Mutant 52 or Speed 50 or similar on route for 2-3 night trips

Has anyone used a Mutant 52, Speed 50, Cold Cold World Chernobyl or other similar 50-55L pack for approach as well as on route, stripped down?  I have climbed with a Patagonia Linked 18L, an Osprey Atmos 65L with a lot of weight in it, and a MH South Col 70 stripped down.  Some of these scenarios were definitely less than ideal, but it did work.  

Obviously anything is do-able but wondering others experience.  It seems that the 2-3 night trip range is kind of in a gray area.  Do you bring a big pack and a small summit pack?  How big does the summit pack need to be, especially if you need to bring boots as well as rock shoes?  The 18L linked seems to be too small for this and to bring a summit pack you do need to bring a larger approach pack or put it on the outside of the pack.  If you go with one pack in the 40-45 liter range how creative do you need to get with packing and is it annoyingly tight?

I was thinking something like a Mutant 52 or Speed 50 or maybe a Mission 55 could be the right fit as one solution since they strip down and are reasonably light.  Thoughts/experience?  Think 3 night trips in the Sierras, RMNP, Bugaboos - primarily basecamping and doing day routes, but bivying on route could be a possibility.

The pack I'd choose for a 2-3 day trip is highly dependent on a bunch of factors, such as:

• How hard is the climbing?
• Does the descent come down the climbing route?
• What is the season and expected temperatures?
• How big a rack is required?
• Do I need to bivy on route?
• Am I coming back to the same camp spot?

I used the BD Blitz 20 on a bunch of in-a-day alpine routes last season that required a double rack and carrying approach shoes up the route, 20L is plenty for that type of objective.

I have used a 50L pack (MEC Alpinelite 50, very similar to a BD Speed 50) for several overnight alpine climbs.  50L is more than enough space for an overnight or two, and they climb fine on moderate terrain.  However, I would not want to climb vertical terrain with a 50L pack (strong people would do this no problem).

I think that the right pack is very dependent on the type of climbing and the difficulty of the terrain for you.  For example, there is stuff in the Bugaboos I'd happily climb with a 50L pack on, and stuff that I wouldn't even want a small leader's pack for.  I recommend figuring out what you can tolerate for the routes you might be thinking about before you hone in on a particular pack.

Kyle Tarry wrote: The pack I'd choose for a 2-3 day trip is highly dependent on a bunch of factors, such as:

• How hard is the climbing?
• Does the descent come down the climbing route?
• What is the season and expected temperatures?
• How big a rack is required?
• Do I need to bivy on route?
• Am I coming back to the same camp spot?

I used the BD Blitz 20 on a bunch of in-a-day alpine routes last season that required a double rack and carrying approach shoes up the route, 20L is plenty for that type of objective.

I have used a 50L pack (MEC Alpinelite 50, very similar to a BD Speed 50) for several overnight alpine climbs.  50L is more than enough space for an overnight or two, and they climb fine on moderate terrain.  However, I would not want to climb vertical terrain with a 50L pack (strong people would do this no problem).

I think that the right pack is very dependent on the type of climbing and the difficulty of the terrain for you.  For example, there is stuff in the Bugaboos I'd happily climb with a 50L pack on, and stuff that I wouldn't even want a small leader's pack for.  I recommend figuring out what you can tolerate for the routes you might be thinking about before you hone in on a particular pack.

Really good points  - thanks.  I guess a follow up would be, what is the largest (or smallest) summit pack you would take if you were going to be leading or following reasonably challenging terrain (for me) lets say up to 5.9?  Assume the summit pack needs to have a layer or two of clothes, food, water, and either approach shoes OR a pair of light mountaineering boots, light crampons, and short axe.  Assume you would NOT necessarily be descending to the same location you ascended from.  I'd think for that you'd need a 20L pack or so - I mean - I have an 18L Linked and the boots take up almost the whole pack by themselves.

I guess another option is you bring one larger pack for everything that the follower carries...that can work too.  

FWIW - I had the older style Atmos 65 (with the more significantly curved back panel) and I found my Variant 52 to pack as much gear (if not more). I actually use my Variant 37 for 1-2 night backpacking trips with room to spare (not carrying climbing gear, but it could probably handle the weight)

neils wrote:

I guess a follow up would be, what is the largest (or smallest) summit pack you would take if you were going to be leading or following reasonably challenging terrain (for me) lets say up to 5.9?  Assume the summit pack needs to have a layer or two of clothes, food, water, and either approach shoes OR a pair of light mountaineering boots, light crampons, and short axe.  Assume you would NOT necessarily be descending to the same location you ascended from.  I'd think for that you'd need a 20L pack or so - I mean - I have an 18L Linked and the boots take up almost the whole pack by themselves.

