Dakine Builders 29l pack $180

A rucksack made for chainsaws, you say?

BikeRadar score 3/5

This may be a backpack built for check-shirted Canucks to take to the woods and build some sweet trail architecture, but if you’re just after a seriously large capacity riding pack it’ll still hit the spot.

With a 29-litre capacity, there’s a huge amount of space inside for whatever you need, plus there’s room and routing for a 3l bladder. On the outside there’s a plethora of additional storage. Most of it’s trail building specific but doubles up for other uses very easily.

The chainsaw holding pouch will easily swallow a full face or open helmet, the big side pockets designed for fuel and oil easily take additional water bottles, while the multitude of internal pockets make it easy to organise your kit without it getting lost in the cavernous interior.

Unless you’re really going out building, the special clip holder for a branch lopper and the roll-up nail pouch won’t get much use, but the first aid kit pouch is useful. There are two clear pocket sections, one on the top flap and one inside, which are good for delicate, quick access items, though they don’t have waterproof zips and there’s no flimsy, soft lining to help cushion them.

The back padding is excellent throughout and can easily and comfortably support a lot of weight, with an especially well designed hip/waist band that also adds some zipped easy access pockets. There are big, chunky buckles all over too, while all the zips have tabs that make them easy to grab with gloved hands.

Rough and tough is pretty much the deal with this Dakine pack. The material is extremely hardwearing 1260D nylon, meaning it’ll last a very long time indeed. The downside of all this is the weight. Even empty it’s a rather huge 1835g, so even if you’re packing light you’ll still notice the mass. It’s pricey too, especially as a bladder isn’t included.

This article was originally published in What Mountain Bike magazine, available on Apple Newsstand and Zinio.

Related Articles

Comments

Back to top