[HN Gopher] Packing a backpack (2014)
___________________________________________________________________
Packing a backpack (2014)
Author : tosh
Score : 216 points
Date : 2022-09-23 11:05 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (info.deuter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (info.deuter.com)
| Prcmaker wrote:
| Ive tended to pack just like this, though got there through trial
| and error. I'll often pad between heavier items and the rear most
| of the pack such that it stacks them close to my back. (Edit for
| clarity: I pack like the second image, weight int he middle for
| good stability in harder terrain)
|
| I found it interesting on a hike recently, seeing my buddy's 15yr
| newer pack, how many little features made load carrying far
| easier. 'Load lifters' in particular, drawing the load forward
| towards your neck, made such a large difference to shoulder
| weight that I retrofitted them to my own pack on the trail.
| Lio wrote:
| Progress in packs is weird. I still have a Karimore Jaguar from
| the early 90s (back when they were made in the UK) that seems
| to have most modern features you could think of.
|
| It weighs 1600g for a 66L pack which compares pretty well with
| modern rucksacks too.
|
| I've mostly replaced it with a modern OMM Classic 32 trail
| running pack. At between 430-630g.
|
| Again, that's a design that originally goes back 1973. I think
| they got design nailed back then. I haven't see much in the way
| of innovation other than slightly better materials.
| Prcmaker wrote:
| I agree, my pack is the first I ever bought as an adult, an
| upgrade in volume, materials and comfort from my Vietnam era
| cadet issued pack. While there is quite the difference
| between those two, most differences to a normal modern pack
| are minor. I'm disappointed it's approaching time to replace
| it as it feels like home, but some of the fabric is rapidly
| degrading with repair seeming unlikely.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| People ask me why do soldiers seem to do the opposite - with the
| bulk of their kit lower down their backs - it's because if your
| kit is high up you can't raise your head to look up when you're
| lying down.
|
| I also think it's strange to have your heavy kit up high even in
| a civilian context when you aren't lying down - you don't put the
| heaviest things on a top shelf normally. I tend to put my
| heaviest stuff supported by my hips, either on belt kit or lower
| down in my daysack or bergen.
| adwn wrote:
| > _I also think it's strange to have your heavy kit up high
| even in a civilian context when you aren't lying down_
|
| There's a good reason for this, and it's right there in TFA.
|
| > _you don't put the heaviest things on a top shelf normally_
|
| A backpack is not a shelf, and a person is not a wall.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > There's a good reason for this, and it's right there in
| TFA.
|
| Yeah I know I was offering an opposing opinion to the
| article. Heavy stuff up top makes you top-heavy, which isn't
| good.
| tasuki wrote:
| > Heavy stuff up top makes you top-heavy, which isn't good.
|
| Why isn't it good? It does make you less stable, but it
| makes you nimbler. I think it all depends on the terrain,
| weight of the backpack, and personal preferences. I've
| hiked a fair bit and by far prefer heavy stuff up top.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| If it tips in any direction it's taking your back with it
| - and potentially your neck if it's as high as they
| picture! I regularly run with 30 kg, and fast-walk with
| 45 kg.
| sulam wrote:
| That is a _lot_ of weight to run with, and I don't think
| their advice is aimed at or, as you say, relevant to your
| use case.
|
| Speaking as a highly experienced backpacker, with typical
| loads (10-20% body weight), the point of having weight
| distributed along your lower and upper back is to conform
| to the spine and somewhat match our natural weight
| distribution. Putting weight higher is awful, and putting
| it lower --- while it lowers your center of gravity -- is
| awful for actually moving down the trail. Even day hike
| fanny packs with a few liters of water in them are
| annoying enough that I very often just take my regular
| pack on day hikes vs putting weight directly around my
| waist. The issue, just in case it isn't clear, is that as
| you move back and forth you're moving the weight with
| you. It's much better for it to be held relatively stable
| against your back.
|
| Finally, I'm trying to work out what you do that you run
| with 30kg on your back. Trail runners carry significantly
| less than I do, and even people trying to set through-
| hike records and who therefore are trail running things
| like the entire PCT don't carry anywhere near that
| weight. Are you in the military? Honestly running with
| 30kg is pretty damn hard on your body. My knees hurt just
| imagining it.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| In the military yeah.
