"One bag" travel, which bag is best?
in [Airline Travel]
|
Next: AF IAH - CDG
From: Dave Frightens Me on 4 Aug 2006 12:12 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 09:54:25 -0500, me(a)privacy.net wrote: >Dan Stephenson <stephedanospam(a)mac.com> wrote: > >>I've found that if you pack light you can make do with a daypack > >wow! > >that IS traveling small and light I met a French guy in Bulgaria that had been travelling for months with just a daypack. Very impressed I was! He had everything he needed, and wasn't missing anything too essential. -- --- DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com --- --
From: RPSinha on 4 Aug 2006 12:55 Traveller <PaulWorksHard(a)hotmail.com> wrote: : Check out the latest and greatest Eagle Creek travel bag the - Explorer : Trek LT. It's only 40Liters, about the same size as the Red Oxx Air : Boss and is a travel backpack. Eagle : Creek makes travel backpacks that are phenomenal. Tough nylon, heavy : duty zippers and excellent design. I've travelled all over the world : with mine and it has held up great. It has travelled on the top of : buses, cargo hold of ships, on my back, strapped to a mules back etc : etc. Is it just a back pack or can ou hide that feature and use it as shoulder bag too? Also, approx cost if you know it? Thanks. : As for colors, I like a dark green. : Paul
From: B Vaughan on 4 Aug 2006 13:32 On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:30:36 GMT, RPSinha <rpsinha(a)null.void> wrote: >B Vaughan <me(a)privacy.net> wrote: > >: ... > >I don't like backpacks for the reasons you mention, but I also don't >like wheels for the reasons others mentioned. :) What will work for me >most is a shoulder bag, with a small daypack that I can carry around >within a city. > >I am open to the idea of my shoulder bag having extra straps so it >could function as a backpack when that would be convenient. However, I >have never had such a bag and do wonder if this will limit my choices >to models that might not be very good in either role, as a shoulder >bag or backpack. I had a medium-sized backpack (actually called a travel pack) whose backpack straps could be tucked away behind a zippered panel. Then it could be carried like a suitcase, or by attaching a shoulder strap. This pack didn't have any frame, neither internal nor external, but being smallish, it didn't really need any. It was light and comfortable. I don't think they make it any more. I got it from campmor, which has good inexpensive hiking and camping gear. (www.campmor.com). They only ship within the US though. -- Barbara Vaughan My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
From: nobody on 4 Aug 2006 13:53 B Vaughan wrote: > I don't understand the public transport thing. The human body is less > bulky around the legs than around the chest. In a packed tram, you can > always find a bit of unused real estate on the floor, while a backpack > on your back will be punching people in the face. But when the time comes for you to get on or off the bus/train, your rolling luggage will be far more disruptive on your side than the backpack on your back. This is especially true if there are stairs to navigate on/off the bus/train. Someone mentioned pulling rolling luggage on sidewalks. Isn't that a recipe to destroy the wheels ? They may be nice on a smooth airport terminal floor, but on concrete with cracks every couple of metres, those wheels won't last long, unless you are simply going from a building across the sidewalk to a waiting taxi. And it is true that a backpack is not obvious if you have an opportunity to sit. But it depends on the length of the journey. You might as well dismount the backpack and put it on floor is the journey is long. But if short, you can sit on seat with just the edge of your butt on the seat (and backpack taking the rest). -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
From: B Vaughan on 4 Aug 2006 14:23
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 13:53:46 -0400, nobody <nobody(a)nobody.org> wrote: >B Vaughan wrote: >> I don't understand the public transport thing. The human body is less >> bulky around the legs than around the chest. In a packed tram, you can >> always find a bit of unused real estate on the floor, while a backpack >> on your back will be punching people in the face. > >But when the time comes for you to get on or off the bus/train, your >rolling luggage will be far more disruptive on your side than the >backpack on your back. This is especially true if there are stairs to >navigate on/off the bus/train. I just pick it up and carry it in those circumstances. I don't go around banging people in the face with it at least. I try not to take anything on a trip that I can't carry easily for short distances, or that I can't lift over my head. >Someone mentioned pulling rolling luggage on sidewalks. Isn't that a >recipe to destroy the wheels ? I've had several suitcases whose wheels have outlived the zippers and other crucial pieces. Those little tiny wheels won't last long, but most wheeled luggage has nice-sized robust wheels. > They may be nice on a smooth airport >terminal floor, but on concrete with cracks every couple of metres, >those wheels won't last long, unless you are simply going from a >building across the sidewalk to a waiting taxi. Not my experience. >And it is true that a backpack is not obvious if you have an opportunity >to sit. But it depends on the length of the journey. You might as well >dismount the backpack and put it on floor is the journey is long. But if >short, you can sit on seat with just the edge of your butt on the seat >(and backpack taking the rest). That's one of the most annoying things about backpacks. Like I said, I use both, but neither has all the advantages over the other. -- Barbara Vaughan My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup |