Backpacks

Do you have a REI store near you? They have the best ion, and most professional staff to help, anywhere. Hiking/climbing packs are much better, and more versatile, than ones sold in luggage stores.

It sounds like you need to look at "convertible carry-on" bags. They usually are unstructured, have handles on the side and end, have backpack straps that stow, and have attachments to hook a shoulder strap on to. If you look around for a convertible carry-on you will have to be keep in mind the dimensional requirements of airlines. Most require a bag be under 22" long, 14" wide and 7-9" thick. Also aim to keep the weight under twenty pounds. There are other people more knowledeable than I and maybe they will respond to help you. Do a Google search for one bag travel and see what you find.

Leanna, Have a look at my recent post concering Backpacks in This Thread in the "General Europe" section. I'd rather not have to re-type the whole thing. Cheers!

I use a convertible carry-on bag for a couple of reasons: While convertibles don't really ride well, I rarely hike with my bag. I find even a two-mile walk from the train station to lodging is unusually high, most of the time it's 1/4 to 1/2 mile with my bag at a time. Since I'm not really backpacking, I don't need the features of a real backpack that rides comfortably for an entire day of hiking. True backpacks are too long for carry-on. I find great value in carry-on only and don't consider the trade-off of checking my bag for a better backpack a good bargain. I'd rather carry-on a convertible bag, that fits in the overhead bin, than check a backpack that may get wrecked in machinery or lost by the airline (not to mention waiting for it in the terminal). I also like some of the "suitcase" features of a convertible carry-on, particularly the book style zipper opening that allows me to get to things easily rather than digging through a smaller opening. If you find a good carry-on size backpack, let us know.

I have done real backpacking in the USA using an external frame backpack. I think this sort of "real" backpack would not qualify as carry-on, but I see many young people in Europe using them. It is more comfortable carrying heavier loads (over 20#) because it can be adjusted so that most of the weight rests on the upper pelvis. For Europe I have used the RS backpack with waist strap and some internal structure. I found that the pack was reasonably comfortable if I limited the total weight to 20 pounds. The problem with this backpack in cities is that I took it off then put it back on numerous times while riding public transportation. Eventually my shoulders complained and I switched to a rolling bag a few years ago. With the rolling bag I can easily pick it up for the Metro stairs. So far my shoulders and back have held up as long as I keep the bag's weight to 20# or less. Then I bought the RS convertible bag with both rollers and shoulder straps for carrying as a backpack. The bag's weight is heavier than either of the other two options, but it is awkward to change from one mode to the other. I would recommend this bag only if you aren't planning to make numerous conversions per day. So far, I haven't used it in my travels, always opting for the lighter wheels-only bag.

I just returned from a hiking trip in France. I carried everything I needed in an Osprey Kestrel 48. I am not crazy about top load packs, but I really liked having the hood for extra stuff. I added a waist belt pack that I used for my camera (a Canon G11). This accessory back was the Osprey Digistow (I used a large size for my camera) Having the extra pocket handy is great for money, cameras, cell phones, etc. The pack carried great on my back, I didn't really feel it. I packed for one week. I was actually backpacking from town to town, and I had hiking boots with me (these I carried on the plane, no room in my pack for these) I highly recommend Osprey for the way they carry, and for the value for the price. Get thee to your local outdoor shop and try some on. Make sure you pack it and see how comfortable you are with weight in it before you head out. 35 years ago my husband and I backpacked in Europe for 5 weeks. The pack I carried then was not near as nice as what is in the market now! Here's a link to the bag on Osprey's website. ?http://www.ospreypacks.com/en/product/multi-use/kestrel_48

I loved my Osprey Ariel 65, used it 3 years in a row to various trips to Europe. But when they changed the carry on rule, we could no longer bring it on. I also didn't want to risk getting the frame all bent up by improper baggage handling so I bought a new Osprey. I now use the Osprey Porter 46. It has a waist belt, back pack straps but opens like a real suit case (not a top loader, like the Ariel). I do not have as much room anymore, but it makes me streamline the items I choose to bring with me. Plus I can carry it on. Hope this helps.

Go to onebag.com for extensive tips on how to pack light. The author gives a rave review of the MEI Voyageur pack.

Leanna, I have also used the Osprey Porter 46 and can recommend it, but it is a non-frame pack. It does have a good waist belt, which helps. Not sure if it would be good for true hiking, though. Here is a recent discussion about convertible backpacks: Light convertible carry on bags The message thread went towards what was the absolute lightest convertible bag available. It seems the Campmor product (at a ridiculously low price) was the winner. I've ordered one but haven't had a chance to use it yet. I don't think it has a waist belt, which I think is necessary if you will be carrying the pack for anything but a short distance. In the thread cited above, I mentioned a better backpack from Lowes Alpine that is small enough to be carried on to an airplane, but it is smaller than the Osprey or Campmor product. Its advantage is a flexible "frame" that holds the pack away from your back so air can circulate. May not be as important for winter travel.

At 30" high, the Osprey Kestrel won't qualify for carryon anywhere. Also, at 3.7# it's way overweight (over 20% of the carryon allowance for some European airlines, and too much weight to carry).

Note about the Campmor bag: it's kinda sloppy and benefits from being full or using cubes. I don't like it but I keep using it for the last 5 years.
I used to use a nice lightweight carryon Kelty- try one of those at REI or Whole Earth- but now use a rolling bag and a daypack. Have used both Campmor and Kelty for a daypacks.

