Followup to recent hydration pack posting

I recently posted some questions here regarding hydration packs for road
bike use. It sparked a bit of a debate about whether hydration packs, and
backpacks in general, made any sense for road bike use.

Some claimed that to carry stuff, bike-mounted bags such as panniers made
more sense, and as for water, a couple of frame-mounted bottles were more
than adequate given that most road trips pass by multiple fresh water
sources often enough to allow frequent refills.

My point (as well as that of others') was that while this might be true, not
everyone (e.g. me) wants to install racks and such on their bikes for the
occasional trip that requires taking along more stuff than can fit in a seat
pack, and not everyone (e.g. me) likes drinking from a bottle while in
motion, nor stopping to refill water every 10-20 miles. A sensible solution
to such preferences seemed to be a hydration pack with storage capacity.

After going back and forth for a couple of weeks, I think that the debate
ended with both "sides" remaining firmly convinced that their pov was
correct, which was fine with me so long as each didn't try to impose it on
the other "side".

Anyway, in addition to a rather large hydration pack I use mostly for
hiking, and for which it's proven to be very useful (Deuter TransAlp), I
ended up buying a Camelbak HAWG for road bike use. For the most part I've
liked it, especially when I have to carry quite a bit of stuff, and I've
also found it to be quite a good pack for walking around use, sans bladder.
But I have to admit that when I just want to go on a nice, long ride with
just water and a few items, such as wallet, lock and a light jacket, it's a
bit overkill.

So I decided to get a third hydrapack, the Camelbak MULE, which seems
perfect for such use. In fact I almost got it instead of the HAWG, but
decided that it was too small to carry more than a few items, which I knew
I'd occasionally need on longer rides. Perhaps having 3 packs sounds like
overkill, but I can definitely see the need, depending on what I want to do.
And these are all built strongly enough to likely last for years, so the
cost over time is negligible (especially given that I've gotten all at steep
discounts).

I ended up getting the '04 MULE (from Nashbar, $40 after 20% discount + a
free cleaning kit with bladder hanger). I like it, but until I got it I'd
only seen the '05 model in stores, and there are some noticeable
differences:

-It's slightly heavier (from the specs, 1 or 2 ounces)

-It's made of what appears to be a slightly tougher, or at least thicker and
heavier material

-The bladder goes into a "pouch" that's has a velcro seal at the top, as
opposed to the '05 model that has a zipper that zip along one side and the
top

-The sternum strap attaches to the shoulder pads via wide buckles that slide
along wide straps, whereas in the '05 model it attaches via narrower buckles
that slide along thick round cords. It also, I believe, has a loop in the
elastic section, which the '04 model doesn't.

I'm actually thinking of returning the '04 model and getting an '05, even
though it would be a bit more expensive, as I like its design better in many
ways. Has anyone used both models enough to be able to report on which one
appears to be better, stronger, easier to use, etc.?

Kovie
zen

I like the '05 Mule too. Let's just wait about a month until they go on sale
and get 'em! After all, don't the '06 bikes start coming out in September?

pat in TX

"Pat" wrote in message
...
I like the '05 Mule too. Let's just wait about a month until they go on
sale
and get 'em! After all, don't the '06 bikes start coming out in September?

pat in TX


Money's not the major issue wrt whether to swap the '04 for the '05, as I
can get one for not much more than the '04. I'm just wondering if it's worth
the bother--I'd have to ship back the '04 and hop over to a lbs to buy the
'05, and I'd rather be riding than shopping...

--
Kovie
zen