide stability. They should not be the primary load carrying and weight-bearing point of contact with your body.

That said, rucksack volume is largely a function of what you choose to carry, and how large your gear and clothing is. When you walk the Camino, and in general, you need as much clothing and gear to walk a week as you do a month, or more.

This is similar to how you pack when playing tourist. Many times, I notice that when I pack a rolling suitcase for a four-day, long weekend, I bring as much stuff as I do when traveling for a month or more. The only difference is in the volume of medicines, nutritional supplements and special food items I must bring along, as a result of chronic health issues. But, that consideration is a highly individual and personal one, unique to each person.

I find that packing clothing changes to cover three days, plus what I am wearing does me just fine, almost indefinitely, as I will do laundry in the sink, shower, tub, or an onsite laundry if one is available to me.

My previous discussion about Osprey rucksacks indicated that the same rucksack in a different torso size S/M, as opposed to M/L, varied the load volume by two liters. In the case of my Osprey Kestrel 48 in M/L, the shorter torso size reduces the rucksack volume from 48 to 46 liters. I am a large person who wears large clothing. I found after four Caminos that I need about 46 liters for what I deign to carry.

Also, I do NOT use a water bladder as I use four, external half-liter water bottles clipped to the front of my harness, to shift 2 kilos of the overall carry weight from the back to the front to affect my center of gravity. This does work, and helps reduce fatigue...at least for me.

So, in the end, you COULD make do with a smaller than typical rucksack provided that the rucksack contained all the items you felt necessary to bring, while being comfortable to wear for long, hot, sweaty days. The final choice is a highly individual one. The two most "sacred" and personal items of gear for the Camino IMHO are your boots or shoes, and your rucksack. Those items you will wear every day, in all weather conditions. They must be suitable to purpose and extremely well-fitted, both to purpose and to your body.

So, if you are a more petite person, with smaller clothing, and less "mandatory overhead" due to injury, infirmity or age, you MIGHT just be able to make do with a sub-30-liter pack. I continue to be skeptical however.

In the end, each of us does his or her own Camino. The choice of rucksack, while extremely critical, is part of that individual choice.

I hope this helps.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

The comment was made early-on in this thread about your not liking the way in which a hip belt "grabbed" your hips in a sort of embrace. The purpose of the padded hip belt is to support most of the rucksack weigh on your HIPS, not your shoulders. Trust me when I say that you would rather be "hugged" about the hips than to have to deal with sore and aching shoulders at the end of a 30 km day.

A properly fitted rucksack, of ANY VOLUME, should ride on the upper Iliac Loop of your hip bones. That is the large upper loop of the skeleton. Note, that women always rest a young child there for support when holding the child with one hand. The reason is apparent. This bone acts like a shelf.

This is also the reason most better made rucksacks are designed to employ a padded hipbone to "hug" you at the top of the hip bones to support most of the rucksack's loaded weight. So, the "embrace" you do not like is there for your own good. That is also why the inside of the padded belt should be made of ventilated material or fine mesh so it wicks perspiration. The shoulder straps support the upper part of the rucksack and provide stability. They should not be the primary load carrying and weight-bearing point of contact with your body.

That said, rucksack volume is largely a function of what you choose to carry, and how large your gear and clothing is. When you walk the Camino, and in general, you need as much clothing and gear to walk a week as you do a month, or more.

This is similar to how you pack when playing tourist. Many times, I notice that when I pack a rolling suitcase for a four-day, long weekend, I bring as much stuff as I do when traveling for a month or more. The only difference is in the volume of medicines, nutritional supplements and special food items I must bring along, as a result of chronic health issues. But, that consideration is a highly individual and personal one, unique to each person.

I find that packing clothing changes to cover three days, plus what I am wearing does me just fine, almost indefinitely, as I will do laundry in the sink, shower, tub, or an onsite laundry if one is available to me.

My previous discussion about Osprey rucksacks indicated that the same rucksack in a different torso size S/M, as opposed to M/L, varied the load volume by two liters. In the case of my Osprey Kestrel 48 in M/L, the shorter torso size reduces the rucksack volume from 48 to 46 liters. I am a large person who wears large clothing. I found after four Caminos that I need about 46 liters for what I deign to carry.

Also, I do NOT use a water bladder as I use four, external half-liter water bottles clipped to the front of my harness, to shift 2 kilos of the overall carry weight from the back to the front to affect my center of gravity. This does work, and helps reduce fatigue...at least for me.