| riversflow wrote:
| (Also a serious backpacker)
|
| Keeping weight at shoulder height is substantially easier
| on smooth terrain. It's a biomechanical _fact_ that I
| also didn't believe at first. The best way to illustrate
| this is to think about balancing a stick on end, its
| _significantly_ easier to balance a yardstick than a
| ruler, likewise, it is much more difficult for your body
| to balance weight at your hips than at your neck because
| you get the advantage of leverage. The higher the weight
| is, the easier it is to stay "underneath" it.
| tasuki wrote:
| Well, you have control over the direction it tips. That's
| the idea behind top heavy being more nimble.
|
| That said, you have more experience than me: I don't
| regularly run with 30kg nor walk with 45kg. I'll try your
| way one day.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| They actually agree with you.
|
| Their difficult terrain advice is to put the bulk of your
| load above your sleeping bag close to your back which puts
| it near your center of mass where you have the best
| support.
|
| I agree with you that I don't get their easy terrain
| advice. Anyone who has ever tried to turn back suddenly
| while top heavy know it's a bad idea.
| adwn wrote:
| > _I agree with you that I don't get their easy terrain
| advice._
|
| It allows you to keep a more up-right posture, which is
| more ergonomic when walking.
| kitd wrote:
| Agreed. Heavy stuff up high has a greater turning couple with
| any movement of the spine, putting uneven stresses on the back.
| Heavy stuff around the hips is much better.
| tasuki wrote:
| Disagreed. As the article stated, heavy stuff around the hips
| pulls you backwards. You have to lean forward more, and
| you're less nimble.
| [deleted]
| sulam wrote:
| Honestly I don't think Deuter's advice and yours differ that
| much. You're not going to carry weight below your belt line,
| because if you do you're wasting energy moving it back and
| forth as you walk. You're not going to carry weight above your
| shoulders, because it's pretty damn dangerous in anything
| approaching technical terrain (throws off your center of
| gravity too much, and risks causing uncontrolled head first
| falls). So you're left with how you distribute weight along
| your back. Deuter's advice doesn't distinguish, but the usual
| thing is heavy, dense things go on the lower back, and as you
| move up the back you put still-heavy but less dense things, and
| then lighter but dense, etc. Your sleep system goes at the very
| bottom, usually in its own compartment, and you put lighter
| stuff along the outside. This means when you rotate your body,
| the heavy stuff is close into your center of mass and easily
| controlled. You reserve the top of the pack for heavily
| accessed, light stuff.
|
| They don't say this explicitly, but the entire logic of the
| system revolves around having things that will throw you off
| your stance as close to your body as possible, so that you
| remain stable as you move.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > You're not going to carry weight above your shoulders
|
| But that's what their diagram shows?
| lalopalota wrote:
| One if the diagrams shows the heaviest weight AT the
| shoulders, not above.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| Deuter being an outdoor brand, they probably expect people to
| be leaning slightly forward when hiking most of the time, and
| strongly forward in hard slopes.
|
| Putting the weight higher balances better under that
| assumption. It works with messenger bags as well: you'll want
| them at different positions depending on how hard you're
| leaning or if you're walking.
| blowski wrote:
| > Heavy equipment - tent, food, big jackets - above shoulder
| height, close to the back.
|
| I understand the "close to the back bit", but "above shoulder
| height"? I've always been told it should be distributed
| vertically.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| I think the idea is that you want to keep as normal a posture
| as possible. You need to lean your torso forward to move the
| combined center of gravity (body+backpack) over your feet.
|
| The lower the center of gravity of the backpack, the more you
| need to lean your torso forward to counteract it.
|
| If the center of gravity is very high, just a few degrees
| forward will suffice.
|
| So a high center of gravity should be more comfortable (but you
| lose a bit of stability).
| yencabulator wrote:
| It also makes a huge difference how close to that 33% body
| weight max you carry. What kind of backpack carrying people
| do affects what kind of advice they've heard.
|
| The weight of a military pack will absolutely send you
| toppling over if you lose your balance, and you need to start
| packing it a bit lower just to deal with uneven terrain. So
| you pack it a bit lower than what would be otherwise ideal,
| to stay on your feet.
