i have an excuse to buy a new backpack, and it has to be black. i'm torn between the O Pack 3.0 and the Small Icon backpack. I must say I think I prefer the looks of the Small Icon, but the metal clips and red detailing on the 3.0 are very tempting. Opinions? Any pluses/minuses i'm missing?

John Heins (john - 9/28/2004 6:43:06 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

What are you going to be carrying in it? The major difference between the two is that the O Pack 3.0 is 1360 sq. in. and the Small Icon is 510. So if you want hold anything of substantial size I would suggest the O Pack 3.0. If price is a concern and you don't have to have a pack immediately I would suggest Ebay, you should be able to find nearly all Oakley packs for a much lower price.

(Isotope - 9/28/2004 7:59:08 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

yeah i just realized how tiny it is... 13 x 10 x 6, that's freaking ridiculous. it's like one of those koala backpacks you see on bimbos at the mall.

i'm kinda annoyed because i had settled on it because i like the design better, but there's no way i'm shelling out 135 for the full size one.

i'll consider more strongly the 3.0... anyone have any experience with it?

i'll check ebay, thanks for the tip

John Heins (john - 9/29/2004 2:00:39 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.backcountrystore.com/store/OAK0095/Oakley-Icon-Backpack-Large-2300-cu-in.html?mv_session_id=7xshhZVZ

Olive and Light Grey are on sale for $95. These are the full sized Icons with all the bells and whistles so you get the size of the O Pack, but the features of the small Icon.

If you did want to go with the small:
http://www.backcountrystore.com/store/OAK0096/Oakley-Icon-Backpack-Small-510-cu-in.html?mv_session_id=7xshhZVZ

Light Grey on sale for $53. Do you have to have black. Don't see that on sale anywear unfortunately.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 9/29/2004 8:41:45 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

I technically think the Small Icon pack is for the ladies. Like a purse.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 9/29/2004 8:44:46 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

agreed, go with the sandbag if you need a smaller, lighter pack.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 9/29/2004 8:59:25 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

it has to be black - i'm looking at it for my air force uniform. if it's black or camouflage, you can wear it on your shoulder, otherwise you have to carry it in your left hand. currently i only have a blue non-oakley bag

sandbag is cool but a big pricey for m

John Heins (john - 9/29/2004 9:18:37 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

Go with O Pack 3.0 for the maximum amount of space per buck. Sandbag is nice but not for a lot of gear or equip. Sandbag is more like day pack (messenger bag) or brief case in terms of what it can hold.

Phil Barket (kingphilbert - 9/29/2004 11:25:02 AM)
------------------------------------------------------------

yeah my friend has a sandbag, and i like it, but not for this specific purpose

i'm definitely leaning towards the 3.0, but more because of price than capacity. stupid cool-looking small icon pack, why'd it have to be so... small? heh

i can't find any links for the 3.0 on oakley.com, i just went to the 2.0 page and changed the url to 3.0 to get to it. very odd

John Heins (john - 9/29/2004 1:34:28 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------

As with anything on that site, you need to search for it, or do a blank search and find everything.

Dann Thombs (Dann - 9/29/2004 1:42:15 PM)
------------------------------------------------------------