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
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup
From: firstname.lastname@example.org on 4 Aug 2006 14:51
Dan Stephenson wrote:
> I've found that if you pack light you can make do with a daypack.
I could probably "make do" with nothing. I took survival
training and actually had to do that for a weekend. Well,
I got to carry a knife and a compass. Not exactly my idea
of a vacation though. Besides, they wouldn't let me take
the knife on a plane these days.
> I bought a big Gallileo backpack some years back, and now only use the
> daypack that came with it. Note that this isn't a booksack like kids
> use at school. Overall if possible I recommend visiting a store,
> preferrably with about the amount of stuff you're going to bring with
> you. Note that packing light might mean two changes of clothes, one to
> wear, one to be drying out.
Exactly. I guess I'm just one that doesn't look upon my vacations
as an opportunity to practice minimalism. Even on business travel
I've learned over the years to pack a creature comfort or two. Doing
laundry DEFINITELY isn't something I look forward to doing on vacation.
To some extent, it's one of the things I look forward to getting away
From: jfmezei on 4 Aug 2006 14:55
> as an opportunity to practice minimalism. Even on business travel
> I've learned over the years to pack a creature comfort or two. Doing
> laundry DEFINITELY isn't something I look forward to doing on vacation.
Let me get this straight, you pack your wife in the suitcase so she can
do your laundry (and other things) wherever you are ?
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
From: email@example.com on 4 Aug 2006 15:02
> "oconnell(a)slr.orl.lmco.com" wrote:
> > as an opportunity to practice minimalism. Even on business travel
> > I've learned over the years to pack a creature comfort or two. Doing
> > laundry DEFINITELY isn't something I look forward to doing on vacation.
> Let me get this straight, you pack your wife in the suitcase so she can
> do your laundry (and other things) wherever you are ?
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
Ah, heck no. That'd be cruel. I let her carry the bags.
From: erilar on 4 Aug 2006 15:13
In article <1154707127.001243.17680(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"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
YES!!! My old backpack was disintegrating, so when I came back from a
trip a few years ago, I went backpack shopping in a the largest sporting
goods place my daughter knew. I tried on several bags of various kinds.
I wanted to continue traveling without checking anything. I tried on one
with wheels(WAY too heavy). I tried on some lightweight ones. Then I
tried on one that said "BUY ME!" because it was so comfortable. Lots of
pockets. Has its own day pack which can be attached or not. Has a rain
hood. Straps can be hidden to let it pretend to be a suitcase. My
daughter asked if I'd get my money's worth out of it, as it was not the
cheapest one I looked at. Several times already! Eagle Creek.
When I'm in Europe, I travel primarily by train and bus. I'm 72.
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar),
philologist, biblioholic medievalist