Last year my partner and I climbed the Beckey-Chouinard on Howser, which I think fits this description pretty well.  I used a Blitz 20, my partner used a Linked 18.  We both carried approach shoes, crampons, and a light axe up the route (plus the standard extra layers, water, food, etc.)  It worked really well and I would do the same thing again.

I guess another option is you bring one larger pack for everything that the follower carries...that can work too.  

I've done this before but it kinda sucks.  Assuming both partners are the same ability level, if the leader needs no pack to send the pitches, the follower has a really miserable time with a pack that is twice as heavy.  Just my opinion.

Kyle Tarry wrote: Last year my partner and I climbed the Beckey-Chouinard on Howser, which I think fits this description pretty well.  I used a Blitz 20, my partner used a Linked 18.  We both carried approach shoes, crampons, and a light axe up the route (plus the standard extra layers, water, food, etc.)  It worked really well and I would do the same thing again.

yes exactly - I have a Linked 18.  Maybe it can work with my boots in it if need be.  It seemed really tight but I will experiment.  

neils wrote:

Really good points  - thanks.  I guess a follow up would be, what is the largest (or smallest) summit pack you would take if you were going to be leading or following reasonably challenging terrain (for me) lets say up to 5.9?  Assume the summit pack needs to have a layer or two of clothes, food, water, and either approach shoes OR a pair of light mountaineering boots, light crampons, and short axe.  Assume you would NOT necessarily be descending to the same location you ascended from.  I'd think for that you'd need a 20L pack or so - I mean - I have an 18L Linked and the boots take up almost the whole pack by themselves.

I guess another option is you bring one larger pack for everything that the follower carries...that can work too.  

Having a single big follower pack is fine if you're hauling or the second is jugging on a fixed line. For free climbing it kinda sucks. If you're in the case of needing about 50L of space for your stuff, I like to roll with a 30-35ish L pack for the follower and a 15-20L pack for the leader. Then you just swap packs when you swap leaders. The follower pack can fit both pairs of boots with the increased space, and the leader pack carries some water, snacks, and a layer for both climbers. 

One way to reduce the pack size is to clip your boots or shoes to the back of your harness. If you clip the toe laces on boots they actually stay up and reasonably out of the way. You could also try folding the ankle down into the heel of the boot when you put it in the pack. But there isn't a super awesome solution to carrying mountain boots when you're not wearing them as you've already figured out.

For what it's worth, I am usually able to roll with a 30L pack for a 2-3 night climb in the summer/early fall assuming I'm packing light and the weather is reasonably good. Once the temps get a bit colder, or the forecast is a bit worse, or I'm interesting in bringing along a few more luxury items, I'll bump up to a lightweight 45-50L pack. As far as specific packs go, I think that simpler packs are easier to pack and easier to climb with than more complex packs. The BD Speed series are pretty good, kinda like the Nissan Frontier of packs. Not quite as bombproof (or as hyped...) as a Tacoma, but gets to job done and won't explode on the side of the road like a Ford Ranger.

I did some further experimenting and I actually CAN fit my boots (which I hopefully won't need but want to be set if I do), 1.5L water, a couple of layers, snacks, crampons and axe in 18L Linked and it seems to carry OK.  So that being said for what I currently have planned - 2 night backcountry alpine climbing basecamping I think it should work fine.  I can hike in with my larger comfortable Atmos and use the Linked on route.  When I initially tried it out it seemed no way it could all fit if I need my boots.

Good to know clipping boots to harness is at least an option.  I have done that with approach shoes but never with boots.

My pack quiver can certainly have some other options in it...I have several but they are primarily for backpacking.  I was hoping not to throw down any more $$$$ right now and it seems I have a workable option, for now.

There's a pretty big size and weight range for "mountaineering boots" too, so potentially a lot of room for optimization there.  Carrying a pair of Nepals is a lot harder than carrying a pair of TX4s.  Most moderates in the US don't require ice climbing to access the rock, so I think that the need for mountaineering boots for summer rock objectives is generally pretty low.  There are lots of good in-between waterproof high tops available that work great.

Not sure what you're using for boots or what you need for where you're going, but that's something to consider.

