Industrial Design student project: Sustainable Backpack – Questionnaire

WOW! What a fine project!

One caveat: A pack is either simply a container or part of a system. Sophisticated packers think in system terms and the pack is inseparable from the rest of the gear and the way it is all used together.

1) You might start with understanding that there are ultralight backpackers who have base weights under 10 pounds and maximum weights under 25 or so; lightweight backpackers whose base is around 20 and max in the mid 30s; and everyone else who seem to be somewhat negligent of their weight and may carry 45 pounds and up.

The design weight for your pack depends on which group you want to address. The ultralighters are easiest because their light loads mean simpler packs of lighter materials will work fine. Simpler means no frame or stays. Packs for lightweight packers’ 35 pound loads need some means to prevent compression of the distance between the hip belt and shoulder straps. That’s why packs relying on hip belts become uncomfortable… when the stays fail to maintain that distance. See Dr. Jordan’s analysis in BPL Articles. This and similar forums will give you an idea of the range of current designs.

2) Pain? Not with decent design. Pain is evidence of a failure in design or proper use (which are often the same thing).

3) Problems? All eliminated by proper design.

4) Do you know where everything is? Anyone with half a brain does.

5) One might not have to “give up a pound or two” to make a sustainable pack. Natural materials such as hemp are extremely strong. A pack based on common ultralight designs but made of 6 ounce hemp might weigh 40 to 44 ounces as opposed to 11 or 12 ounces. That’s a two pound difference. Ultralighters might find that objectionable. On the other hand, packs for other backpackers in the “lightweight” range commonly use fabrics weighing 8 to 12 ounces. Cotton marine duck is commonly available in 10 to 14 and no doubt a mill could be induced to produce an 8 ounce dry-treated duck. Or even lighter hemp. Any of these weights would produce a pack no heavier than its equivalent made of nylon. And it would perform better under almost all conditions except mountaineering where a pack is dragged over abrasive rock.

6) Performance? Big secret: proper marine duck is more weather resistant than polyurethane coated cordura and more durable except in abrasion resistance. In fact, a marine duck pack will outlast any polyurethane-coated nylon pack. I pack my down sleeping bag directly into duck panniers without any other protection on my bicycle for travel in the Pacific Northwest. You can’t do that with nylon fabrics.

7) Goes without saying.
8) Volunteer trail work, volunteer and retired professional environmental worker.
9,10,11 See 8
12) 59
13) Ret.
14) backpacking, cycling, paddling, archery, shooting, gear design, canoe building, gunsmithing, adventure trips.

More:
The recommendation on hemp is not off the wall. Hemp fibers are longer and stronger than cotton, and blends of hemp and cotton can be expected to swell to form an effective water barrier. Note the origin of the word canvas is from the old Dutch pronunciation of cannibis. So hemp fabric for packs is not out of the question. The lightest hemp canvas I have found is 10 oz. at: http://www.buildingforhealth.com/proddetail.php?prod=EL_HFC1W

However, canvas is overkill for an ultralight pack. An 8 ounce garment weight muslin might be just the thing for UL with the 10 oz canvas reserved for the heavier duty packs.

thank you Vick! (bump for more replies)

Taylor,

Interesting endeavor, but it seems there is a simplistic understanding of what it means to be sustainable. To evaluate sustainability, one needs to look at the big picture, and preferably conduct an in-depth life-cycle analysis, which takes substantial time, effort, and money. Replacing construction materials that are perceived to be toxic with alternatives perceived to be nontoxic doesn’t necessarily make an item sustainable.

First of all, all chemicals and materials are toxic–it’s just a matter of dose. For example, feed enough pure water to an infant (it doesn’t take that much) and you’ll kill him. It’s the dose that makes the poison and I believe anyone would be hard pressed to document a single instance of existing backpacking goods destroying, by means of toxic chemicals, the very outdoors we backpack in. You can easily go backpacking and witness physical pollution (i.e., trash), and you can be adversely impacted by biological pollution (e.g., touching a rock that some genius used to wipe himself with after evacuating his bowels), but unless you’re backpacking in an industrial corridor, I doubt you’ll ever encounter poisonous chemicals–unless they were generated by Mother Nature and you are silly enough to consume one of her poisonous plants.

