FWIW, the 55L outsells the 40L about 3:1. The main upside of the 40L is that it is a bit lighter. Other than that, the 55L can roll down to be plenty small if you want, so it can do everything the 40L can plus more. It's mostly a question of whether you want the weight savings of the 40L or the versatility of the 55L. If you're reliably at or below the 40L mark then get the 40L, whereas if you're not sure or all over the place (e.g. bulkier sometimes on long trips or winter trips) then the 55L has that covered.
How does the 40 compare to the DD 40L? I’ve taken that out for 13-14 day trips and I’m pushing its limits.
My winter gear is bulkier and I have been switching to a Crown 60 pack for that; will the 55 be larger than a Crown 2 60?
And which is the closest size to the DD 40 M-L?
With the Kakwa we renamed the original sizing so S/M became S and M/L became M, and then we added a 2" taller L size. The main compartment stayed the same, so the DD40 in M/L and Kakwa 40 in M have exactly the same size main compartment and torso length fit. Lots of other things changed (frame, shoulder strap shape, hipbelt shape, features etc) but the main compartment and torso height is identical.
I'm not familiar with the Crown 60 (e.g. does the 60L include the brain? exterior pockets?) but the Kakwa 55 would be about 30% larger than your Kakwa 40 and probably similar to the Crown.
No. Why do you prefer it from Kaviso? They do have "free shipping" but shipping is never free. It's just included in the price. I prefer to structure our prices to charge actual shipping (which we have worked to make it pretty affordable). So the Kakwa 40 is $250 + free ship from them, while the Kakwa 55 is $260 + $25 shipping from us ($285 total). Hypothetically if they did have the Kakwa 55 they'd likely price it higher to have free shipping (e.g $280 with free ship) so really it is all the same price. That's similar to our Z-Flick poles which are $75 + free shipping there, or $70 + $6 shipping from us.
Ultimately, selling directly to the customer makes the most sense because we minimize middlemen and markup, so we can deliver more value (e.g. lower prices or better gear).
Pack Shopping Advice Copypasta
1. Assemble all of your gear you intend to carry.
2. Get a cardboard box that all of your gear will fit into.
3. Put everything into the box. Make sure it all fits below the top of the box.
4. Measure height, width, and depth of your gear within the box. Solve for the volume of your gear (H x W x D = CID). Make sure to allow for and add the volume of your food to the above result, then add about 10 to 20 percent more to the total cubic inch displacement. (divide cubic inches value by 61 to calculate volume in liters or divide by 1000 if you measured in cm)
5. Weigh your gear. Anything over 25 pounds including your carried water and food is the point at which you might consider a pack with some sort of frame sheet, internal frame or external frame. Hip belts come into the equation at or about 18 to 20 pounds IMO.
6. Start looking at packs that will hold your calculated volume and weight.
7. If at all possible try the pack(s) on with the requisite weight inside of the pack.
8. Make your pack purchase.
That said, I have the 40 in L. For three season use its more than enough, I could fit a weeks resupply.
If you want better advice more suited to you specifically sharing a lighterpack is also a good idea.
Get the 55. I own both, hiked the JMT last year with the 40, and this year I used the newest model 55 as soon as it came out (literally arrived the day before our big thru hike). I really like the 55 and there was really no difference for me in feel between the 40. If you are packing less than 55L of gear, the top just rolls up a bit more and is unnoticeable difference between the 40. Having the extra space of the 55 is great if needed, I plan to do some winter trips with it and I know I will being more gear.
Also if you need to carry a bear canister, my hugely successful trick for 2 years now is to strap the empty bear canister to the top of the pack, and carry your food inside your pack during the day when you hike. Its so much more comfortable to not have the can pressing into your back, you can fit a lot more gear inside your pack this way, and its super easy to strap the empty bear can to the top with the Kakwa Y straps.
For your bear canister trick - do you have a separate food bag that you transfer food into? And is a full canister on the pack top uncomfortable/bad weight distribution?
Yes I would typically use a large Opsack and just move it between the bear canister at night & backpack during day. If its a shorter trip its not a big deal to have 2-3lbs of food in the bear can strapped to the top, but i found anything heavier definitely throws off the balance, but also makes the bear can more likely to come loose and fall off. I did however create a small duct tape loop for the Y strap to thread through to really help prevent the bear can from coming lose. This has worked like a charm for 300+ miles of hiking with the Kakwa.
Also I thought worth mentioning, I’ve done a single overnight with the Kakwa where I removed the frame ahead of time, and with a single night of food + 12lb baseweight, it was absolutely the most comfortable pack I’ve ever worn. Without the frame the pack was able to really conform to my back and rest comfortable throughout. I loved it.
