Review - Craghoppers 22L daysack

I've been looking for my ideal daysack for some time and I've now been using the Craghoppers Kiwi pro daysack for a few weeks and have worn it for 64 miles.

I chose it for its capacity - 22 litres is just the right size for the food, water, extra layers and other bits and pieces that you need for a day's walking. I was also looking for one with an airflow system. The smaller sack I've been using just has a plain back and the 'sweaty back' has been a real problem for me, especially in the Summer.

In short I love it. It's comfortable and practical and I'll be using it for every trip from 5-mile leg-stretches to single-day challenges such as the Ivanhoe Way.

The pockets are great and well thought-out. It has one big main compartment. I ruled out others that have more than one large compartment because I don't see the point. That divides your main space up and I think you'll fit your stuff more easily into a single compartment such as this one has. It has a useful small outer pocket which I've found very easy to access for small items. There's also a sunglasses pocket which is 'velvet'-lined. (I don't have shades - I have been using this for my phone). Plus the usual external mesh pockets.

It's very comfortable indeed. So far, 19 miles is the furthest I've walked in one go with it but the straps have been very comfortable on the shoulders. The product specification says that the waist strap isn't weight-bearing but when done up it helps the Kiwi to nestle on the back and it does take the weight off the shoulders.

The airflow system is comprised of some raised meshy padded areas. The air can then flow between them.  It's not as good as the 'mesh' type system on bigger more rigid rucksacks, but those are bigger and heavier. It's certainly better than similar and smaller sacks which don't have an air system.

Those padded shapes also help the bag to sit very comfortably on the back. When it's packed right and adjusted right it really does feel very good.

It has a pocket for a hydration bladder (eg Platypus or Camelbak) with a little hole under a flap for the tube. I've tried this and it's fine, but I prefer to use a Sigg bottle now. I found that a full Camelbak in the relevant pouch, with the rest of the space well-packed, made the back bulge out, reducing the general comfort and also reducing the effectiveness of those air channels because they were all pressing against my back.

I'm not fussed about waterproofness because I take great care not to walk when there are darker clouds forecast. But it has already dealt well with a light shower. It's pleasing to see the water beading and it seems reasonably waterproof.

Pros

• Pockets and compartments are very well thought-out
• shoulder straps are very comfortable
• 'airflow' pads make the sack very comfortable on the back
• bladder pocket and hole for tube
• Although it's stated that the waist belt on this model isn't load-bearing, it does make the pack more comfortable and helps to support the weight.

Cons

• I'd prefer a more rigid back for better airflow with a bladder in place, and so that a full load doesn't change how it sits on the back. But I think I'd only get that with a bigger, heavier sack.

Alt-berg - first impressions

After a long wait trying to track down exactly the right size, I'm very excited about my new Alt-bergs.

Most walking stores will spend time making sure your boots are the right size lengthways (finger down the back, standing on their little slope etc etc). But really, what is the point of all that when you get a 'one size fits all' width?

I think my grossly spread feet are the reason why I hate wearing any shoes and always get blisters on the outside of my little toes or between my toes after 25-30 miles.

Alt-berg make boots here in the UK and they make five widths! I'd now be prepared to pay much more, but they're not much more than you'd expect to pay for any of the big names.

My boots are called Fremington - a 3-season walking boot. Size 8 and a half, extra wide.

First impressions:

• The cuff is a lovely nubuck rather than the more usual fabric (the latter always wears through before the boot has worn out). 
• The tongue is one-piece all the way up to the top. 
• The waterproof membrane is Sympatex, a Goretex-type breathable waterproof membrane. (I always buy boots and jackets with Goretex or similar - I like to stay dry!) 
• The Vibram sole is stiff as a board. Much stiffer than my existing pair (though this may be partly because they're well worn). This is great news - fantastic on uneven ground such as stones or tussocks. Hopefully it'll be slower to wear too.
• A minus point - they feel noticeably heavy! 740g each compared to my previous (very similar-looking) pair which are 600g each. 
• They scream "quality"!! Hurray for UK manufacturing.

I was a little disappointed to find that even though I'd bought extra-wide, the sole measured exactly the same as my previous pair - maybe even a couple of mm narrower. On a visual inspection, it's obvious that there's more boot above the sole than my old pair - I assume that the soles are pretty standard and the last (the former that the boot is made on) gives the actual shape and dimensions of the space inside the boot. They don't feel as wide as I would have expected. But trying one of each boot (previous and Alt-berg) on bare feet makes it obvious that the Alt-berg fits my shape better. I can even splay my toes a little! (and that's comparing a well-worn boot with the brand new Alt-berg)

I had read that Alt-berg's sizes aren't generous, and I'd concur - I have half a size bigger than I'd normally buy. Important to try them.

