Back pack size vs Comfort

[rootball]

Where would you draw the line between comfort and size/weight?
I have mostly been a traditional load hauler. It never really seems to bother me. I don't carry camp chairs or stuff like that - but my gear is duarble and economically designed. In other words, its cheap and heavy, but should last a lifetime. I can obviously cover more ground with a lighter pack - but at the end of the day I feel the same when I climb into my tent. I am looking for a Continental Divide pack made by Kelty - it is a heavy pack, but that does not really bother me. If it carries comfortably and has room enough for several days worth of gear, then I am set.
Would you be able to justify the additional weight for the added comfort?

[rootball]

http://www.sierratradingpost.com/p/311,85026_Kelty-Continental-Divide-5300-External-Frame-Pack-.html

That is what the pack looks like.

[Wolf - 23000]

Rootball,
Were I draw the line is how much weight do I want to carry to be comfortable. Everything in my pack I consider a luxury meaning if I did not have it or had to survive without it I could. With that said, I look at what do I want to carry to be comfortable? Do I want to carry that extra stuff such as a camp chair or do I want to leave that stuff behind. What type of hike am I planning? Am I planning on going light but fast or am I going to take my time more? Am I planning on hiking with someone or am I going to be hiking mostly solely. What is the terrain/climate like? Doing the CDT as you are, you might want to use different gear compare to if you were going to do the AT.
It all personal questions that you need to ask yourself when deciding what size pack or what type of pack you what. If for example you get a good quality pack that can handle heavy weight well that would be great – if you wanted to carry a heavy load. If you picked up a pack that made you feel a heavy load more you are more likely to take something out compare to it you did not feel it as much.
Just things to think about.
Wolf

[stranger]

There are different views on this subject, these two are fairly common:

- The more weight you carry, the more work you will do, the more tired you will be and you will cover ground less efficiently as a result.

- Another school of thought would say if you carry a pack that is heavier, but transfers the weight to your hips and lumbar, this could result in being more comfortable, thus being able to cover ground more efficiently.

Personally speaking, and I know a fair bit about this topic, the second school of thought is far more accurate than the first - within reason. But there is no such thing as "comfort" when it comes to backpacks, if packs were comfortable we would come home after a hard day at work and put on a 30lb pack to relax.

With packs, you always talking about levels of discomfort.

What's most important when it comes to how packs perform is the level of "fatigue". Backpacks fatigue people because they carry weight on areas of our body that are not use to doing any work - ie our shoulders. And unlike our legs, which get natural exercise all day long by carrying around our torso's, our shoulders are much weaker, thus fatigue quicker, than our legs would.

So what's more fatiguing? Carring 22lbs primarily on your shoulders or carrying 24lbs primarily on your hips (considering the difference in pack weight is due to one pack being frameless and another with a decent internal frame)?

For most hikers, they would be better off, and less fatigued, in the heavier scenario - assuming the packs are decent quality, well fitting, fit properly and applied properly by the person using it. This is due to the fact that your legs can handle the majority of 24lbs easier than your shoulder can handle the majority of 22lbs. Most frameless packs carry a significant portion of the weight on your shoulders compared to their internal frame sisters. This of course does not apply to all packs and you can find exceptions, but generally speaking is a solid rule of thumb.

A good way of verifying this is to go to the gym and start bench pressing 50lbs, see how many reps of 10 you can do before exhaustion. Then load up the leg press machine with 65lbs, see how many reps of 10 you can do before exhaustion - funny how more weight is less fatiguing?

It's not just about weight, there's lot more going on with packs other than how much they weigh.

[Hoop Time]

Interesting question ... sort of similar to what I posted yesterday in the gear threads about a pack I bought. It's well on the heavy side (4.5 lbs), but I think it was a pretty good value. I really liked how it fit and how it felt with weight in it (granted, stuffing and sand bags are not the same as actual gear).

My thought was/is the added weight of the pack is less significant given that I don't expect to be carrying as much gear since I will not be using it for long, multi-day hikes (at least not initially). For me, the decision came down to save $100 or more that I could use for other needed gear (most of my stuff is well out of date since I just started hiking again last summer after about 30 years of not hiking).

