Convertible carry-ons-

Patricia, check out this thread: Light convertible carry-on bags. I think the answer to whether your bag would be too heavy for you depends mostly on how good you are at packing light. Although lots of folks speak highly of the Rick Steves' bag, it is a pound or more heavier than the lightest bag you can get. Shaving the weight of even 1 or 2 pounds is a big deal when you are aiming to carry less than 20 pounds total (or 15 pounds or whatever limit you set). Weigh and empty bag of any sort. Load it with your clothes, etc. and re-weigh it. Calculate the difference. If the weight of the bag's contents are over 20 pounds, you need to stick with the rolling bag or adopt the packing light religion.

If you intend to use the convertible carry-on as a backpack, then you must choose a proper one. Years ago, I was properly fitted with one suited to my shorter torso (I'm a similar height to yours). The sales person then stood on a chair above me and pushed down. The weight sat comfortably on my hips, due to the pack's hipbelt (80% of the weight you carry should be supported by your hips, NOT your shoulders). I really miss that bag, it was stolen in Zimbabwe. All this is to say that the RS convertible carry-on, which I also own, is not meant to be used instead of a real backpack. When full, it doesn't sit well on the back and is hard on the shoulders -- I can't wear it for long at all and don't even try to anymore. It's a great carry-on though, so I use it alongside by 22" RS wheeled bag. I don't put much weight in it at all if I use the shoulder straps. It's just not designed for that.

kThe Steves bag would be a good choice for you, and on sale now. There are other that cost any where between Steves and a Calillac car. The weight should be under four pounds empty, and under about twenty pounds full. You can additionally take a "purse" which can take up some slack if you can't get everything in the carry-on. We have always used convertible carry-ons. My wife is now sixty-five and I am seventy-one. She can lift her's but not get it into overhead storage because of her height. She lifts it up as high as possible and I finish the job. I've also helped other woman (don't miss a chance) if they are having trouble with a reasonably size carry-on. I won't help people with humongous bags that they shouldn't have been allowed to bring on the plane. If you do a Google search for "light weight traveling" or convertible carry-on bags" you will be led to more information. As there are other people more experienced in this area than I let's hope they offer help too.

I'm changing from a rollaboard to a convertible carry on for our month long trip coming up soon. I have it at 21.6 lbs which I can comfortably lift overhead (5'2" and late 50s FWIW). It includes some maps, my extra shoes, all toiletries. I'll also have a 5 lb day pack with camera, tablet PC, wallet, etc. I love having dropped 4 lbs by foregoing the rollaboard.

I took an L.L. Bean Quickload travel pack to Europe for a month. It weighed 18 lbs. My wife used the Outdoor Products Essential Carryon. RS has some packing tips in the Travel Tips section. Also read onebag.com BTW we're 65 and 64 and love the freedom that comes with the lighter load and ability to travel with less fuss. Good luck in your travels!

I took the Rick Steves convertible carryon for seven weeks in Europe last year. I loved it, stayed within the carryon weight limits and had no trouble carrying it myself. (I'm 52, female, 5'2" and in good shape - for a desk jockey. Not a competitive athlete.) However, I coveted my daughter's GoLite convertible carryon - it was a pound lighter, just as sturdy, and just as roomy. I'm not sure it will last quite as long as the Rick Steves' bag over the years, but it came home from that one trip in equally good condition and has done several smaller trips since then with no damage. Of course, carryons don't suffer the abuse checked bags do. Check out ebags.com for lots of choices. In general, I support the idea of a light convertible carryon and think you won't have trouble carrying it to and from the train stations.

We are 70 and 67 and have used the standard Rick Steves bag for years. Remember the wheels and handles add extra weight to the convertible bag. We keep saying that next year will need to switch to the rolling bags but so far next year has not come. We use rolling bags in the US but the back pack style in Europe.

After looking at the GoLite bag, I think they almost have something. I like the dimensions, and ¼# more is not an issue, but spending $95 more just to get a smaller bag doesn't make sense. I think I'll stay with my "sloppy" Essential Carryon.

Patricia - I have a Campmoor Essential Carry On, but just recently purchased a Osprey Porter 46 Travel Pack from REI. It is currently on sale for $75. I've used it on a couple of short trips and just love it.

