Hydration pack for road cycling

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:

> It is certainly possible to construct a strawman
> that would justify the use of a backpack, but does that make it the
> best solution to offer when someone asks about how to carry stuff on a
> bike?

Once again, one merely has to read what the OP /actually wrote/ to see the
flaw in your rather silly argument. (Hint: he or she DID NOT ASK "how to
carry stuff on a bike".)

I think you're just an anti-packite!

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> He didnt win and I wouldnt emulate him .He's so skinny and looks not
> so masculine

So you like 'em masculine, eh, backpacker?!?

What a maroon...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Kovie wrote:
> "sunderland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> What about road cyclists with 16 pound carbon fibre race bikes? No
>> eyelets for racks (thank goodness), no way of clamping anything to
>> the bike. Sure, if you go touring on a regular basis you'll have
>> racks and panniers and all sorts of other **** bolted to your bike -
>> but for an occasional ride, why NOT carry the stuff on your back? On
>> your back it's sprung weight, on the bike it's unsprung weight, so
>> there's a handling advantage over racks or panniers.
>>
>> I like the Camelback Rogue myself (although it's slightly smaller
>> than the OP is looking for). After a few minutes you don't notice
>> it's there any more. You can carry food and get to it while riding
>> (in the mesh pouch), so you can both eat and drink without stopping.
>> Works both on-road and off. Carries the equivilent of 4+ water
>> bottles. Carries a pump and tools. What's not to like?
>>
>
> Exactly. While I don't have a high-end carbon bike, I do have a
> fairly nice Ti bike with no eyelets for panniers and such. I could
> get a seat post rack. I understand they even make ones that can
> accept panniers. Or, I could try to figure out a c-clamp solution so
> I could use the pannier rack I already have (which used to go on my
> now dissassembled previous road bike). Or I could mount a nice
> frou-frou wicker basket to my handlebars in case I want to carry Toto
> around as I ride to market...
> But that's not the point. As you correctly surmised, this is for
> OCCASIONAL use, not every day. Obviously, if I needed to lug this
> much stuff every time I went out riding, I'd do best to mount
> panniers on my bike and keep the weight (and fatigue) off my back.
> That's a no-brainer. Most times I go riding, though, I can fit
> everything I need in either my jersey pockets or seat pack. E.g.
> tools, tube, patch kit, a couple of branola bars, etc.
> Every once in a while, though, I'd like to be able to ride 25-30
> miles to some destination where I can relax and read a book for a
> couple of hours, maybe take some pictures, eat something that
> doesn't come in foil wrap, etc. And for that, panniers are overkill,
> and jersey pockets and a seat pack not enough. Thus, the need for a
> modestly-sized pack. And since I tend to sweat a lot and may not
> always be near a source of potable water, it might as well be a
> hydration pack.
> Put another way, what I really need is a hydration pack, and what I
> want is one that can also carry a few things that won't fit into
> jersey pockets and a seat pack, and for which panniers would be
> overkill. Seemed pretty simple when I made my OP. ;-)

It was.

SSTW (or is it App? Can't keep 'em straight) just likes to argue and/or
provoke.

He (or she) will TELL you what you want, darn it!

Let us know what you decide (unless it's panniers).

:-D

 

[H M Leary]

Backpacks and helmets!

Wear em or don't... who cares??

Personnaly I ride with a Camelbak Rocket. The one with the curved
plastic insert. Nice airflow.
The whole thing weighs about 6-7 lbs with pump tubes tools etc etc etc.

Had a nice "discussion" with an engineer about carring 4 lbs of water on
my back.

I **** bigger than that! ( Jack Palance, City Slickers ) before each
ride so rolling weight stays the same...

Now if I can just figure out how to cool down with all that aluminium
foil I gotta wear under my helmet. Don't want those aliens reding my
brain waves...if I had any to start with...

I am going riding! To hell with the lightening!
Carbon Fiber is an insulator, right?