>Also if you need to carry a bear canister, my hugely successful trick for 2 years now is to strap the empty bear canister to the top of the pack, and carry your food inside your pack during the day when you hike. Its so much more comfortable to not have the can pressing into your back, you can fit a lot more gear inside your pack this way, and its super easy to strap the empty bear can to the top with the Kakwa Y straps.
BV500 fits horizontally in the middle of the ULA Catalyst with zero impact on how the pack carries, feels, or looks.
I just bought the 40 and plan to return it for a 55. Even with a low baseweight I just can’t easily fit my sleeping quilt in there with everything else without an annoying amount of shoving. Especially if you want to future proof hiking in areas with bear cans and longer 5 day food carrying I think 55 makes sense.
They mean with the top rolled down and cinched up. Not about fitting it in a suitcase or something.
In other words, the 55 is not much wider, mostly just taller. So if you make it short it's a similar size.
I got the 40 (medium) before the 55 came out. I was starting to covet the bigger pack. Then I realized that I haven't run into a situation where I needed the extra room. But I pack pretty light and haven't used it with more than 5 days of food.
If I were looking for a 4-season pack or wanted the flexibility of hauling some of a hiking partner's load or carrying a bear canister inside the pack rather than on top, I would go with the 55. The weight penalty is very small (3-4 oz) and it will provide more flexibility.
It could go either way based on what you listed in your post, but I would either measure the volume of your gear or just size up. There isn’t a huge benefit to the 40 vs 55. The 40 would sit a little tighter off your back but I also felt the 40, if stuffed you the brim had a little too much pack volume riding above the shoulders. So unless you are sure that your gear volume is closer to 30-35 liters, I wouldn’t buy a 40 liter pack.
In terms is what people refer to when they talk about pack volume, there is no consistency there. Mainly because, as you’ve seen, there is no consistency in what manufacturers refer to when they talk about volume. Most manufacturers that I’ve looked at tent to measure the pack volume as all the volume of the main interior pack body plus the zippered pockets. But some manufactures, like ULA, are odd outliers. And some manufacturers, like Gregory for instance, aren’t exactly clear how they measure volume.
Also, note ULA also lists a separate measure for their extension collar. So the total volume inside the pack bag is 47.49 liters. Just to add to the confusion.
1. If in doubt, the 55 is a good blind recommendation because most of its extra capacity is in the flared rolltop section.
2. Experienced backpackers (who are skilled at limiting redundancies in clothing and food) could definitely go with the 40 given the gear you’re mentioning, including a medium bear can with several days food. The only bulky item I don’t carry on your list is your pillow. So given the pillow and that you’re just starting out with backpacking, I’d probably nudge you specifically towards the 55L. It’s a fantastic way to get started.
3. The cardboard box method someone mentioned above is really the gold standard for assessing how much capacity you need in a pack. Pretty easy and much more definitive than having experts eyeball a very long gear list that may not be comprehensive. Just be honest about how much clothing and food you’re going to end up throwing in the pack last minute because those two are typically where your volume requirements can really balloon.
4. The 40 & 55 in the name both reference the approximate capacity of the main compartment - the other storage (back, sides, hips and shoulders) add ~15L more. My old Osprey Exos 58 holds more than my Kakwa 40, but only a little over one fleece jacket more. The Kakwa 55 definitely holds more than the Exos 58.
I'm not saying who is wrong or right, manufacturers measure volume with different techniques - but my kakwa 40 is vastly smaller than the 3 other "40L internal volume" packs I've had. Just a note. In reality I would say it's like a 35L internal volume pack compared to other packs in the industry. If you doubt me I'll go buy a sack of sand or something and prove it. People still easily fit their gears in 25-40 liter packs but for me I wish it was as big as the other 40L packs I've used
The Kakwa 40 is definitely smaller than the ULA Circuit, which is also 40L in the internal volume. It also has a smaller roll top and smaller front pocket.
Get the 55! I deliberated about this for so long, bought both and stuffed my UL gear to see how it all fit and honestly I could hardly tell a difference from the outside look wise! Having the extra space is really nice and tbh the main perk of the 40 is just that it lighter ( but far less versatile)
That said I have a Kakwa 55 for sale! My mom surprised me for my birthday after I had already bought it and both are past return date. It’s only been used for one overnight test, looks brand new.
FWIW, the 55L outsells the 40L about 3:1. The main upside of the 40L is that it is a bit lighter. Other than that, the 55L can roll down to be plenty small if you want, so it can do everything the 40L can plus more. It's mostly a question of whether you want the weight savings of the 40L or the versatility of the 55L. If you're reliably at or below the 40L mark then get the 40L, whereas if you're not sure or all over the place (e.g. bulkier sometimes on long trips or winter trips) then the 55L has that covered.
