April 28, 2009 Tom's new Star
The TriStar is out:
Very interesting. It takes the nice horizontal exterior pockets first seen on the Western Flyer and makes them a threesome. Read all about it here. So far, I’m impressed. The more traditional, sliced-like-bread, three-compartment design will suit more traditional packers put off by the duffel-style Aeronaut. And it has hold-down straps unlike the Aeronaut.
NIFTY POCKET
 |
|
|
|
|
Frank@OBOW
Frank@OBOW
Tri-Star cube dimensions:
Small Packing Cubes:
12.8 x 7.4 x 2.3” (325 x 188 x 60mm)
Medium Packing Cube:
12.8 x 11.3 x 2.3” (325 x 288 x 60mm)
Large Packing Cube:
18.7 x 12.8 x 2.3” (475 x 325 x 60mm)
Five pages and counting on the TriStar on the Tom Bihn Forum.
Frank@OBOW
A more thorough perusal of the photos and product description leads me to believe that this may be the most highly-evolved carry-on shoulder bag ever built. It probably doesn’t offer the backpack comfort of an MEI bag (nothing does) but I prefer the shoulder.Backpack straps for me are just for occasonal use and variety. As for the pockets, I hate too many internal pockets but I can say from experience that the TriStar’s thoughtfully-placed external pockets (like the WF’s) can really make the airport experience easier. I hope to see one soon.
Reader Comments (18)
Does look very good indeed. I'd gladly put one through its paces if they sent me one. ;)
One of the questions is how it fares against the Mei Convertible (bigger, same weight, half the price) and against the Mei EO (bigger, 1lb more, same price, similar compartment layout, better shoulder/waist strap).
Or, be really heretic, compare it with the ebags weekender. $55 to $200 should make that an interesting proposition and might win this one in favor of the ebag, even if the features are really different. For example the weekender has organizer pockets integrated for which you need to pay $35 in form of a Freudian Slip with the Tristar. Whether one prefers a three compartment bag or a 1-2 compartment bag is probably a matter of personal preference.
I did not like the Checkpoint flyer design. It is too cumbersome, see my comments on your post. The Aeronaut's design is not great, either, as I know because I have a bag with the same kind of design by Mandarina Duck. But the Tristar seems to be interesting. I do like the blue/yellow color scheme and think it would be neat if they offered the yellow interior also for the black exterior. But so far that's not the case. An orange interior would be even nicer, as I am partial to orange. Obviously orange goes great with blue, steel and black and is the more fashionable color compared to yellow.
Just some initial thoughts. I am curious to see what the first non-fanboy opinions will be.
Till
Til, for a sloppy packer like me the Aeronaut is ideal. You're probably a neatnik so the three-compartment design would probably "suit" you better. I believe the traditional three-compartment design's main drawback is the tendency to bulge. The ballistic nylon should help keep this under control.It will be really nice if can drop a notebook in the center compartment without the need for a sleeve as you can do with the Air Boss or TT Tri-Zip.
I'm interested in it because it looks like the only Tom Bihn bag so far that will pack a business suit.
I've packed a blazer and dress slacks in the Aeronaut before. It might not be ideal, but it is very workable.
Still, I might be the Tristar - just because! Hey, does there really ever have to be a reason? :-)
I believe the size is near ideal. I've never been able to fill up an Aeronaut or Air Boss. And remember - max size = oversize given the bulging that usually occurs.
Yeah, kind of a neatnik, at least for packing. :)
What bothers me with the aeronaut design is that the outer pockets don't hold one pair of my dress shoes each. That means I have to put one shoe on each side. This wastes too much space. The center compartment is also not great to pack a suit. At least in my MD bag my 18" EC shirt folder fits just so, i.e. not a really good fit. Packing cubes are a must, or bundle packing. Then it works for casual clothing.
I do agree however, that it has a ton of room, so to say.
I'm disappointed, and probably won't get one. I was looking for a smaller aeronaut (without end pockets), not a western flyer on steroids. The size is right, the 3 compartments is not. I'm not a sloppy packer but I do carry 3-dimensional objects and pack in more directions than flat (allowing me to fit things in really neatly!). The search continues.
If you want deeper compartments check:
ebags Weekender
Lowe Alpine TT
Jansport Eurosac http://www.ebags.com/jansport/euro_sak/product_detail/index.cfm?modelid=81964
Till, all the ones you suggested are much larger than the tristar. A big point of developing the tristar is to get an excellent bag with the smaller outer dimensions to fit more airlines. The others are far too large. If I wanted that size, the aeronaut probably the pick of the bunch.
Flerdle, you should contact Tom Bihn. He might make you a Demi-naut! I think women have much less need of the big, flat compartments for packing dress clothes than do men. Is that accurate?
Till... I'm surprised you can't pack a pair of dress shoes in one of the end compartments of the Aeronaut? I can manage it, and I wear mens size 11. Do you have large shoes?
The new Tri-Star looks like it'd be the perfect bag for my upcoming trip to Europe in late June. However, because the bag isn't due until then, I'm asking the nice people at Tom Bihn the exact date when the bag is going to be sent out.