|
| If you're carrying closer to 10-15% of your body weight, you
| can put it much higher without stumbling, and you get the
| benefits of the more upright posture.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| I'm hoping Tom Bihn Bags will come out with a high quality knock-
| off of the spacious "Flextrek Whipsnake":
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAtzN_ScKXY
|
| But seriously, Bihn bags are extremely well designed, and are so
| well made they last forever!
|
| https://www.tombihn.com/collections/backpacks
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4873988
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13684860
|
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/washing-instructions-idiot-pr...
| Wash with warm water. Use mild soap. Do not use
| bleach. Do not dry in the dryer. Do not iron.
| We are sorry that our president is an idiot. We did not
| vote for him.
|
| https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bihn-label/
| watersb wrote:
| I've used my Tom Bihn Brain Bag every day for the past ~20
| years.
|
| https://www.tombihn.com/collections/backpacks/products/brain...
|
| I have a larger camping-type backpack that I never use; I can
| fit 35 pounds of gear into the Brain Bag... although a sleeping
| bag takes up too much space. Haven't solved that yet.
|
| But a fully loaded Brain Bag usually fits fine as a carry-on
| bag for airline travel.
| askvictor wrote:
| I don't know if it's just my backpack, but there's not much
| chance to put heavier items close to my back, as there's not
| enough back-front space for more than one item for most things;
| maybe water bottles, but most other heavy items (tent) are almost
| as deep as my pack is.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Depends on the pack and tent. Most modern 2-person backpacking
| tents are 1/2-2/3 the depth of a 30l pack.
|
| This was definitely NOT true when I was a kid. Tent and
| sleeping bag bulk and mass have come way down between the 90s
| and today.
|
| My pack, tent, and sleeping bag...
| https://www.osprey.com/us/en/product/exos-48-EXOS48S22.html
|
| https://www.bigagnes.com/Tiger-Wall-UL2-Solution-Dye
|
| https://seatosummit.com/products/spark-ultralight-sleeping-b...
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| Backpacking is really white, both because camping is and the
| ability to walk into a store without someone accusing you of
| stealing.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Should your 'white', be capitalised? And just a bit further on,
| is there a comma missing? Makes bollocks sense, otherwise. And
| also, tbh.
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| > Makes bollocks sense, otherwise. And also, tbh.
|
| Someone with this many awkwardly structured fragments
| shouldn't be giving grammar advice. And also, tbh.
| rascul wrote:
| It's been some years since I've looked into this, but from what I
| recall there are different packing strategies for internal and
| external backpacks.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Probably, though external frame packs mostly don't exist any
| more. At least not in the normal consumer outdoor gear market
| (REI, etc).
|
| A fair chunk of the UL market forgoes a frame completely, and
| just uses some foam to add rigidity and padding. That's usually
| for people going with a truly minimal base weight... Tarp tent,
| minimal quilt, possibly no stove (living off overnight oats and
| other things that can be consumed after soaking).
| rascul wrote:
| Interesting. It's been so long since I've looked into this
| stuff that I didn't realize external frame packs were mostly
| gone.
| yencabulator wrote:
| And that gets even more interesting as many Deuter backpacks
| are hybrids, with a rigid frame that leaves a cooling air
| pocket between your back and the pack, while looking like a
| non-frame backpack.
| rascul wrote:
| Somehow I didn't realize that Deuter is a backpack
| manufacturer.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| Once upon a time I was homeless, and everything I owned needed to
| fit into a normal-size collegiate backpack, or I couldn't keep
| it.
|
| Fast-forward 20 years; retaining my packrat qualities, I began to
| realize I was overpacking every time I left home for an errand. I
| also seldom unpacked when I returned home, and I would just "let
| it ride" whatever was still in the backpack next time I went out.
|
| So I've tightened a discipline of keeping my bags empty while at
| home. I try to narrow down my mission each day: what is the core
| task I need to accomplish? Why do I really need to throw this
| item in the bag? When I return home, I evaluate each item by its
| usefulness to me. If I didn't even remember it, or think to pull
| it out, then it's gonna stay at home.