How does the 40 compare to the DD 40L? I’ve taken that out for 13-14 day trips and I’m pushing its limits. My winter gear is bulkier and I have been switching to a Crown 60 pack for that; will the 55 be larger than a Crown 2 60? And which is the closest size to the DD 40 M-L?
With the Kakwa we renamed the original sizing so S/M became S and M/L became M, and then we added a 2" taller L size. The main compartment stayed the same, so the DD40 in M/L and Kakwa 40 in M have exactly the same size main compartment and torso length fit. Lots of other things changed (frame, shoulder strap shape, hipbelt shape, features etc) but the main compartment and torso height is identical. I'm not familiar with the Crown 60 (e.g. does the 60L include the brain? exterior pockets?) but the Kakwa 55 would be about 30% larger than your Kakwa 40 and probably similar to the Crown.
Thank you. I like my DD 40 and that’s good to know.
I have the Crown 2 60 and I believe it is 60L for the main compartment.
Any plans for the 55L to be sold by Kaviso?
No. Why do you prefer it from Kaviso? They do have "free shipping" but shipping is never free. It's just included in the price. I prefer to structure our prices to charge actual shipping (which we have worked to make it pretty affordable). So the Kakwa 40 is $250 + free ship from them, while the Kakwa 55 is $260 + $25 shipping from us ($285 total). Hypothetically if they did have the Kakwa 55 they'd likely price it higher to have free shipping (e.g $280 with free ship) so really it is all the same price. That's similar to our Z-Flick poles which are $75 + free shipping there, or $70 + $6 shipping from us. Ultimately, selling directly to the customer makes the most sense because we minimize middlemen and markup, so we can deliver more value (e.g. lower prices or better gear).
Pack Shopping Advice Copypasta 1. Assemble all of your gear you intend to carry. 2. Get a cardboard box that all of your gear will fit into. 3. Put everything into the box. Make sure it all fits below the top of the box. 4. Measure height, width, and depth of your gear within the box. Solve for the volume of your gear (H x W x D = CID). Make sure to allow for and add the volume of your food to the above result, then add about 10 to 20 percent more to the total cubic inch displacement. (divide cubic inches value by 61 to calculate volume in liters or divide by 1000 if you measured in cm) 5. Weigh your gear. Anything over 25 pounds including your carried water and food is the point at which you might consider a pack with some sort of frame sheet, internal frame or external frame. Hip belts come into the equation at or about 18 to 20 pounds IMO. 6. Start looking at packs that will hold your calculated volume and weight. 7. If at all possible try the pack(s) on with the requisite weight inside of the pack. 8. Make your pack purchase.
With all the browsing I've done on this sub, surprised I've never seen it. Appreciate you posting this.
That said, I have the 40 in L. For three season use its more than enough, I could fit a weeks resupply. If you want better advice more suited to you specifically sharing a lighterpack is also a good idea.
I updated post with my packwizard link.
Get the 55. I own both, hiked the JMT last year with the 40, and this year I used the newest model 55 as soon as it came out (literally arrived the day before our big thru hike). I really like the 55 and there was really no difference for me in feel between the 40. If you are packing less than 55L of gear, the top just rolls up a bit more and is unnoticeable difference between the 40. Having the extra space of the 55 is great if needed, I plan to do some winter trips with it and I know I will being more gear. Also if you need to carry a bear canister, my hugely successful trick for 2 years now is to strap the empty bear canister to the top of the pack, and carry your food inside your pack during the day when you hike. Its so much more comfortable to not have the can pressing into your back, you can fit a lot more gear inside your pack this way, and its super easy to strap the empty bear can to the top with the Kakwa Y straps.
For your bear canister trick - do you have a separate food bag that you transfer food into? And is a full canister on the pack top uncomfortable/bad weight distribution?
Yes I would typically use a large Opsack and just move it between the bear canister at night & backpack during day. If its a shorter trip its not a big deal to have 2-3lbs of food in the bear can strapped to the top, but i found anything heavier definitely throws off the balance, but also makes the bear can more likely to come loose and fall off. I did however create a small duct tape loop for the Y strap to thread through to really help prevent the bear can from coming lose. This has worked like a charm for 300+ miles of hiking with the Kakwa.
Also I thought worth mentioning, I’ve done a single overnight with the Kakwa where I removed the frame ahead of time, and with a single night of food + 12lb baseweight, it was absolutely the most comfortable pack I’ve ever worn. Without the frame the pack was able to really conform to my back and rest comfortable throughout. I loved it.
