Load transfer to hips: hip belt webbing vs padded hip belt?

Generally they do the same thing. It is only a matter of how much weight they can support. With a web belt, I can do a 20-25 pound pack. With a padded belt I can do a 25-35 pound pack, both comfortably.

A wide surface spreads load over a larger area,thus better load transfer.

Of course for the sake of comfort,weight and mobility,there are limits to how wide and thick a hip belt should be. But, all things being equal , the wider belt is going to feel more comfortable and spread the load weight better,thus transfering it to the hips and not just the lower back.

Small webbing hipbelts are provided more for control of the backbody on the torso than for any real load transfer to the hips.

One thing you will note that pretty much every cottage pack makerin the past tbat has designed UL packs that have frame and load tramsfer feature have gone to progressively larger and heavier hip belts over the years.

Bottom line- no matter what the frame conposition, a wider belt is going to be more effective than a narrow web belt.

That's about what I've thought/experienced. Thanks for the corroboration. I think I need to unload my webbing prophet.

One thing I have thought of is a slip on wrap around padded belt for light frameless packs like the Prophet.

Basically take a decent hip belt like the GG 2014 Dyneema closeout belts, which have clearance slots behind the hip belt pockets… I would cut off the buckle and webbing on the GG belt and slip the MLD factory webbing belt over the padded GG belt, threading it under the belt pockets.

You would have to sew some keeper loops at the front and rear of the webbing belt contact points but it would work. With the belt, the Prophet would weigh about 21 oz and be easily convertable back to the factory web belt.

The GG belt us only about $30 shipped. Might be a good thing to try if you otherwise like the Prophet.

Webbing hip belts have no structural load transfer ability to the hips; they are too flexible. What they do is pull horizontally so that the lumbar pad has enough surface tension on your lower back in order to transfer weight there.

Padded hip belts, depending on how rigid they are (and very lightly padded, highly flexible ones are quite different to one that is very stiff eg with a piece of plastic in it) can start to transfer some of that vertical vector of weight to your hips as well as the lumbar pad area.

This all depends on your load.

I think for lighter loads, the main comfort difference you feel between a wide webbing belt with or without padding, is more about how much "chafe" your hips can deal with, its not actually about load transfer of actual pack weight. None of that gravity vector at all is actually transferring. The tension you feel is literally just horizontal depending on the tightness of the hip belt, in order to apply enough pressure to the lumbar region, in order to create enough friction there to transfer vertical gravity force there.

If that makes sense :-)

I think this is a good reason why on some of the smaller GG packs, a thick webbing belt works well and there's not a huge amount of point in padding it up. Your own personal padding (flab) and what clothing you wear underneath the hipbelt and how that interacts with chafe is probably a bigger variable.

Jimmer,

I've thought about contacting Zpacks to see if they would make me a Cuben padding attachment. Luckily, the Prophet already has a loop where the belt and pack meet (for pockets, I think). This is a custom version of the Prophet sans padded hipbelt. The stock Prophet does come with one. I scored this one on a great deal though.

Adam,

That's very interesting and makes perfect sense when I think about it. Do you think frameless packs without rigid hipbelts are capable of transferring too much weight to the lower back under heavy (25+) loads? The Prophet has no lumbar pad, but I think the rolled CCF pad serves nearly the same purpose.

I found that I got more load transfer to my hips (ie less weight on my shoulders) using my REI flash 45 with the frame removed, and a ridge rest inside as a buritto to pack my gear into. I could tell that this was because the pack fit the contours of my back better, and pack was really sucked into my lower back and had much more surface area to cause friction that would prevent the pack from sliding downward with the frame removed.

I suspect this works of anyone who has a deep curve in their lower back. You just snug up the hip belt enough that the lower half of the pack becomes a fanny pack that the upper half of the pack just sits on top of. Then the shoulder straps just keep that top half from tipping backwards :)

The thing I have noticed regarding hip belt shape, is that belts that are wide where they connect to the pack suck the pack into my lumbar curve in a way that doesn't bounce when I walk. However, I don't like the hip belts to be super wide in the front. It makes it harder to bend and breathe.

I would echo James Marco on the weighs. I'm fine with my original Virga to 20-25 lbs. I don't look at the web belt at transferring much weight but more stabilizing the load and keep it from rocking

How the hip belt tightens also makes a big difference. Belts with dual pulls shape to your hips more and can put more weight on them with less padding and are used by some of the more popular cottage makers.

I agree with more of the thoughs posted in this thread.

Like most people on BPL that have gone through the rigmoral of frameless packs over the years, I am hesitant to recommend them at the loads you speak of (eg 20+ pounds for most people who aren't elite athletes) as they start to struggle to transfer weight effectively to the lower back. Yes, a non rigid hipbelt helps, as does the rolled CCF pad. However, there comes a point where the CCF pad starts to push weight away from your back (screwing with the packs centre of gravity, thus putting more strain on the shoulder straps-there's no way around the physics of that), and where it also collapses to some extent under the weight and no longer transfers enough weight through it to the lower back area-the weight it doesn't transfer hangs from your shoulders instead.

One way to think about this problem, perhaps, is to think that the CCF pad, on the rigidity scale where a solid metal bar frame is maximum rigidity…the CCF pad is just a slightly more rigid and connected version of the rest of of the contents of the pack. The pack contents themselves compress under pressure on each other and transfer weight to your lower back (just not that much). The CCF pad does that a bit better. A metal bar (frame) does that really well! At some point the weight and pressure overwhelms the relatively week tensile strength provided by the CCF frame, it starts to buckle under the load and weight is transferred to your shoulders instead. It really only needs to buckle slightly, eg an inch of flex/curve, and the weight is starting to transfer to your shoulders.

Hope this helps and I didn't go around in a circle there in my explanation of my thoughts!

:-)

I have a version 1 Ohm with the little wing belt. I am pretty impressed as to how well that works. No weight on the shoulders at all usually.

My new Osprey EOS 58 and other larger Osprey packs have a softer, breathable mesh-covered foam that os soooo comfortable.

"How much of a difference does a padded hipbelt make versus hip belt webbing in regards to load transfer in a frameless pack? I will be using a ccf pad "burrito" style to make up for the lack of frame. Wondering if webbing would make a huge difference in the way the pack carries?"

Depends on the webbing…