Kyle Tarry wrote: There's a pretty big size and weight range for "mountaineering boots" too, so potentially a lot of room for optimization there.  Carrying a pair of Nepals is a lot harder than carrying a pair of TX4s.  Most moderates in the US don't require ice climbing to access the rock, so I think that the need for mountaineering boots for summer rock objectives is generally pretty low.  There are lots of good in-between waterproof high tops available that work great.

Not sure what you're using for boots or what you need for where you're going, but that's something to consider.

yes - thank you.  I have scarpa mont blancs - not summer boots but not Spantiks either.  We are going to Temple Crag (Sierras) late June. It has been very snowy so we anticipate needing boots and crampons for the approach and maybe to get to the base of the route from camp as well.  In which case we would need to bring them up the route as we will not descend back to our starting point.  Perhaps approach shoes will be ok for the last mile from camp to the base of the route...time will tell.  I possibly could also use my Asolo 520 backpacking boots (leather and goretex) as those are quite a bit smaller and lighter and would probably be sufficient.

A full shank insulated ice climbing boot seems like overkill for hiking into summer rock objectives; something like a Trango or Charmoz might be nicer on your feet and easier to pack?  Hiking in with boots and carrying approach shoes to access the climbs would also be an option.  Or just approach shoes.

Kyle Tarry wrote: A full shank insulated ice climbing boot seems like overkill for hiking into summer rock objectives; something like a Trango or Charmoz might be nicer on your feet and easier to pack?  Hiking in with boots and carrying approach shoes to access the climbs would also be an option.  Or just approach shoes.

agreed - i just didn't have the $$$ to go buy a pair of lighter boots...hopefully we will just need approach shoes, or bring the hiking boots and approach shoes

For the approach to temple crag (sierra), you would be be perfectly fine with just approach shoes and universal crampons.

Pavel K wrote: For the approach to temple crag (sierra), you would be be perfectly fine with just approach shoes and universal crampons.

thank you - I was just concerned due to the amount of snow this year - going out there on June 26 I think - I will have strap on crampons either way

neils wrote: Has anyone used a Mutant 52, Speed 50, Cold Cold World Chernobyl or other similar 50-55L pack for approach as well as on route, stripped down? 

I have owned all of those packs (caviet only the 40 and 30L Speeds) and the Mutant 52 is far away the best of that lot. For 3 plus day trips I love that pack, it strips reasonably small, and a typically bring the Link 16 for a follower/summit pack. but I will always trade comfort on the trail for a few grams on the back.

Rexford Nesakwatch wrote:

I have owned all of those packs (caviet only the 40 and 30L Speeds) and the Mutant 52 is far away the best of that lot. For 3 plus day trips I love that pack, it strips reasonably small, and a typically bring the Link 16 for a follower/summit pack. but I will always trade comfort on the trail for a few grams on the back.

I guess my question to this is...if one intends to bring a small summit pack what is the benefit of a pack that strips down and what not...if you aren't going to climb with it?  Why not bring a larger comfortable pack (not that the mutant 52 isn't that) and call it a day?  This assumes you will be basecamping or going back to camp rather than an up and over.  I know if you bring a larger pack you may be tempted to fill it up and a larger pack itself might be heavier but I hope my question/point is clear.  If you were doing a 3-4 day trip in the Sierras, Bugaboos, Winds, whatever - wouldn't a "sweet" backpacking pack be the best choice for the approach and then climb with like a 15 or 18 or 20L summit pack?

I hope that makes sense,  If you are going to do something with bivy on the route and not returning to a base camp the whole situation changes I guess.

I’ve used the speed 40 on route a couple times on carryovers with an overnight. To be blunt climbing 5.9 with a loaded pack of bivy gear that large flat out blows. Even trying to compress it all down to hold the weight closer it still seems bulky. On a less than vertical 8 with just mtn boots, pons etc, where we were coming back to the bivy it was ok.

A 18-22 is vastly more fun to climb with, do anything you can to make it work. I’ll take 30hr push to not climb with an angry midget on my back.

i can highly recommend the deuter guide series.  have used the guide lite 32+ and the guide 35+ for 2 to 3-day backcountry climbing trips.  i think there's a 45+ for those who need a bit more room. functional design, carry nicely, and climb/ski well.