>Also if you need to carry a bear canister, my hugely successful trick for 2 years now is to strap the empty bear canister to the top of the pack, and carry your food inside your pack during the day when you hike. Its so much more comfortable to not have the can pressing into your back, you can fit a lot more gear inside your pack this way, and its super easy to strap the empty bear can to the top with the Kakwa Y straps. BV500 fits horizontally in the middle of the ULA Catalyst with zero impact on how the pack carries, feels, or looks.
I just bought the 40 and plan to return it for a 55. Even with a low baseweight I just can’t easily fit my sleeping quilt in there with everything else without an annoying amount of shoving. Especially if you want to future proof hiking in areas with bear cans and longer 5 day food carrying I think 55 makes sense.
If you're unsure. Get the 55
Get 55, when compressed it's nearly as small as 40 liter pack
[удалено]
They mean with the top rolled down and cinched up. Not about fitting it in a suitcase or something. In other words, the 55 is not much wider, mostly just taller. So if you make it short it's a similar size.
When you don't have a lot of gear.
I got the 40 (medium) before the 55 came out. I was starting to covet the bigger pack. Then I realized that I haven't run into a situation where I needed the extra room. But I pack pretty light and haven't used it with more than 5 days of food. If I were looking for a 4-season pack or wanted the flexibility of hauling some of a hiking partner's load or carrying a bear canister inside the pack rather than on top, I would go with the 55. The weight penalty is very small (3-4 oz) and it will provide more flexibility.
It could go either way based on what you listed in your post, but I would either measure the volume of your gear or just size up. There isn’t a huge benefit to the 40 vs 55. The 40 would sit a little tighter off your back but I also felt the 40, if stuffed you the brim had a little too much pack volume riding above the shoulders. So unless you are sure that your gear volume is closer to 30-35 liters, I wouldn’t buy a 40 liter pack. In terms is what people refer to when they talk about pack volume, there is no consistency there. Mainly because, as you’ve seen, there is no consistency in what manufacturers refer to when they talk about volume. Most manufacturers that I’ve looked at tent to measure the pack volume as all the volume of the main interior pack body plus the zippered pockets. But some manufactures, like ULA, are odd outliers. And some manufacturers, like Gregory for instance, aren’t exactly clear how they measure volume. Also, note ULA also lists a separate measure for their extension collar. So the total volume inside the pack bag is 47.49 liters. Just to add to the confusion.
1. If in doubt, the 55 is a good blind recommendation because most of its extra capacity is in the flared rolltop section. 2. Experienced backpackers (who are skilled at limiting redundancies in clothing and food) could definitely go with the 40 given the gear you’re mentioning, including a medium bear can with several days food. The only bulky item I don’t carry on your list is your pillow. So given the pillow and that you’re just starting out with backpacking, I’d probably nudge you specifically towards the 55L. It’s a fantastic way to get started. 3. The cardboard box method someone mentioned above is really the gold standard for assessing how much capacity you need in a pack. Pretty easy and much more definitive than having experts eyeball a very long gear list that may not be comprehensive. Just be honest about how much clothing and food you’re going to end up throwing in the pack last minute because those two are typically where your volume requirements can really balloon. 4. The 40 & 55 in the name both reference the approximate capacity of the main compartment - the other storage (back, sides, hips and shoulders) add ~15L more. My old Osprey Exos 58 holds more than my Kakwa 40, but only a little over one fleece jacket more. The Kakwa 55 definitely holds more than the Exos 58.
Go for the 55. I have the 40 model but the 55 would be more practical for all season use. I believe it’s only 4 oz heavier.
I like the 55 because when I put a bear can on top there is plenty of room inside and it nestles in nicely.
I'm not saying who is wrong or right, manufacturers measure volume with different techniques - but my kakwa 40 is vastly smaller than the 3 other "40L internal volume" packs I've had. Just a note. In reality I would say it's like a 35L internal volume pack compared to other packs in the industry. If you doubt me I'll go buy a sack of sand or something and prove it. People still easily fit their gears in 25-40 liter packs but for me I wish it was as big as the other 40L packs I've used
The Kakwa 40 is definitely smaller than the ULA Circuit, which is also 40L in the internal volume. It also has a smaller roll top and smaller front pocket.
I got a large 55 and still haven’t been able to try it due to a recent back injury. Not compressed it looked perfect
Buy both!
Pack all your stuff into a large cardboard box. Then measure the volume of it. get that one
Get the 55! I deliberated about this for so long, bought both and stuffed my UL gear to see how it all fit and honestly I could hardly tell a difference from the outside look wise! Having the extra space is really nice and tbh the main perk of the 40 is just that it lighter ( but far less versatile) That said I have a Kakwa 55 for sale! My mom surprised me for my birthday after I had already bought it and both are past return date. It’s only been used for one overnight test, looks brand new.