THE INEFFICIENT BACKPACK

If you focus on any one single aspect of a pack, you can find inefficiency. Shoulder shoulder harness, hip belt and fit against your back all contribute to load carrying.

Yes, a lower hip belt will help (I usually wear mine about an inch or so below my navel.) A hip belt needs to flex with the movement of your hips but still maintain it’s load carrying capacity. This results in a series of compromises in overall hip-belt design and in overall pack design. Over-padding to compensate for poor design is one of the worst in designing a hip-belt.

You will find in most cases that a light run is more efficient than walking. But, the problem comes when you consider the rate of energy expenditure. A light run can not be maintained for most hikers more than a hour or two on the trail. Some extreme athletes can do it, but, the vast majority of hikers cannot maintain a 4mph pace for 10 hours with a 20lb load. Your test conditions are unrealistic.

You think of hip movement in 2 dimensions. However, the actual fact is we move in 3dimesions.

Yes, 4 mph is awfully fast!

Many times I have made note of my daily averages (including all rest/food/water breaks) and find that 2.2 to 2.4 mph is typical for me over a variety of terrain.

There are some very tough trails where it is exceedingly difficult to attain even 2 mph averages.

We don’t need the nonsense responses posted

@sbsteele – nor do we need obtuse statements about how what everyone from a first time hiker to Skurka et. al. has been doing…successfully.  BPL has seen more than its share of people showing up touting the next revolutionary product that on closer inspection (sometimes not even very close at) are easily seen as hogwash.  Unfortunately your OP has that oh-so-familiar ring to it.

If, in fact, you do have something new, valuable, and useful to offer I am certain you will not find a more enthusiastic and supportive group than BPL.  But you must provide the details…all the details…along with enough scientific proof to allow this very intellegent, well educated and experienced group to verfy your claims.

I truly hope you have the goods. But for everyone’s sake, please carefully consider the content, completeness and tone of your follow-up posts as you attempt to get your point(s) across.  BPL does not have a history of leniency with sales pitches that do not ring true.

JCH +1

@JCH Yup!

An individual walked

So the population N = 1 ?

And only one COTS-backpack was tested ?

In my last post, I wished him luck and mentioned I like innovation.

Sometimes there are two camps of hikers here on BPL

• those who just happily hike year after year with the same gear, only researching new stuff when the old wears out
• those who dutifully are constantly search for new and improved gear that will make hiking easier and more enjoyable

Often new offerings are solutions looking for a need, not needs in search of a solution.

those who dutifully are constantly search for new and improved gear that will make hiking easier and more enjoyable

Nick, I would divide that still in two, namely

• those that are constantly searching and are (rather) easily convinced that a certain ‘new’ thing is truly innovative and worth buying
• and those that are constantly searching but are (very) difficult to convince that a certain ‘new’ thing is truly innovative and thus worth buying

Nick, I would divide that still in two, namely…

That works.

I bought my last pack 6 years ago. I don’t know that the newest “flux capacitor” pack offerings are.

BUT, if someone wants to acquire the newest and most improved model each year, it is none of my business: that approach is neither inferior or superior to my approach. To me it’s like McDonald’s vs. Burger King vs. In-N-Out — they’re just hamburgers.

On one side of our hobby are the gear makers. There is a somewhat finite universe of backpackers. Each year new people join the hobby and others leave. If every backpacker only bought one pack, and used it until it wore out, a lot of companies would go out of business.

This may seem strange, but I actually welcome some minor inefficencies; as long as they are at the point where I don’t really notice them. With the exception of when I’m doing a really long hike like the AT or PCT where I have to be worried about loosing too much weight before the end, I actually welcome having to use just a small bit more of energy as it promotes a bit extra weight loss. As someone who works a desk job, I tend to put on a little weight over the colder months with the goal of backpacking it off during the warming months. Don’t make things too efficient or I may have to add a little weight back in. Doing so is likely to get me kicked off this website. ;)

My current pack + load is at the point where I feel it doesn’t hinder me from doing the sort of daily miles I want to do when backpacking. If I can wear it and forget its on my back for a few hours as I hike and enjoy the scenery then its all good. I have my packweight with all its inefficiencies about where I need it. When I get around to hiking the CDT, I might be open to becoming more efficient.

Mark: The tests were performed at 4 mph to determine succeed or faiure. Previous testing at 3 mph didn’t accomplish that. Pack weight including 1 liter of water on the typical backpack was 6 lb, 1 oz. The pack that eliminated the 7 bio-mechanical inefficiencies weighed 5 lb, 11-1/4 oz with 1 liter of water.

Regarding the 7% incline each minute until the end of the ten minute trial, I’ll contact the sports medicine and performance center to learn what max angle was achieved at the 10 minute mark or what the heck the 7% equals in angle.