HAND

 

[Johhny Two Pedals]

Kovie wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Road cyclists DO NOT use hydration packs/backpacks!!!!! You will look
> > like a DUI rider. There are bottle cages to fit every bike.
> >
>
> I could care less if I don't have that wannabe Lance look down. ,
<<<<<<< EL SNIPO >>>>>>>>

To respond to your ORIGINAL QUESTION:

I have a CamelBack Rogue that fills my needs admirably. It's smallish
and sits well on my back, does not hamper access to my jersey pockets,
provides enough water for a 75 mile ride (YMMV. I carry tubes and a
repair kit in a small under-saddle bag, so the Rogue provides just
enough cargo space for a couple of extra items (camera, keys, wallet
etc).

The rogue also is small enough to fit UNDER a jacket or fleece in the
winter (although you may find the urge to perform bad Quasimodo
imitations while off the bike).

I must admit that I was hesitant about wearing a Bag o'water on my
back, as I really don't like the instability of carrying weight up high
(I will carry a backpack on a bike only when absolutely nesecarry).
However, the Rogue sits so close to the body that I often forget it's
there. I count it as one of the best investments I have made ....

The plus side effect is that since water is so close at hand, I tend to
drink (or at least rinse my mouth out) more often.

Good Luck

 

[John Everett]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:54:10 GMT, "Kovie" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"John Everett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On 21 Jun 2005 12:49:09 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>Road cyclists DO NOT use hydration packs/backpacks!!!!! You will look
>>>like a DUI rider. There are bottle cages to fit every bike.
>>
>> As a road cyclist (five road bikes, one MTB), I own a CamelBak MULE.
>>
>> My girlfried just bought a Blowfish, and if it was available when I
>> bought the MULE I might have oped for that model.
>
>When in its non-expanded configuration, does she find the Blowfish to be
>pretty compact and unobtrusive?

When zipped up the Blowfish actually seems to be a bit more compact
than the MULE.

>Is the lack of cinch straps a problem, or an asset (i.e. no flopping around)?

I don't know what you mean by cinch straps, but the Blowfish "Includes
Slider sternum strap and removable waistbelt" (quote from CamelBak web
site).

>And do you find the MULE to be a bit too small sometimes while road riding?

I can honestly say I've never found the MULE to be too small. As I
implied before I've even used it as a day pack while hiking, carrying
lunch and rain gear in addition to my first aid kit.

>I'm probably going to choose between
>these two so this would help (I suspect that the HAWG would be overkill for
>my riding needs and be too close in size to the larger pack I just bought).

I agree, the HAWG does seem like overkill for cycling.


jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

 

[Robin Hubert]

Kovie wrote:
> "sunderland" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>What about road cyclists with 16 pound carbon fibre race bikes? No
>>eyelets for racks (thank goodness), no way of clamping anything to the
>>bike. Sure, if you go touring on a regular basis you'll have racks and
>>panniers and all sorts of other **** bolted to your bike - but for an
>>occasional ride, why NOT carry the stuff on your back? On your back
>>it's sprung weight, on the bike it's unsprung weight, so there's a
>>handling advantage over racks or panniers.
>>
>>I like the Camelback Rogue myself (although it's slightly smaller than
>>the OP is looking for). After a few minutes you don't notice it's there
>>any more. You can carry food and get to it while riding (in the mesh
>>pouch), so you can both eat and drink without stopping. Works both
>>on-road and off. Carries the equivilent of 4+ water bottles. Carries a
>>pump and tools. What's not to like?
>>
>
>
> Exactly. While I don't have a high-end carbon bike, I do have a fairly nice
> Ti bike with no eyelets for panniers and such. I could get a seat post rack.
> I understand they even make ones that can accept panniers. Or, I could try
> to figure out a c-clamp solution so I could use the pannier rack I already
> have (which used to go on my now dissassembled previous road bike). Or I
> could mount a nice frou-frou wicker basket to my handlebars in case I want
> to carry Toto around as I ride to market...
>
> But that's not the point. As you correctly surmised, this is for OCCASIONAL
> use, not every day. Obviously, if I needed to lug this much stuff every time
> I went out riding, I'd do best to mount panniers on my bike and keep the
> weight (and fatigue) off my back. That's a no-brainer. Most times I go
> riding, though, I can fit everything I need in either my jersey pockets or
> seat pack. E.g. tools, tube, patch kit, a couple of branola bars, etc.
>
> Every once in a while, though, I'd like to be able to ride 25-30 miles to
> some destination where I can relax and read a book for a couple of hours,
> maybe take some pictures, eat something that doesn't come in foil wrap,
> etc. And for that, panniers are overkill, and jersey pockets and a seat pack
> not enough. Thus, the need for a modestly-sized pack. And since I tend to
> sweat a lot and may not always be near a source of potable water, it might
> as well be a hydration pack.
>
> Put another way, what I really need is a hydration pack, and what I want is
> one that can also carry a few things that won't fit into jersey pockets and
> a seat pack, and for which panniers would be overkill. Seemed pretty simple
> when I made my OP. ;-)
>

HAWG. Keep in mind that you won't get normal sized books into it. Also
keep in mind 100oz of water is alot. You will tire of carrying that
much stuff.