The driving reason for extracting petroleum is to generate energy. Thus, even if you eliminate use of all petroleum feedstocks used to make petrochemicals, including the wonder plastics put to such good use in the backpacking industry, you’d do near nothing to decrease the amount of petroleum being extracted. The Pareto Principle, often simply referred to as the 80-20 principle, dictates that if you want to take on a problem, focus your efforts where they’ll do the most good. For example, if 20% of the fisherman catch 80% of the fish and you desire to protect fish, shoot the 20% of the fisherman who are the ones depleting the population. (Such an approach has the advantage of allowing me to continue fishing). If you want to reduce petroleum extraction and use, you’d therefore put your efforts into finding a viable alternative source of energy.

Additionally, if your efforts do result in fewer petroleum byproducts being used to produce petrochemicals, how would these byproducts then be used? Making solvents? Would you just dispose of them thereby releasing them into the environment in some manner? One could inadvertently contribute to creating a bigger problem than the one you intend to solve.

And, if you’re going to construct your new design out of hemp and cotton, for example, have you accounted for the increased petroleum demand you will create to plant, grow, harvest, and process these materials?

Given that you’ve had to suffer through my lecture, the least I can do is respond to your questionnaire:

1. For a 3-day/2-night weekend, my pack weight, with consumables, is about 25 lb.

2. Any pain I experience is due to my lack of conditioning. But, it does seem, from the reader reviews, and from the technical article on the subject last year, that a sturdy frame system goes a long way toward preventing pain. Note that the reader reviews of external frame packs are, on average, higher than those of internal frame packs, which are, in turn, higher than those of frameless packs. Thus, I’d say the most important element of a good pain-free design would be a good frame system.

3. I’d say my biggest concern with my existing packs is effective compression of a load smaller than full capacity.

4. Yes.

5. No.

6a. No.

6b. No.

7. Yes.

8. I’m not sure what you mean by “environmental protection agencies.” If you mean gubmint agencies, such as USEPA, I donate far too much of my precious time and hard-earned money in the form of taxes confiscated from my paycheck and from increased consumer prices. If you mean non-governmental organizations, such as Greenpeace, no. If the Boy Scouts of America counts, then my answer is yes.

9. Most tree-hugger organizations are ineffectively focused. For example, over the past 20 years the primary focus has been on cleaning up releases of toxic wastes. In my opinion, a better focus would be preserving, or reclaiming, natural habitats. Thus, if I were to drop any of my treasure upon an NGO, the Nature Conservancy would probably get it. I contribute time and money to the Boy Scouts because I believe it’s the world’s best youth organization and, in part, it promotes, mostly in a reasonable manner, good environmental awareness.

10 and 11. Under my current circumstances, yes. Hell yes with regard to the amount I donate in taxes and regulatorily elevated consumer prices. I’d be a lot more charitable if it weren’t for a greedy ex-wife and a family court system in King Co., WA, that is populated with corrupt and incompetent judges who have no regard to either the law or the best interests of my children.

12. 51.

13. Consulting ecologist.

14. Canoeing, fly fishing, scouting, reading.

Taylor,

Thought i’d take the time to answer your questions. I think that whilst trying to create a more environmentally friendly back pack is a commendable idea, very often the backpacks last for years. I have several that I have used over many many years. Compare that to the plastic bags that supermarkets churn out every day, get used once and then thrown away. Or the abundance of unnecessary packaging with everyday goods. I would have thought there were lots of other areas that could be tackled first. Hikers / backpackers are generally already pretty much enviromentally aware. If you want to protect the environment, tackling an area that will impact on a larger number of people might be better! Also, backpacks of old were all made of natural materials, canvas, leather straps etc. They are now pretty much extinct. The modern man made materials do a better job (IMHO).