So, in the end, you COULD make do with a smaller than typical rucksack provided that the rucksack contained all the items you felt necessary to bring, while being comfortable to wear for long, hot, sweaty days. The final choice is a highly individual one. The two most "sacred" and personal items of gear for the Camino IMHO are your boots or shoes, and your rucksack. Those items you will wear every day, in all weather conditions. They must be suitable to purpose and extremely well-fitted, both to purpose and to your body.

So, if you are a more petite person, with smaller clothing, and less "mandatory overhead" due to injury, infirmity or age, you MIGHT just be able to make do with a sub-30-liter pack. I continue to be skeptical however.

In the end, each of us does his or her own Camino. The choice of rucksack, while extremely critical, is part of that individual choice.

I hope this helps.

Hi there
Nice and elaborate reply. I do thank you for that.
I have found an acceptable trade off in the Osprey Exos 38. As i write i have still in front of me both packs, the exos and the atmos 50 ag. I do understand what you are saying about the importance of the HIPS embracing, yet IMHO the exos accomplishes that but not constricting them, it also sits a bit higher, and i must confess the general feeling i get is a much better one. The exos is not only a lower capacity pack is also surprisingly roomy and confortable for weighing only 0,97kg.

Regarding water, with all due respect, i find the idea of having to use 4 external 0,5lt bottles horrifying. The way you hydrate yourself with a bladder is much more consistent, almost hands free and effective. . If you have a chance take a look at the new lumbar reservoir system by camelbak, which, at least for now, is the only company offering this system on several platforms. Carrying water in the lumbar region with the bladder sort of embracing the hips is an outstanding step forward in the environment of hydration. As i often say, having a 3lt bladder doesnt mean you have to fill it with 3lt of water. You put what you need for each walking day according to the water consuption needs (related to milage/temperature) and refill when needed. The only painful things abt the exos is that the bladder pouch is inside.I prefer my motherlode dedicated section, but then again, that adds weight.
thanks again

 

[Mark Lee]

Having walked the CF from SJPdP to SDC three times, once with a military style, or tactical pack and the other two times with a backpack designed for recreational hiking/walking, I can say without a doubt that the recreational style is far more suited for walking the CF, and I recommend one under 40L with some type of air space between your back and the pack. I also recommend a padded hip belt, a rain cover and external pouches to carry your water bottles in. Water fountains and such are numerous all along the CF. You really only need to carry one liter with you, and refill. I carried two 1/2 liter bottles with me on all my Caminos and it worked great.
The military style pack rests on your back with no vent or barrier between you and it. It gets soaked with sweat. Mine did. It got funky. Every few days when I could I would unload everything out of it and wash that portion to get the funky smell out. It's really designed to be worn in a military or tactical type situation. On top of some type of external carrier or body armor, and also in military field applications, sweaty packs and smelly bodies ain't an issue.
That pack doesn't appear to have a rigid frame. Another component that aids in the weight distribution and stability of the pack on your back.
Personally I wouldn't walk it again with a military/tactical type bag.
Packs like so many things on the CF are best kept simple. The CF is so uncomplicated. I could literally walk it again with one set of clothes, a school pack and a big garbage bag for a poncho with holes poked in it to protect me from the rain. Mind you, I'd be pretty grubby, funky and shabby when I hit Santiago, but it's doable.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

Agree. That is the reason why i finally ended up with an exos. My assault pack has though a rigid frame between the hydration compartment and the main storage compartment. It's unseen and is removable. It does get sweaty, and a lot, i'll give that to you. What i do however is train with the military one all the time. Then when i switch to the exos i REALLY feel the difference. And so should be on the CF.

 

[Mark Lee]

Agree. That is the reason why i finally ended up with an exos. My assault pack has though a rigid frame between the hydration compartment and the main storage compartment. It's unseen and is removable. It does get sweaty, and a lot, i'll give that to you. What i do however is train with the military one all the time. Then when i switch to the exos i REALLY feel the difference. And so should be on the CF.

That Exos looks like the perfect pack for walking the CF.

 

[t2andreo]

Hi there
Nice and elaborate reply. I do thank you for that.
I have found an acceptable trade off in the Osprey Exos 38. As i write i have still in front of me both packs, the exos and the atmos 50 ag. I do understand what you are saying about the importance of the HIPS embracing, yet IMHO the exos accomplishes that but not constricting them, it also sits a bit higher, and i must confess the general feeling i get is a much better one. The exos is not only a lower capacity pack is also surprisingly roomy and confortable for weighing only 0,97kg.

