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]

There are a slew of assault packs out there that would fit your requirements.

The thing about most of the one day assault packs is that they tend to have minimal shoulder straps and no rigidity, like the pack reviewed here. It’s basically a container with no suspension, which shouldn’t be an issue if worn atop body armor. The manufacturer does sell a framesheet to be used with it, but that’s another $19 to add to the $225 price tag…

Color choice is limited though, to black, tan/khaki/coyote brown, or multicam.

I’m kind of a treehugger so I dig earth tones. (“dig earth” haha ) But I also like being more rather than less visible to all of the hunters out there.

Have you concluded your search?

I haven’t made my purchase yet but I think I’ve done a pretty good survey. There’s a civilian version of the pack I mention above that doesn’t look bad at all (and it’s priced $75 lower, which includes that $19 framesheet ). There’s a Mystery Ranch model that I really like the looks of but all of the foam along the back gives me pause because of the amount of time I spend in the rain forests of the Great Smokies. I’m going to sleep on it and kick around eBay and Craigslist for a few more days, but I’ll probably end up buying one of these little CamelBaks and stowing a rolled-up poncho/tarp behind the buckle in case I get stuck out for the night, and then save up for the MR pack for the snow.

The two smaller models of a line from a boutique out of Montana are pretty much what I am looking for but the marketing and Veblen good pricing make me a little quesy. I should probably just go ahead and buy one of ’em but I’m afraid it will arrive smelling like business school.

[jcustis]

Stay away from the Goruck crap. It's all fad and hype, and for sure not worth the money, despite claims of being military-grade.

I actually have an Ambush, and with that and an ATS RAID pack, I got around Afghanistan just fine for weeks ar a time. The Ambush can carry the load you referenced in your original post, but mighy be overworked if it is a single, dense mass as opposed to several items.

I think a Source Commander might be a better fit for you, though it does have a hip strap of some sort.

ETA: It's an odd thing, pack design and marketing. Most "assault packs" are most certainly not, and a lot of "3-day" bags don't have the features that would suit the mission of such a pack.

I spent a ton of time last year wondering about the business of load carriage, and it wasn't until then that I learned of the true nature of a 3-day load. It's really simple enough, but doctrinally, three days was the maximum planning factor for airborne forces to hold ground before a relief element was expected to reach it, or other forms of resupply were worked out. I cannot pull up the reference at the moment, but the principle does have a foundation in deliberate thought.

The current range of true assault packs (detachable straps, sized to intrgrate with armor, etc.) are only a few years old.

On second thought, you may be better off with an Eagle Yote pack. Quite a few folks I know love them, and they are built almost bombproof. You could sew in a stowable day-glo panel with ease and make you more visible to hunters if you had to. It would give you Ambush versatility and a lot more!

http://kitup.military.com/2011/06/mi...agle-yote.html

SKD Tactical seems to be having a sale on them, at $40 off, making it a great purchase at that price.

[ganulv]

Stay away from the Goruck crap. It's all fad and hype, and for sure not worth the money, despite claims of being military-grade.

[…]

I think a Source Commander might be a better fit for you, though it does have a hip strap of some sort.

Thanks for the heads-up on the GoRucks and for pointing out the Source pack. I had missed that one. It actually looks like they are in the process of phasing out and in a model or two, maybe that’s why?

On second thought, you may be better off with an Eagle Yote pack. Quite a few folks I know love them, and they are built almost bombproof.

I actually bought one a few weeks ago and ended up sending it back. I really liked the features, but the one I got had been poorly assembled (the side pockets weren’t parallel, and not just by a little bit, either) and the framesheet bowed even without stuffing it full. A few weeks ago I read a post on another board where the guy was saying he felt like Eagle had really fallen off after they were acquired by ATK. The same post mentioned that FirstSpear was centered around folks who left Eagle after it became a subsidiary. That was part of what put me onto one of the packs I mentioned previously.

You could sew in a stowable day-glo panel with ease and make you more visible to hunters if you had to.

I was thinking of finding some International Orange shock cord and find a way to put it to use on whatever I end up buying. I try and always wear at least one piece of IO-colored clothing, and it’s only really a concern up here a few weeks of the year, anyway. (At least to me. One day last December I was at a trailhead and a fellow informed me that “it was shotgun deer season, you know.” I guess that’s a Northeastern-ism, I hadn’t ever heard it before, it’s just called shotgun season where I’m from. It was such a funny phrase to me that I couldn’t resist being a wiseass and I told him, “That’s cool, deer got no beef with me.” But I digress.)

ETA: It's an odd thing, pack design and marketing. Most "assault packs" are most certainly not, and a lot of "3-day" bags don't have the features that would suit the mission of such a pack.

I spent a ton of time last year wondering about the business of load carriage, and it wasn't until then that I learned of the true nature of a 3-day load. It's really simple enough, but doctrinally, three days was the maximum planning factor for airborne forces to hold ground before a relief element was expected to reach it, or other forms of resupply were worked out. I cannot pull up the reference at the moment, but the principle does have a foundation in deliberate thought.

How often do folks organize their load into 1st/2nd/3rd lines? The assault pack/three day pack kind of-sort of imperfectly encompasses that distinction, I wonder if the assault/3 day pack distinction supplanted it at some point for U.S. forces? (I get the impression that it didn’t for Commonwealth forces. For example, the Brits and Aussies seem to have webbing, rucks, and Bergans.)

[jcustis]

That sucks about the Yote.

[ganulv]

That sucks about the Yote.

It had a bunch of nice design features (first time I had ever seen pass-through pockets, what a cool idea!), but the one I got was lacking in construction. I really hope I didn’t cost the Dominican woman who sewed it her job by sending it back. I would feel less bad if the inspector who let it leave the factory lost their job, though.

[slapout9]

Have you looked for one of these? These were one of the first light weight internal frame ruck sacks and they are nice. I spent my own money and bought one to carry back around 1973. Have no idea what they would cost today but shouldn't be too much.

http://www.vietnamgear.com/kit.aspx?kit=453

[ganulv]

Have you looked for one of these? These were one of the first light weight internal frame ruck sacks and they are nice. I spent my own money and bought one to carry back around 1973. Have no idea what they would cost today but shouldn't be too much.

http://www.vietnamgear.com/kit.aspx?kit=453

I’ve wanted to try one out but I’ve only ever seen them online and never at surplus prices. They seem to be priced for collectors’ at this point.

[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.

[ganulv]

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.

Especially if you’re above the treeline. I get the notion that most big packs take for granted that they are to be used in fairly open terrain. Nothing like the dog hobble and rhododendron where I grew up or the spruce traps in the Adirondacks. Spruce traps are the worst.

I'm beginning to like long and narrow over wide and stubby. It keeps everything closer to the natural center of gravity for me.

I get the principle of putting weight into your hips rather than onto your traps and shoulders, but unless the design is right I find that wide and stubby packs tend to load up bottom-heavy. The alpine-style packs do seem to do a better job of distributing weight. (By pushing their contents together and up, I guess?)

[jcustis]

Absolutely! The preferred way to carry a load is as close to, and high up on, your back as possible. The further the load gets away from your back, the more gravity increases the felt weight.

A distribution of 75% hips and 25% shoulders is an aim, but it gets challenging when trying to wear body armor at the same time.

[ganulv]

Absolutely! The preferred way to carry a load is as close to, and high up on, your back as possible. The further the load gets away from your back, the more gravity increases the felt weight.

A distribution of 75% hips and 25% shoulders is an aim, but it gets challenging when trying to wear body armor at the same time.

Mystery Ranch’s 2013 catalog is out and it looks like they have come up with a couple of purpose-built items to help with body armor-related issues.