"One of the best things you can do in this world is take a nap in the woods." ~ Jayber Crow by Wendell Berry
"While it may be a lot of work, the view is best from the summit." ~ an anonymous staff member of Philmont Scout Ranch
Enjoy the day
Shane
I debated it in my mind for quite some time, too.
What ultimately made me decide on the regular is that I'm really not a hiker. I've been all of a couple of times...and only once did I actually stay overnight in the woods in a hammock. I mostly car camp.
Is there enough of a weight savings to matter? Not to me.
If it comes down to it I can shave weight somewhere else in my pack, but there's really not a whole lot of difference between the LH and the regular SB.
Besides, I like the idea of having the extra space. With the LH, I can't add any extra space to the interior.
It's like the old saying goes: I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
(That probably doesn't help you, does it?)
Shane, I'm 6'-1" tall and I THINK I'm near the comfortable limit in the regular SB. However, I have never tried a LightHiker, so I'm eyballing this by laying in my SB. I am a backpacker and I agonized over this decision. Someday, I'll get to try a LighHiker, and if I can' feel a difference, I'll be posting a SB for sale.
Mike
"Life is a Project!"
Ok, we need someone 6'1"-ish to try both for us. :-) I'm waffling back and forth myself.
Yes, there IS a difference.
In the original SB, the storage pocket was waaaaay up there and I couldn't reach it..in the LH, I can reach it just fine.
In the SB I just felt that there was so much wasted fabric and the pack size is definitely larger. They also use a #3 zipper in the LH v #5 in the SB.
But I'm 5' so for someone, say 5'8", they could probably go either way and be fine. If primarily for backpacking, and weight/bulk is important, then the LH. If mostly car/kayak camping the SB is sheer luxury.
Bookmarks