Threads asking about lightweight bags come up now and again, and I remember seeing questions about these bags, both of which I now happen to own, thanks to some Christmas shopping that got me the Expedition. I put some photos together into a quick video comparing the Expedition and Quickload Travel Packs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=facdtYIrjTY As I type, the Expedition is $10 less, plus I like its pocket organization much, much better. A deal breaker could be it does not have the lockable main zipper like the Quickload, but as a pack, I think my preference is for the Expedition. Sigh, actually I think both are too big, but I have been unable to find a 20" pack. Companies all seem to go to the automatic 22" size. Tom Bihn does have the Tri-Star, but it is a full pound more. I do have the Bihn Aeronaut, but as nice as it is, it's 22" ... so, I continue the search. Cheers.
Posted by
Freedonia
14992 posts
In response to your video, let me answer one of your questions. You mention the main zipper on the Quickload is off to one side while the one on the Expedition is centered. This is strictly a design feature and has nothing to do with the durability of the bag. What's important is what type of zipper is used. If you want a slightly smaller and lighter bag, check out the Goodhope Convertible: It's 18 x 12 x 6.5, weighs 2 lbs and costs $22. http://www.luggage.com/Goodhope-Bags-7260-GHB1367.html While I have never actually checked one out, I believe Lee from Colorado has one. He might be able to answer your questions. What about the Tom Bihn Western Flyer?
Posted by
Lakewood, Colorado
19092 posts
Yes, I have one. I have yet to use it to Europe, but I did use it as a carry-on for a 3 night trip to the east last summer, and it worked fine. It's similar in design to the RS convertible and Essential Carryon bags, but smaller. I really like the 18" height because it's noticeably smaller when you are boarding. The only issue you should know is that it is 1404 in³, only 51% of regulation carryon volume. Everything I brought back from my last trip to Europe fits in it, so I could probably use it, but I would really like a few hundred in³ more.
Posted by
Texan in CA
4407 posts
Betsey, I LOVE the YouTube presentation! Very imaginative. As for the zippers on the Exp. - it looks like you can still loop something through the 'base' of the zipper pull (the metal part, not the cord loop) OR EVEN BETTER through the slider that actually zips the teeth (looks like there's some room there); I've done this on bags myself. Of course, you need to find a lock with a thin shackle that will actually fit through the zipper... I agree that it's annoying that the jumps are often even-numbered - 18", 20", 22", OR like the other pack mentioned (Goodhope) it's 18" but only 6" deep...a bit too small for me.
Posted by
OP
New England
312 posts
Thank you, Frank, for the information on the Goodhope! Even with always looking for bags, that's not a name I've seen before. I do have a TB Western Flyer, but I haven't tried it for an air trip, just a bit too small, it seems (1600 cu in). The Aeronaut is 1100 cu inches larger, but only 80 grams more. I so wish that TB made a 20" Aeronaut, something less structured like the Aeronaut but bigger than the Western Flyer, which has more structure. Structure seems to turn into weight (ie the 3.5 lb TriStar), and less structure is so floppy when the bag is 21-22 inches and trying to pack very light. Yeah, Lee, just a few more cu in for the Goodhope (wishful sigh). I did a short trip one time with a 1,400 cu in bag, a few inches of which had an expandable bag, so I came home with two bags, not one :-) A one-compartment 2,000 cu in bag--I saw one mentioned one time, but it was a discontinued bag :-( I need practice with my iMovie, Eileen, so glad you liked the comparison video. I've seen these two bags mentioned, so I hoped it wasn't too presumptuous to start a thread ;-) Cheers.
Posted by
Florida, USA
12172 posts
My exact lament. Bags are either max carry-on or go down considerably and add a laptop feature (which is a waste of space and weight for me). When will someone offer a slightly smaller, perhaps more stylish, convertible carry-on? I'm not sure we'll ever get it. The vast majority of Americans travel with the biggest boatload of clothes they can possibly stuff into a bag and aren't interested in something I would like. I traveled comfortably around Bavaria for a week with only a 1300cc daypack (extra pair pants, two extra shirts plus socks and underwear) but I'm not sure I'd want to do that for three weeks or more.
Posted by
OP
New England
312 posts
Hi, I followed some links last evening and ordered a new bag that is supposed to be about 2000 cu in. I remember a thread that had lists of light bags. I'll find that in a couple of weeks and top it with information! I'll reference this thread, but put the information on the thread about light bags in general, and leave this about the LL Bean bags. Cheers.
Posted by
Lakewood, Colorado
19092 posts
A 2000 cu. in. bag would be a good start, but there are other criteria. After almost 16 weeks of carryon travel, and checking out 6 different bags, I have a pretty good idea of what works for me. I want a bag that: Is about 1900 cu in, About 2#, preferably less, Has a rectangular solid shape. (Rounded corners to facilitate zipper movement are OK, but no taper, Only one or two almost full profile, outside pockets for newspaper, map, umbrella. no big stickout pockets, One big compartment, Opens fully for packing, Hideaway backpack straps. None of these characteristics needs to make the bag expensive. The OPEC bag has them all, in a larger size, and it sells for $30. (No wheeled luggage need apply)