-
Posts
-
-
Fanny pack, bum bag, lumbar pack, call it what you want. Camelbak was showing the Palos pack that is designed to sit low on your back. It’s a 4-liter pack, which can accommodate up to 1.5 L of water. That still leaves enough room for tools, food, and maybe a packable jacket. I have yet to try one of these bags yet, but I like the idea for 2-3 hour rides where a full-on backpack isn’t needed. I’ll just have to endure the ridicule of my friends.
Anybody else out there using one of these (besides Jeff)?
-
The Camelbak fanny pack I’m using looks a lot different from this one so I’m interested to see what others think as well. I believe the Flash Flow I have was designed more for trail running than biking so it doesn’t have a lot of storage capacity beyond the 1.5L bladder.
-
Glad to see fanny packs on the comeback! I miss the 80s…
I can see the ease of access benefits, but I’m wondering how easy the tube is to access when you want a drink. It seems like it would be a bit inconvenient compared to packs. Also, with the bladder/hose connection being on the long flat bottom, I’m wonder how well it works when the level is low? If you don’t empty the bladder, I guess it wouldn’t be that big of a deal.
-
I wonder about the tube access as well. You’re probably going to have to come to a full stop to grab a drink.
Camelbak did solve the other problem you mentioned. There are little pull tabs on either side of the waistband that you can pull as the water level goes down. Those will keep pressure on the bladder.
Jeff just chucked an Osprey fanny pack on my desk, so I’ll be giving that a go this fall.
-
-
On the Camelbak pack I have there is a clip for the hose on the waist belt that keeps the hose within reach. In fact, accessibility is the whole reason I prefer a fanny pack–easier to get snacks, camera our without taking the pack off.
-
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.