Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    36

    shorter aeronaut

    I have already waxed lyrical about why I think the Aeronaut is so fabbo on my blog... and I've been mulling this idea over in my head for some weeks now. I think that a shorter aeronaut (and slightly slimming the other two dimensions) would be an excellent variation on a wonderful design idea.

    The easiest way to do this is to simply lop off one of the end compartments, so you've got the big "middle" section (still large enough to fit a clothes bundle), and one of the end (I like to think of them as "shoe compartments") sections.

    From my reckoning, this won't affect the positioning of the backstraps. However, it may affect the positioning of the "suitcase-style" handles and the shoulder strap attachments though. Surely that wouldn't be a problem for Mr Bihn-the-design-genius though?!

    But for those who like the large compartment with an extra compartment, personally I think this could be a good solution for a smaller version.

    Just my two cents.

    travelwkid
    http://www.enjoyingtravelwithkids.blogspot.com

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    63
    travelwkid,

    I am looking forward to learning more about the TriStar, but I do have a thought of how inner sections mean more material, means more weight. The simpler design of the Aeronaut, in a reduced size, could be better for overall weight.

    Thanks for putting forward the idea. Cheers.

  3. #3
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    228
    Anyone reading (Darcy? Tom?) can perhaps clear up some confusion on my part about this -- when a "slimmer Aeronaut" was first talked about (meaning, when I first noticed it), and one of the names tossed around was "Starlight" or "Starlite," I was picturing something more like described here (losing a few inches overall), though I would myself rather keep the endpockets and just take space from the central compartment.

    Was that a separate idea from the Tri-Star, or was the Tri-Star the smaller-than-Aeronaut bag idea the whole time, and I just dreamed a scaled-down-non-folding Aeronaut spinoff on my own?

    timothy

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    29
    I was around in that other thread (a slender Aeronaut....an Aeronette?) earlier; I got the impression that the "smaller aeronaut" discussion helped kick off (or move along) the development of "a middle-sized bag", and in that discussion there was no comment about internal organisation or other details, other than outside dimensions. The name (and further development) came from that.
    Last edited by cpau; 03-09-2009 at 04:00 PM.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    36

    Shorter Aeronaut

    I'm not Tom or Darcy - obviously - but from my viewing of the Tristar teaser pics, it doesn't look to be a scaled down Aeronaut. Doesn't seem to have an end pocket (Aeronaut-style) in sight.

    However, I could be completely (and happily) wrong!

    Travelwkid
    http://www.enjoyingtravelwithkids.blogspot.com

  6. #6
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    228
    "I'm not Tom or Darcy - obviously - but from my viewing of the Tristar teaser pics, it doesn't look to be a scaled down Aeronaut. Doesn't seem to have an end pocket (Aeronaut-style) in sight.

    However, I could be completely (and happily) wrong!"

    No, actually I hope you're *right* -- because I'd rather that there is another bag in the works which actually is a slightly scaled-down Aeronaut, and that the Tri-Star is simply another bag altogether. But if not, Hey, there's only so much that one guy needs to come up with for full credit ;)

    timothy

  7. #7
    Volunteer Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    546
    Sometimes I fantasize about a Tom Bihn Duffel Bag, which would probably be something like an Aeronaut without the end pockets or backpack straps (or even shoulder strap attachments, but that might be taking it a bit too far).. in my head that's close to what you described (but sans your one end pocket)

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    35
    I believe the Tristar is being developed with the European carry-on size restrictions in mind. The mock-up I saw was more "Western Flyer with attitude" than "Aeronaut on a diet".
    I've got a 2XXLT H. Brain Cell (fits my H-P HDX18t like a glove), a Sapphire/Black Brain Bag with a matching Snake Charmer, a 2XL Vertical Soft Cell, a Sapphire wallet, a Size 4 H. Brain Cell for my wife's laptop and... a school boy's crush on Darcy

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Helsinki, Finland
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by BigMikeD. View Post
    I believe the Tristar is being developed with the European carry-on size restrictions in mind...
    And probably weight limits too. On European airlines 8x16x21,5-22 is almost as common restriction as 9x14x22. 18-22 lbs weight limits (those might be the most common) make a full size carry-on overweight if it is packed full. Tristar seems to be a perfect all-arounder for flights in Europe.

    There might be a place for an undersized Aeronaut-type bag though. On one bag leisure trips it's hard to beat a duffel with packing cubes (including a packing cube backpack) if you don't need fast access to the laptop and papers all the time. It has a low weight/size ratio and the end pockets are an advantage when packing shoes, dirty laundry, water bottles etc. I could imagine a slimmer version of the Aeronaut, main compartment slightly lengthened, with only one end pocket. That would be bring it to the same dimensions as Tristar.
    Last edited by Lars; 03-10-2009 at 01:47 AM. Reason: typos

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    29
    For me, it's all about weight and Australian domestic limitations - see the extensive discussions on these fora and the 1bag1world blog&forum. The limit for us domestically is more usually expressed as 9x13x19 (41" or 105cm total). Only one of the airlines (Qantas) allows 45" bags, but still 7kg.

    Yes, as Lars said, European airlines I've flown with tend to be more relaxed with 21.5x15.5x8 (45" or 115cm total) and 8-10kg, but virtually all the asian airlines - the only way to get from here to anywhere else - have a 7-8kg weight limit, despite still having the same larger dimensions. It's the weight limit I've always come up against. Some shuffling and pocketing gets you on board, but I'd rather have a slightly smaller bag (the max-sized ones end up a bit empty, to be honest - at least the way I pack!). This is why I'm really excited about this new bag.

    I'm flexible enough to change my packing style to suit the bag. What I need, though, is a bag of the right dimensions, and TB has this spot on.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Lars View Post
    There might be a place for an undersized Aeronaut-type bag though. On one bag leisure trips it's hard to beat a duffel with packing cubes (including a packing cube backpack) if you don't need fast access to the laptop and papers all the time. It has a low weight/size ratio and the end pockets are an advantage when packing shoes, dirty laundry, water bottles etc. I could imagine a slimmer version of the Aeronaut, main compartment slightly lengthened, with only one end pocket. That would be bring it to the same dimensions as Tristar.
    Beautifully articulated, Lars. My thoughts entirely. Thanks!

    Travelwkid
    http://www.enjoyingtravelwithkids.blogspot.com


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0