1. 20 to 25lbs

2. Shoulders, generally.

3. No problems really, although it would be nice if my pack was designed to do double duty as something else, say after i’ve reached camp.

4. Yes.

5. No. Im pretty much already environmenntally aware. I use alcohol in my stove or make a small fire with dead wood where allowed. I have bought good quality second hand clothes for use when hiking / camping thus recylcing them. (Who wants to ruin a new garment!). A lot of my kit has been either home made or utilises packaging from other items, again adding to recycling. However, the drive has always been to lower weight. One to two pounds in weight for people that count their pack weight in grams or ounces is quite a lot. I appreciate my lightweight pack and therefore I cant see myself getting rid of it. As I get older, I know I will appreciate a light weight pack more and more.

6. No.

6. Yes.

7. Yes.

8. Yes

9. N/A.

10. No.

11. I guess I think that by simply donating money, i’m paying someone else to solve the planets problems, i’m merely paying to release myself of maybe a little bit of guilt without truly taking respopnsibility myself. Everyone, should do something ‘Hands On’ to help their environment. I do a lot through my work for the environment but think I could always do more in my own time.

12. 34.

13. Police Officer – Wildlife Protection Officer.

14. Computing, Reading, Scouting, Archeology, Geology.

Good Luck.

.

Taylor,
There is another aspect to your project work looking into: extending the life expectancy of gear. Obviously, gear that must be replaced periodically uses more resources. Extremely durable gear might be a better environmental choice even if its materials are not all ‘natural’.

Some gear is doomed from the outset. Polyurethane-coated nylon will crater within, with care, 10 years, and usually less than that. When PU goes bad there is no really practical way to salvage it even though the nylon itself may still be serviceable. Therefore, PU gear represents a huge environmental and resource cost compared to longer lived gear. For example, Kelty’s first pack bags were made of uncoated nylon and many are still going strong.

I don’t know if silicone impregnated nylon has any such built-in death other than deterioration from UV.

Polyester is UV resistant. Silicone can be made UV resistant, and silicone does not get eaten by mold, ozone, solvents, mosquito repellant, etc. as PU does. Nylon 66 is stronger than polyester for the same weight. But 10 ounces of polyester pack cloth will be as strong as needed for almost any backpacking. There are many other examples of material choices that could reduce resource costs while staying within the dominant paradigm.

1. My base weight (before food and water) is 6 lbs.

2. Since adopting an ultralight system I have had no pain caused by my backpack.

3. None

4. It’s relatively small so things are easy to find.

5. No. For simplicities sake you are focused on packs. In my world I need to consider the entire system (remember Vicks earlier comment about systems). If I were to change all of the fabrics (pack, sleeping bag, clothing and shelter) in my system to “sustainable and biodegradable” I would have to incorporate an aluminum frame to support it that my current system doesn’t need. If you’re like most of us you probably want to keep the strip mining of bauxite to a minimum.

6a. I don’t want to discourage you but I’m very doubtful it can be done. No one buys synthetic fabrics to harm the environment. We buy them because they are the best solution for our requirements.

6b. No

7. Yes

8. No

9. It would detract from my donations to groups directly focused on improving peoples lives. Helping the victims of the tsunami and people with substance abuse problems are a couple of examples.

10. Yes

11. They are too narrowly focused and offer few “big picture” solutions. I hope you can see the similarities between my answer here and question #5.

12. 49

13. Carpenter

14. Mountain biking, NASCAR, promotion of democracy

I look forward to seeing your design! When will it hit the market?

Hi Taylor,
This thread has been a very interesting read. Thanks for posting, and good luck furthering your research.