Regarding water, i find the idea of having to use 4 external 0,5lt bottles horrifying. The way you hydrate yourself with a bladder is much more consistent, almost hands free and effective. . If you have a chance take a look at the new lumbar reservoir system by camelbak, which, at least for now, is the only company offering this system on several platforms. Carrying water in the lumbar region with the bladder sort of embracing the hips is an outstanding step forward in the environment of hydration. As i often say, having a 3lt bladder doesnt mean you have to fill it with 3lt of water. You put what you need for each walking day according to the water consuption needs (related to milage/temperature) and refill when needed. The only painful things abt the exos is that the bladder pouch is inside.I prefer my motherlode dedicated section, but then again, that adds weight.
thanks again

==========

This is why I did state that, in the end, the choice of rucksack was one of the most important and personal choices you make wen gearing up for a Camino.

Similarly, the choice of a water-toting system is as personal and indivudal to suit your needs. I do not HAVE to use 4-external half-liter bottles. I CHOOSE to use them, as it suits MY needs. Here is why...

My personal health issues compel me to ingest a flavored, protein powder / water solution every four hours. I have one for "breakfast" before I start my day's walking. But, that still leaves one pre-mix that hangs on the rucksack front harness for later consumption, after 3-4 hours.

Then, after a couple hours walking, I perspire enough even on a rainy and raw day to need an electrolyte replacement after a couple of hours. Plain water is not enough for my personal situation. So, a pre-mix and flavored electrolyte solution hangs in a second half-liter bottle on my front harness.

Finally, I start-off in the morning carrying two half-liter bottles of plain water, for drinking as I feel the need, and for emergency use to rinse a wound (mine or another pilgrim's). All of these four bottles are readily accessible while I am walking. I do not need to stop to remove water from a side rucksack pocket. I did on my first Camino, and it was a genuine pain.

As these bottles become empty, I rinse and refill them with known potable water from safe sources. However, I only refill the empties according to the remaining time and distance I have to cover that day.

All this said, IF I were younger, did not have the health issues I just happen to have, and could drink water from the many fuentes that do have potable water, I might use a different water carry method. I envy folks who can drink puddle water and not get the "trots." But, I have a sensitive gut...

If I did not have he dietary and health issues that I happen to have, I would likely reduce to only two, half-liter bottles. But I still prefer this method to a bladder.

On my first Camino, I did have a 2-liter water bladder in my Osprey Kestrel pack. It lasted four days, until Pamplona, where I mailed it down the road to Ivar at Santiago.

For me, it was inconvenient, because:

• First, it weighed more on my back than hung on my front harness. Even empty, the bladder system weighed 11 ounces (@ 312 grams).
• Second, keeping it clean daily was problematic, and I am a fussy about hygiene of all types, but especially drinking water. After death, IMHO, perhaps the absolute WORST thing that can occur while on Camino is any kind of gastrointestinal illness. 'Nuff said on that point...
• Third, it did not find my "medical-need profile" for mixing protein or electrolyte solutions with water. Sure, I could have added the powders to the bladder, but then would have a sole-purpose solution in the bladder. Then we are back to the maintenance and cleaning issue...

So, in the end, my solution works for me. It may, or may not work for you. But, regardless of the solution you ultimately choose, just be comfortable with it. That is all that matters.

I hope this helps.

 

[Malabar Circle AS]

==========

This is why I did state that, in the end, the choice of rucksack was one of the most important and personal choices you make wen gearing up for a Camino.

Similarly, the choice of a water-toting system is as personal and indivudal to suit your needs. I do not HAVE to use 4-external half-liter bottles. I CHOOSE to use them, as it suits MY needs. Here is why...

My personal health issues compel me to ingest a flavored, protein powder / water solution every four hours. I have one for "breakfast" before I start my day's walking. But, that still leaves one pre-mix that hangs on the rucksack front harness for later consumption, after 3-4 hours.

Then, after a couple hours walking, I perspire enough even on a rainy and raw day to need an electrolyte replacement after a couple of hours. Plain water is not enough for my personal situation. So, a pre-mix and flavored electrolyte solution hangs in a second half-liter bottle on my front harness.

Finally, I start-off in the morning carrying two half-liter bottles of plain water, for drinking as I feel the need, and for emergency use to rinse a wound (mine or another pilgrim's). All of these four bottles are readily accessible while I am walking. I do not need to stop to remove water from a side rucksack pocket. I did on my first Camino, and it was a genuine pain.

As these bottles become empty, I rinse and refill them with known potable water from safe sources. However, I only refill the empties according to the remaining time and distance I have to cover that day.

