My father had a custom-fitted backpack made back around 1980, which he gave to me, and it's the best backpack I've ever used.
It goes against practically everything in the book about modern backpack design.
There's about zero customisability, you can adjust the length of the shoulder straps and hip strap and that's about it, but I'm a very similar build to my old man so it fits me almost perfectly.
It's an external aluminium framed pack, with a lot of hard canvas and leather. The shoulder straps are relatively narrow, and made of canvas, they look incredibly uncomfortable, but after I broke them in they were incredible, they moulded to fit me.
The external frame allows for really good back ventilation. The thing I dislike the most about modern backpacks is that I basically end up with a giant sponge on my back. The frame also serves a protective purpose, along with being made out of thick canvas, everything inside the pack stays safe, you could throw it of a cliff.
Of course, it's heavy, bulky, and if it doesn't fit you it's hell to wear. But for a 40 year old backpack it does incredibly well.
I think that the biggest difference between old outdoor equipment and new equipment is that the new stuff is all generic, one size fits all, and designed to be comfortable from the moment you walk out of the store. You can buy a new pack and boots, and go on a 5 day hike the next day without having to break in any of your equipment. Perfect for our fast food, turnkey culture. Older, and modern bespoke equipment made in the old way, will last you an entire lifetime, but it takes time to break it in and maintain it.
I've always found it interesting that at the point in history where humans were spending the most time in the wilderness, we had the least technically complicated equipment. When the Europeans were exploring and colonising the Americas they did so with nothing but timber, leather, canvas, and a bit of steel. Now we spend a couple of weekends a year in the bush, bringing a plethora of space-age technology just to try and survive: carbon fibre, nylon, and titanium gas cookers that boil water in 30 seconds.
I feel like people often become more reliant on technology, not less, when they go into the outdoors.
This seems like a myopic view, like you fell in love with a backpack and built a worldview around it. Modern backpacking gear is extremely light, resilient, and comfortable. You can get packs that ventilate your back. The canvas isn’t really any protection at all from being thrown off a cliff, but a pack filled with soft stuff is. And the external frame is totally unnecessary if your pack weighs 20 total pounds because you have modern gear.
And then mix that in with a jab at disposable culture. You can take good care of a modern pack too, I’ve never had to replace a backpack because it broke.
Sorry to be disagreeable, I just think this comment doesn’t reflect a common reality. I’m no gear head, someone else buys all my gear... but I appreciate modern gear.
Here's the difference I see: the gear the parent is carrying could last year in the wilderness, without reconnecting to civilization. Same goes for the Europeans colonizing the Americas. Your 20lbs of 'high end gear' lasts until it breaks, and then you're back to the store because you can't repair it.
I grew up camping, and I know how awesome the modern tech is. I also know that most people who use it can't go without it.
Can you repair your sleeping bag? When you drop your mosquito cooking stove 'off a cliff' and break the nozzle, can you fix it? Can you and your modern equipment thrive in the woods after your stove's fuel runs out?
Yes, I can and have repaired my sleeping bags. My pocket rocket stove is very sturdy and has a sturdy plastic case, and we’ve had it for 14+ years. And I think I’d be fine in the forest without a stove, but honestly if I ran out of food I might not last long... I’m not a survivalist.
FWIW, I’d also keep using a pack I liked. But the takeaway shouldn’t be people should buy old fashioned backpacks... they mostly suck compared to modern packs.
>When the Europeans were exploring and colonising the Americas they did so with nothing but timber, leather, canvas, and a bit of steel. Now we spend a couple of weekends a year in the bush, bringing a plethora of space-age technology just to try and survive: carbon fibre, nylon, and titanium gas cookers that boil water in 30 seconds.
Well we use more technology today than we did before, big surprise. People didn't have sewage in the 1500s, and do now. Vasco da Gama didn't even bring oranges in his ships for a 2 year voyage, and yet today we stock tonnes of food on cruises. Etc x)
> I think that the biggest difference between old outdoor equipment and new equipment is that the new stuff is all generic, one size fits al
This article literally is about methods of backpack fitting. Custom-made bespoke backpacks are described as well. There is entire section on methods of ventilation.
BTW TFA doesn't mention the basic idea of backpacks, except by implication: they put the weight on your hips; the shoulders straps are just for alignment.
A properly fitting backpack (with hip belt) is one where the mass of the pack is evenly distributed from the C7 cervical vertebra (the bony part at the base of your neck) down to the iliac crest (top of the hips) where the majority of the weight should sit.
This backpack sounds interesting. Do you know where he got it made? Do you have any photos of it? I find modern backpacks awkward at best and having a custom-fitted one sounds great. Also, I basically only use duffel bags to avoid the whole bag sweat issue.
I have a couple of 30+ year old backpacks. One thing I like about them is that they don't have thousands of zippers and compartments, so they're quite lightweight despite being made of relatively basic materials. I also have a newer "student" backpack, and it seems like it's full before I even put any stuff in it.
One of these backpacks has been my companion on every plane trip I've ever taken. Unfortunately, I learned the hard way last summer, that it's no longer waterproof at all.
