A. Saks 21" Expandable tote - First impressions (review upcoming)
Nov 28, 2010, 6:41 pm
#19
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 13
I got the 1 9/16" Maillon Rapide Delta Quick Link size, which fits perfectly, there was very little "slop," which made it a little bit of a challenge to attach.
No, I haven't traveled with it yet... Theoretical benefits at this point:-)
One other reversible modification I did was to use some corrugated plastic sign material (one brand name is Coroplast) to make a super lightweight rigid board to use at the bottom of the bag (about 13.5" by 20.5" with rounded corners). This material is commonly used in yard signs (political, garage sale, etc.) and has the same thickness as its less weather-resistant cousin foam core.
The idea here is that the internal compression straps will have something to pull the contents of the bag against, rather than just making a big round mess of the contents. I got the idea from a post on this board in which a user adapted the rigid insert from his duffle bag for use in an unstructured carry-on (sorry, i can't recall the orig. poster's handle). By the way, a sheet of this size weighs in at about 4.5 oz. It probably will have to be replaced every few flights, but the material is cheap and easy to cut.
Cheers,
Bonmot
Nov 28, 2010, 8:25 pm
#20
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Thanks for the info on the Quick Links. That really helps.
I too am wondering how to make sure there is some structure without adding weight.
About two months ago, I came upon two Lucas 21" Expandables for $29.99 plus tax at a local discount store. I had taken a luggage scale and weighed just about everything in the store because we're encountering a 1 item only, 15-lb carry-on weight limit for an upcoming flight to New Zealand, and I had had a hard time finding anything under 5 lbs even when the label would say "featherweight" (plus the manufacturers outright LIE about their measurements! It's as though wheels on the cases don't count!). Anyway, I pulled out the Lucas things and thought, "These just have to be under 3 lbs!" And they were. In fact, when I took the luggage tags and info tags off of one, it weighed under two. Now I just have to figure out the lightest possible ID tag
.
This upcoming trip will require some technical clothing (cycling) for varied climates there, so it's going to be a challenge to keep the weight down. We're pros at doing carry-on even with this type of trip; I've just never had to consider such a restrictive weight and a one-item limitation before.
We're going to wear a lot of stuff in our Scottevests, and I figure that I can just unhook the Op Tech straps and put those in our vests. Like you, I want to add structure, but I'm worried about adding ounces. Your material sounds good. I'm thinking of another type of thin rigid plastic I've seen in packing. Just wish I knew the name of it so I could find it. If I do I'll write back immediately. Thanks again.
I too am wondering how to make sure there is some structure without adding weight.
About two months ago, I came upon two Lucas 21" Expandables for $29.99 plus tax at a local discount store. I had taken a luggage scale and weighed just about everything in the store because we're encountering a 1 item only, 15-lb carry-on weight limit for an upcoming flight to New Zealand, and I had had a hard time finding anything under 5 lbs even when the label would say "featherweight" (plus the manufacturers outright LIE about their measurements! It's as though wheels on the cases don't count!). Anyway, I pulled out the Lucas things and thought, "These just have to be under 3 lbs!" And they were. In fact, when I took the luggage tags and info tags off of one, it weighed under two. Now I just have to figure out the lightest possible ID tag
.This upcoming trip will require some technical clothing (cycling) for varied climates there, so it's going to be a challenge to keep the weight down. We're pros at doing carry-on even with this type of trip; I've just never had to consider such a restrictive weight and a one-item limitation before.
We're going to wear a lot of stuff in our Scottevests, and I figure that I can just unhook the Op Tech straps and put those in our vests. Like you, I want to add structure, but I'm worried about adding ounces. Your material sounds good. I'm thinking of another type of thin rigid plastic I've seen in packing. Just wish I knew the name of it so I could find it. If I do I'll write back immediately. Thanks again.
Nov 29, 2010, 3:56 pm
#21
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 13
LetitiaJane,
You got a really nice deal on the bags. I think they are about as lightweight as you're likely to find. Your strategy of using carry-on clothing and unhooking the strap if/when the items are weighed is sound. Best of luck in getting the weight down.
Cheers,
Bonmot
You got a really nice deal on the bags. I think they are about as lightweight as you're likely to find. Your strategy of using carry-on clothing and unhooking the strap if/when the items are weighed is sound. Best of luck in getting the weight down.
Cheers,
Bonmot
Dec 2, 2010, 2:08 pm
#22
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Well, I wondered if the A. Saks and Lucas bags differed in weight. I knew my little luggage scale said it was for sure under 3 lbs, but I wanted to know by how much. I trotted my Lucas 21" soft carry-on down to the post office today and weighed the darn thing on the self-service scale. I had taken off the "heavy" marketing tags and the name tag. Still had my discount store price tag on it and one tag that said "expandable". Weighed a lot of different amounts (wonder what I've been paying with my packages?), but after three tries, I'd say for sure that it does NOT weigh any MORE than 1 lb, 14 oz and could be less.