All this said, IF I were younger, did not have the health issues I just happen to have, and could drink water from the many fuentes that do have potable water, I might use a different water carry method. I envy folks who can drink puddle water and not get the "trots." But, I have a sensitive gut...

If I did not have he dietary and health issues that I happen to have, I would likely reduce to only two, half-liter bottles. But I still prefer this method to a bladder.

On my first Camino, I did have a 2-liter water bladder in my Osprey Kestrel pack. It lasted four days, until Pamplona, where I mailed it down the road to Ivar at Santiago.

For me, it was inconvenient, because:

• First, it weighed more on my back than hung on my front harness. Even empty, the bladder system weighed 11 ounces (@ 312 grams).
• Second, keeping it clean daily was problematic, and I am a fussy about hygiene of all types, but especially drinking water. After death, IMHO, perhaps the absolute WORST thing that can occur while on Camino is any kind of gastrointestinal illness. 'Nuff said on that point...
• Third, it did not find my "medical-need profile" for mixing protein or electrolyte solutions with water. Sure, I could have added the powders to the bladder, but then would have a sole-purpose solution in the bladder. Then we are back to the maintenance and cleaning issue...

So, in the end, my solution works for me. It may, or may not work for you. But, regardless of the solution you ultimately choose, just be comfortable with it. That is all that matters.

I hope this helps.

Hi there,
I have some seriously sensitive guts as well due to past issues with oysters in Brazil back in 2003. Problems lasted years.
Ok, here's what i found. Any other element outside of water in a bladder is crusing for a bruising, especially sugar based compounds as they tend to form fungi/ mildew quickly. I believe camelbak (dont know about osprey) has defense against that, however i improvised a personal system that includes 2 silver discs to be kept inside the baldder in contact with water. silver inhibits bacteria proliferation. Sometimes i keep water in the bladder for 4 or 5 days, and when i drink it still is fine. This also reduces the amount of maintenance drastically.

Regarding fountains along the way in the CF, there has been rumors that some in more, so to speak, remote areas are contaminated, and quite a few people got diarrhea, except for the fact that it was actually dyssenteria. Their walk ended there.
Due to this, i seldom drink straight from the fountains, but filter it with a sawyer mini, which is down to 0,2 micron, enough to eliminate gyardia, escherichia coli, salmonella, typhus etc...etc...Sometimes i use a lifestraw too, it can be seen in the pics i posted the other day, if you look well you will see the structural matrix filter inside the blue bottle. Works amazingly well, i used it in tropical countries with non potable water.

The bad news: Placing the bladder filled inside the pack is a pain in the ass, hence many people prefer to do with bottles. I understand that. With the exos is even more difficult, space is limited, also due to the fact that the pack is curved so that you have the mesh net element in a straight position in contact with your back but not with the pack. When you put the bladder in a curved space that takes even more room, and inevitably you have to remove some stuff before doing this operation. This brings us back to my camelbak, where there's a dedicated zipped compartment, you can refill in a heartbeat.
This unfortunately sounds like the infamous too short blanket. If you have a very breathable net back panel like in the exos you can't have an external bladder pouch. The same is true for the atmos. We can't have it all.

 

[t2andreo]

Thanks for the added information.

Actually, I do carry a Sawyer LifeStraw for emergency use, but have never used it. The only reason I can continue to justify carrying it is it's very low weight. That is one big reason why the bladder was sold off. Besides the maintenance / hygiene issues, I could not get past the fact that the Osprey 2-liter bladder system for my Osprey Kestrel rucksack still weighs 11 oz / 312 grams when empty and dry. That is too much weight for a single use item.

I will likely remain with my multiple, reusable and recyclable bottles hanging from Nite-Ize "Clip n' Sip" clip-on bottle hangers. But I wish you well using the internal bladder.

Thanks again.

 

[VikingWarrior]

I use a Talon 22 in small/medium size which is actually 20ltrs and carry 10-15 lbs depending on how much water and food I have with me at the time. I don't have much room left over for more volume and don't think it would be nearly as comfortable with 25 lbs. When I chose the pack I gathered all that I wanted to pack and measured it for weight and volume.

Good luck with your decision.

Mike

I walked the Camino Portuguese a few months ago with a half empty Talon 44 because the Talon 22 was just a wee bit too small for my gear. It weighed 6.1 kg (13.44 pounds) without food or water.

Now that Osprey came out with a much lighter Talon 26 (24 liters) and I replaced some of my heavier layers with ultralight alternatives I still have the same number of items packed and it weighs 3.9 kg (8.59 pounds) without food or water.

I was aiming for under 5.0 kg