We use technology mainly so we can be fast and self sufficient. This allows for short trips which can be fit in a modern working life. I believe that's a big driver.
I went through three (no-frame, daily commute) backpacks in slightly over a year a while back - they all failed in different ways. It annoyed me enough that I spent time looking for a well-made one, and settled on a (noncustom) leather backpack.
Sounds very similar - it looks nothing like a modern bag, is not very adjustable, a bit heavy in comparison, super comfortable to wear and I'm pretty sure it will outlive me.
One thing missing in this survey is the arrival of shoulder strap lift straps. If you go back to the 1970s, backpacks more or less uniformly had a shoulder strap that started at the top of your back, sat directly against the body and wrap up and over the shoulders. This transferred a significant amount of weight directly to the top of the shoulders.
At some point, people figured out that it made sense to run an adjustable strap from the very apex of the shoulder strap back to the pack "frame" (whatever that was), designed to generally run at about a 45 degree angle upwards. This massively reduces the load on the shoulders, and converts the shoulder straps more into balance/position elements than load bearing.
Having walked over 4000 miles in a Deuter backpack that weighted on average about 33lbs/15kg, I would just add that while optimizing backpack fit is absolutely important, it is more important to constantly optimize how much weight you are carrying. The latter is way more an art than the former.
As a former AT thruhiker, I couldn't agree more. Though we definitely would have appreciated packs that were easier on the shoulders and gave less swampback. We had no frame ultralight packs and sort of molded the contents of the pack to fit our shorter torsos.
Most of the modern backpacks portrayed are heavy and designed for 45+lb loads (of which some of these packs will comprise 3+lbs).
Would have liked to see more ultralight representation because it serves as a good counterpoint to all the tech that though effective, adds weight.
Reducing weight has been the biggest advancement in ergonomics for me. A pack is an important part of that total and many of his examples - ladder back adjustment systems, contouring supported by robust plastic and foam, articulating ball joints - add to it.
You Ain’t Gonna Need It - unless you don’t apply that attitude and end up with a 75lb(!) bag.
Fascinating! The entire time I was absorbing why my Osprey women's backpack is so comfortable, so interesting to get the historical breakdown. Not sure about that floating backpack though..
Funny, to me the physics of that floating backpack immediately check out on an intuitive level: the less energy I put into making the backpack move, the less energy I'll expend.
I imagine one could dampen the motion by regulating the tension of the bungees? or maybe lock it entirely if you need to jump around for a while?
I think that kind of shock absorption and momentum conservation optimization over something that happens tens of times per minute (like steps or strides when running) would definitely make a difference.
I'm poor at mechanics but afaik in racing it's considered that extra suspension absorbs energy, making the car slower. So my intuition is that the bungee cord would heat up from expanding/contracting, while taking energy for that from the person. Not sure, though, how that compares to lifting the entire weight. But then again, what happens when the person is already on a downswing and the cord belatedly jerks the backpack up?
NeoTrekk (formerly LuxuryLite) also offers a "front pack" for counterbalance that can be used with their pack. However, that is just one of the pack's many innovations, which include modular waterproof storage, quick-detach hip belt, camp chair conversion, attachable wheels, and more: http://www.neotrekk.com/index.html#stackpack
The McHale Bypass Harness on McHale packs completely solves the inherent adjustment problems of the traditional load-lifter design used on most trekking packs. This innovation is not recent; its US patent has expired. Despite this, I do not know of any companies that have adopted it: http://www.mchalepacks.com/sarc/04.htm
If you ask people who live and die by their 'backpacks' - the military (they'd call them rucksacks in the US or bergens in the UK) - you'll find that they eschew all this fancy complexity and just use something with a very basic structure. You may get an internal metal or polymer frame, but that'll be about it. Keep it simple.
I do mountain biking and lots of hiking. For years I used an Osprey bag which was super light and had lots of features. Problems was that it was hard to clean, the fabric/zips were not strong enough and it was difficult to load.
Now I just use a backpack designed for a laptop. The material is easy to wipe clean. It is rectangular which makes it far easier to load stuff than the weird semi-cylinder shape. The material is string and the zips are much more meaty. And the flat rectangular back is very comfortable for me.
I had the same issue for a while and I just downsized to a really nice 'cheap' osprey Rook 65 which is just a big single main compartment and a top lid. It isn't really meant for huge weight but I can easily get 5 days of food and gear for alpine conditions.
When I was "in" 45+ years ago, the most important feature of our packs was the ability to shed them quickly so that we could take cover and maneuver our bodies to attack, fight, and survive.
I was 'in' 10 years ago and from my deployments in the flatter of the two sandboxes and the the hills of east Asia, I firmly believe that the military is holding onto backpacks for tradition more than anything. I was in the Infantry btw so I have a lot of Kg's carried.
Without going in depth about this, I attribute my opinion to the fact that everyone is rocking body armor these days and few teams can take big packs out for extended patrols without choosing between armor or big packs or broken backs.
Time O'Brians short story, 'The things they carried' still rings true.
