# Opinions on Maxpedition Condor II



## Phreeq (Sep 10, 2005)

After about 4 years of use my old backpack needs replacement.
I'm planning to buy a Maxpedition Condor II or a Maxpedition Vulture.

The backpacks look quite big on the Maxpedition homepage. But I read that they are a lot smaller than one imagines from the photos on the Maxpedition homepage. One comment said that they must have employed a midget to take those pictures. 

Does anyone own a Condor II and/or a Vulture backpack and can comment on its size? Photos of someone of normal stature wearing these would be very much appreciated.


----------



## John N (Sep 10, 2005)

I have a Condor II on order and it is supposed to arrive Monday.

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 10, 2005)

Here are some threads with Condor pictures in them.

http://www.equipped.org/ubbthreads/...&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=47092&Search=true

http://www.equipped.org/ubbthreads/...&Limit=25&Old=allposts&Main=27478&Search=true

BTW, how do you post URLs correctly with this new board? I don't see a URL button anywhere?!

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 10, 2005)

Some that include the Vulture:

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=319177&highlight=vulture

http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=307958&highlight=vulture

I think there were some on this board, but I've been having trouble finding things after the software upgrade with the search function. Perhaps all the posts are not indexed?

-john


----------



## Phreeq (Sep 12, 2005)

Thanks a lot for the links.
The side by side comparison of the Vulture and the Condor is great.Maxpedition should show similar pictures on their page. 

Now I'm leaning towards purchasing the Vulture. I'm used to carry a lot of stuff every day (mainly binders & books). I doubt that the Condor will have enough room for it. It does seem a bit smallish, doesn't it? 
The 32 litre capacity must be for the main compartment and the 2 front pockets combined.

Wish there was a Maxpedition dealer in my vicinity. Can't afford to buy both...


----------



## John N (Sep 12, 2005)

Note the Vulture II is going to be out later this year. I suspect the changes will be very similar to the changes from the Condor to the Condor II. There are detailed pictures on the Condor vs Condor II on Maxpedition's web site so you can check it out.

Regarding size, while I haven't seen one in person, it does seem like the Vulture should be a good size. If you look at mfg reported volume, it should be similar to my Kelty Redwing 2400 which you can see in these OLD pictures of my kit:

http://www.navitsky.org/kit/

I picked the Condor because I've taken to splitting my kit between the pack and a Maxpedition Fatboy (to be replaced by the Jumbo when it comes out) so that I have at least part of my kit with me more of the time. This makes it desirable to downsize the pack a bit.

I guess I'll see how it works out since I also don't have a dealer nearby (In metropolitan Seattle no less!). :-(

-john


----------



## John N (Sep 12, 2005)

I just got my package and took a quick peek at the Condor. I dont' have time to really look at it since I'm at work, but I think it may be too small for me even with the Fatboy/Jumbo. 

The problem is putting my full size laptop, a jacket, hardshell and my climbing kit. I haven't tried it out, but I don't think the'll all fit.

-john


----------



## Deanster (Sep 12, 2005)

John - our travel agency (a maxpedition dealer) is up in Mill Creek, but I live in Seattle (Ravenna area), and would be happy to hand-deliver anything Maxpedition you'd like... just let me know. 

Phreeq - The Vulture is a pretty decent-sized pack. Not HUGE, but goodly sized, especially for one that doesn't have an internal frame. It's considerably larger than the Condor - I'd say it's a 'size and a half' bigger than the Condor - you can put a moderately full Condor inside the Vulture, and zip it into the main compartment, no problem. A bit big for EDC, IMHO - great for a 3-day pack, but a bit chunky, and short on small external pockets for daily carry, at least for my taste. 

However, depending on what you need to carry, it may be right for you - very much a personal choice.


----------



## Malpaso (Sep 12, 2005)

How does the Baby Condor compare to the Condor, and why is the Baby larger (2010/1950 cu in)than the parent?


----------



## Deanster (Sep 12, 2005)

Baby Condor and Condor are very different packs - the Condor (and the Falcon) are really the center of a modular system, and have many attachment points for the various pouches, radio holders, etc. 

The Baby Condor (and the Pygmy Falcon) are primarily intended as stand-alone day-packs, and have the smaller external pockets built in, and thus a minimum of attachment points. 

The Baby Condor is the most 'normal' of Maxpedition's packs - it's not all that different from a 'Jansport' style pack, except in quality of materials and construction, which are Maxpedition's usual outstanding stuff, and then the stabilizing Y-strap. 

The Baby Condor 'looks' smaller than a Condor - I think the Baby Condor's larger actual capacity is due to its shape - it's quite wide at the bottom, where the Condor is more 'squared'. I think this just happens to add enough volume to make the Baby a bit bigger. 

The Baby Condor isn't a good fit for my personal needs and carry style, so I've never EDC'd one, but customers rave about it - they love 'em, and I've had a couple people purchase multiples.


----------



## mateen (Sep 12, 2005)

I've been eyeing the Condor II as well - this thread is pushing me to buy! The Baby Condor doesn't look organized enough but that Condor II looks about right.


----------



## John N (Sep 12, 2005)

Deanster said:


> John - our travel agency (a maxpedition dealer) is up in Mill Creek, but I live in Seattle (Ravenna area), and would be happy to hand-deliver anything Maxpedition you'd like... just let me know.



Thanks. I actually live very near Mill Creek and work downtown. 

-john


----------



## Deanster (Sep 12, 2005)

After all the 'Condor' discussion today, I just looked at my stock, and see that I've got three black Condors, a Khaki Condor, and a black Baby Condor on the rack. 

