Backpack for commuting

Dave B said:

I have a 4.5 mile commute to work, and I normally have a lot of 'stuff'
to carry. As it is a fairly short trip I am happy using a rucksack, but
the one I am using at the moment is not waterproof and is starting to
fall appart. Could anyone recommend a good sized rucksack (about 25
litres) that has some back air venting and is waterproof?

I'd still recommend using a bike mounted system for that distance, with
caveats for a lot of on and off the bike with the luggage and possibly
carting it about a lot during the day (for example, students attending
classes). You've paid all that money for a frame to support weight, and
then hang it on yourself... Also the case that however well a rucksack
is vented it won't be as well vented as if there's nothing there at all.

Rucksacks on bikes are, for the most part, a Work Of Stan.

Ortlieb are the Prime Suspects for waterproof stuff.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Call me a glutten for punishment but I really want a rucksack. I've read
some previous posts and I expected someone would try and convince me
that I should use a bike mounted system. I want a rucksack so that I can
use it elsewhere, i.e. not on the bike, as well as using it for my
commute. I really like the convinience and I don't notice it during my
cycle (honest!).
I was looking at the Deuter Super Bike L but I have read elsewhere that
the storm cover wasn't so great.

Cheers

Dave

P.S. Peter I notice you work in Medical Physics. I work in Medical
Physics down in Glasgow (image processing and MRI). It's a small world....

Peter Clinch said:

Dave B said:

I have a 4.5 mile commute to work, and I normally have a lot of
'stuff' to carry. As it is a fairly short trip I am happy using a
rucksack, but the one I am using at the moment is not waterproof and
is starting to fall appart. Could anyone recommend a good sized
rucksack (about 25 litres) that has some back air venting and is
waterproof?

I'd still recommend using a bike mounted system for that distance,
with caveats for a lot of on and off the bike with the luggage and
possibly carting it about a lot during the day (for example, students
attending classes). You've paid all that money for a frame to support
weight, and then hang it on yourself... Also the case that however
well a rucksack is vented it won't be as well vented as if there's
nothing there at all.

Rucksacks on bikes are, for the most part, a Work Of Stan.

Ortlieb are the Prime Suspects for waterproof stuff.

Pete.

Dave B said:

Call me a glutten for punishment but I really want a rucksack.

Ok then... You are a glutton for punishment. ;-)

Quoted message said:

some previous posts and I expected someone would try and convince me
that I should use a bike mounted system. I want a rucksack so that I can
use it elsewhere, i.e. not on the bike, as well as using it for my
commute. I really like the convinience and I don't notice it during my
cycle (honest!).

A bike specific rucksack isn't as good as alternatives off the bike. If
you like side pockets then they're not good on a bike as they obscure
rearwards vision, if you're into balance specific stuff like running or
skiing then the spacing for better venting compromises the close carry,
and so on. Unless you're doing both activities on the same trip an
optimal system for each will cost you a few extra readies up front but
pay back rewards every time you use it.

As for not noticing it, lots of people don't think they notice comfort
compromisers until they're not there. I used to always cycle with bags
on my body, until I got some panniers and now I hardly ever do,
including mountain biking. I always used to cycle with a helmet: always
kidded myself I didn't notice it, until I stopped wearing it. And do on.

As for convenience, how much more convenient is a pack? It's not really
any slower putting an Ortlieb bag on a rack than a rucksack on your
body, and it's much quicker to remove (pulling the handle up releases
the rack locks, so you just pick it up). Also shaped so that less
excavation is generally required to get at the contents.

Quoted message said:

P.S. Peter I notice you work in Medical Physics. I work in Medical
Physics down in Glasgow (image processing and MRI). It's a small world....

Indeed. And a more comfortable world too, without rucksacks on rides ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Ok then... You are a glutton for punishment. ;-)

A little bit of pain never hurt no-one!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A bike specific rucksack isn't as good as alternatives off the bike.
If you like side pockets then they're not good on a bike as they
obscure rearwards vision, if you're into balance specific stuff like
running or skiing then the spacing for better venting compromises the
close carry, and so on. Unless you're doing both activities on the
same trip an optimal system for each will cost you a few extra readies
up front but pay back rewards every time you use it.

