]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by machco7 — Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:05 am
]]>
I personally would not like a shorter packbag hanging off of our frame for several reasons. First, that packbag is going to work ok for one purpose (carrying a bear can) but not as well for other purposes. Second, you've got good options that work well with the standard equipment. My theory is to always take the low hanging fruit first, and in this case I see your best options as:
1. Get a 6300. You can probably put the bear can inside the packbag, along with your kids gear. If you ever hike without a bear can you can put your gear, your kids gear, and possibly your kids inside the packbag.
2. Compress the bear can on the outside of a standard packbag. Per Kevin's photos.
3. Compress the bear can at the top of a standard packbag. Depending on the percentage weight vs. your total loadout this may be a better option. Ideally I want 70% of my load weight at mid back level or higher, and as close to my back as possible.
In summary, don't totally discount the standard bags. Oftentimes we envision how we will use gear and go down one path in thought, then when we actually use it we realize that what we pictured doesn't work as well as something else.
Statistics: Posted by Nathan C — Thu Apr 24, 2014 5:57 am
]]>
]]>
It would be time of our head seamstress who is more expensive
Anything you wanted that was really different than what we already do
If it was mostly a frame attached mini bag that stopped at bottom compression and used out top down zipper and roll top it would not be terribly expensive. We just need a feature set and CI to give a quote really
You can send me a pm or email and we can continue
Statistics: Posted by kevin_t — Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:33 pm
]]>
Just looking at your picures, it looks like the zipper access would be the only obstacle to executing my vision. So I think the only modification I would need is to reverse the zipper direction so that it zips from the bottom up. How much would it cost for that modification?
I was also curious if there is a height difference between the 3900 and the 4800? If so, how much? It looks like the 6300 achieves much of its larger capacity through a wider girth.
Statistics: Posted by machco7 — Tue Apr 22, 2014 5:21 pm
]]>
]]>
Note this a 3900 bag on a 24 inch frame.
Alternatively, I could have used the top compression strap to go down to the bear canister and used the center and lower strap to compress and go across the body.
Statistics: Posted by kevin_t — Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:09 pm
]]>
Statistics: Posted by kevin_t — Tue Apr 22, 2014 4:03 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>