|
| I also try to use smaller bags. I picked up a nice electronics
| bag at a thrift store, and it fits my phone, keys, bus pass,
| wallet. So I don't drag around a duffel bag or backpack if I
| don't need it. Honestly, it's much easier to find something if I
| don't need to open a dozen zippers. It's easier to ride around on
| an e-Scooter if I'm not bogged down by 25lbs of kit.
|
| I also try to run drop-off errands more often. I'll take a bag of
| donations to the thrift store, or some recycling will go out.
| Then I can have the satisfaction of emptying out my bag, even
| discarding it and returning home lighter. This contrasts with
| packrats who will go shopping or picking stuff up every day and
| they just accumulate more and more stuff at home. You gotta
| balance that out at some point.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| Ditching unused items isn't really that great of a strategy, as
| it becomes less and less useful as you approach items to handle
| less common but more critical situations.
|
| Like bandages, or spare socks, phone battery, a spare ticket,
| and similar. You won't need them 99% of the time, but if you
| need them, you REALLY need them.
| thfuran wrote:
| Somehow I doubt there are many people out there blindly
| following this process to throw away their winter coat every
| summer.
| dividedbyzero wrote:
| There are quite a few very minimalist people out there. I
| know several who don't own any tools at all and don't keep
| at even the crappy ones that come with furniture. Like, not
| even a single screwdriver, nothing at all. Tools don't
| spark joy and see use very infrequently, so they get tossed
| out, but that way a loose screw or a battery compartment
| with a screw on an item makes it effectively broken,
| possibly to be replaced with a new one. Then there's that
| remote acquaintance, late thirties, pretty well off, who
| last time I checked still owned just a single small table
| with a single chair. Guests were expected to not sit down
| at her place, she didn't have many. Not to speak of all the
| people who like to tag along on hikes way above the tree
| line wearing sneakers, all cotton clothes, no rain gear or
| the like and with a stylish little backpack because hiking
| boots or trailrunners would ruin their aesthetic etc.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| > Not to speak of all the people who like to tag along on
| hikes way above the tree line wearing sneakers, all
| cotton clothes, no rain gear or the like and with a
| stylish little backpack
|
| I don't like this gatekeeping mentality. You can go hike
| with pretty much any shoes and clothes. Sure, hiking
| boots are going to be more comfortable if you hike a lot,
| but if you don't own any you can absolutely go hike in
| your everyday shoes.
|
| Same for cotton clothes. They aren't the best for hiking,
| but you really don't need to go spend 500EUR at a
| sporting goods shop just to walk in the mountains.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| You're moving the goalposts here. Parent specified hiking
| _above the treeline_ , not merely hiking. Yes, light
| hiking can be done with ordinary clothing, but above the
| treeline, that is foolish, irresponsible behavior that
| leads to SAR pickups. That's not gatekeeping.
| xani_ wrote:
| I mean, I get limiting it if you only need it rarely and
| multitool with some bits can get you thru a lot, but
| _nothing_ ? I guess it is choosing to be useless at life
| on purpose...
| secondcoming wrote:
| I can understand your friend. I assume she rents a place
| that was unfurnished? I do and had to buy a couch just
| for guests to have a place to sit, I hardly ever use it
| myself. Getting rid of it will be a pain when I move.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| "Tools don't spark joy": is this a case of "each to their
| own" or is it a case of "owning the wrong tools"? There
| are a lot of people out there for whom tools spark joy
| (ok, ok, I am one) and given that they provide a much-
| needed bit of control over your context/environment this
| seems reasonable.
|
| As for hiking equipment, I think you really need to be
| somewhere remarkable to be somewhere where kit, rather
| than understanding and attitude, really makes a
| difference. These places exist. But there are a lot of
| places you can enjoy just fine with little or no
| specialised stuff and I feel the kit fetishists waste a
| lot of energy and material while putting normal people
| off.
| xani_ wrote:
| That strategy assumes you're not a total moron and follow it
| unquestionably for everything
| ghaff wrote:
| For travel, I have some small largely pre-packed kits that I
| throw in my carryon. I revisit the contents from time to time
| and I may adjust my electronics charger/cable kit if e.g. I
| have international travel. But for the most part, I find
| having a kit with spare glasses, first aid kit, a few
| sometimes needed/wanted over the counter meds and lotions,
| etc. is worth a pound or two to just have self-contained that
| I can just grab.