From memory Body armor with plates and flak vests ~8kg, then 0.5Kg for every Magazine (7-10), 2 kilos of water, Radio 0-1.5, helmet, nvg, rifle or gun, and then maybe a rocket or mine.
And that's stuff outside of your pack!
The military is going heavy with armor so vehicles become the pack and soldiers just orbit out of those.
When I was leaving the military more and more folk were moving towards having a day pack around the 25-30L mark that would be good for about 36 hours.
Anyway the only person giving me orders these days is me, so I take my suggestions from the ultralight hiking crowd.
I'm backpacking 8 days into the backcountry this Summer. I was fitted for my pack in 2009 and used it on a few trips, carrying up to 75 pounds for several days. Even with a fitted pack, my shoulders took a beating. I don't know whether upgrading packs will make much of a difference but need to act soon.
No pack ever made will alleviate the agony of carrying 75 pounds. Until anti-gravity pods become available, your only solution is to ruthlessly pare that weight down. If you think you've gone as far as you can, make another pass.
Even if you can, why would you? There's a reason thru-hikers ruthlessly cut back their carrying weight - because you don't actually need that much stuff and it's a literal burden to bear. 75 lbs is almost half my body weight, carrying an extra half-me around is absurd.
It's always a trade-off. You can take less equipment with you but be less effective when you get to wherever you're going, or you can take more equipment but have a harder time getting there.
You may simply be doing that something that requires 20 kg + of equipment when you get there, so not much much of a choice.
Weapon systems, communication systems, climbing gear, oxygen, tools, whatever.
Okay I think we agree with each other then. I was still considering the context of this particular comment thread, which was just a backcountry hiker who had a 75 lbs pack. Unless he has special gear with him, 75 lbs is crazy.
I regularly hike with climbing gear, which as you point out gets quite heavy. I would very much avoid having that much weight unless it was necessary to climb safely.
The original comment was someone talking about backpacking and 75 pounds is very heavy for a backpacking (which is supposed to be fun after all) - even for extended (over a week) backpacking trips in winter (ice-axe, crampons etc.) I'd be surprised if my pack was half that weight.
I assume he's getting water along the way and filtering it, not bringing his water for 6 days. I don't think many people hike out with almost a week's worth of water vs. finding water sources.
My Kriega R30 backpack has that, its not that great for walking in my opinion but i can wear it all day on the motorcycle (that's what its made for), off the bike i usually have my pants and jacket and helmet hooked on the top of it so its very overweight.
I'm pining for extra straps lower on the front, so my everyday-backpack sits more snugly and swings around less, and the weight isn't on the shoulder joints. However, I also need to breathe, so dunno how to resolve all of that.
Yes, but we also have the benefit of modern materials science.
You can make a backpack with a lot more parts/materials and still have it lighter than a backpack made 20 or 30 years ago.
Of course the downside is that you can't repair them when they break. You can't weld, glue, or sew broken parts any more, and good luck getting replacement parts or modifying your pack in any way.
Some of us like our creature comforts too. I could go ultra-lightweight, but I don't want to be eating nothing but beef jerky and snickers bars, and sleeping under a couple of square feet of tarp. I want to eat real food and sleep in a tent (actually I've always been a hut man).
The tradeoffs are substantial. I've come across a lot of through hikers over the years. The featherweight packers are usually the ones who are mentally broken, as if enduring solitary confinement in a cell that has a serious water leak and freezing temperatures. The heavyweight packers are physically broken but still bear a resemblance of a civilized human being.
It goes against practically everything in the book about modern backpack design.
There's about zero customisability, you can adjust the length of the shoulder straps and hip strap and that's about it, but I'm a very similar build to my old man so it fits me almost perfectly.
It's an external aluminium framed pack, with a lot of hard canvas and leather. The shoulder straps are relatively narrow, and made of canvas, they look incredibly uncomfortable, but after I broke them in they were incredible, they moulded to fit me.
The external frame allows for really good back ventilation. The thing I dislike the most about modern backpacks is that I basically end up with a giant sponge on my back. The frame also serves a protective purpose, along with being made out of thick canvas, everything inside the pack stays safe, you could throw it of a cliff.
Of course, it's heavy, bulky, and if it doesn't fit you it's hell to wear. But for a 40 year old backpack it does incredibly well.
I think that the biggest difference between old outdoor equipment and new equipment is that the new stuff is all generic, one size fits all, and designed to be comfortable from the moment you walk out of the store. You can buy a new pack and boots, and go on a 5 day hike the next day without having to break in any of your equipment. Perfect for our fast food, turnkey culture. Older, and modern bespoke equipment made in the old way, will last you an entire lifetime, but it takes time to break it in and maintain it.
I've always found it interesting that at the point in history where humans were spending the most time in the wilderness, we had the least technically complicated equipment. When the Europeans were exploring and colonising the Americas they did so with nothing but timber, leather, canvas, and a bit of steel. Now we spend a couple of weekends a year in the bush, bringing a plethora of space-age technology just to try and survive: carbon fibre, nylon, and titanium gas cookers that boil water in 30 seconds.
I feel like people often become more reliant on technology, not less, when they go into the outdoors.