I realize ounces add up to pounds and one pound here and another there can quickly add up to 10 or 15 pounds. But I figured this was a wise choice in my current situation and that I can always buy a lighter pack in the future if I find I am doing enough hikes, and spending enough days out, that the amount of gear I need to carry reaches the point where I need to shave a pound or two from the load.

[skinewmexico]

As I've gotten older, I've found I don't carry heavy weights as well any more, and I sure don't enjoy them. But that Kelty is a shockingly heavy pack. If I was dead set on an external, I'd watch Ebay for a Kelty 50th Anniversary pack, weighs about half of that amount. Or an older Jansport D2/D3/D5. Since I generally have to carry a lot of water in the desert, I've recently gone back to a slightly heavier pack to carry the weights you're talking about, and they're still about half that weight. Really, really happy with my ULA Catalyst and Circuit.

[ShelterLeopard]

Where would you draw the line between comfort and size/weight?
I have mostly been a traditional load hauler. It never really seems to bother me. I don't carry camp chairs or stuff like that - but my gear is duarble and economically designed. In other words, its cheap and heavy, but should last a lifetime. I can obviously cover more ground with a lighter pack - but at the end of the day I feel the same when I climb into my tent. I am looking for a Continental Divide pack made by Kelty - it is a heavy pack, but that does not really bother me. If it carries comfortably and has room enough for several days worth of gear, then I am set.
Would you be able to justify the additional weight for the added comfort?

Hey, people always laughed at me for carrying a parachute hammock in addition to my tent, and heavy (they aren't really heavy, just heavier than crocs) birkenstock sandals and other stuff like that- but guess who was laughing when we got in to camp after a hard day of hiking? You guessed it, the Shelter Leopard laughed last. Hahahahaha!

I'm a bit of a load hauler my self- I either bring a bunch of extra stuff, or only the essentials- it totally depends on my mood. This year I did a section hike of PA, and I didn't bring way too much to begin with, but sent tons home in palmerton- including my tent, meaning I had to beast it to shelters...

[ShelterLeopard]

Besides- it is soo awesome to be carrying a heavy load, then switch out winter gear for summer and lose twenty pounds of pack weight- it feels like slackpacking!

[Wolf - 23000]

There are different views on this subject, these two are fairly common:


- The more weight you carry, the more work you will do, the more tired you will be and you will cover ground less efficiently as a result.

- Another school of thought would say if you carry a pack that is heavier, but transfers the weight to your hips and lumbar, this could result in being more comfortable, thus being able to cover ground more efficiently.

Personally speaking, and I know a fair bit about this topic, the second school of thought is far more accurate than the first - within reason. But there is no such thing as "comfort" when it comes to backpacks, if packs were comfortable we would come home after a hard day at work and put on a 30lb pack to relax.

With packs, you always talking about levels of discomfort.



Stranger,

A pack does not have to cause you any discomfort. On most of my hikes, I don’t even notice my pack. In general you are correct on your first statement, the more weight you carry can make it harder for you to hike and become more tired, but sometimes it can also be counter-balance by how are you traveling lighter. For example, my first hike I did not carry a stove. Everyday in the evening I had to stop early enough to gather firewood to build a fire and cook my food. I saved weight in my pack but I was using more energy and time compare to just carry a stove.

It all comes down to what you want from your hike - to travel light weight and hike more miles or carry more weight hike less miles but have more time in camp. It is all personal preference.


What's most important when it comes to how packs perform is the level of "fatigue". Backpacks fatigue people because they carry weight on areas of our body that are not use to doing any work - ie our shoulders. And unlike our legs, which get natural exercise all day long by carrying around our torso's, our shoulders are much weaker, thus fatigue quicker, than our legs would.

So what's more fatiguing? Carring 22lbs primarily on your shoulders or carrying 24lbs primarily on your hips (considering the difference in pack weight is due to one pack being frameless and another with a decent internal frame)?

