THE INEFFICIENT BACKPACK

[Ken Thompson]

” I destroyed my ego decades ago.”

“Is this a riddle?”

Jeff, see zip off pants above.

[Sam Farrington]

Kept wondering why the OP began with an overly general and negative tone about what is wrong with packs, and why no design solutions were presented.  Then got to the post about the patent.  So that explains that.  Agree with other posters who suggested that the right time to present problems is when the solutions will be outlined freely, ideally with experience with actual prototypes.  It was no surprise then that the thread generated so much chaff.

 

 

[Sam Farrington]

NM

[S. Steele]

Yes Kenneth, the hiker/runner was exhausted, perspiring and had a slight limp as he left the facility.

I was surprised that he didn’t finish the 10 minute test. He didn’t offer an explanation other than he couldn’t complete the 10 minutes as he had previously with my innovative pack or the first week when he completed the test without a pack.

I realize that this one set of tests is not the truth teller of the efficiency of my pack, but it was worth the exercise and it cost me $1,100, to have it performed. I was hoping for a university physiology lab test, but I’ve heard of costs running about $5,000 or more to perform such a test.

[S. Steele]

Sam: If you correctly read my article you will note that I do indicate a number of avoidance measures.

[S. Steele]

Frankly guys, I don’t give two damns if your interested in my pack.

I provided the information based on my 47 years of hiking experience and personal bio-mechanical research.

Instead of complaining and assuming my intent, why don’t you just question whether or not what I provided makes sense, try my recommendations for avoiding a number of the inefficiencies and note the results for yourself.

[Paul S.]

Frankly we’re a very critical bunch and want the details. Your credentials aren’t enough to make up for a lack of information. The information presented appears to have many potential issues, i.e. N=1. Don’t mistake critical review as a personal attack or hostility toward your ideas.

We aren’t interested in your ego or lack thereof, just a discussion of all the facts. If we need to wait for the patent to process to have a thorough discussion that’s a bit annoying and hampers discussion.

[Ken Thompson]

Paul is right.

[Matt Dirksen]

Stuart,

I read your post several times. While I’m not sure I fully understand or even agree with all of your assertions per se, your post provoked me to look on the web into research on more efficient backpack designs. One site that intrigued me (after reading a Scientific American article about the founder) was this:

http://www.lightningpacks.com/lightningpacks.com/Ergonomic_Backpack_%7C_Lightning_Packs,_LLC.html

Are you developing a UL version of a “Lightning Pack”, or something roughly based on it?  If so, that could be rather interesting.

As far as I’m concerned, from Gerry to Kelty and  Mchale to Valesko, every “well respected” pack company has spent a good amount of time, money and genuine passion to constantly improve their backpack designs.  It sounds like you are on a similar journey, given what you have shared.

However, putting aside your passion for a moment, I must also share with you that I had a very difficult time reading your initial post. It came off as absolute, vague, and highly presumptive.  I felt like I was being lectured to.  This may have not been your intention whatsoever, but I suspect that I’m not the only one who experienced your post in this way, based on some of the comments so far.

I get that you have years of experience. But you are in a forum of peers, some of whom may have a few years but a thousand plus miles of thru-hiking know-how, or 70+ years of wilderness wisdom. The combined amount of experience in this forum is staggering, and I’m certain every one of us can learn something new from one another every day of the year.

So although it was tough for me to understand your post, I do thank you for sharing your thoughts about backpacks and biomechanics. Please continue to share more data on your testing, and allow us to help you refine and hone your vision.

Cheers,

Matt

 

 

 

 

[James Marco]

I agree, Matt. As always, a light pack is <2 pounds and a UL pack is <1 pound. Iff they can get the weight down from 8 pounds to no more than 2ounces greater than these quide lines, then they would be worth purchasing. The overall savings in carrying a spare set of batteries would cause it to even out, even though there is no net savings. I am worried that, typical of military style packs, such weight reductions are not really possible. Generator packs have been tried before.

That said, I usually use a Steripen Opti and bring a set of spare batteries. And the small Fenix style single cell lights also use the same battery, once it is depleted below useful water treatment capability. The savings in weight are negative, even at two ounces of payload increase, but the peace of mind in not having to worry about battery life would be nice. But, packing your fears is not usually a good thing. I would consider dropping back to the rechargeable Steripen if that was the case, though.

[BCap]

I thinks its fair to say that a product that substantially decreased the amount of effort required to carry a given weight will be successful.  However, I would agree with others in that I don’t see any actionable information in this thread, just a teaser for a product that is potentially years off.  So for the moment, it seems worthless to ponder a cryptic post, but in a year or so I’d be happy to look at a new and potentially innovative product.  Best of luck Steele.

