CiloGear vs. Wild Things vs. Cold Cold World

I've been using the same CCW Valdez for the last 15 years, it's been on a bunch of long routes all over, including alpine stuff.

Works great and just won't die. I'll get another one when it does.

I have the cold cold world chernobyl and valdez. I also have the wild things spectra andinista. I have a NWD cilo gear 40b worksack coming my way (I got it used off the net)

I have to say I love the Valdez and chernobyl the most. The wildthings fits like the chernobyl but is a bit stiffer on the shoulder straps and larger.

I'm curious to check out the cilo as I have only heard good things about them. But the chernobyl I have had since I think 1999 or 2000.

Seam sealing a 30L W/NW Dyneema Cilo Worksack as we speak...

Sweet pack!!!

Cant go wrong with Cold Cold World though. In a way if it ain't broke don't fix says the guy with $500 bag...

APBT1976 wrote:Seam sealing a 30L W/NW Dyneema Cilo Worksack as we speak... Sweet pack!!! Cant go wrong with Cold Cold World though. In a way if it ain't broke don't fix says the guy with $500 bag...

Another excellent point, a $500 bag that YOU need to seam seal?! And you DO need to seam seal them too - for structural integrity, not just waterproofing. For $500, it should be ready to go out of the box AND make you espresso at belays! ;^D

This is actually a gripe at many in the industry, not just Cilo. I also resent paying big bucks for tents and having to spend an evening sealing them too.

I bought a Cold, COLD World Chaos from Randy about ten years ago and it has stood the test of time and many alpine routes since.........WAYY better than a Wild Things pack in terms of quality sewing and materials.

No experience with the Cilo Pack but I understand they are built well and carry well.

What's the advantage of dyneema pack again? More abrasion resistance? Lighter?

For grade IV climbs, you might want to consider a smaller, lighter pack that you can comfortably lead in. Lately I've been using a 20L Worksack for this purpose. It's not perfect, but it got the job done on climbs like Pingora NE, Bugaboo NE, N Ridge Stuart, and Touchstone, (it's also great on multipitch ice).

Things I like about it:
Small and light. I can use it as a stuff sack in a larger pack. It almost disappears on my back while leading, (until I get in an ow squeeze).
Reasonably durable. I've scuffed up the side pockets, but the body material is holding strong.
Modularity. I am one of those people who likes to mess with gear, and I've found several neat ways to carry specific gear and improve carry.

Things I don't like:
Load carrying. This pack sucks at carrying any more weight than you'd be willing to lead with. Don't fill it with water and hardware and expect to be happy.
Strap design. The shoulder straps chafe my underarms after a long day. I feel this would be remedied with a sternum strap.
No framesheet. Things can poke into your back. This is easily solved with a Platypus bottle, (even an empty one).
It's fiddly. As much as I like messing with gear, sometimes I just want my pack to work. I keep misplacing and losing those fancy straps.

All in all, I like the Worksack a little more than my BBEE for use as a leader's pack. I also prefer it to a larger pack every time I don't need to carry a bunch of gear.

Kevin Craig wrote: Another excellent point, a $500 bag that YOU need to seam seal?! And you DO need to seam seal them too - for structural integrity, not just waterproofing. For $500, it should be ready to go out of the box AND make you espresso at belays! ;^D This is actually a gripe at many in the industry, not just Cilo. I also resent paying big bucks for tents and having to spend an evening sealing them too.

Yup i agree i still have yet to finish a lighthouse i purchased over the summer.

It is wicked retarded to pay for something that is not yet ready to use. I could care less what the story is some guy at the factory should be doing this without question.

On th other hand i am not gonna let seam sealing stop me from purchasing what i think is the best tool for the project so? They got us by the balls just like the the big corporations have our government by the balls. I kid i kid that was a joke i stole from Alexes CitiBank thread ;)

divnamite wrote:What's the advantage of dyneema pack again? More abrasion resistance? Lighter?

Both, but mostly it looks cool ;) they all carry well and we are talking ounces so weigh is kinda retarded. On the other hand the fabric is bomber and light!!!

