3900 pack capacity question

[rooster_c]

I just wanted to run these numbers by the people here and make sure they're accurate. From the chart on the store website, it looks like the 3900 bag by itself without a talon is going to be about 4200 cu in. A talon offers about 1000 cu in? The multi lid, according to the video, offers about 400. Doing the math, a Unaweep 3900 with talon and lid ends up being a 5500ish cu in pack! 90 liters! Is that correct?

If so, that's pretty much an expedition sized pack and bigger than I can ever imagine myself using. For most backpackers, it seems like a 3900 is enough room for anything they'll ever do. Or am I missing something? I think since I'm not a hunter I just have different requirements for how much gear I need, because it seems like people talk about the 3900 like it's small.

[Philip.AK]

It's not huge. Definitely not 90 liters. For me it packs like a 60 liter bag (though every manufacturer has their own magic formula for adding up the pockets, so getting a volume number to compare is basically impossible).

I would tend to discount what the accessory pockets add to the volume since they get flattened by the curved exterior of the main bag they wrap around and that limits their own expansion.

Inside my 3900 Unaweep I can get 5 days worth of food, my light camping kit, and my packraft. The paddles go into the sleeve behind the talon. Nothing gets strapped on the outside of the bag (besides the talon). My Alpacka Yukon Yak with inflatable PFD equals nearly a week's worth of food (bulk, weight) for comparison purposes, so you could probably pack for 2 weeks if you are into light camping and minimal kit and just hiking in a 3900. Camp shoes, a camp chair, extra clothes and such will eat up the volume fast, so I'm talking 2 weeks with the bare bones kit and no luxuries.

[rooster_c]

[rooster_c]

Philip.AK, are you using the talon and lid?

[Philip.AK]

Only the talon, no lid.

This video shows the setup I use pretty well:

[Nico]

I have a 4800 Unaweep. It's way too big for most of my usual trip needs. I've only used it so far for a couple of heavily loaded trail work projects that required me to haul in all of my own water for a couple of days in addition to tools, helmet, food and usual UL backpacking gear. Even still the 4800 was way more than enough space.

Fortunately the talon compression panel and the roll top closure of the packbag do a good job of helping to take up the "slack" in the bag and compress the load down to whatever you've got in there. Since I wanted a pack for hauling the occasional heavy and sometimes bulky loads (whether it's winter snow camping, trail work tools, surfing gear, camera gear, etc.), I initially went with the 4800 packbag.

Now, since I've confirmed my satisfaction with the Unaweep system, I've invested in a smaller 3900 packbag (which should arrive soon) as well. I expect this will be used for most of my trips in the future. It's still probably larger than what I need for some trips (like a quick, warm weather overnighter), for which I still have a simple frameless pack for really light loads.

[gustafsj]

I'm one of the ones that said a 3900 is too small. The main reason is that I am essentially carrying gear for myself and two kids. Three sleeping bags and extra kids clothes take up a lot of volume.

The second reason is that it was a little small for my -20F down Marmot Col bag and other winter gear. I think I could have made it work for that, but would have meant there would have been gear strapped to the outside which I like to avoid if I can.

If it weren't for those factors, the 3900 would have been more than sufficient. I would consider myself an ultralight backpacker, but mostly go out with kids these days. I love to take the kids backpacking and they love to be in the great outdoors!

I do have a 4800 on order and am excited to put it to the test this year.!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk