Thanks for your article, which should stimulate some people to think about traveling, but with all due respect, this seems like a rehashed mash of the “advice” one hears at outdoor gear supply stores. Suggesting anything remotely close to 5,000 cubic inches (81 liters!) seems horrifying to me. I’ve met dozens of long-distance walkers who had started off with such packs and all were in misery. Only seasoned trekkers and wilderness hikers could possibly need such a pack, and they will know that through their experience – experience that will generally move them toward a much smaller pack. Even the more mainstream advice of 65 liters (4000 cubic inches) is WAY more than nearly anyone actually needs. Stuff = complication; weight = pain.

Space is a vacuum and wants to be filled, and big packs have a lot of space. I agree with you not to rush out and buy the biggest bag you can find. I wouldn’t run out and get one at all until you figure out your trip’s purpose, goals, challenges, etc. I suggest getting your clothes and gear together and then get the smallest pack that will contain them. With effort (and it does take time and effort, so get started today) you can get your packing list down so that everything will fit into a couple of grocery bags (or so, if you feel you need an extra pair of underwear).

I disagree that the size of the pack is dictated by the length of your journey, especially if it’s “floating around Europe”. You don’t need more clothes and gear for a month than you do for a weekend. You just need to learn what to wear and how to use your wardrobe. You do need to be able to carry sufficient food, water and fuel to reach the next re-supply point. Check out how we approach the problem at www.longwalking.com as we prepare for a three month walk across Europe with an 1800 cubic inch (30 liter) pack and a base weight well under 10 pounds.

Bon chance! I hope to see you on the trail. Steve Moore.

Reply