Re: Camelbak Water systems

[Lucy C Trumbull <elsie@calweb.com>]

Mike Sofen wrote:

> I just switched from a Camelback to one of the new watersacks from
> "Ultimate".  It is WAY better than the Camelback in the areas of comfort
> (real padded straps, adjustable height of sack to fit any back), ton's of
> storage, 100 oz sack 

Camelbak do a "Mule" version, which has much better
padded and adjustable straps. The outer baggie has
several pockets (including a zippered one, which is
good for wallets, etc). I believe it holds 90 oz, so
holds a lot more than the standard Camelbak.

On horseback, I don't tend to fill it up completely,
maybe only half full, which did me fine on a 25 mile
ride on a warm day.

I'm assuming that it would work really well at a ride 
where you could fill up at each vet check - 90 oz of 
water weighs a lot, so while it is excellent for 
those really long rides, I rarely use the full
capacity - otherwise my back starts to ache. 

But the flip side is that it is good encouragement to 
drink - it seems to weigh less inside you <grin>.

I've used mine long distance on motorcycle a lot 
(i.e. sitting upright) and haven't had too many
problems. Without it, when you're tired and really
hot (Utah desert in August), just reaching for that 
bottle seems too much effort - whereas poking a 
"thingy" in your mouth and sip-sip-sipping really
stops you dehydrating. Plus I reckon sipping reduces
the need for bathroom breaks, compared to glugging
from a bottle at intervals - your body seems to 
absorb/sweat it out better <g>.
 
> ....but pricey, about $90. 

I think my "Mule" cost $70 a couple of years ago...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Lucy Chaplin Trumbull - elsie@calweb.com
Repotted english person in Sacramento, CA

http://www.calweb.com/~trouble
http://www.calweb.com/~elsie
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *