RFI: Change in pack design features over time?

[ganulv]

I have been looking for a new daypack—just something to carry 15–25 pounds/7–11 kilos, not something for trekking the Karakoram—and have found that most all of the options that would max out at that capacity include a waist or hip belt as part of their design. That’s an annoyance to me for matters of both fit (I have a short torso so almost all of the daypacks with belts end up not grabbing my shoulders when the belt is fastened) and function (I like the option to put some kit on my belt).

Anyways, this isn’t meant to be a post about my adventures in retail so much as it is meant to elicit information about the history of gear design. Does anyone on the forum who has spent a long time soldiering and/or generally spending lots of time in the outdoors care to comment on the different packs they have used through the years? Specifically, whether they have always featured waist or hip belts? At the capacity I am looking for they seem completely unnecessary so I have a hard time believing they’ve always been so prevalent on small packs.

[Dayuhan]

I've used a lot of packs, though not in a military setting. I'd actually be interested in looking at how military gear design has been affected by a hyper competitive and innovation-driven civilian outdoor gear industry... but that's another story.

I can't think of any pack that doesn't use a hip belt, nor would I want one. The ability to carry weight on your hips adds a lot of stability in dodgy terrain (by letting you carry the weight low on your body instead of high) and lets you keep the pack snug to your body instead of sloshing back and forth. Weight on the hips reduces stress on your abs that comes from countering the tendency of weight on the shoulders to pull you backwards... it's just a more efficient way to carry a load. Modern packs are extremely adjustable and you should be able to compensate for the short torso by manipulating the straps.

If you insist, you might be able to find a pack that has a removable hip belt, and take it off. I have a mid-sized pack (Deuter Futura 38) with a hip belt that looks like it can be removed, but I haven't tried to do it.

[ganulv]

I can't think of any pack that doesn't use a hip belt, nor would I want one. The ability to carry weight on your hips adds a lot of stability in dodgy terrain (by letting you carry the weight low on your body instead of high) and lets you keep the pack snug to your body instead of sloshing back and forth. Weight on the hips reduces stress on your abs that comes from countering the tendency of weight on the shoulders to pull you backwards... it's just a more efficient way to carry a load. Modern packs are extremely adjustable and you should be able to compensate for the short torso by manipulating the straps.

One would think! I really do have a short torso—so short an that an ALICE pack actually fits me about as well as one of those things can be said to fit anyone—and by the time I have lowered the straps enough to load my upper back the bottom of the pack is hitting me on top of my hips (which could be avoided via inclusion of some curve for the lumbar curve, but that apparently is asking too much). Even if I could get around that issues most shoulder straps are not adjustable at the top (some do have load lifters but that’s a separate design feature).

My impression is that in the days before internal frames you had the choice of smaller packs designed to load the weight on your upper back or larger packs designed to load most of the weight on your hips. After the advent of the internal frame most packs don’t seem optimized for either one. The Deuter model you own is well-thought out in this regard. It puts the weight into the lower back via a lumbar pad pulled in with a belt. A lot of packs that size include a belt but don’t optimize the weight transfer. It just goes… somewhere. Not really the traps and upper back but not really the small of the back or hips, either.

[Ken White]

US and British packs typically did not use a hip belt, shoulder straps only. In the US hip belts didn't really appear on general use non-skier packs until the 60s. You're up in New England, not far from the users of this (LINK) and the tumpline...

The hip belt really came in after World War II, European Alpine and Nordic Ski Troops used rucksack / bergens (from the Norwegian town where the ruck with hip belt was refined) to achieve that stability Dayuhan mentioned. For a large load in rough terrain, it is very beneficial. Those benefits led to increasing adoption from the 60s until today. Much of that stemmed fom the WW II US Army Mountain Rucksack, with frame and belt -- a first AFAIK for the US -- developed for the 10th Mountain Division and used also by the 1st Special Service Force among others and which was adopted postwar by Special Forces due to its huge capacity. The influence of Europe and increased international travel also played a part. The rest, as they say, is history.

I think the number of small packs which won't carry as much as 30 pounds or so but which have belts is a a fad more than a necessity...

IIRC, the rule of thumb is that about 35 pounds makes the use of the hip belt worthwhile. I'm fairly good sized so my cut off was about 50 pounds for a belt to be desirable, less than that it wasn't necessary and was in fact an annoyance. I never used one with my ALICE.. I also was able to carry that much or more only very, very rarely. IMO, most people carry way too much junk...

There are a lot of day packs that don't have belts. Check Mountain Hardwear (LINK) for one, Kelty for another -- Kelty has one called the Shrike (LINK) which has a removable belt and I think I've seen some with no belts.

[ganulv]

US and British packs typically did not use a hip belt, shoulder straps only. In the US hip belts didn't really appear on general use non-skier packs until the 60s. You're up in New England, not far from the users of this (LINK) and the tumpline...

The first time I saw a pack basket it immediately reminded me of the woven creels from my hometown.

The hip belt really came in after World War II, European Alpine and Nordic Ski Troops used rucksack / bergens (from the Norwegian town where the ruck with hip belt was refined) to achieve that stability Dayuhan mentioned. For a large load in rough terrain, it is very beneficial.

The old school! I spotted the distinguished elder below on a visitors’ center wall in Vermont this winter.

There are a lot of day packs that don't have belts. Check Mountain Hardwear (LINK) for one, Kelty for another -- Kelty has one called the Shrike (LINK) which has a removable belt and I think I've seen some with no belts.

I’ve tried the Shrike, it beat my backside like it thought I was a redheaded stepchild without the belt. (It’s 22″ long, that’s me below wearing a 16″ long CamelBak.) I’ll give the MH site a look. I own a couple of pieces of clothing from them which I really like. I might end up going with a slightly larger version of the CamelBak I was wearing in the pic below and use it as a three-season pack. It doesn’t have much pocket space but it’s got a little patch of PALS webbing and some room behind a buckle for rolled-up items.


Crossing the Plotter Kill.

[jcustis]

There are a slew of assault packs out there that would fit your requirements. Color choice is limited though, to black, tan/khaki/coyote brown, or multicam.

Have you concluded your search?

[ganulv]

The hip belt really came in after World War II, European Alpine and Nordic Ski Troops used rucksack / bergens (from the Norwegian town where the ruck with hip belt was refined) to achieve that stability Dayuhan mentioned. For a large load in rough terrain, it is very beneficial. Those benefits led to increasing adoption from the 60s until today.

I got a link to the photo and caption below via my Haglöfs RSS feed this morning.

There is a slight difference in design between the backpack you would use for a weekend of backcountry skiing today and the one someone would have used 70 years ago. These are both made by Haglöfs though. Maybe some of you prefer the old style?

[jcustis]

If you don't have to try to raise your head out of the dirt to see ahead from the prone, the alpine style has good potential. I'm beginning to like long and narrow over wide and stubby. It keeps everything closer to the natural center of gravity for me.