I really do think that style of bag is a very personal preference and there is no one right way to travel. However, I'll give an opposing opinion to the majority so far, just for the balance: I'm about your height and am in reasonably good shape. I have a convertible carryon and I found it to be very inconvenient. I do pack pretty light, but it still seemed quite heavy to me, though it was indeed lighter to lift overhead than my rolling bag. It felt too heavy to be comfortable carrying it in my hand, so I had to wear it. But then I felt like I was constantly putting it on and taking it off when getting on and off buses and trains, which got to be tiresome. Another disadvantage is that it's hard to set it down without plopping it on the dirty floor. It doesn't stand up by itself well, and it doesn't have any "feet" or bottom to keep it out of whatever nasty things are on the floor, the way a wheeled bag does. So for me, it was best to go back to the wheeled bag, even with it's disadvantages.

Patricia, I am 5'2 (almost) and in good shape except for some joint/back problems. I found the convertible carry-on to be too much for me. The answer for me for easy travel in Europe has been to pack very light. After my first trip with the convertible carry-on, I switched to Rick's Appenzell Day Pack. It fit me much better, was more comfortable and lighter. It all depends how light you are willing to pack. I invested in travel clothing that dries overnight, so I pack less than one week's worth of clothing. Full disclosure - we found we enjoy packing light so much that my husband and I now put all our items in one convertible back pack which he carries.
Perhaps the best advice I can give you is to go to an outdoor store in your area that has a good selection of backpacks and staff who know what they are doing. They should be able to pack any backpack with the amount of weight you intend to carry. Then you can try it out - walk around with it on, go up stairs, raise it over your head, etc. If you don't have a store equipped to do this, pack your roller bag and bring it with you, then transfer the items to whatever bag you are trying out. Any bag will do just to figure out the weight issue, but hopefully you can find a store that carries Rick Steves in your area. I'm lucky to be near Rick Steves headquarters, but the AAA in our area carries his bags as well. Good luck with your decision and have a wonderful trip!

Thanks to everyone for all your prompt replies and great suggestions. Living on an island in Maine limits access to stores but I am off to Boston next week and will definitley try things out and hopefully find an AAA with Rick's luggage. There are so many specials going on right now for the holidays I wanted to take advantage of them. Great insight for all esp D.D. on the convertible carry-on. I am a light packer and get better with each trip.

On your way to Boston, stop at the L.L. Bean store in Freeport and take a look at the Quickload Travel Pack: http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/51615?page=quickload-travel-pack (There are numerous bags in different sizes with the Quickload name. Make sure you look at the right one.) I personally think this is a better bag than the RS one. I own six convertible bags and the only one I've gotten rid of is the newer model RS Convertible.( I have one of the original RS bags from over 20 years ago and it was better made than the ones today.) The Quickload is lighter and better designed IMHO. (And knowing something about bags is part of my profession.)

Thanks- plan to stop at LL Bean and will check out the Quickload. I have the Quickload Carryon and use it all the time.

Actually, ignoring small end effects, and as long as the sphere diameter is small relative to the bag size (basket balls won't work), the size of the sphere doesn't really matter. But as I said, in the end, it is the total volume, packed, that matters most. The European limit is 44 L. 46 L isn't going to fit. And weight is just as important. Clothes, other than jeans and shoes, don't weigh much. It's things like electric razors, not to mention hair dryers, or curling irons and straightening irons (why don't you just exchange hair). The charger for my circa 2000 camera weighed a lb. I find I reach the weight limit before the volume limit. The "contents" of my bag is about 1400 cu in, about half of the limit, but at 11½#, I'm closer to being too heavy than too big, and they do weigh bags.

So, Lee, you're saying the L.L. Bean Quickload won't fit in the European sizers because it's more than 44L according to the dimensions given? Sorry, I've done it. With room to spare. (And even your beloved Lufthansa sizers.) You're only seeing it as black and white. Rigid. No conformity. But there's a gray area. And a soft sided bag, not completely full, can mold into a smaller area because the material folds into itself. But you can believe anything you want. Especially the notion that whoever buys this bag is going to pack every single cubic inch. Really? By the way....what airline posts the maximum volume a bag can be? I've only seen dimensions and weight. I think you're grasping at straws to try to prove you're right.