Mostly it is white and all techno glow in the dark see through Nasa space age cool. If you are a gear nerd it is irresistible!!

I have not used Cilo, 'cause my Cold World is still tickin', any years of use.

Those of you who've had extensive use with the Cold Cold World and Wild Things style packs, Do these things work well enough when you have to hike it in a long distance?

Once you start climbing or at least hiking straight up, a normal frame doesn't seem too important. But if you have to hump it 20+ miles until that point, do you still consider these style of packs to be the right choice?

andrewc wrote:Those of you who've had extensive use with the Cold Cold World and Wild Things style packs, Do these things work well enough when you have to hike it in a long distance? Once you start climbing or at least hiking straight up, a normal frame doesn't seem too important. But if you have to hump it 20+ miles until that point, do you still consider these style of packs to be the right choice?

Yup they sure do!

Well maybe not my new 30L Cilo Gear pack as it does not even have a pad. I did come with a pad but it is just a thin piece of foam. To be honest though a pack and the size/weight it is meant to carry kinda go hand and hand. I can't see it being a problem to carry up to 30lb's in this pack sans pad.

May be a personal thing and quit a bit of pack and how it carries has to do with pack and adjustments. I will say this i can't really see a need for the hip belt on my New 30L WorkSack as it stay put with just the sternum strap due to the construction of the rest of the bag.

andrewc wrote:Those of you who've had extensive use with the Cold Cold World and Wild Things style packs, Do these things work well enough when you have to hike it in a long distance? Once you start climbing or at least hiking straight up, a normal frame doesn't seem too important. But if you have to hump it 20+ miles until that point, do you still consider these style of packs to be the right choice?

I have used an Ice Sac for years. I do notice a bit of discomfort when carrying the pack loaded for longer distances, but pretty much any pack hurts after carrying it all day. Sometimes I wish it had a single removeable stay. But once you start clinbing, it is actually nice to not have that suspension.

andrewc wrote:Those of you who've had extensive use with the Cold Cold World and Wild Things style packs, Do these things work well enough when you have to hike it in a long distance? Once you start climbing or at least hiking straight up, a normal frame doesn't seem too important. But if you have to hump it 20+ miles until that point, do you still consider these style of packs to be the right choice?

Speaking for the Andinista and Cilo 45L Worksack, yes. I've schlepped some pretty big loads long distances and at altitude (5000ish m) with the Andinista in particular and it was on the comfortable side of tolerable if packed right. If you pack the load good and tight, the load *is* the "frame." Now mind you, I've never done a 20+ mile approach in one day with these, but have definitely done 10+ miles.

For durability, CCW. I've had a Valdez pack for EIGHTEEN years, and though it looks like absolute crap at this point, it's been hauled up many many routes, and hiked many many miles. At some point more recently I got a smaller Ozone pack.

Anyway.

There's no one pack that does everything. If you're humping a load 20+ miles, I suspect that you're either doing a mad aerobic push, or more likely you're spending the night, right? At a certain point a slightly larger, slightly heavier pack, with a minimal frame might make sense. But these frameless 30ish liter packs do quite well when packed smart.

Thank you for the great discussion thus far. It has definitely given me a lot of insight into what to expect from these packs.

When I emailed Wild Things asking about the sizing on their packs they told me about how great they were for hiking. Since I can't stand the term "hiking" they are out. (We can start another thread about my the hatred of "hiking")

Anyhow I have not heard a single negative comment about the Cold Cold World packs. It sounds like they are beyond strong. The pack I am looking at from them is the Chernobyl. Is there another model not listed on the website that is comparable to this pack?

My other question is about the CiloGear packs. With the 2 models of the 30 work sacks the W/NW version and the 210d dyneema version. The website actually lists the weight on the 210d dyneema version to be lighter than the W/NW. Was the weight advantage (and I guess possible strength) suppose to be the big advantage?