If you don't want to carry all the water weight on your back, fill two
large bottles and carry them on your bike. Use a regular book bag or
courier bag for your books and things.


Robin Hubert

 

[[email protected]]

Kovie wrote:
> And I think I was quite clear about why I'd like a pack. But if you
> have a non-aesthetic point to make, I'd love to hear it.

Well, it was *not* clear in your original post, but you did make it
clear later, after I had already suggested bike mounting.

Do what you like; if it was me, I'd find a way to get that stuff off my
back. You're loading yourself up for your longest rides. If I *had* to
use a backpack for all that stuff I would only do it for shorter rids;
for longer ones I'd find something more comfortable.

 

[Matt O'Toole]

[email protected] wrote:

> Kovie wrote:

>> I recently purchased a fairly large "cycling" hydration pack, the
>> Deuter TransAlp 25, which I intend to use mostly for long day hikes,
>> and occasionally for commuting or lugging books and such to a local
>> cafe or park on my road bike. It's a really nice pack, but way too
>> big (1500 cubic inches) for long day rides, and I'd like to get a
>> second, smaller pack for such use. I'd like to be able to pack some
>> food, a light shell or microfleece jersey, a paperback to have
>> something to read at the turnaround point (I'm big on destination
>> riding), a small digital camera, my callet, cell phone, small first
>> aid kit, etc. It would also do double-duty for short hikes and long
>> urban walks. I'd like a 100oz reservoir, since I tend to sweat a lot.
>>
>> I've been eyeing several Camelbaks, especially the MULE, Blowfish
>> and HAWG. I like the compact size of the MULE, but am concerned that
>> it might be a tad too small, and that if I packed its various
>> expandable pockets, it would become unwieldy and shift around. I
>> like the capacity of the HAWG and its cinch straps, but am concerned
>> that even with these it might be a bit too big for long rides. As
>> for the Blowfish, it seems an ideal compromise, expecially with its
>> expandability, but it struck me as less rugged than the other two.
>
> I think the MULE sounds appropriate for anyone who is willing to carry
> that much stuff on his or her back for that length of time on a
> bicycle.
>
> I think that if you need to carry that much stuff you should mount it
> on your bicycle. I would also look to frame mount that much water, as
> I recently suggested in another thread.

I agree, especially on the road. It helps to get the weight off the bike while
riding technical trails, but on the road it doesn't matter. Might as well keep
it off your back, which makes a big difference in being able to keep cool. I
suggest investigating third and fourth water bottle holders, saddle bags, etc.

Matt O.

 

[[email protected]]

Neil Brooks wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >sunderland wrote:
> >> What about road cyclists with 16 pound carbon fibre race bikes? No
> >> eyelets for racks (thank goodness), no way of clamping anything to the
> >> bike.
> >
> >Are there really people with this kind of bike who would go for
> >frequent long rides with all this stuff on their backs? Probably, but
> >not many, I'd guess.
>
> What if your guess is just flat-a$$ wrong?

It's not really a guess. I don't see many if any people loaded down
with that much stuff in their camelbaks, and I do my riding where I see
hundreds of cyclists on weekends (a very busy bike trail).

> >It is certainly possible to construct a strawman
> >that would justify the use of a backpack, but does that make it the
> >best solution to offer when someone asks about how to carry stuff on a
> >bike?
>
> Lots of people are buying them. Lots of people are using them. Few
> seem to be complaining about them.

Probably because few people are using them for carrying so much stuff.
Still the number using camelbaks just for water is small compared to
the numbers using water bottles, based on what I've seen, probably no
more than 25% among serious cyclists, even less if you count the people
out for a little weekend ride of a few miles.

