Terra 65 Backpack

Good backpack, great for traveling or road trips

It's a great backpack, well constructed. All straps set are very useful and allows to adapt the backpack to different bodies. 65 L capacity it's ok for me, to 4-5 days camping trip.

Excellent for backpacking thru Oregon

Huge bag...it can fit a house..buy it

Background: Over the past 12 years I have used the North Face Terra 45 Liter on at least a weekly basis, sometimes daily basis. That will be my basis for comparison on this North Face Terra 65 Liter pack. This will be an initial out-of-box review only. There is a thin inner pocket sewed against the stiff wall of the pack that is ideal for carrying a laptop or other such thin square objects (notebooks, books, papers, or whatever you might want to protect from all the other gear). The Terra 45 Liter has one of these too, but it is too narrow to fit most laptops, while the 65 Liter is just wide enough for all standard laptops, which is great. It has a width of 10 3/8" and a 15" depth. Perhaps an inch or two in thickness depending on the width and height. This pack has opted toward simplicity compared with the 2012 Terra 45 Liter, which I think is better for the majority of uses and users. Its upper pocket that forms the sack's cover has a zero-height width of 8.5" and if it is stretched perpendicular to the zipper opening, it stretches to about 6.5" on center. Likewise, if its opening is held in a rectangular shape, it can take on a 4" x 6" rectangle of an opening. To give you an idea of how large its compartment is, I put a size 11 men's steel toe work boot inside of it and with some care and struggle, could zip it closed (it is large). The overall internal height from floor to the top of the plastic frame is about 25" Unlike the Terra 45, which has an inverted capacity, the Terra 65 has a wide mouth at the top and seems to get slightly smaller as it goes down, so the very largest objects would be loaded from the top rather than the bottom like the Terra 45, which in my opinion is preferrable except for some of the extremely heavy and medium sized loads. The Terra 65 sack opening has a 20" wide mouth when it's height is zero, and if held in a rectangular shape, can take on a 15" x 5" dimension (but only initially, then it gets a little smaller as it goes down). Effort has been made to reduce the hip pad wrap around distance, so if you have large hips, this pack may be insufficient compared with the Terra 45. For me the new hip pads work fine, but any shorter, and the belt would be digging into my hips. I think this was a risky move on behalf of the designer, but I also am not aware of my hip size in relation to the population. I think I am maybe in the 70th percentile as a guess (30% of adults in USA probably have larger hips than me - this is a very rough guess +/- 20%). Effort has also been made to reduce back sweat and back contact with the pack. I am a little concerned about how this will feel with 30lb and heavier loads, but it feels just fine at 25 lbs. The Terra 45 had continuous padding while the 65 has pad lumps instead. Will this create pressure points? I am unsure, but short term with 25lbs, it feels great, and very sturdy. I am not going to come to a final conclusion on the clips and straps, as time will tell. But the Terra 45 from 2012 has what appear to be far more sturdy plastic with no breakage and 12 years of continual use. Perhaps the 65 liter's clips will last, but based on their fragile appearance and feel of the plastic, I am anticipating some frustrating clip breakages early on. I hope I am wrong on this. Also, the way the straps feel and glide against the clips is rough compared to the smooth action of the Terra 45's clips and straps. Perhaps 12 years of use smoothed them out? It is hard to say for sure, but I don't recall having the minor adjustment struggles I'm having with the 65. No real conclusions here, just a hunch. Overall, I am very happy with the pack due to its reasonable dimensions, potential design improvements with shoulder height adjustment and back sweat reduction efforts, plus reduced inner chamber partitions that I rarely used anyway. The pack can scrunch up tight with no load and balloon out large for big loads, which is ideal, and it doesn't look out of place as a normal backpack. Having enjoyed the Terra 45 for many years in both city and country, I'm looking forward to many more with the Terra 65. Note: I have no affiliation to North Face, was not paid for this review, and will note that I did have to sew the Terra 45 back together many times and for the first time on the 91st day of use (one day outside warranty).

great quality bag, I got the small medium, I would say if you're a guy over 5'10 get the large size, I'm 6ft I got the small medium, it fits overall pretty well so I'm gonna keep it but I would have gone up a size.

Buena calidad y buen espacio

Was really surprised by the mix up after mix ups . Amazon sent the wrong package and I got a North face basecamp bag . No biggy . Then the original terra 65 was no longer available. So I called North face them self and had poor customer service . The girl from North face she began trying to tell me about all the features the terra 65 had ( I already knew I wanted it so then she told me they didn't have any in stock . Then she went on to tell me about a white winter 65L bag and that it had high ratings . Clearly she was not looking at the same site as it had 3.5 stars and 2 reviews . Was left scratching my head after this interaction with North face Canada call center . Sooooóoo went with the brook 65 extended bag. Same quality less nonsense . Plus they have a great rating and awsome warrantee