What To Pack It In > Wheels & Other Bad Ideas
On this Web site, I mostly write about techniques, products, and ideas that I like. On this page, though, a few things that I (perhaps surprisingly to some) don't ...
Wheels: A Poor Alternative
I'm often asked about the use of bags with built-in wheels, first popularized by the Travelpro Rollaboard series, and currently the best-selling type of luggage. Originally designed (by a pilot) for the use of airline flight crews, these bags are now heavily promoted for all types of travel. And if your journeys consist mostly of long airport & hotel corridors, or you have not yet learned to travel lightly, or you have physical limitations that reduce your ability to carry things, you may find them an appropriate solution. But there are no unmixed blessings. Wheeled luggage suffers from many drawbacks, including:
- rigid construction (less able to fit in available storage spaces, where half an inch can often make the difference)
- much heavier than the alternatives
- considerably less roomy than the alternatives (due to construction constraints)
- internal compartment sides often not flat (again, because of the extra hardware)
- less reliable (more parts to break and snag on things)
- uncomfortable to drag over long distances (poor wrist position)
- reduced suitability for efficient packing techniques (typically one large compartment, making optimal packing more difficult)
Make everything as simple as possible ... but no simpler.
Entirely too many people assume that a bag with wheels is automatically better than one without, as if the wheels came with no consequences. But they do. To illustrate, here's a careful comparison of two carryon-sized bags, with the same exterior dimensions, from the same design line of the same manufacturer. So the only difference here is the incorporation of wheels. The two bags (both now discontinued) are:
- Eagle Creek Solo Journey: 3200 cu.in. (52 liter) capacity; weighs 3 lbs, 10 oz (1.6kg); full suspension system (internal frame, padded hip belt and shoulder straps, adjustable sternum strap); soft construction.
- Eagle Creek Switchback Compact: 1850 cu. in. (30 liter, though the manufacturer curiously claimed just 26) capacity; weighs 6 lbs, 5 oz (2.9kg); only basic shoulder straps; rigid construction. Also much more expensive.
Does the situation improve when we consider a more "vanilla" business travel bag? Hardly. One business bag that I recommend (Red Oxx's Air Boss) weighs 3 lbs (1.36kg); the almost identically-sized Travelpro FlightPro4 19" Rollaboard (which in late 2007 was the best selling Travelpro bag in this size range) weighs 8 lbs, 13 oz (4kg), making it three times as heavy! If you need wheels, add a decent, lightweight, folding luggage cart: the combined weight of bag and cart is still considerably less than two thirds that of the Rollaboard! 
And exterior dimensions notwithstanding, the Rollaboard (thanks to its wheels, rigid frame, and telescoping handle assembly) holds a great deal less than the Air Boss, and is more difficult to pack efficiently. I hope that the reasons underlying so many experts' dislike of wheeled luggage are now more clear.
Consider this as well: few places worth visiting are conducive to rolling a bag behind you; even modern city sidewalks have curbs, cracks, congestion, and clutter (often of the unpleasant organic variety). And wheeled bags are frequently prohibited inside buses/coaches (especially the long distance versions), generally being relegated to storage compartments below ... exactly the sort of thing a lightweight traveller is trying to avoid.
Finally, just to assure you that these opinions concerning the use of wheels are not merely idiosyncratic ones on my part: Westways magazine (in its May/June 2000 issue) surveyed five travel/packing authorities, and every one of them recommended against the use of rolling bags.
Expandable Bags: Another Questionable Feature
Another question I often receive relates to so-called "expandable" bags. Such bags are equipped with a wrap-around zipper that hides a panel of (generally less robust) fabric; when the zipper is opened, the panel of material is "added" to the bag, making it a bit larger in one dimension (usually the depth). As with wheels, this is a great marketing idea: pull the zipper and — voilà! — your bag gets bigger. But also as with wheels, features don't come for free: they have consequences, and I don't find those associated with this option to be worth the implied "benefit" (that of enlarging the bag to accommodate acquisitions made along the way).
As you might expect, the expansion panel and associated hardware increase the weight, complexity, & manufacturing cost of the bag, while decreasing its water resistance, durability, and (unexpanded) storage capacity. In addition, the vast majority of such bags expand to a non-carryon size, which rather defeats the whole purpose of the exercise!
Frankly, I don't even find the espoused benefit very appealing. I deal with the issue by (a) not accumulating a lot of stuff as I travel, (b) initially leaving plenty of unused space in the bag to accommodate a reasonable amount of "collecting", (c) making use of postal services on extended trips, to ship stuff home rather than continue to lug it around with me, and (d) carrying an "emergency" bag that I can use to carry extra items home if I really need to (though I prefer not to do this, as it requires checking a bag).
In truth, I find this whole concept a bit amusing, as I believe the goal to be one of shrinking one's bag, not expanding it! This is, however, but one of many examples of what I term "creeping bloat" ...