The real test is to walk some distance (10 miles) because your feet really swell. At this point I would normally be feeling uncomfortable inside my regular-width boots - my toes would be feeling constricted, and this would become pain after 25 miles.

And here's the real benefit of my new boots. Even though they're not broken in yet, there was none of that. My toes were still feeling free even after a distance. The next day they're feeling fresher than they normally would. I'm hoping they'll make my longer-distance walks more enjoyable this year - I'll give updates.

(If you're thinking "why isn't she wearing proper walking trousers", I do have two pairs of those. You can tell me all about high-performance materials and wicking etc but give me demin every time. Sure it takes time to dry if it gets wet but I believe it's warmer and tougher so gives better protection against bumps, scuffs, pricks and stings. I'll live without pockets on the legs!)

Why I've got the hump with my camelbak and will be using my old Sigg instead

I switched from this old sigg to the 2l camelbak a couple of years ago. The bladder has a number of advantages over the bottle,

• bigger capacity (my camel: 2L, my Sigg: 1L)
• easy to keep sipping, keeps you well hydrated without breaking your step
• massive filling cap, easy to fill
• 'deflates' as you drink, making space
• generally takes little space in the rucksack because the water 'moves' to the shape of the space it has

However, I've become fed up with it and have been taking my old dented sigg out on shorter walks recently. These are the reasons:

• tube grows mould inside it very easily, impossible to clean once this has happened
• bite valve gets weak and drippy, leading to damp patches on clothing or the need to fasten it somewhere high
• tainted taste to the water, even with a new tube fitted
• high maintenance; to prevent the mould, Camelbak recommend a cleaning regime involving bleach and lots of rinsing

I'm a fan of low maintenance things. (read: I'm lazy) My Sigg has never been treated to anything other than a quick rinse and a prop upside down on the drainer. Sometimes it's been left half-full in the rucker for ages with no ill-effects.

I suffered the mouldy tube problem with the Camel, I'm happy to accept that this was my fault for not cleaning it properly, but it had only had plain water in it, so the material it's made of is obviously susceptible. After failed attempts to clean it, I bought another tube for the best part of a tenner. I've kept this one clear of the mould by cleaning and drying the thing after use, but I have to say that it still gives a taste to the water in it (the bladder itself seems clean, and is easy to clean given the big opening).

The drippy bite valve is easy to fix too, either by lodging the valve high up (eg tying it to the rucksack shoulder strap) or buying a new one.

But all of this is all a bit of a pain (and expensive). I've had the Sigg for years and no problems at all. I've not looked after it and the water tastes perfectly clean.

So I have a couple of disadvantages to get over. The Sigg has a lower capacity. Even two of these will not be enough for a long walk on a hot day. I've just invested in a 1.5L bottle giving me 2.5L altogether.

I'll have to make sure that I reach for the bottle regularly which is a bit of a nuisance.

Review - Ordnance Survey 'Active' maps

About a year ago I bought my first 'Active' map - a weatherproof version of the Explorer map of my area. It costs twice as much (about £14 versus £8 for the paper version).

The paper versions are printed on good heavy paper, but after the odd rain shower, sweaty hands, being folded and re-folded, this is the result - my last paper version of Explorer 245 resembles some holes being tentatively held together by papier mache. The cardboard cover fell off a long time ago, and it's nearly split along its length.


I've seen a couple of paper versions of this map end up like this in just a few years, and so paying a bit more for a hardier version seemed like a good investment.

This is my Active map after about a year of good use. How's it holding up?


Initially, I was a little bit disappointed. I had been expecting a map printed on some hi-tech plastic paper. In fact it's the regular paper map that's been laminated. The corners are left square, and I could see those getting bent and splitting (I suppose I could have taken some nail scissors to them and rounded them off).

However, having used it for a year, I couldn't be happier with it. It's had the same harsh treatment that my paper ones have had; it's been out in the rain, in sweaty hands, it's had insects and blackberries squashed on it, it's been bent and folded in ways that it doesn't find natural. Yet it still looks new.

If it rains, I can just use it as normal without it coming to any harm - the water wipes or dries off. Dirt and other marks wipe off too.

The corners are a little dog-eared as predicted, but only the corners of the cover, which is slightly bigger and protects the rest of the map.

A map case is a good alternative. If you don't mind wearing or carrying the case, that's a good way to go. I find them a bit of an encumbrance and like the flexibility of being able to shove the map away in my pocket when I'm on familiar territory.

Bear in mind that they are being updated all the time, so a map that lasts a lifetime may be a bit counterproductive. However, it only takes one shower and a bit of handling to damage the paper version. The choice is yours!