Topic

HoverGlide Floating Backpack


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums Gear Forums Gear (General) HoverGlide Floating Backpack

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3552777
    Ben H.
    BPL Member

    @bzhayes

    Locale: No. Alabama

    This site might not have much of the target audience, but I wonder who has seen this backpack with active suspension?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to5OKjZsKRs

    Probably heavy as heck and it didn’t look that beneficial unless you were running (in which case a lower weight would probably more beneficial).  Though I thought the same thing when front and then rear suspensions were introduced on mountain bikes.  They are now nearly universal.

    #3552779
    Ben H.
    BPL Member

    @bzhayes

    Locale: No. Alabama
    #3552784
    JCH
    BPL Member

    @pastyj-2-2

    Shake Weight.

    #3552785
    R
    Spectator

    @autox

    I saw the equivalent on a group trip in ’92, so not a new idea.

    #3553072
    Eric Blumensaadt
    BPL Member

    @danepacker

    Locale: Mojave Desert

    ?? Where is the  REST of this thread??

    #3553083
    Dan Durston
    BPL Member

    @dandydan

    Locale: Canadian Rockies

    I think their fundamental approach is misguided. They’re adding something (a heavy frame) to solve a problem, when the better solution is to take something away (the heavy load).

    This tech would primarily apply to running where bouncing is a much bigger concern than backpacking. That’s why all their video clips show running. But if you want to run with a backpack, then you want it to be a nice light load so running is sustainably possible. Instead, they’re showing unsuitably heavy loads for running and making them even heavier with this complex and heavy looking frame. No one runs with 50 lbs on their pack for long distances except in their ridiculous looking video at 0:23 when someone is sprinting with a 60L pack. Imagine doing that for more than 200 yards, even if it did float perfectly. It looks cool for 5 seconds but that’s it.

    For regular backpacking I don’t see any merit. Pack bounce isn’t a problem at a walking speeds, let alone a problem substantial enough to merit adding all this weight and complexity. For that weight I’d rather take a nicer sleeping pad and an expresso maker.

    Another issue is that the suspension would have to be tuned for a specific weight. If your load is too light it won’t move much, whereas if your load is too heavy then it’ll bottom out of the suspension as you move up and down. Most likely they’d want to avoid that, so the tune of the suspension would also encourage your to have a heavier load so the buffering works.

    I think it’s a gimmick. It would be cool to load it up and show your friends. It will probably sell well though because it’s an eye-catcher and if you just took it on a day hike and bounced a little to show your friends they’d think it/you is cool.

    #3553110
    JCH
    BPL Member

    @pastyj-2-2

    Dan did a much better job explaining why this is silly…but I’ll stick with my original comment,

    #3553200
    Jenny A
    BPL Member

    @jennifera

    Locale: Front Range

    Weight is weight, and I don’t see how the “hovering” pack defies gravity in that regard.  I also wonder how one’s body would adjust to the shifting load; seems quite odd.  Solving a non-existent problem, methinks.

    #3553279
    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    The most popular comment on the YouTube channel was, “Why can’t they do this with bras?”

    #3553280
    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    If the load isn’t dampened, its amplitude will build and build. If it is dampened, that’s wasted energy. Swinging, swaying and bouncing parts of your load are lost work – work that you put in.

    And, yeah, that’s many pound of mechanics in the slides, springs and shock absorbers – weight far better left behind.

    #3553283
    Aaron
    BPL Member

    @aaron_p

    Locale: California

    More extreme than the Flextrek Whipsnake

    #3553290
    Jenny A
    BPL Member

    @jennifera

    Locale: Front Range

    “The most popular comment on the YouTube channel was, “Why can’t they do this with bras?””

    ROTFLMAO !

    #3553297
    James Marco
    BPL Member

    @jamesdmarco

    Locale: Finger Lakes

    Like most things with backpacking, there is a time and place where these things can work and work well. An example would be rock hopping across streams where the impact pressure on your legs (knees, ankles and hips) can be far worse than simply walking. Or, down boulder covered trails. This is assuming you can get used to the delay when pushing off for a rock hop.

    That said, if they cost anything in extra weight, that stuff is not worth it. With a hiking staff, you will adjust your impacts anyway. For the 4oz, I would much rather carry the dual use staff. Since any associated weight with this item would be strictly for absorbing impact, this is contrary to ultralight hiking guidelines. If something can be made to serve dual use, use it and drop the specific item. Hopefully, this will die as it has done in the past.

    #3576130
    SFOldManClan
    Spectator

    @sfoldmanclan

    Locale: Washington DC

    They run with way more than 50 lbs…

    YouTube video

    #3576225
    Link .
    BPL Member

    @annapurna

    I think that the Flextrek 37trillion or FLEXTREK WHIPSNAKE like Aaron mentioned earlier would be a much smarter choice

    #3576306
    Geoff Caplan
    BPL Member

    @geoffcaplan

    Locale: Lake District, Cumbria

    Pretty much what Dan said.

    There are serious academic engineers behind this, and I first spotted them years ago when they published their first paper. The initial research was funded by the Pentagon, and early prototypes incorporated a battery charger. Clearly, squaddies do carry heavy loads at speed, and making this safer and more efficient would be attractive to the forces. But it seems that the army rejected the idea at quite an early stage, which suggests they didn’t see the benefits claimed. So the developers are having to resort to crowdfunding.

    As well as the weight and rigidity of the frame, the mechanism shifts the load back from your body adding yet more inefficiency. At more reasonable loads and speeds it’s difficult to imagine that the benefits would outweigh the costs.

    And a number of engineers in the comments pointed out that damping systems have to be tuned to a  particular harmonic. But this will be disturbed by variations in the weight of the pack, the degree of forward lean and by uneven gait on broken ground. How does the damping system adapt? What if you are jumping from rock to rock, for example? If the harmonic of the damping system gets out of phase with your stride, it could throw you off balance. This is a significant safety issue which they don’t address in their sales pitch.

    Seems like a solution looking for a problem. They may prove us wrong, but I doubt it.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Loading...