|
| And certainly for group hikes for example, I carry a much
| larger first aid kit than I have any expectation of needing
| but I hopefully have the appropriate items if I need them.
| throwaway777845 wrote:
| yencabulator wrote:
| > Once upon a time I was homeless, and everything I owned
| needed to fit into a normal-size collegiate backpack, or I
| couldn't keep it.
|
| > Fast-forward 20 years; retaining my packrat qualities,
|
| Sorry, you're the opposite of a packrat. A packrat carries all
| the stuff it finds home.
|
| Things currently deposited under our deck by a packrat: a flip
| flop, 4 fluffy dog toys, 2 treat bones, tennis ball, plastic
| bottle, foil wrapper, twigs, dog poop, pine needles, ...
| helmholtz wrote:
| If you're a long distance hiker, Matt Shafter's video [1] is very
| useful. The sleeping bag, instead of going first thing in, kind
| of spreads _around_ the other heavier objects, which we try to
| keep close to the lower back / belly button level.
|
| Having done my own share of hikes, though, I will say that going
| ultralight right from the beginning has been a gift that has kept
| on giving. Seeing people carry heavy tents and stainless steel
| cooking gear and ridiculously heavy sleeping bags makes me quake
| in my shoes. I just couldn't do it.
|
| And then lastly, I really, really, cannot say enough good things
| about ease of access. I have shoulder pockets for
| compass/sunglasses. A bottom pocket in my backpack (Palante) for
| snacks and trash storage. Side pockets for water that I can reach
| without taking the pack off, and they're deep enough to not have
| the bottles fall out. A fanny pack for small items like
| chapstick, sanitiser etc. And finally _deep_ pockets in my shorts
| for my phone. NOT having to take my pack off makes me happy over
| and over and over again.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ut4R4JMHEE
| jhickok wrote:
| Going ultralight improved my hiking experience so much that I
| went from "if this is it I don't think it's for me" to "I kind
| of forgot I had a pack on; anyway what a cool hike". I know
| it's not for everyone but I cannot imagine bulking up with
| luxury hiking items anymore.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I do a bit of both. A few UL items allow me to bring some
| luxury along without being overly heavy.
|
| For example, I'll bring a hammock or Helinox camp chair. Both
| around a pound. Having a place to flop by the campfire at the
| end of a long day is really nice.
| jhickok wrote:
| I actually added a Helinox this year as well. Straps just
| fine to the outside of my pack and the 1lb is worth it.
| secondcoming wrote:
| I have a military backpack (Savotta) and you can buy additional
| MOLLE bags and attach them easily pretty much anywhere on it.
| Extremely useful.
| WastingMyTime89 wrote:
| > Having done my own share of hikes, though, I will say that
| going ultralight right from the beginning has been a gift that
| has kept on giving. Seeing people carry heavy tents and
| stainless steel cooking gear and ridiculously heavy sleeping
| bags makes me quake in my shoes. I just couldn't do it.
|
| I agree but as soon as you cross one week of autonomy, food
| starts to be the bulk of your pack and you just can't be that
| light for the first few days.
| netfortius wrote:
| Bad advice if you are at high risk of, or already suffering of
| sciatica, which also benefits of hiking / active and long walks.
| Backpack center of gravity has to be as low as possible, under
| such circumstances. (Note: dealt with the issue for many, many
| years - controlled it with a lot of assistance from Dr McGill
| books)
| bosie wrote:
| Any particular book/resource you recommend from Dr McGill? How
| do you combat it during work days if you don't mind me asking?
| netfortius wrote:
| "Back Mechanic" was by far my favorite, but he has a lot of
| own articles and also certified specialists in his area of
| expertise, with specific techniques and advice. The "secret"
| was to know your body to the point of being able to
| anticipate harm before too late. Took me years to learn this
| part, as no book can teach how your own body works.
| jotm wrote:
| It's fine, most people need to learn it the hard way.
|
| And then the two wheeled trolleys many old people use look more
| attractive than funny.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Sidenote.
|
| I have had a Deuter cyling pack for around 20 years and it is
| still in perfect order. I am not exactly easy on gear either
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-09-25 23:02 UTC)