As for not noticing it, lots of people don't think they notice comfort
compromisers until they're not there. I used to always cycle with
bags on my body, until I got some panniers and now I hardly ever do,
including mountain biking. I always used to cycle with a helmet:
always kidded myself I didn't notice it, until I stopped wearing it.
And do on.

As for convenience, how much more convenient is a pack? It's not
really any slower putting an Ortlieb bag on a rack than a rucksack on
your body, and it's much quicker to remove (pulling the handle up
releases the rack locks, so you just pick it up). Also shaped so that
less excavation is generally required to get at the contents.

I'm not too worried about side pockets and I don't ski or run (due to my
cranky knee!). The rucksack I have at the moment has only one main
compartment and a front pocket and this suits my needs, and my judo kit
fits in it - which explains the cranky knee! :-(

Quoted message said:

Indeed. And a more comfortable world too, without rucksacks on rides ;-)

I will not give in. Rucksack or bust!!!.... ;-)

Dave

Dave B said:

Quoted message said:

Indeed. And a more comfortable world too, without rucksacks on rides ;-)

I will not give in. Rucksack or bust!!!.... ;-)

If it really is rucksack or bust then take a look at some of the Vaude
sacks. these have a taut mesh frame holding them away from the back. The
one I have has an integral rain cover, a mesh bungee-type thing which
is apparently for holding something called a helmet and space for a
bladder. They have a reasonable amount of reflectives on the back and
the forward facing straps. Some have LED tabs.

Edinburgh Bike Co-op rebadge a Vaude, I seem to remember it being good
value, though you'll have to search for it yourself (see other threads
about EBC's cookie system!)

My one complaint is that the frame system restricts the internal shape
somewhat. It is useless for carrying large oblong boxes that fit
perfectly well in similar-sized sacks without frames. Absolutely fine
for soft 'gym' kit though.

Colin

Dave B said:

I'm not too worried about side pockets and I don't ski or run (due to my
cranky knee!). The rucksack I have at the moment has only one main
compartment and a front pocket and this suits my needs, and my judo kit
fits in it - which explains the cranky knee! :-(

Okay, I'll avoid the direct question yet again...

Why not just get a drybag to put the contents in? Engineering a full
rucksack to be waterproof is much more of a faff than a simple bag. You
can either get a waterproof liner for a pack like the ones Outdoor
Designs do (think Tiso's should have them), or go for serious
waterproofing like a paddlers dry-bag (also available from Tiso's).
That way you can expand your choice of rucksacks a lot, and keep the
basic cost down.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dave B said:

Hi Folks,

I have a 4.5 mile commute to work, and I normally have a lot of 'stuff'
to carry. As it is a fairly short trip I am happy using a rucksack, but
the one I am using at the moment is not waterproof and is starting to
fall appart. Could anyone recommend a good sized rucksack (about 25
litres) that has some back air venting and is waterproof? I am looking
to keep the cost down to about £50 if possible, but I understand it
might not be possible :-(.

I notice Wiggle have a couple of reasonable looking Dakine packs at
half price:

http://www.wiggle.co.uk/Default.aspx?Main=CategoryProducts.aspx&Cat=cycle&w=0&CategoryName=Bags%20-%20Backpack

http://tinyurl.com/am3xv

(I like the look of the Ortlieb one - it's a good brand - and the
Howies pack with the "stay right" sign is pretty cool too).

I'm a pannier user myself, so I have no experience of the above
bags, just wanted to point out the sale items.

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

Jeremy Collins said:

(I like the look of the Ortlieb one - it's a good brand - and the
Howies pack with the "stay right" sign is pretty cool too).

Except when turning right!

Colin

Colin Blackburn said:

Jeremy Collins said:

(I like the look of the Ortlieb one - it's a good brand - and the
Howies pack with the "stay right" sign is pretty cool too).

Except when turning right!

I can imagine an iteration of this product in the near future. It
has a backlit, flexible OLED screen controlled by a wireless
computer on the handlebars. It allows you you put any sign or
message of your choosing on the back on the rucksack...

--
jc

Remove the -not from email

Quoted message said:

If it really is rucksack or bust then take a look at some of the Vaude
sacks. these have a taut mesh frame holding them away from the back.
The one I have has an integral rain cover, a mesh bungee-type thing
which is apparently for holding something called a helmet and space
for a bladder. They have a reasonable amount of reflectives on the
back and the forward facing straps. Some have LED tabs.