My goal is now to attach the lightest possible ID tag on it, but I will have to suffer the extra weight of my new Quick Links "D" rings ( a la Bonmot's suggestion). I know I can take off the Op Tech shoulder strap so that will not impact weight.
I have not yet decided to add some inner structure to the bag. Will keep you posted.
My goal is now to attach the lightest possible ID tag on it, but I will have to suffer the extra weight of my new Quick Links "D" rings ( a la Bonmot's suggestion). I know I can take off the Op Tech shoulder strap so that will not impact weight.
I have not yet decided to add some inner structure to the bag. Will keep you posted.
Jan 20, 2011, 7:39 am
#23
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12
Bonmot--I posted a quick thread (and not enough detailed review) of my Lucas bag experience a day or two ago and wanted to update you here.
As I related in the thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...xpandable.html) I was not able to get the bag underweight to be the sole packing container, but as it turned out, I was still able to fly carry-on only, and the Lucas bag size and weight certainly made that possible.
Your modifications were key and we're so grateful. The d-link/shoulder strap combo worked great--we were able to take the shoulder strap off before any weigh-in and tuck it into the back of our Scottevests with no difficulties. To keep the weight down further, I made my own featherweight luggage tags.
One of our points of discussion on this thread was the lack of shape of the bag, and we considered a possible need for side reinforcement, etc. Because of weight issues, I decided against using any kind of packing organizer or reinforcement, and I am happy to report that using and packing the bag night after night certainly wasn't a problem. I put my shoes and ziplocked bag items (underwear, socks, etc) on the bottom layer, and then just stacked folded clothes on top, and then cinched the restraining straps. The bag zipped shut perfectly. Any awkwardness of the shape was more than outweighed by its ability to slide into almost any space and adapt to it. The biking guides on our trip really liked the bag for that reason. I think they liked the shoulder straps too--roll-ons must be a pain when one is gathering luggage in hotels without elevators.
We checked the Lucas bags on the very last leg of the trip (7th air connection) and were confident they'd hold up. Throughout the biking trip, we had already seen suitcases the size of steamer trunks lying on top of the Lucas bags, and our bags were never in danger of bursting. Of course, we had never filled them to bursting; in fact, we never had to take advantage of their expandability. They really were roomy with in unexpanded mode.
My daughter ended up taking hers bag to college to her teeny-tiny dorm room, and she's very pleased that she doesn't have to run the bag to her off-campus storage room. Since it's so flat, she just dropped it behind her wall-facing desk to collect dust, I assume, until she needs it again.
Although it's unlikely I'll have to face the same weight restrictions with any flight in the near future, I plan to use my Lucas bag and backpack combo on most future trips. Just getting the bag in and out of the overhead bin was a relevation.
Again, thank you for your key help.
As I related in the thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...xpandable.html) I was not able to get the bag underweight to be the sole packing container, but as it turned out, I was still able to fly carry-on only, and the Lucas bag size and weight certainly made that possible.
Your modifications were key and we're so grateful. The d-link/shoulder strap combo worked great--we were able to take the shoulder strap off before any weigh-in and tuck it into the back of our Scottevests with no difficulties. To keep the weight down further, I made my own featherweight luggage tags.
One of our points of discussion on this thread was the lack of shape of the bag, and we considered a possible need for side reinforcement, etc. Because of weight issues, I decided against using any kind of packing organizer or reinforcement, and I am happy to report that using and packing the bag night after night certainly wasn't a problem. I put my shoes and ziplocked bag items (underwear, socks, etc) on the bottom layer, and then just stacked folded clothes on top, and then cinched the restraining straps. The bag zipped shut perfectly. Any awkwardness of the shape was more than outweighed by its ability to slide into almost any space and adapt to it. The biking guides on our trip really liked the bag for that reason. I think they liked the shoulder straps too--roll-ons must be a pain when one is gathering luggage in hotels without elevators.
We checked the Lucas bags on the very last leg of the trip (7th air connection) and were confident they'd hold up. Throughout the biking trip, we had already seen suitcases the size of steamer trunks lying on top of the Lucas bags, and our bags were never in danger of bursting. Of course, we had never filled them to bursting; in fact, we never had to take advantage of their expandability. They really were roomy with in unexpanded mode.
My daughter ended up taking hers bag to college to her teeny-tiny dorm room, and she's very pleased that she doesn't have to run the bag to her off-campus storage room. Since it's so flat, she just dropped it behind her wall-facing desk to collect dust, I assume, until she needs it again.
Although it's unlikely I'll have to face the same weight restrictions with any flight in the near future, I plan to use my Lucas bag and backpack combo on most future trips. Just getting the bag in and out of the overhead bin was a relevation.
Again, thank you for your key help.