[Bob Moulder]

Per my offer up-thread, Mr. Steele and I spoke by phone yesterday and we will be meeting for a hike early next week (Mon, Tue or Wed depending upon weather) and I will see and use the pack in question.

I’ve agreed to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and will respect Mr. Steele’s wishes as to how much detail to provide publicly. I expect to say at the very least whether or not I think the concept has some useful aspects to it.

However, I agree with everyone here that it was premature to make public some rather substantial claims about the design without being able to provide details about how it works, nor adequate testing data to back up these claims.

[Ken Thompson]

Geez, even the all caps title yells at us.

Nice response Matt. Perfect.

[Ken Thompson]

Interesting concept on the link Matt provided. But 2006 was a while ago. Haven’t seen anything in the marketplace.

[S. Steele]

Matt D,

No, not the lightning pack. My pack is a simple design.

I had no intention to be nor am I presumptuous. I’m well aware of the extensive body of well experienced and smart people on the site. I’m not new to site either. I was here many years ago, departed and then returned because I knew that here is where the knowledge base exists. I felt that the scope of what I had learned needed to be brought out for review. I didn’t expect to encounter so much nonsense responses. Nor did I expect to note the constant references to my pack. I merely wanted to learn what you folks thought about the inefficiencies of the backpack. Bob Moulder and I will be taking a hike together shortly. I trust that he will relate to the BPL community what he thinks about the pack. I do wish that so members of the community would grow up. There responses are that of two year olds.

 

[Nick Gatel]

I merely wanted to learn what you folks thought about the inefficiencies of the backpack.

Mission accomplished!

 

[JCH]

I didn’t expect to encounter so much nonsense responses.

There (sic) responses are that of two year olds.

Mr. Steele…you are not doing yourself any favors with statements like these.

It seems you did not understand, or have chosen to ignore, my advice regarding the tone of your subsequent posts.  In my opinion, Mr. Moulder is going out of his way to do you a great service.  I hope you can appreciate exactly what a service that is.

One can only hope that should your product prove commercially viable that your approach to customer service is very different than your approach to marketing.

[Nathan Coleman]

I took a look at what I believe is your patent application.  (Non-provisionals are public record).  It looks very much like a running vest with increased capacity in two tubular pockets laying across the shoulders.  I’m not sure where bulkier gear like insulation would go except by making the tubes larger, hampering head movement to the sides?  Maybe a detachable front and back pouch to stuff a quilt or tent in?  It seems weight distribution would become very important.

Regardless, I wish you well with your application.  It is an expensive and frustratingly long process.

[Eric Blumensaadt]

Someone should write a “Backpack Design; History, Current design and The Future”.

Chapters could include:

1. Chronology-> simple sacks to haversacks to frames to padded hip belts
2. Design Paths-> Materials and Design; Innovations and Dead Ends, Current State(s)-of-the-Art
3. Human Anatomy and Carry Problems->  Male and female anatomy v.s. design, addressing the great variability in human anatomy – the science of kinestheseology and the art of pack design
4. “Unobtainum” and Other Pipe Dreams->  What is not feasible and where can packs reasonably improve? Are current exotic materials like carbon fiber and Dyneema enough to give us “The Pack of the Future”?

Books (or monographs) like this may stimulate pack designers and point out “Paths Not Taken”.

 

[Greg Mihalik]

Nathan,

Can you share a link or directions on how to review the provisional patent?

Or perhaps post a screenshot of the pack.

Thanks

[Greg Mihalik]

Thanks Nathan for the push. Thanks to others for a link –

https://tinyurl.com/ycvmpulz

Now, with additional information, let the discussion continue.

[Mordecai _]

From the original post:

“A hydration bladder is stored in the center of a backpack. They are heavy, provide an undesirable taste, are costly and require hygienic maintenance as compared to a standard water bottle. Wider than a typical water bottle, a good percentage of the weight is a thrust-ed load being partly distant from the center of your body, just as are water bottles stored on the sides of backpacks. Bladders additionally reduce load carrying capacity as they fill-up a good portion of a backpacks space.”

So, is the “fluid container” not a bladder?

This is starting to feel like a waste of time. LaVar Ball style success at getting attention, though.

[Ken Thompson]

Wow.  Looks practical. Bear canister and tent poles apparently are not in the design parameters.

[JCH]

Most.

Anticlimactic.

Thread.

Ever.

[Bob Moulder]

Wow’s the word.

I’m left wondering if there’s anything here that is not prior art. I use a Nathan running pack 3-4 times a week that has similar function.

I was hoping there was some aspect of this pack that might be useful for those of us who do actual backpacking trips with standard UL gear. My gear won’t fit in this, and that’s just one of many practical obstacles to using this design for a multi-day trip in the hills.

Mr. Steele, I’m sorry to bow out but I honestly don’t see this as particularly novel or practical for my needs.

 

 

[Author]

Posts