1. 19 lbs
2. generally tops of shoulders, but depends on pack
3. ill-designed or overdesigned storage. (i.e. – ULA Circuit is ideal layout for trail hiking, IMO).
4. Yes always.
5. A pound or two, for a pack? No. I own 3 packs for 3 different uses, no throw-aways in 8 yrs. Now, several ounces, yes.
6. I’m willing to believe so – but less so if marketed only as the ‘vegan-pack’ etc., since the likelihood that any given pack will perform well enough for me to buy it is rather low.
6.(number error?) Yes, poncho or cover depending on trip.
7. Yes.
8. Yes.
9. n/a
10. No.
11. since I’m currently seeking greater involvement, no seems the honest answer.
12. 27
13. Student – outdoor educator in training.
14. English literature, yoga, media studies, anthropology and natural science.

–We buy them because they are the best solution for our requirements.–

Robert,
One point I’m raising is that sometimes we don’t use the best materials, just what happens to be available and suitable.

Examples include:
* Polyurethane coated tent floors instead of, for example, vinyl. I have had a GoreTex tent with a vinyl-coated nylon floor since 1979. The lightweight floor is still good.

* Nylon instead of polyester for tent flies and tarps. Nylon stretches and sags when wet, so tents loose shape during the night. And become more susceptable to wind shock. Polyester does not stretch and sag. Tents and flies keep their shape and resist wind loads better. Polyester is also UV resistant. Nylon is not. There are good reasons sailmakers use polyester. The exception is spinnaker sails which NEED to stretch.

* GoreTex. Enough said.

* The heavy-weight cordura used for many packs is chosen for its feel rather than a performance need — because it feels more like canvas and gives more shape to the pack or other article. And because it’s cheaper and easier to work with (marginally). And because human beings have a hard time believing a lighter fabric can be durable enough. Cotton or hemp canvas in the same applications would have the same weight and performance as Cordura except for abrasion resistance. So mountaineers would continue to need Cordura. Everyone else could enjoy canvas packs that keep gear dry, don’t smell like dog vomit and don’t get sticky and clammy and flakey inside. It’s largely a matter of education, I think.

Thanks- cool project! I wish you luck.

1. 8-15 pounds- summer
2. shoulders (I use non-hipbelt packs)
3. reliability(mine are spinnaker)
4. YES
5. Probably not. Unless the argument was extremely convincing
6a. Doubt it- or it would already exist
6b. yes- or a poncho which serves as a rain cover
7. yes
8. sometimes
9. because most of my money goes to 3rd world education- focused elsewhere
10. No
11. Because my money is focused elsewhere
12. 34
13. teacher and president of a non-profit
14. mountain biking, backpacking, mountaineering, and their related toys, travel

Vick,

I understand your point. Put in the context of the sentence that proceeded the one you quoted (No one buys synthetic fabrics to harm the environment) I felt the need to offer an admittedly simplistic reason for our buying decisions.

I share your views on polyester tarps. Both of mine are polyester but if I were designing a tarp for the mass market I would specify nylon. After learning about polyesters stretch properties I changed a three segments of rope that I use in my shop from nylon to polyester. The nylon showed very modest wear in the 15+ years it had been in service. The polyester replacements are soon to be replaced inside of four years. Nylons superior abrasion resistance makes it a better choice for the mass market, IMO.

I enjoy your posts and have learned a lot from your very thorough designs.

Thanks,
Robert

Hate to disappoint you anon but I just don’t have the time to spring the trap right now.

Am I the only one who smells a trap?

It seems to me that we may need to reasses some of our assumptions. Everyone is assuming that we have to give up some performance or weight in order to have materials which are “sustainable.” I can think of a few examples of materials which are more sustainable than their competitors, but still perform well. Take Patagonia’s recycled fabrics (fleece, and now some of their capilene stuff) or merino wool vs. polyester for long johns.

I imagine that it may be possible to make some of the plastics now made out of petroleum out of plant based materials, and still have similar performance.

Also, I whole heartedly agree with the point that making something more durable inherently makes it more sustainable as long as it is still just as functional and people will continue to use it for many years.

It seems that if we give this idea some scientific minded thought, we might be surprised what people come up with.