Anyhow I've narrowed my personal search down to the Chernobyl, the 30L Cilo, and a new one the

Blue Ice 30L pack. Any help there? :)

I personally don't think Cilogear is worth the $ for alpine rock. I sold my Worksack when it tore after one alpine rock trip. I've been using the BD Speed series when I need to be weight conscious (e.g. long traverses like Evolution) though they do suffer from abrasion damage like other ultralight packs. For shorter stuff I tend to opt for a slightly more durable pack despite the extra weight. IMHO for durability and price, and after test driving a number of climbing packs from various manufacturers (TNF, Osprey, Vaude, BD, CiloGear), I'm a big BD fan.

A little rant: I reckon all this dyneema/ non-woven dyneema is a bit of "let's see how expensive we can make shit that people will still buy". This isn't a dig at cilogear, but makers of dyneema packs in general. Sure, it's light and tough, but here we have people with (Probably standard nylon) CCW packs lasting eighteen years. That's pretty freakin' tough and I'd bet the weight difference between that pack and a similarly sized all-dyneema pack is less than one of your smaller turds.
I think dyneema ripstop is a great idea, in fact just about all of my (many, too many) packs have at least some dyneema ripstop in them, but a full dyneema pack?
for example:
Cilogear 30L NWD pack: 940g: $500
MEC Genie DSL 30L pack: 661g, $50
CCW Valdez ~40L pack: 960g, $115 You could probably bring the weight down and the price up a little by requesting a dyneema ripstop fabric.
Blue Ice Warthog 26L pack: 720g , 80 euros

My previous genie lasted me about 6 years (and is now a grocery/school bag), Seth's Valdez lasted him 18 years. I don't have any personal experience with the warthog, but it looks burly.
Looking at that list, it seems like a Dyneema/NWD pack is not really lighter (the stripped weight of the Cilogear pack is 500g, my stripped Genie is about 465g), and while we don't have any anecdotal evidence here about how durable they are, 6 years for a $50 pack, or 18 for a $115 pack is pretty durable. Durable enough that you could replace the pack twice and still be well under the price of a Dyneema pack.

So what's the advantage of full Dyneema? It's not functionally lighter (all we're really concerned about is the actual weight of the pack, not the fabric itself), and packs of a similar or lower weight have shown themselves to be absolutely bomber at a fraction of the price. I reckon you're getting well and truly ripped off if you buy a full dyneema pack.

I've seen Jack's (we met in Cham, Jack) 10 year old Chaos and it's in way better shape than my 2.5 year old Cilogear 45 worksack which was blowing seams and bartacks (the fabric was fine though) as jacks' Chaos was trucking along.

How much of a difference can you expect with a small pack like that?

In a small bag, you might get some durability increase but nothing really substantial to justify the price / weight. Think about the relative weight of the arm strap padding and nylon webbing to the total fabric in the bag.

Then look at a 60L dyneema/spectra bag and it becomes more clear. The body of the bag will be 30% lighter and the same or more abrasion resistant.

I would never under any circumstance buy a small spectra bag, they aren't worth the dough. You will put a hole in it regardless.

FWIW, I have a Kelty White Cloud (spectra) from 2002 or so and my partner has a cilogear 60L worksack in dyneema. Both are great bags, mine has higher denier fabric and is thus 100g heavier in the body.

Finally, you will have a tough time making 30L nice when you have a sleepingbag bivy and cooking equipment in there plus your rack and a puffy on the approach. If you are in winter good luck.
I wouldnt go smaller than a 40 personally, and I climb in my 60L all the time. It gets down to nearly the same size as a 30L when it doesn't have gear in it and hardly weighs more.

BTW, that s2s bag stinks. Ultralight sure, but the straps dont stay flat on your shoulders while climbing as your arms pinch them into little strings basically, so even 1L of water and a jacket become annoying. Plus they inspire no confidence for abrasion.

Syndicate wrote:Then look at a 60L dyneema/spectra bag and it becomes more clear. The body of the bag will be 30% lighter and the same or more abrasion resistant.

Any examples? I compared cilogear's 60L NW/Dyneema vs Chaos, full pack to full pack is 1690g vs 1700g. My CCW Chaos is about 4 years old and still look solid. In my experience, most packs blew out are not caused by less durable material, but seams and bar tacks that come apart.