JCH: My purpose in presenting THE INEFFICIENT BACKPACK, was to make it clear that the inefficiencies exist. Yes, I’ve developed a pack that eliminates them, but I wasn’t  out to indulge my ego in presenting the inefficiencies.  I destroyed my ego decades ago. I simply wanted you folks to understand the scope of the inefficiencies and I trust you noted that I indicated ways around/avoiding a number of them.

My pack is currently a non-provisional patent application in the USA Patent Office. Perhaps in 7 to 8 months or so I’ll learn if I’m granted a patent to then pursue investment capital.

I agree with Miner. If you want to loose weight or test your abilities in anyway, then yes, go more loading and add inefficiencies to learn your limits.

James: BPL, is designed for us light packing folks, not the heavy loaders. Therefore why do you concern yourself and others that have responded regarding the hip belt when your total pack load should be less than 20 pounds for the typical periods of time that you hike? It disrupts natural breathing if cinched to tightly to prevent the obvious swaying of your pack load. So, where do you put your gear inside and outside your pack that creates swaying to the extent that you need a hip belt at all? I’m not being particular to you, but wanting to address the fact to all that we need not carry more than about 20 pounds of gear, water and food for a multi-day hike unless we’re going out on vacation for a much greater period of time. The hip belt depending on its’ construction and potential additional storage can be eliminated to save weight. Weight is part of the crust of the matter. Speed, endurance and comfort is gained when we pare our load. I don’t advocate reducing load and ignoring essentials. Survival gear has been my mainstay since I started hiking. I’m shocked to note encounters with hikers and runners on a trail with just a water bottle in hand. The wilderness is beautiful place to behold but as well a place where you need  the knowledge and yes experience “to pass through the needle” when nature or you take it for granted.

James: BPL, is designed for us light packing folks, not the heavy loaders. Therefore why do you concern yourself and others that have responded regarding the hip belt when your total pack load should be less than 20 pounds for the typical periods of time that you hike?

Are you sure you are making the proper assumptions?

I bet James will tell you he often hikes for 1 – 2 weeks without resupply — thus his starting weight for food alone might be 20 lbs.

For extended trips the “light packing” folks might have a total pack weight of 30-35 lbs versus the “heavy loaders” who are rumored to carry 50+ lbs of pack weight.

I’d love to see the mystery pack, I’m trying to imagine the pack from the “problems” it tries to avoid and am not coming up with a very coherent mental image.

If we are at the application stage I’m going to give it a solid year before we get to see it though, but just remember that a patent is just a written description of how to get around the patent.

Luke,

It’s been a strange thread with a sprinkling of information. I’m not really being critical — just throwing out ideas, plus I’m not one to be always tweaking my kit. One the other hand, we had a thread here last year with a lot of traffic discussing designing a lightweight a-frame shelter that could handle serious wind. That thread was fun and interesting, with a lot of good discussion and input on designs. Heck, even Mr. Tunnel (Caffin) was somewhat positive on potential solutions :-)

With the exception of my old Dana Designs Bomb Pack basher, which I use maybe once every couple of years, my current heaviest backpack weighs 1 lb 11.5 oz… Arc Haul with hip and shoulder pouches and lumbar pad.

The pack in question would weigh around 3 lb 6 oz with a generous allowance for [water+container] weight. Volume would be something like 50-60 liters?

I’m curious as to why the provided pack weight even includes a liter of water, but I infer that it is because the design includes a top-mounted water bladder, given the statement about difficulty of reaching side pocket water bottles and the resulting weight imbalance as water is consumed.

As I said earlier, I hope Mr. Steele has something wonderful in the works.  Given his statement about the patent process lasting another 7-8 months, this thread seems like it’s about 1 year early…I’ll be all ears when you have something to demonstrate.

It’s hard to imagine an innovation anything short of a come-to-Jesus improvement that will entice me to double the weight of my Arc Haul.

S. Steele wrote: James: BPL, is designed for us light packing folks, not the heavy loaders. Therefore why do you concern yourself and others that have responded regarding the hip belt when your total pack load should be less than 20 pounds for the typical periods of time that you hike? It disrupts natural breathing if cinched to tightly to prevent the obvious swaying of your pack load. So, where do you put your gear inside and outside your pack that creates swaying to the extent that you need a hip belt at all? I’m not being particular to you, but wanting to address the fact to all that we need not carry more than about 20 pounds of gear, water and food for a multi-day hike unless we’re going out on vacation for a much greater period of time. The hip belt depending on its’ construction and potential additional storage can be eliminated to save weight. Weight is part of the crust of the matter. Speed, endurance and comfort is gained when we pare our load. I don’t advocate reducing load and ignoring essentials. Survival gear has been my mainstay since I started hiking. I’m shocked to note encounters with hikers and runners on a trail with just a water bottle in hand. The wilderness is beautiful place to behold but as well a place where you need the knowledge and yes experience “to pass through the needle” when nature or you take it for granted.