Thanks Colin. Some of the Vaude stuff looks good. I will pop into Dales
at the weekend to check their bags out.

Cheers

Dave

Peter Clinch said:

Why not just get a drybag to put the contents in? Engineering a full
rucksack to be waterproof is much more of a faff than a simple bag.
You can either get a waterproof liner for a pack like the ones Outdoor
Designs do (think Tiso's should have them), or go for serious
waterproofing like a paddlers dry-bag (also available from Tiso's).
That way you can expand your choice of rucksacks a lot, and keep the
basic cost down.

Pete.

That is another possibility. I will look into it at the weekend after
popping into Dales (looking at the Vaude bags).

Taking up cycling has ended up costing a good bit more than just a new
bike! Although I still think its a lot cheaper than a new car, a lot
healthier a lot more fun too..... :-)

Dave

Jeremy Collins said:

I can imagine an iteration of this product in the near future. It
has a backlit, flexible OLED screen controlled by a wireless
computer on the handlebars. It allows you you put any sign or
message of your choosing on the back on the rucksack...

Even better with voice recognition - though there might be too much
telling people behind what you think of people in front!

Colin McKenzie

Jeremy Collins said:

I can imagine an iteration of this product in the near future. It
has a backlit, flexible OLED screen controlled by a wireless
computer on the handlebars. It allows you you put any sign or
message of your choosing on the back on the rucksack...

The ultimate would be a system that could forward project onto a cars
rear view mirror a quote or a 'sign' so that you could send information
any driver who just cut you up! Of course this would require the drive
to look in their mirror....... ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch wrote:

Indeed. And a more comfortable world too, without rucksacks on rides ;-)

Dave B wrote:
I will not give in. Rucksack or bust!!!.... ;-)

Maybe you two could agree on ebay item 7171998421 - rucksack and
pannier in one. Only £7.50, although probably too small and not
waterproof.

PhilO

Dave B said:

Taking up cycling has ended up costing a good bit more than just a new
bike! Although I still think its a lot cheaper than a new car, a lot
healthier a lot more fun too..... :-)

And being cheaper than a new car doesn't stop at capital cost. Running
costs are basically pennies, no MOT, no tax, insurance comes on your
house contents.

You can save so much money... and then visit Kinetics in Bearsden and
spend it all. And then some! ;-)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

"Dave B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Call me a glutten for punishment but I really want a rucksack.

You are indeed a glutton for punishment :-)

Quoted message said:

I've read some previous posts and I expected someone would try and convince
me that I should use a bike mounted system. I want a rucksack so that I can
use it elsewhere, i.e. not on the bike, as well as using it for my commute.
I really like the convinience and I don't notice it during my cycle
(honest!).

Suggestion - bungee your rucksack to the rear rack of a bike - that way you
have your rucksack and portability off the bike without risking getting
sweaty.

Cheers, helen s

Quoted message said:

I was looking at the Deuter Super Bike L but I have read elsewhere that
the storm cover wasn't so great.

Cheers

Dave

"Dave B" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

Ok then... You are a glutton for punishment. ;-)

A little bit of pain never hurt no-one!

Indeed, but as many a cyclist before you has found, having the load on the
rack as opposed to on your back *really* makes cycling better.

I am reminded of the saying "You can lead a horse to water but you can't
make it drink."

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:

: Indeed, but as many a cyclist before you has found, having the load on the
: rack as opposed to on your back *really* makes cycling better.

I'm going to disagree here. It's only four miles after all.

For my 2-3 mile commute I ride a bike with racks and have several panniers
that I could use but choose to use a courier bag for convience.

When I do my long commute (20 miles) in the winter once a week I do it
on a bike with no racks and use a rucksack. It works fine. The key is
just not to take too much weight.

Obviously for heavy loads I use my trailer, panniers or (when stocking
up) both.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune PGP/GPG Key: http://www.clune.org/pubkey.txt
The struggle of people against power is the struggle
of memory against forgetting - Milan Kundera

"Arthur Clune" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat <waffles*A*T*v21net*D*O*T*co*D*O*T*uk> wrote:

: Indeed, but as many a cyclist before you has found, having the load on
the
: rack as opposed to on your back *really* makes cycling better.

I'm going to disagree here. It's only four miles after all.

Even on short hop as described, I much prefer having stuff on the rack of
the bike as opposed to on my back.

Cheers, helen s