> You're swimming up a pretty powerful stream. If you're enjoying
> yourself, then--by all means--continue.

The marketing of those "hydration systems" or "backpacks full of water"
as I would describe them, has been pretty successful to cyclists.
However. applying my real life sampling to this ng, most road cyclists
here don't use camelbaks for water, and even fewer would use them for
carrying as much stuff as the OP is planning. I think that a discussion
like this is guaranteed to find those few, though.

I stand by my advice: bike mounted water bottles and luggage. It just
doesn't make much sense to me to have flesh and bones bearing a load
when it could be metal (or carbon) and nylon, and the longer the ride,
the less sense it makes.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Road cyclists DO NOT use hydration packs/backpacks!!!!! You will look
> like a DUI rider. There are bottle cages to fit every bike.

I do, ever since I found one that keeps my back dry and doesn't catch
the wind.

http://www.hydrapak.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=37

1. Works great. I drink more often when using it than when using
bottles and my back stays dry.

2. This way I can fill one water bottle with liquid food. This works
much better than solid food and also frees me from carrying said solid
food in a pocket or ***** pak or cramming it in my underseat bag -- and
also from unwrapping it while riding.

The benefits, therefore, are three-fold. As for the looks, I could not
possibly care less. Non-cyclists don't know the difference, and other
cyclists are usually male. When the day comes that a beautiful babe
rejects my advances because of my hydration pak I'll reconsider.

dkl

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> > >Are there really people with this kind of bike who would go for
> > >frequent long rides with all this stuff on their backs? Probably, but
> > >not many, I'd guess.

Commuters, dude.

> It's not really a guess. I don't see many if any people loaded down
> with that much stuff in their camelbaks, and I do my riding where I see
> hundreds of cyclists on weekends (a very busy bike trail).

So it is worse than a guess - it is derived from a skewed sample set.
One doesn't need to carry loads when joyriding, which is what bike
trails and weekends are for. One needs to carry loads when one is
using the bike as transportation, in which case one is on the street
during the week.

> I stand by my advice: bike mounted water bottles and luggage. It just
> doesn't make much sense to me to have flesh and bones bearing a load
> when it could be metal (or carbon) and nylon, and the longer the ride,
> the less sense it makes.

Makes a lot of sense. Your back is strong and a lod of a few tens of
pounds in a backpack just aint no thang. The only problem is the
sweaty back. But put the load on the bike and it will be much less
pleasant to ride.

I think most commuters use backpacks. No need for a hydration pak on a
commute although I use one by hydrapak anyway because that brand has
models which ride an inch or two off your back so you stay dry.
Haven't put water in the bladder yet and probably never will.

dkl

 

[[email protected]]

On 22 Jun 2005 12:34:09 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

> . . . I use one by hydrapak anyway because that brand has
>models which ride an inch or two off your back so you stay dry.
>Haven't put water in the bladder yet and probably never will.
>
>dkl

Dear DKL,

That's an interesting detail about the Hydrapak riding above
the back of the rider.

I hadn't realized that the Hydrapak uses what they call "Air
Scoop ventilation":

http://www.hydrapak.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=37

This comfort feature might explain why the Hydrapak faintly
increased wind drag in the wind-tunnel test below, when
normally a reduction in wind drag would be expected from
filling in the low-pressure turbulent zone behind a rider's
back:

http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html

There being so many models, I'll just ask if you know
whether the CamelBack brand models have a similar
off-the-back feature, or sit flush instead on the rider's
back.

Thanks,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > >Are there really people with this kind of bike who would go for
> > > >frequent long rides with all this stuff on their backs? Probably, but
> > > >not many, I'd guess.
>
> Commuters, dude.

Dude, I see lots of commuters going the other direction on my morning
rides; some of them have backpacks but not a noticeable majority. And
very, very few of them are doing their daily commutes on "this kind of
bike"- an expensive carbon frame. If I were to generalize, I would say
that a plurality of commuters have bikes that are optimized for
commuting, including a number of faired recumbents.

> > It's not really a guess. I don't see many if any people loaded down
> > with that much stuff in their camelbaks, and I do my riding where I see
> > hundreds of cyclists on weekends (a very busy bike trail).
>
> So it is worse than a guess - it is derived from a skewed sample set.
> One doesn't need to carry loads when joyriding, which is what bike
> trails and weekends are for.

