OBOW Light Travel Forum > How many cubic inches are enough?
John - excellent topic! I believe some manufacturers simply take the three dimensions and multiply them by one another to arrive at a measure of volume without taking inner dividers and padding into account. Tom Bihn has taken steps to clarify and standardize his company's volume measurements. Read about his approach here, with links to the international standard info. I've found that the TB Western Flyer (at a realistic volume of 1600 cubic inches) is enough for me, while an Aeronaut (2700) or Red Oxx Air Boss (2184 stated volume) are usually too large. The Air Boss/Aeronaut comparison is informative. I would say that they have similar volumes, but the Aeronaut (22x14x9) comes in at about 500 inches ahead of the Air Boss (21x8x13). In practice the Air Boss bulges considerably and I believe the bags have an almost equal volume and outside dimensions if fully packed. If you do the math you find that the Air Boss measurements are arrived at by multiplication of dimensions whereas the Aeronaut's stated volume is 72 inches less than the multiplied dimensions. Most maximum legal-size carryons come in around 2800 ci.
An informative real world comparison will be photos of a packed Aeronaut next to a packed Red Oxx SkyTrain which I'll be posting soon. See also the Western Flyer review which has comparison photos of the Flyer and Aeronaut - where you can see what an 1100 cubic inch difference looks like.
Frank@OBOW
I've never actually seen an Aeronaut, so perhaps someone could answer this question: How much of that extra 500 inches is taken up be the packing cubes that TB recommends you use with the Aeronaut? From the descriptions online it would seem that the Airboss has more internal padding built in whereas the Aeronaut requires the use of packing cubes to supply the structure built into the Airboss.
Is this accurate?
jpj
I don't have an Aeronaut, but I have other Tom Bihn baggage, and I think the material Bihn uses doesn't require packing cubes for structure...the material is pretty stiff and has structure built in. The way the Aeronaut is built -- it doesn't open book-style like the RedOxx bags -- makes packing cubes almost necessary with its (IMHO) somewhat awkward opening to the main compartment. If there were a good way to measure the effect of packing cubes, it would be a good metric to let potential buyers weigh the benefits vs. the tradeoffs (expense, weight, volume) and the effect of cubes on the bags under consideration.
John
The Aeronaut does not require cube for structure. The fact that it does not open book-style means it is less prone to bulging, holds it shape very well, maybe partly because of stiffer ballistic nylon vs. Cordura. The cubes are necessary (unless you're a roller or a stuffer) because there are no hold-down straps. I've found that I get no more wrinkles using modified bundle packing with cubes than with using a hold-down strap. The straps can cause creases of their own. The Air Boss inner padding is not too thick. I would guess both bags lose about the same amount of volume to the dividers and walls. In my opinion the Aeronaut actually is more space-efficient because of the end pockets, especially if you carry extra shoes. Bu the Air Boss superior for dress clothing because of the full-size rectangular compartments (rather than the squarer ones of the Aeronaut) - a little easier to pack sport coats and dress shirts
Frank@OBOW
If I'm not doing anything too out of the ordinary or carrying a full laptop, 700 in^3 is just fine for me. I like to have mesh outer pockets for a water bottle or grabbing a few groceries, though. The most perfect backpack I've found is the Gregory Reactor , and one has lasted me 4+ years of almost daily service.
I'm working on being able to get my stuff into a 300 in^3 purse, for cute and totally unobtrusive traveling. I'll post a list and pictures once I make it happen!
Kit
Excellent Kit, that's exactly the kind of stuff we'd like to see and hear. See Tim Ferriss's light outfit here.
Frank@OBOW
Sometimes they don't even bother multiplying the external dimensions to approximate the volume. You can tell because in a lot of cases, the listed volume is larger than the product of the external dimensions, which is impossible. That always really annoys me and turns me off of a pack/bag.
Mike
I managed to go 10 days in Ireland with just this bag (which I think is more of a yoga bag or gym bag) and a purse. I could have done with 1/4 more space, and a slightly better main opening - but for ultra-light packing this was pretty good. It's 1181 cu.in. So I think something under 2000 is ideal.
Kayla BagB>
Maybe this one?
HoboB>
TravelMinx
this time with links that work
http://www.ebags.com/ebags/kalya_town_square/product_detail/index.cfm?modelid=57682
http://www.ebags.com/ebags/unxpected_hobo_tote_lx/product_detail/index.cfm?modelid=88866
TravelMinx
TravelMinx, did you happen to weigh your bag? Unless it was exceedingly light, I would think that thin shoulder strap would be a killer if you had to carry it much.
John
While traveling around australia last month I packed my 21" suitcase only half full so on a 2 week trip to Florida I just packed a small carry on of under 1500". I think I could live out of this bag for a longer trip no problem.
Forest
There's lots of discussion around the outer dimensions (and other features) of one-bag-style luggage, but not a whole lot about the basic question of volume. Not the least of my peeves is that many manufacturers do not bother to publish that spec, which is frankly one of the most important, at least to light travelers.
So what do people think? Drawing from experience, what is your minimum and how do you pack it?