You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?

5/02/2020 1:50 pm  #1


MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

MEC has 2 versions of their 70l Slogg pack. The HD version is 20cm taller, 2 pounds heavier and has a frame suspension. It also costs $60 more. Otherwise they appear to have identical construction. I'm trying figure out if the suspension is worth an extra 2 pounds.

Does anyone have experience with both these bags? Any preferences for one over the other?

 

5/02/2020 3:42 pm  #2


Re: MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

Hi,
I have the HD version and would recommend it over the regular version. The main benefit is that the HD waist belt is connected to the pack. This helps carry the weight on your hips.The other version has a removable waist belt that is connected to the pack using velcro. When I was looking to buy, the regular version just seemed to flimsy to me. The only advantage that I could see besides the price, was that if you were tripping with little portaging you could leave the waist belt at home. I say go with comfort, especially if you overload this pack like I tend to do. 

 

5/03/2020 6:42 am  #3


Re: MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

Couple of considerations:
1. I would consider the 115L instead of the 70L (the volumes are measured with the top open and unrolled, so 70L is far less
2. For the 70L, the frame is not absolutely essential for portaging - as long as you don't pack sharp pokey things against your back. It's not difficult to carry a pack for 3-4km even if there isn't much support. But HD is much more comfortable. 
3. The HD is essential for the 115L pack, but it does not appear they sell them right now, which is weird (I have two, these are my portage packs and are spectacular). I would never even consider carrying such a large pack with no frame support. 

M

 

5/03/2020 9:25 am  #4


Re: MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

Thanks for the feedback. I use a 70 litre pack far more often than a 100+ litre pack. I'm a gram weenie and I'm pushing 50 so 70l is as much as I can carry while still single portaging. I was wondering if the upgraded harness on a 70l packs was worth the extra 2 pounds of weight. It is starting to sound like it is.
 

Last edited by MartinG (5/03/2020 9:25 am)

     Thread Starter
 

5/07/2020 9:06 pm  #5


Re: MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

I have both sizes of Slogg packs, both with the internal frame.  They've treated me well.  The 115L has been heavily used.  The smaller one is a more recent purchase, but might become my standard for solo trips in the summer.  My only regret was not buying them earlier.

You can carry a heavy load with the internal frame.  The 'base' model without the frame, I'd consider the straps more for convenience (to and from the car) than for serious portaging, unless you had a light load.

 

9/24/2021 2:12 pm  #6


Re: MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

Follow up to a dead thread. I bought the 70l HD Version. It was fine capacity wise. It offered All the space I need as 1 pack for trips up to 10 days. I took it on the Meanest Link which was 13 days with food resupplies. The durability and waterproofness were not so great. It leaked from the first time I used it. The roll top, even with 4 rolls, leaks when the pack is sitting in Bilge water. This does not happen with Sea to Summit or Sealine dry bags. I also put 2 small holes in it somehow. Probably while unloading the boat. The welding that held the harness system to the dry bag started to seperate after 2 trips. Not super impressed. But, at least MECs rock solid warranty made for an easy return.

Although I'm not a huge fan of the design, I might try Ostroms Quetico next.

Last edited by MartinG (9/24/2021 2:13 pm)

     Thread Starter
 

10/02/2021 8:53 am  #7


Re: MEC 70l Slogg vs Slogg HD

I just switched to a Eureka 110L canoe pack and couldn’t be happier.  Paddled Bisco to the Elbow on the Spanish last week, running almost all raps.  My gear was dry and I was a happy camper.  Would recommend to anyone looking for a roll top dry pack.

 

Board footera

LNT Canada is a national non-profit organization dedicated to promoting responsible outdoor recreation through education, research and partnerships.