Frank, How do you suppose luggage manufacturers determine "capacity"? It's not L X W x H. For the Quickload bag that would be 2740.5 cu in (21¾" x 14" x 9", 44.9 L), but they give a capacity of 2961 cu in, which is 48.5 L, and would exceed every airline's carryon requirement. They must be giving the maximum capacity, with the sides bulging. But how do they determing that. Do they fill it with something (sand?), then pour it out into a measured container? Maybe they fill it full of sand and weigh it? I've always wondered. But, anyway, unless you are checking luggage, the capacity is irrelevant, since at that volume it won't fit into anyone's sizing box. It looks like the Quickload is flexible and, if not packed full, will deform to fit carryon sizing boxes for domestic or European airlines.

I have the RS convertible carry on and have used it several times. I am 5'3" and in my mid-50's. I recently returned from a 3 week trip to Europe, and decided to try something a little unique, in order to save my back. In addition to the RS bag, I took a rolling tote bag to use as my seat bag on the plane and to hold heavier things. While walking I would stack the RS bag on the rolling bag. It gave me the convenience of a rolling suitcase, but when going up and down stairs or on and off trains I could wear the RS bag on my back. The RS bag easily fit into overheads, unlike some rolling suitcases. It worked out great!!

Lee, trying to figure out how manufacturers come up with maximum linear capacity is like trying to figure out the beginning of the universe. There are lots of theories but no one really knows for sure. And why is it that a 22" length bag can fit in a 55 CM sizer. Or a 9" wide bag can, at times, fit into a 20 cm sizer. It's because the material is not rigid. It moves. It conforms. A soft sided bag can fit into a space that a framed bag of similar proportions cannot. One of the problems when you look strictly at the numbers and only see them from the left brain, then none of this makes sense. A 22 x 14 x 9 bag should be 22 x 14 x 9. But when you add the other side, the right side, and see the fluid motion of material and how it conforms to fit its surroundings, you begin to understand. It's the lack of rigidity that allows the bag to expand beyond it's given dimensions. That expand-ability may be the answer to the strange cubic measurements. I always laugh when I see a question posted by someone worried that their 22" soft sided bag won't fit into a 21.5" sizer. Unless that person overpacks every square inch of the bag, he won't have a problem. It's really not the size of the bag that's the problem, it's how much a person plans to put in it.

Capacity according to the chubby guy from Cheers who had a 'Made in America' series a while back: plastic spheres about the size of a pea, stuff as many of them in as you can, dump and measure what comes out I guess if you used bb's, you could claim a larger capacity.

I said a Quickload filled to "capacity" at 2961 cu in would not fit in any sizer. But, the website states this: "Meets most airline carry-on requirements. Capacity 2,961 cu. in." By putting these two lines next to each other on their website, the are implying that you can fill it with 2961 cu. in. and still meet most airline carry-on requirement. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm only multiplying three numbers together. Can't you do that? 55cm x 40cm x 20cm = 44,000 cu cm, which is 44 liters. No matter how you mold it, that's the volume you have to fit. Hmm. Airlines used to express the allowable volume in liters. Maybe they found the concept to difficult for some to understand.

I've been looking at bags and it seems the Campmor bag is too big for carry on as well. It's over 44 L. According to its website, the Campmor bag is "airline regulation size carry on" with a capacity of 2825 cu. in. 2825 cu. in. equals 46.2 L.

Happy Thanksgiving Lee and Frank II. Perhaps we should start including this disclaimer when posting about bags: Caution! If you fill any of these bags to capacity they may exceed airline carry-on limits. Your safest course is to always leave empty space in your bag to permit squishing the bag if necessary. On Lee's advice (among others), I bought the Campmor and will be trying it out very soon. As Lee describes it, it does feel a bit "sloppy" (or floppy) in ways that my Osprey Porter does not. I suspect the L.L. Bean Quickload is very similar to the Osprey or perhaps is somewhere between the Campmor and the Osprey. I'd order it myself to see, but I think if I get one more bag my wife will suggest I fill all the bags I have accumulated and go with them somewhere else.

Another reason for leaving empty room in your main bag: on some airlines carry-on is limited to one bag only. In that case, if there is room to spare in your larger bag, you can stuff your smaller backpack or purse into the main bag so you can do carry-on. After passing thru the airline's checks, you can take out the smaller bag.

I second the vote for Osprey 46 porter.