********. The W&OD trail is 45 miles long, paved the entire way and
used by hardcore commuters, racers and distance tourists. It's a very
large sampling of a broad cross section of cyclists riding a moderate
to long distance, probably as large as any place in the entire country.
The only cyclists I can think of not sampled are messengers.

> One needs to carry loads when one is
> using the bike as transportation, in which case one is on the street
> during the week.

Like I said, the shorter the ride, the less obtrusive a backpack would
be. I'd probably use one myself for a short commute within the city.

> > I stand by my advice: bike mounted water bottles and luggage. It just
> > doesn't make much sense to me to have flesh and bones bearing a load
> > when it could be metal (or carbon) and nylon, and the longer the ride,
> > the less sense it makes.
>
> Makes a lot of sense. Your back is strong and a lod of a few tens of
> pounds in a backpack just aint no thang. The only problem is the
> sweaty back. But put the load on the bike and it will be much less
> pleasant to ride.

Less pleasant than what? Nothing? yes; on your back? no.

> I think most commuters use backpacks.

Maybe they do, my sampling does not include many intra-city commuters
(most of them I see are riding Target-style MTBs, no backpack), it's
mostly inter-urban commuters. But the OP is not a commuter. I don't
think most commuters ride CF bikes. Another strawman.

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2005 12:34:09 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > . . . I use one by hydrapak anyway because that brand has
> >models which ride an inch or two off your back so you stay dry.
> >Haven't put water in the bladder yet and probably never will.
> >
> >dkl
>
> Dear DKL,
>
> That's an interesting detail about the Hydrapak riding above
> the back of the rider.
>
> I hadn't realized that the Hydrapak uses what they call "Air
> Scoop ventilation":
>
> http://www.hydrapak.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=37
>
> This comfort feature might explain why the Hydrapak faintly
> increased wind drag in the wind-tunnel test below, when
> normally a reduction in wind drag would be expected from
> filling in the low-pressure turbulent zone behind a rider's
> back:
>
> http://www.slowtwitch.com/mainheadings/techctr/waterbottles.html
>
> There being so many models, I'll just ask if you know
> whether the CamelBack brand models have a similar
> off-the-back feature, or sit flush instead on the rider's
> back.

Hi Carl,

No I sure don't. I got my airsccop a year or so ago during a time when
Supergo and Nashbar and Performance were selling them dirt cheap.
Those places stopped carrying them or something. So the tiny airscoop
was $15 and the huge snowstorm was $30.

Regarding the wind drag, it is a bit more complicated than that, no?
Not to disagree with your statement, but I would guess that the size
and shape and smoothness of outside surface also affect wind drag.
Also, how level the rider's back is, and what vacuum exists behind the
helmet. The airscoop is tiny and smooth and teardrop shaped. The
snowstorm is huge and pokes up above my shoulders and I hate the
resulting 2mph loss (estimate) but other carrying solutions will have
that problem too. I saw a third model with the off-your-back feature,
which is smaller than the snowstorm, at a bike swap meet, but it was
$45 so I'll buy one of those as soon as I find it for cheep.

dkl

 

[Kovie]

"John Everett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 03:54:10 GMT, "Kovie" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>"John Everett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On 21 Jun 2005 12:49:09 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>>Road cyclists DO NOT use hydration packs/backpacks!!!!! You will look
>>>>like a DUI rider. There are bottle cages to fit every bike.
>>>
>>> As a road cyclist (five road bikes, one MTB), I own a CamelBak MULE.
>>>
>>> My girlfried just bought a Blowfish, and if it was available when I
>>> bought the MULE I might have oped for that model.
>>
>>When in its non-expanded configuration, does she find the Blowfish to be
>>pretty compact and unobtrusive?
>
> When zipped up the Blowfish actually seems to be a bit more compact
> than the MULE.

Nice to know.

>>Is the lack of cinch straps a problem, or an asset (i.e. no flopping
>>around)?
>
> I don't know what you mean by cinch straps, but the Blowfish "Includes
> Slider sternum strap and removable waistbelt" (quote from CamelBak web
> site).