Nick Drake wrote: I’ve used the speed 40 on route a couple times on carryovers with an overnight. To be blunt climbing 5.9 with a loaded pack of bivy gear that large flat out blows. Even trying to compress it all down to hold the weight closer it still seems bulky. On a less than vertical 8 with just mtn boots, pons etc, where we were coming back to the bivy it was ok.

A 18-22 is vastly more fun to climb with, do anything you can to make it work. I’ll take 30hr push to not climb with an angry midget on my back.

this is insightful.  as you can probably tell I am still "building experience."  One of the things (as pointed out earlier in the thread) is the answer to which pack is well...what are you actually doing and how do you like to do it?  How much gear will be shared?  How many days are you REALLY going to do?  how many days in the wilderness climbing is actually realistic?  etc etc.  I have done 6 day backpacking trips but not an alpine/backcountry climbing trip like that.  At the risk of sounding silly...is that enjoyable?  When people say they do overnights climbing or 2-3 day trips what kind of trips are you doing?  Basecamp?  Single/multiple objective with bivy?  

Sorry if this thread has drifted a bit from a simple gear question to understanding the complexion of trips and what they involve.  I have my second (and largest) overnight climbing trip coming in a few weeks so we will see how that goes.

neils wrote:

this is insightful.  as you can probably tell I am still "building experience."  One of the things (as pointed out earlier in the thread) is the answer to which pack is well...what are you actually doing and how do you like to do it?  How much gear will be shared?  How many days are you REALLY going to do?  how many days in the wilderness climbing is actually realistic?  etc etc.  I have done 6 day backpacking trips but not an alpine/backcountry climbing trip like that.  At the risk of sounding silly...is that enjoyable?  When people say they do overnights climbing or 2-3 day trips what kind of trips are you doing?  Basecamp?  Single/multiple objective with bivy?  

Sorry if this thread has drifted a bit from a simple gear question to understanding the complexion of trips and what they involve.  I have my second (and largest) overnight climbing trip coming in a few weeks so we will see how that goes.

I have done a lot of routes where we hiked in to set a camp, climbed the route the next day with stripped down packs and then came back to break down camp. This is ok for climbing and if you're in great hiking shape it will be a lot easier on you. It is really nice to get the experience camping out in the alpine as well.

I've done a few with a carry over and bivy on a ledge mid route. To be honest I absolutely hate climbing in that style, the bulk/weight of the pack makes the climbing far less enjoyable to me and I have to drop the grade too much. Trying to sleep on a 3 foot wide ledge while you hear seracs collapsing isn't exactly the most restful. Also went stupidly light on those trips and shivered a lot. 

Later I moved on to doing more large rock routes in 20-28 hour pushes so that we could avoid lugging any gear in. Note I had many years of long days mountaineering/splitboarding to build up an aerobic base to make those long days possible without fatigue. In the last two years my focus has been solely on improving my technical climbing ability, not pushing grade/route length for the alpine. This plan to me is more enjoyable because I don't need much endurance from the legs to do a steep approach with a skinny rope and a sparse rack. Honestly my aerobic fitness is horrid compared ot four years ago, but the base is still high enough to make this work. Timing wise I can also do those types of routes on a Sunday and get quality cragging in while I'm fresh Saturday morning.

Nick Drake wrote:

I have done a lot of routes where we hiked in to set a camp, climbed the route the next day with stripped down packs and then came back to break down camp. This is ok for climbing and if you're in great hiking shape it will be a lot easier on you. It is really nice to get the experience camping out in the alpine as well.

I've done a few with a carry over and bivy on a ledge mid route. To be honest I absolutely hate climbing in that style, the bulk/weight of the pack makes the climbing far less enjoyable to me and I have to drop the grade too much. Trying to sleep on a 3 foot wide ledge while you hear seracs collapsing isn't exactly the most restful. Also went stupidly light on those trips and shivered a lot. 

Later I moved on to doing more large rock routes in 20-28 hour pushes so that we could avoid lugging any gear in. Note I had many years of long days mountaineering/splitboarding to build up an aerobic base to make those long days possible without fatigue. In the last two years my focus has been solely on improving my technical climbing ability, not pushing grade/route length for the alpine. This plan to me is more enjoyable because I don't need much endurance from the legs to do a steep approach with a skinny rope and a sparse rack. Honestly my aerobic fitness is horrid compared ot four years ago, but the base is still high enough to make this work. Timing wise I can also do those types of routes on a Sunday and get quality cragging in while I'm fresh Saturday morning.

thanks so much - I am still figuring out what I like and what the best gear for that is