For most hikers, they would be better off, and less fatigued, in the heavier scenario - assuming the packs are decent quality, well fitting, fit properly and applied properly by the person using it. This is due to the fact that your legs can handle the majority of 24lbs easier than your shoulder can handle the majority of 22lbs. Most frameless packs carry a significant portion of the weight on your shoulders compared to their internal frame sisters. This of course does not apply to all packs and you can find exceptions, but generally speaking is a solid rule of thumb.

A backpack is not design to be left fitted in one location. They need to be adjusted while hiking. In your example, the 22lbs pack on your shoulders would work better than the 24lbs pack on the hips if say you were going up hill. A snug hip belt around your waist will restrict your oxygen and wear you out quicker. What causes many hikers to become fatiguing easy is they don’t adjusting their packs.


A good way of verifying this is to go to the gym and start bench pressing 50lbs, see how many reps of 10 you can do before exhaustion. Then load up the leg press machine with 65lbs, see how many reps of 10 you can do before exhaustion - funny how more weight is less fatiguing?

It's not just about weight, there's lot more going on with packs other than how much they weigh.

True, but using both muscle groups to lift the weight will allow you to last even longer. For example bench the same 50 pounds 5 times then lift the 65 pounds 5 times with your legs, you will be even less fatigue than using any one muscle group. Funny how that works.

[Blissful]

Comfort is kind of a misnomer at times - I thought my big Lowes clunker was comfortable - and it was for my back, but I developed hip pain and other stuff after weeks on the trail. Swtiched out to a ligher pack with less gear about halfway through, and yeah, I still had some pains, but it made for a much more enjoyable trip and eaiser to negotiate the stiff terrain up north.

Now if you want the pack for some weekend jaunts, etc. or even a week then go for it. But for long hauls or a thru - I'd go light and watch the gear.

[LockJaww]

Im an external frame fan also....Why not the Kelty Treker..
http://www.kelty.com/kelty/img/products/Trekker3900ST_WoodsGreen.jpg

[jersey joe]

Rootball, it looks like the pack itself weighs 7lbs 10oz. I hiked with a similar weight pack on my thru hike and love using it on shorter weekend hikes. If I were to do another long distance hike however, i'd likely purchase a lighter pack.

[Turtle2]

I started with a 6 lb pack and loaded it down. By the end of the week it had pinched a nerve or something which caused the sensation of cold water running down my leg. Switching to a lighter load solved that problem and allowed for alot more enjoyable trip. Not to say I wasn't tired at the end of the day. There are similar styled packs available that weigh much less at a comparable price. Look around before buying.

[Shutterbug]

Where would you draw the line between comfort and size/weight?
I have mostly been a traditional load hauler. It never really seems to bother me. I don't carry camp chairs or stuff like that - but my gear is duarble and economically designed. In other words, its cheap and heavy, but should last a lifetime. I can obviously cover more ground with a lighter pack - but at the end of the day I feel the same when I climb into my tent. I am looking for a Continental Divide pack made by Kelty - it is a heavy pack, but that does not really bother me. If it carries comfortably and has room enough for several days worth of gear, then I am set.
Would you be able to justify the additional weight for the added comfort?

My hiking closet is full of packs of different sizes and weights. Somehow I seem to always select the lightest one that will carry what I think I need on a particular hike.

[summermike]

I've found I carry more as I age and need more things to be comfortable.

[Egads]

I've found I carry more as I age and need more things to be comfortable.

Sometimes more is less, as in carry a hammock

[stranger]

Wolf, you do raise some good points.

On your first, you claim you don't notice your pack (assuming due to the fact that it's so light), well trust me, for everyone like you there are 1000 who do "notice" their pack. There are always exceptions, as my post stated.

It might be worth mentioning that I don't consider "discomfort" to be the equivalent of "pain" or "misery", I would say wearing shoes is uncomfortable, compared to not wearing shoes, for me atleast. It's not logically possible to say weight on your back will not cause discomfort of some level. Perhaps the better point might be whether or not you notice the discomfort.

In terms of moving the pack around, this sounds more like your opinion than fact, and this hasn't been my experience over the years - however, the next time I'm cruising uphill I will try this and perhaps I might notice a difference. Thanks for the tip.