I'll make a spur-of-the-moment special deal... If anyone reading this thread e-mails me this week, I'll offer free US ground shipping and $5 off of the in-stock Condors and Baby Condor. We normally only offer free shipping over $100, so the individual bags don't qualify for the free shipping, but this week, they do. $94.99 for the Condor, $74.99 for the Baby Condor. 

Just for you guys! Offer good while the bags last, or until Friday, whichever comes first.


----------



## Phreeq (Sep 12, 2005)

John, sorry to hear that the pack might be too small for you.
I always thought I carried a lot of (not work related) stuff around but you're beating me hands down.
What's your opinion on the lumbar strap on the Condor II? When I looked at the pictures I noticed that the lumbar strap on the Condor seems to ride quite high, maybe too high to be useful?

Deanster, thanks for the advise. 

I'll wait for the Vulture II.


----------



## mateen (Sep 15, 2005)

Does anyone have or can anyone take a couple pics showing the internal pocket layout of the Baby Condor? Does it have an organizer panel inside? Thanks!


----------



## John N (Sep 15, 2005)

Phreeq said:


> What's your opinion on the lumbar strap on the Condor II? When I looked at the pictures I noticed that the lumbar strap on the Condor seems to ride quite high, maybe too high to be useful?



Sorry for the delay, I've been busy and even though the Condor II is just sitting on my desk, I haven't really looked at it.

I put it on and I don't have any issue with the placement of the lumbar strap. Of course, I didn't adjust the pack at all, but actually it feels pretty good the way it came. I'm about 5'4" as a matter of reference.

However, the waist strap rides quite high which I guess makes sense since the pack is short. 

Just glancing at it quickly, it looks well made and does fit nicely. 

However, I really don't like the fact it isn't tall enough to sit on your hips and doesn't have the supports to transfer the load onto your hips. Obviously it wasn't designed to. But I don't like it. 

It might be wimpy, but even my cheapo Kelty Redwing has some supports and a hipbelt that can transfer some weight.

Dean, does the Vulture have any load bearing supports? 

-john


----------



## Deanster (Sep 15, 2005)

Sadly, it doesn't. The waist strap setup on the Vulture is effectively identical to the Condor/Falcon, though it does fall in a better location, as the pack is much longer. 

IMHO, the Condor shouldn't really have a waistbelt, except perhaps to keep it from flopping - as a smallish daypack, it doesn't really need it, and it hits me just below the ribs - a ridiculous belt location for a 5'11" guy. 

The Vulture is a bit more of a difficult case. It's big enough that it could really use a solid hip belt to transfer the weight, but that would also create a more 'structured' pack, where one of the advantages of the Vulture is that it's a soft, non-frame pack. 

I just took the waist and chest straps right off my Falcon and Pygmy Falcon packs - excess baggage for how I use the bags. 

I agree that it's a weak point for the Vulture, though. It seems like most of the '3-day assault' packs from Camelbak, Kifaru, Blackhawk, etc. have wimpy belts - don't know if it's a 'feature' or a 'bug'. By contrast, most of the 'recreational' packs in similar sizes have outstanding hip belts these days. 

Perhaps a military user has info on this - does a solid, well-padded hip belt cause difficulties in a deployment backpack?


----------



## John N (Sep 16, 2005)

I went ahead and returned the Condor II today. I'm re-evaulating my kit and I am thinking that with the Jumbo, I probably don't need to change my pack at all. 

BTW, note that Onestopknifeshop.com (1sks.com) requires you to return items in 7 days if you want a refund, and charges you a 10% restocking fee. Luckily I got around to talking them about the return in time.

-john


----------



## m209 (Sep 29, 2005)

Here's a comparison of all the backpacks:

http://www.maxpedition.com/product/product_highlighter/backpack_comparison.pdf





http://nbox00.tripod.com


----------



## carpe_diem (Oct 1, 2005)

hi Dean

I'm new to this forum but read your response regarding military packs not having adequate hipbelts compared to civilian packs.

That's because a soldier's personal webbing attaches around his waist and it would interfer with proper attachement of a hipbelt from a backpack. Most of the weight of MOST packs is carried on the shoulders during patrolling etc.

Now there is a tendency to move away from the webbing harnesses to things like assault vests etc, but they have their own issues.

WIth a assault vest on, plus say a camelbak for hydration, plus body armour, your pack is sitting quite far from your back. If you attach a hipbelt and fasten it around your waist to take the weight off your shoulders, a heavily loaded pack will affect your balance becuase its not snug against your back but a few inches away from it. It will tend to pull you backwards.

hope this answers your queries.

regards
Jeelan

great forum btw


----------



## Deanster (Oct 1, 2005)

Thanks for that info - I'd imagined it had to do with gear interference, but I hadn't considered the effect of having the pack standing out from your body, and creating a lever on your hips that would knock you over... very interesting... I really appreciate you sharing that!


----------



## John N (Oct 1, 2005)

Agreed. Thanks Jeelan for the insight. I figured there was a reason, I just had no idea what it was.

It seems to me that there would be a niche for a pack that is made as well as the Maxpedition stuff, but had the civilian type shape and load support. 

-john


----------



## m209 (Oct 3, 2005)

How does the Condor II hold up after hard use? Does it lose its shape, does the stitching come loose, does it tear?




http://nbox00.tripod.com


----------



## m209 (Oct 12, 2005)

Anyone have close up pics of the Condor II?





http://nbox00.tripod.com


----------