If you want a review of most of the major carry-on convertibles, or ask questions of people who use them, you can go to the website listed underneath my name to the left. (I won't write it so it doesn't look like I'm promoting a commercial site. And since the site loses money, there's no way I'm profiting.)

1bag1world.com also has a nice daily summary of travel-related news. I haven't been reading it long, but I now look at it with some regularity.

I like 1bag1world and the way they promote light packing, but I have fundamental disagreements with them: 1. "Get a bag with ... plenty of pockets." Pockets are wildly overrated and used by bag manufacturers to justify high prices. They aren't very efficient. They often comprise a small portion of a side, but add to the overall dimension without increasing volume significantly. I have a Veloce bag that is the epitome of pocket proliferation. I think I counted seven pockets on the front, all adding to the weight and thickness but none adding significantly to the volume. Pockets are never the right volume for what I would want to store. I prefer one large open compartment that I can fill the way I want. I use mesh bags, each weighing a few ounces to organize my stuff. A mesh Tide washing bag, weighing only 2 ounces is perfect for my folded shirts; a smaller mesh bag holds my underwear. When I get to my destination, I take the package bags out of the main bag and put them on the shelves. When I want something, I go to that package. When I leave, I put the packages back into the main bag and I'm ready to go. You can't do that with pockets. 2. "Pack using the "bundle" method. The bundle method saves the most space." I'm sorry, 1400 sq in of stuff takes 1400 sq in of space, no matter how you pack it. If you compress it by bundling, you just bundle in wrinkles. If you bundle and want something on the inside of the bundle, what do you do? I think my "packaging" method is much more efficient than bundling. Anyway, I find that the limiting factor for me is weight. I reach the weight limit far sooner than the volume limit. Other methods to compress the volume, vacuum packs, for instance, might decrease the volume, but they do nothing about, or actually increase, the weight.

3. "Stuff underwear and socks into shoes" Shoes. Who takes shoes? I almost never do. I wear one pair of low top hiking boots (Walmart) on the plane and that's it. In over 100 days of European travel, I have never needed a second pair of shoes. The concept of light packing is to take what you will absolutely need, not what you think you might want.

Lee, I agree with your assessment about pockets. My problem is I can never remember what pocket I used so I end up opening them all when I'm looking for something. I've settled on packing cubes instead. I used to have bunches of cubes in every size imaginable but I found that limiting myself to four cubes works best: Two for clothes, one for toothpaste, etc., and one for everything else. Not sure what is meant by bundling, but I have found that rolling clothes over other clothes is the best way to keep wrinkles to a minimum. I have only taken one pair of shoes on all but one of my trips, but I worry about what I'm going to do someday if I get a pair of shoes totally wet.

The problem with pockets is not remembering which pocket you put things in, it's that pockets are a very inefficient use of space and a poor way to organize. IMO, cubes do not provide flexibility. "rolling clothes over other clothes" is bundling, and doesn't save any space and introduces wrinkles. And, if you want something from the inside of the bundle, you're screwed. The whole concept of light packing is that you plan for what probably will happen, not what, in the worst scenario, might happen. If you do get your shoes totally wet, THEN deal with it. In over a hundred days of travel in Europe, that has never happened to me.

Lee, I said I agreed with you about pockets. In addition to the unnecessary added weight, I never can remember where I put things. I don't see much difference between cubes and the mesh washing bags you use. I have used both, but prefer the cubes. Because my traveling light packing list is pretty set, I don't need flexibility in the size of each cube. I have pretty well matched the cubes so they fit what's in them. My experience has been that "rolling clothes over other clothes" helps me keep the wrinkles down. As to what's in the bundle, if I plan ahead, I don't need what's in the middle of the bundle. That is, each bundle is a full set of clothes for that day. I suppose I'm following the rule of dealing with something that is only a possible problem when, and if, it happens because I take just one pair of shoes. Still, that doesn't stop me worrying about it. I posted a message a while back asking about the lightest shoe available in my quest for a backup pair should the need arise. I found a super-light pair of shoes, but so far I've left them at home because the extra pound of weight seemed too much. I promise: I've got the pack light religion.

Wait a minute, Lee, that page on 1bag1world was so old I think it was put up before Rick Steves had ever learned about Europe. (In fact, I hadn't even noticed it before.) None of the things you mentioned are things I believe in: bundle packing, lots of pockets, etc. The page you saw on 1Bag1World was a General lite travel wiki page found somewhere on the internet, copied, and put up by the previous owner of the site. It has been removed. (And lots of the items on it were ridiculous.) 1bag1world.com is going through some major overhauls including an entirely new look and platform. I only took over the site two months ago. Give me some time to find everything hidden in corners. There's a lot of work that needs to be done and it won't be done overnight.

I really like 1bag1world and the discussions there. Needless to say, we all pack differently and prefer different bags but the point is to pack lightly. To the OP's question, I have a Mountainsmith Approach that I love. It has metal stays and a padded waistbelt so most of the weight is carried on the hips. The one I have is a tight fit in the sizing box since the metal stays don't compress at all. If you plan to do some real hiking, a hiking backpack would be best but if not, the convertible carryon will be fine.

Just FYI, this weekend only on eBags.com, the RS convertible backpack is on sale ($56.24 for certain colors, $74.96 for others) along with my choice, the eBags Weekender ($74.99 for the Mother Lode, $52.49 for original weekender).

Thanks for all the replies! I went with the Osprey Kestrel 32. It fits the small dimension limit that flights like Easyjet and Ryanair have, but it has 1800 cubic inches of space, which is a lot more than most "32" backpacks. Also very comfortable!