Yes, Nick hit it exactly. I am out for 1, 2, 3 weeks at a time with no resupply. I never hit 30 pounds total pack weight when I leave, though. Depending on what season (I only hike in two seasons: High Summer where I might see 80-85F and shoulder seasons where I might see down to 20F (I bring an extra pair of socks, heavy long johns and a sweater.) My base load is around 6.5 pounds. I usually carry about 1.1 pounds of food per day so for 20 nights I would carry about 27-28 pounds.

Hip belts are necessary. They stop swaying as you mention. They also pick up most or partial loads from your shoulders, provided you have a fairly stiff pack. I use a 3-5 layer nightlite pad for loads up to 32 pounds (daily 2 hour workout pack.) Everything goes in the pack and is fairly well cinched. Diagonally, the pack is fairly free to move with my hips as I walk. Loading on my hips starts at around 60% and runs up to 70-80% as my load decreases. I do not believe in using ANY pack greater than 5 pounds without a waist belt. I do not use any padding. A simple 3/4″-1″ belt is enough. Sometimes I use hip pouches, but not usually. Ergonomically, I take the load off my shoulders spine and thorax (in general) and move it lower onto my hips. This removes the muscles, bones and cartilage from carrying heavy loads. Heavy stuff goes in the middle of my pack with lighter stuff (bag, sleeping cloths) lower, and tarp, pot, and dity bag above my food. My food bags are loaded in two bags (sometimes one for 1 week trips) between them. Generally, an easy carry, very comfortable. But, with the low hip belt, it squeezes my bladder a bit. I usually have to stop and pee the first 2-3 miles.

My hip belt intentionally without padding. It locks in just below the apex of my hips at their widest point. Padding causes compression/decompression slippage, putting extra weight on my shoulders, spine and associated muscles. No need to use these beyond carrying 1/3-1/4 of the overall pack weight. Soo, overall, a hip belt saves energy while hiking. My legs carry all the weight anyway. As do my hips. This is much more efficient than a shoulder only carry. And, I am better balanced for rock hopping, crossing logs, etc, by having the pack locked in at my hips.

Survival gear?? Never touch the stuff. It is way to heavy or requires major work. Basicallly lazzy I guess. I carry next to no water, sometimes a liter. Water is heavy. I rely on the outside world for calorie dense food (dehydrated or oily,) fuel, small stove, heat screen, a single spoon, pot and lid, a tarp, and a lighter. I also bring a ditty bag/rock sak for bear hangs for my food bag. No survival gear here.

Technically, I am a UL hiker, sometimes SUL. But this only says base weight. Adding consumables, well…THAT adds weight. I have been hiking since I was a kid in the Catskills of NY. Well, with some time off for military and when I worked on the road. Hmmm around 60 years I guess. Not all of it light weight as I had my family in there for about 20 of those years. I would say that counts as some experience, anyway. Always willing to learn, though. I would really need to see what you have.

Ahhhh!   Its been a while!  I got my popcorn, I got my popcorn!

” I destroyed my ego decades ago.”

Is this a riddle?

Very little has changed in backpacking over the last 50 years, other than lighter materials. One might say there has been a lack of innovation, though I wonder what can really be done to improve designs. Dan McHale has done some great design, but as is sometimes said, we stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. I have a couple McHales. They are heavy compared to some of the feather weight packs on the market, but they carry so well and comfortably. But they are not for those who do what I call “boutique” hiking — that is trips (even long ones) where people leave the wilderness (e.g., ABC trails) every 5 days to go into a town and re-supply. Most of my trips are in deserts where water is only available once a day or maybe once every 2 days. These featherlight packs, which are designed to carry very little weight (as the OP’s sparse information seems to imply) limit where I could hike. I don’t want a pack to dictate the parameters of a trip, rather I want packs that make it easier for me to go where I want, for as long as I want.

This is what has changed in the past 50 years, fewer people do 1 – 3 week trips without supply like James does.

Figure out gear.

 Get pack for the said gear.

Load pack.

Adjust.

Hike. Adjust a bit more.

Have fun.

Has worked for me over the years.

I do not know if my backpack is efficient. But I have learned to efficiently backpack….And I suspect that is more important.

Happy trails.

6lb test weight.

Maybe this should be over in SUL.

“Inefficient” compared to what? The human body is designed to carry itself, nothing more, so if we set that as maximum efficiency then anything you add onto the body will reduce that efficiency. No surprise there. To achieve maximum efficiency we should hike naked and without any gear. We then will die, but we will do so efficiently.

The third week the same person was on the treadmill with the typical backpack representing about 85% of those sold in the USA, Europe and UK,  The person terminated the test after 8 minutes. 

Why did the person terminate the test?  If it was terminated because the person was exhausted after carrying a very inefficient backpack that weight 6 pounds that could explain a lot about the interpreting the results. : )