In terms of using both muscle groups to do the work - this is obvious. The debate wasn't about that, my point was that your legs are stronger, and able to carry more weight, more comfortably, for longer periods of time than your shoulders. I was speaking about shoulders or legs when hauling the majority of weight, key word being "or". I don't disagree with your point.

We can always find exceptions to the rule, but the vast majority of hikers out there are carrying 30lbs or more on their backs, this is simple reality, and my post was geared towards the person who started the thread, and the person who started the thread said they carry a heavy load.

[Tinker]

I've carried a 14 oz. frameless (well, the "frame" is actually a section of 3/8" closed cell foam which lines the pack) for the past 5 years, including an 11 day hike of the Hundred Mile Wilderness with approx. 34 lbs. at the beginning. On that trip the pack felt quite heavy and bulky for the first two days. By the end of the third day it had become "a part of my body" and I barely noticed it. The foam liner puts a surprisingly large amount of the weight carried on your hips, and I used it quite often in camp as a seat on rocks, logs, etc. It also makes a good "doormat" when I'm hammocking (which is most of the time, including the Hundred Mile trip).

[blindeye]

I've been off the grid for a while but I'm back. I seem to remember a new backpack that had 3 size enclosures that were independent from each other on a kind of external frame. anyone remember the name of that pack I'd like to check them out

thanks

[couscous]

I've been off the grid for a while but I'm back. I seem to remember a new backpack that had 3 size enclosures that were independent from each other on a kind of external frame. anyone remember the name of that pack I'd like to check them out

thanks

Maybe you mean the LuxuryLite (http://www.luxurylite.com/packindex.html) modular pack frame?

[leaftye]

Titanium Goat is also coming out with an external frame pack.

http://www.titaniumgoat.com/pack.html

[leaftye]

Nearly 8 pounds is awfully heavy for a pack, especially a pack that only has 5300 cubic inches of capacity.


A backpack is not design to be left fitted in one location. They need to be adjusted while hiking. In your example, the 22lbs pack on your shoulders would work better than the 24lbs pack on the hips if say you were going up hill. A snug hip belt around your waist will restrict your oxygen and wear you out quicker. What causes many hikers to become fatiguing easy is they don’t adjusting their packs.

I've noticed that when carrying heavy loads. I'd have to tighten the belt very snug to keep it on my hips, and that would work, but it would also cut blood flow to my legs. I would frequently make adjustments to spread out the pain. There's a guy on BPL that's designing a pack with a belt that's much less flexible and looks like it would sit on the hips with much less tension.

[Raul Perez]

Where would you draw the line between comfort and size/weight?
I have mostly been a traditional load hauler. It never really seems to bother me. I don't carry camp chairs or stuff like that - but my gear is duarble and economically designed. In other words, its cheap and heavy, but should last a lifetime. I can obviously cover more ground with a lighter pack - but at the end of the day I feel the same when I climb into my tent. I am looking for a Continental Divide pack made by Kelty - it is a heavy pack, but that does not really bother me. If it carries comfortably and has room enough for several days worth of gear, then I am set.
Would you be able to justify the additional weight for the added comfort?

I'm a relative noob when it comes to hiking. I've only been seriously hiking/backpacking over 2 years. The first time out (5 days) I had a 60lbs pack with an 80 liter osprey pack. It was awefully heavy but fairly comfortable on my back.

Next time out I got it down to 40lbs for an overnighter... yeah overnighter with the same pack this time I tackled the AT for the first time. I did 5 miles and I thought I was gonna die.

Since then I have been scaling down my gear and got this past year out for 5 days at 29lbs total weight. Next trip I will have it down to 23-24lbs total weight for the same duration.

I found the lower pack weight much more comfortable and I was able to enjoy the hiking experience much better. All the while I was still VERY comfortable with my choices.

Personally I dont think you need all that heavy bombproof gear. Most lightweight gear is very durable and takes a good amount of abuse from those who have used it on an entire thru hike. Expecially gear comming from cottage industries.