I don't know the technical term but I was referring to the straps on the
front of the pack (i.e. the side where you put your stuff, not the side that
goes against your back) that can be strapped down to secure the contents of
a half-full pack so they're not loose. Most larger Camelbak packs have these
(including the Mule and Hawg), but not the Blowfish. But they do make for a
rather cluttered look and would probably flutter around while riding.

>>And do you find the MULE to be a bit too small sometimes while road
>>riding?
>
> I can honestly say I've never found the MULE to be too small. As I
> implied before I've even used it as a day pack while hiking, carrying
> lunch and rain gear in addition to my first aid kit.
>
>>I'm probably going to choose between
>>these two so this would help (I suspect that the HAWG would be overkill
>>for
>>my riding needs and be too close in size to the larger pack I just
>>bought).
>
> I agree, the HAWG does seem like overkill for cycling.

Of course, another poster just recommended the Hawg as the one to get. ;-)

> jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

Anyway, although I disagree with posters who insist that "real" road
cyclists don't use hydration packs, I can see how a too-big pack can be more
trouble than it's worth. The trick is finding a pack that's big enough for
my needs, but no bigger. Thanks for the info!

--
Kovie
[email protected]zen

 

[Kovie]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Kovie wrote:
>> And I think I was quite clear about why I'd like a pack. But if you
>> have a non-aesthetic point to make, I'd love to hear it.
>
> Well, it was *not* clear in your original post, but you did make it
> clear later, after I had already suggested bike mounting.
>
> Do what you like; if it was me, I'd find a way to get that stuff off my
> back. You're loading yourself up for your longest rides. If I *had* to
> use a backpack for all that stuff I would only do it for shorter rids;
> for longer ones I'd find something more comfortable.

Um, I think I was pretty clear about what purpose a pack would serve.
Whether or not you think it's a valid purpose is another issue, and not what
I asked about. In any case, while I don't dispute that at a certain point, a
too-loaded pack is going to make for a not very fun (and perhaps safe) ride,
I think you exaggerate that point. I live in Seattle and see dozens and
dozens of road cyclists every day lugging packs much larger than I ever
intend to ride with, and they don't seem to be unhappy. Most if not all are
probably commuting, but the point is that road cyclists do this all the
time, and I'm hardly alone here.

--
Kovie
[email protected]zen

 

[Vee]

Kovie wrote:

> I've been eyeing several Camelbaks, especially the MULE, Blowfish and HAWG.

Get the Hawg. I've had one for years and I can't think of any way it
could be improved. It's the same size on your back as the Mule, but it
holds significantly more stuff. My girlfriend uses a Mule, and it's
too small for serious outings. I've done centuries, long mtb rides,
day-hikes, commuting, etc., with my Hawg. It might be the only bike
thing I own that I recommend without reservation.

-Vee

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per [email protected]:
>suggested bike mounting.
>
>Do what you like; if it was me, I'd find a way to get that stuff off my
>back. You're loading yourself up for your longest rides.

Here's something I've been trying out.

http://www.wallbike.com/carradice/sqrbags.html

Only ridden to work (24 miles round trip - mostly paved) about 4 times with it -
and it's definately not big enough to hold my size 15's which I stage at work -
but the comfort/convenience factor is pretty good.




--
PeteCresswell

 

[Kovie]

"Vee" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kovie wrote:
>
>> I've been eyeing several Camelbaks, especially the MULE, Blowfish and
>> HAWG.
>
> Get the Hawg. I've had one for years and I can't think of any way it
> could be improved. It's the same size on your back as the Mule, but it
> holds significantly more stuff. My girlfriend uses a Mule, and it's
> too small for serious outings. I've done centuries, long mtb rides,
> day-hikes, commuting, etc., with my Hawg. It might be the only bike
> thing I own that I recommend without reservation.
>
> -Vee
>

I understand that if you don't need to carry much in it, you can tighten the
straps so it doesn't flop around and feels pretty unobtrusive, and that this
is one of its main selling points. Would you agree?

What about when it's full? Does it make road cycling awkward and less
enjoyable, or does it handle a full load pretty well?

This was actually the pack I was going to get when I started looking, but
decided that it was too big for road cycling and too small for hiking and
commuting. So I ended up getting a bigger pack for the latter and now need a
smaller one for the former.

--
Kovie
[email protected]zen