Gear Review
Arc'teryx Bora 80 Backpack - 4390-5000cu in
Phenomenal!
By o2ripper
Ranked #261 - Weeklong Packs (Over 4500 cu in)
November 10, 2010
I own the Bora 65...I love every aspect of it. I didn't go for the 80 simply because I wanted to force myself to be more of a minimalist. As everyone has stated it's not fully waterproof but it keeps the important features protected - sleeping bag.
I walked across Spain for a month over 350miles with this pack and had absolutely no issues. Although I wasn't utilizing the entire pack because walking 12-20 miles everyday isn't fun with tons of weight.
Worth every penny! It was hard to go with the arcteryx at first due to being a fan of pockets, but with extra pockets comes potential for soaked gear. Go with any pack Arcteryx and you'll never regret it.
View Details: Arc'teryx Bora 80 Backpack - 4390-5000cu in
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes
Tech Specs:
- Material:
- [lining] Invista HT Ripstorm (210D nylon), Invista HT Ripstorm (420D nylon), Invista HT Superpack (630D nylon)
- Support/Suspension:
- V-stay frame, molded back panel
- Shoulder Straps:
- thermo-molded
- Waist-Belt:
- yes, thermo-molded
- Hydration Compatible:
- yes, hose clip
- Reservoir Included:
- no
- Detachable Lid:
- yes, with intergrated hip belt
- Access:
- top, side, bottom
- Pockets:
- 2 lid, 1 front, 2 side water bottle
- Sleeping Bag Compartment:
- yes
- Weight:
- 6 lbs 9 oz
- Volume:
- (short) 72-81 L, (medium) 77-86 L, (long) 82-92 L
- Recommended Use:
- weekend to week-long backpacking trips
- Manufacturer Warranty:
- lifetime
Change me.
1 Comments Last Reply: April 6, 2011 By: leaveword1676537
Ripper I like your review and I wish more people would get what you're saying here. Somehow I get the feeling that people want to be "covered" by getting the biggest volume for the money they spend. Weight is a big deal when you want to or need to make big miles or climb/descend. Data check: I met 20 people last year leaving to walk the Camino Real in Spain and none of them carried a pack bigger than 30 liters. I climb most peaks in winter with a 52 liter pack. I carry 45 pounds of rock and ice gear in my 32 liter pack. When I needed to carry 120 pounds up into the Cascades, I stripped down to a 4 lb Mont Bell. Yes, suffering ensued. That's the point I'm trying to make for folks just startign out here. Weight is a drag, and it's a really good idea to limit your pack size in order to curb the weight. If you know you can make 24 miles in a day on the AT carrying 45 pounds, then those 45 pounds will feel so much better in a great pack. But if you don't yet know your performance and load limits, my humble advice is, start by enjoying the backcountry 60 liters a ta time--or less.
Helpful Votes: 0 Yes