Creeping Bloat
In its rush to build bags that look exactly like everyone else's, the luggage industry has, over the years, allowed some truly wonderful bags to sink into oblivion. Hardly a year goes by without some notable bag being made a little bit larger, adding an expanding section, or incorporating some other feature of dubious value, thus removing the bag from consideration here.
I used to recommend the Patagonia "MLC®" (for Maximum Legal Carryon), as pictured at right. At the time, it measured 22 × 14 × 8", a legitimate carryon. In 2004, however, the bag increased in size to 21 × 14.5 × 10", exceeding most airline limits, though later in the year it mysteriously decreased again, this time to 22 × 13 × 9.5" (simultaneously losing its hip belt). More recently, it has changed size yet again (it's now 22.5 × 14.5 × 8"), added some more external zippers, lost some of its rectilinearity, and switched to a lower-quality fabric. So I no longer recommend it, unless you can find one of the pre-2004 versions. This said, the MLC is still a better bag than most on the market, and would certainly suit someone who does not intend to carry it for extended periods of time (and doesn't mind the inferior fabric). Superior bags are available for less money, however.
While mentioning Patagonia, I would be remiss in not commenting on their long-since-discontinued "LBC™" (Little Brother Carryon). With two internal compartments (the larger of which had a 3-sided zipper), hidden shoulder straps, internal tie-downs, top-quality construction & hardware, and external dimensions (19 × 14 × 8.5 inches) that few gate attendants would challenge, it was a superb bag for the true minimalist traveller. I mention it here in case you are lucky enough to come across a used one somewhere (I don't anticipate selling mine, though; in fact — in answer to another common question — this is the bag I use more frequently than any other).
Rick Steves' "Back Door Bag" is another in this category. At one time I liked and recommended this bag, which was very well made for the price. Though it lacked the high-end suspension system of the MEI bag, it was still a good budget choice. But the original bag was unfortunately discontinued, and replaced with a new "expandable" version (now called the "Convertible Carry-On", and not shown here), which I dislike for the reasons listed above. Curiously, the fact that it's now expandable makes it even more important that it have a comfortable suspension, which it doesn't. It also has too many external pockets. So I can't recommend this convertible model, though I have no doubt that it sells well.
In mid-2007, Steves brought back the (non-expanding) Back Door Bag, in a redesigned version (pictured at left, above). I have not yet had an opportunity to examine this new design to see how its construction quality compares with the bags I recommend, but at $79.95 it certainly rests at the bargain end of the price range. Again though, a maxi-sized bag lacking a full suspension system.
Two-Piece Travel Packs: A Contestable Contrivance
A notably popular choice for touristing and adventure travel was the pre-1999 Eagle Creek "Continental Journey" pack, shown at left. This was a two-piece modular pack: a main pack of maximum permitted carryon size (21.5 × 14.5 × 9 inches), plus a zip-on daypack (16 × 12 × 6 inches). It weighed 4.25 pounds (1.9 kg), and came in black, blue, and evergreen (pictured here). Its suspension stowage system was particularly convenient and flexible. All in all, it was a one of the better examples of bags of this type. (Eagle Creek discontinued this particular design in 1999; its various subsequent identically-named replacements have been oversized, less efficiently designed, and/or more "backpacking"-oriented.)
Bags like the Continental Journey rose to popularity in the era when two carryons were generally permitted by airlines (North American ones, anyway), the idea being that you separate the bags, carry them both on board, and zip them back together at your destination. Such a design works better in theory than in practice, as the addition of the (zipped-on) daypack moves the bag's centre of gravity further from your body, making it considerably less comfortable to carry for extended periods of time. And you won't find many airlines these days that will let you bring two luggage pieces aboard anyway.
Such considerations aside, however, this amount of storage capacity is simply more than one needs for extended travelling. Further, your daypack should be a lightweight convenience for you to use about town, not a bulky contrivance to carry more than a single carryon-sized bag will allow (the type of daypack incorporated in these two-piece bags is much heavier than necessary, and the associated zippers and fastenings occupy additional space and add weight, neither of which contributes to a positive travel experience). Our efforts are better directed at reducing the size of our bags, not adding to it.
Incidentally, note that it is often possible to simply unzip the daypack and carry it inside the main pack, resulting in an overall package of proper carryon dimensions. Daypacks of this type are too heavy and bulky to be ideal, but this is a great compromise solution for the traveller who bought such a combination, has developed improved travel skills, and is looking to downsize!
Finally, if you are using one of these bags, and are finding it uncomfortable to carry on long walking stretches, consider detaching the daypack portion and wearing that in front of you. Yes, it looks a bit weird, but it will yield a much more comfortable walk (by better balancing the load) and perhaps convince you that this type of bag is not really the best-conceived design.