I plan to buy the bag either way. If I can't get it in time, I'd wait since I don't have any trips beyond Europe for about six months. However for Europe, this means I'll have to use my faux-Aeronaut bag (which I dislike using). My main dislike is that my faux-Aeronaut isn't compartmentalized. I like having separate areas for my Mac Book Pro, clothes, toiletries, etc.
It's my personal hope that I can get the Tri-Star in time, because I want to try out bundle packing. Also, I dislike using cubes (except for things like underwear, socks, etc.).
Not sure, if I said that, I didn't actually try it out with the Aeronaut but with my Mandarina Duck bag that has the same measures and proportions. Depending on the shoes (I wear a size 9) it fits. The slimmer shoes fit. The large Goodyear handsewn or even double-welted stuff doesn't fit in width. Length is ok. Width protrudes quite a bit into the main compartment though even with slimmer shoes.
It is also really not great for suits and my shirt folder. I just find the layout not very ergonomic and the shape not super comfortable for carrying. My MD bag does not have a backpack strap, just shoulder carry.
On the other hand, for casual trips with an extra pair of jeans, a sweater, a rain jacket and underwear etc., it is a great bag because it is light and roomy and fits a lot of stuff. My MD Tank series bag also looks like a million bugs and makes me feel real "designy" and hip. Besides some rubber on the grip that fell of after 19 years, the bag is still going very strongly. It's the kind of luggage you'd expect James Bond to use besides Rimowa. :)
I've been spending some time fiddling on how I can use my Eagle Creek folders and cubes in the Tri-star and have come up with some solutions.
In the back section , I can fit either my EC Double Cube or EC 18 packing folder depending on the type of trip. In the front, an EC 1/2 cube, tube cube, Koala toiletry kit (or Rick Steves compact toiletry kit) and an EC xsmall sac. The middle section is for a medium sized messenger bag, electronics (including netbook) and stuff I can use during a flight or train trip. 3-1-1 bag would go in one of the outside front pockets.
I currently use a one compartment bag but feel the Tri-star will help me be more organized and take less. I like using cubes and dislike the bundle packing method. (Too much work packing and unpacking.)
I think with a little ingenuity, and a cooperative type of suit fabric, a suit could be packed if necessary. This, of course, would take up some extra room so I might just wear the jacket if necessary.
This is the first Bihn bag that strikes me as fitting my style of packing -- with the others, I think, you really have to drink the packing cube Kool-Aid, whereas this is more suited for bundle packing.
I do have a problem with the 19" width, though - might not be wide enough for the shoulders of a suit jacket (my old Samsonite 22" wheelie was big enough but I don't think my 2005-vintage MLC is).
Also I'm not sure about all the outside pockets - unlike Brad, I'd rather have 'em inside where all my stuff is safely out of sight.
FWIW, I've sworn off toiletry kits altogether except the really ingenious one that comes with my Travelpro Plat5 22 incher. For hand carry I would definitely try a ziploc bag instead of a carry-on. Once you separate dry and wet goods in your toiletries one or perhaps two ziplocs should be sufficient for the dry items (brush, toothbrush, shaver, deo, pills, q-tips, scissors).
Packing cubes I only use the put items that would otherwise clutter the bag like tech related things. For me, packing cubes are best used when they actually compress their contents. They become compression sacks and that helps. Otherwise they just add bulk and weight. In a bag like the one-compartment ebags Weekender, the MLC or an Aeronaut, yes they are more useful for organization than in a three or five compartment (if you count the separation) bag like the Tristar.
If you really want to shed another half pound or so, try doing without the toiletry kit and cubes.
I must admit, though, that I do like my EC shirt folder. Particularly since I have discovered that a) I can wrap my ties around the shirts and have them come out flawless and b) I can wrap a suit around the shirt folder and have the suit come out pretty good, too.
Brad said:
Good observation. I think that's pretty much spot on, at least for me. My clothes, even the trousers, fold smaller, to a footprint of about 9x11", meaning that they don't fill the layers well (or my packing cubes, so I don't use them for anything other than underwear and bits&pieces), and this leaves substantial gaps which are better suited to things that go across the layers, such as shoes, jars, presents and cubes full of thingies. .Darcy indicated on the thread that something like a Demi-naut (heh!) might be in the works later in the year. In the meantime I found a 40-41" bag (20Lx9Wx11H) for less than $30 that is set up like a mini-aeronaut (but with the opening on the thinner side, unfortunately). I packed it this afternoon with the usual packing list, and it is perfect.
Currently I carry an Air Boss with the Absolute Shoulder Strap, but I've been thinking about this bag for a while now. Lucky for me the Tom Bihn store was open yesterday. After an hour of playing with the bag and various packing cubes I decided it wasn't for me. I understand (I think I understand anyway) why its smaller than the Aeronaut, but that is the size I need. The layout is great, but I need the few extra inches the Air Boss gives me. I wear a size 48 jacket and 14 shoes. I didn't see a way to pack an extra pair of shoes without filling the center pocket. And I'm sure my jacket would get mashed in the main compartment. I guess I'll have to hope Tom Bihn decides to make a larger version of this bag.