Walking Forum

Main Boards => Gear => Topic started by: daniel0o0 on 16:58:19, 21/03/21

Title: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: daniel0o0 on 16:58:19, 21/03/21
Hello hikees. How do you weigh in about this possibly new subject? Certainly the general subject is old - place the heaviest gear against the "middle" back however it appears this "middle" advice is very general as the included diagrams show from the lower neck to the lower back. Could you make reasons or share experience to say that you prefer the lower neck area or the precise middle back area or the lower back area for the heaviest items?
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: jimbob on 17:52:09, 21/03/21
Hi Daniel, welcome to the forum. Can't answer your questions as I pack haphazardly.   Why not pop over to the welcome part of the forum and introduce yourself, areas of interest, type if walking you do etc, Be good to get to know you forum wise.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: ayjay on 18:00:18, 21/03/21
I only carry a lightweight rucksack with just a couple of items inside when I walk now, but when I fished regularly I carried a much heavier rucksack,  I'd often walk 3- 4 miles with that.

 It was always packed with the efficient use of space most in mind. I think more important than item placement is how you wear your rucksack, get it up as high as  possible, it's no use when it's dangling down near your bum, (and I see many like that).
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: richardh1905 on 18:04:05, 21/03/21
Welcome to the forum, Daniel.


I can see the sense in putting the heavy items close to the back, and not too high, so as to maintain a good centre of gravity, with most of the weight being transmitted to the hip belt.


But when it comes down to it, I pack my bag with the overnight gear (tent, sleeping bag) at the bottom, stuff that I might use during the day (waterproofs, fleece, food, water) nearer the top, purely for practical reasons.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: daniel0o0 on 18:07:04, 21/03/21
Hello forum thank you for some replies already. Hello Jimbob yes I will make an introduction page cheers.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: gunwharfman on 19:01:08, 21/03/21
My sleeping bag is at the bottom and my tent and poles are at the top of my rucksack, what makes the difference for me to feel comfortable, for say two weeks, is to ensure that my rucksack is held securely against the curve of my body, I never have it loose. Where my body goes, it goes, I just try to make it part of me. My Osprey Exos 48L is great for this.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: archaeoroutes on 19:06:15, 21/03/21
For a big expedition pack, I go as high as possible with heavy items. In practice that isn't the very top as that is reserved for quick-access stuff like waterproofs and food.
The reasoning is that the higher it is, the more the weight pivots and presses against the bottom contact point. That way more of the weight can be carried on the hips than downwards on the shoulders.


For other activities I may go different. For instance, something likely to include scrambling or anything else where I'm shifting my balance rapidly I'd want the weight close in to my back.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: vghikers on 19:29:29, 21/03/21
As others have said, where feasible I put the heaviest items close to my back, midway up, and lighter ones at the rear. The objective is always to get the pack centre of mass as near to mine as possible to improve biomechanics and stability.


That's why I don't like those backpacks with a wide airgap between the pack and my body: they may feel cooler in summer but they're terrible for biomechanics/posture and very unstable on scrambly routes.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Stube on 19:51:10, 21/03/21
I remember an article in the New Scientist some 50 years ago that measured the energy epended in carrying a load versus how high you carried it. It took half  the effort to carry it on  your head compared to a briefcase. Sherpas know something.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: daniel0o0 on 19:58:11, 21/03/21
Very good
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Birdman on 20:43:51, 21/03/21
As said, weight as close as possible to your back. From my own experience, I prefer to have the weight a bit above the middle (definitely not too low in my pack). Because with a heavy pack I'm leaning a bit forward and this way the weight is straight above my hips.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: richardh1905 on 20:45:42, 21/03/21
I remember an article in the New Scientist some 50 years ago that measured the energy epended in carrying a load versus how high you carried it. It took half  the effort to carry it on  your head compared to a briefcase. Sherpas know something.


I often raise eyebrows when I buy a 15kg sack of dog food or a large bag of compost - I carry them out to the car on my head! Seems much more natural than struggling with the sack in my arms; my posture seems so much better.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Birdman on 20:54:23, 21/03/21

I often raise eyebrows when I buy a 15kg sack of dog food or a large bag of compost - I carry them out to the car on my head! Seems much more natural than struggling with the sack in my arms; my posture seems so much better.


I'm not surprised, because it places the weight above your hips. This is how your body was "designed" to carry weight.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: daniel0o0 on 21:27:31, 21/03/21
Very good all of this thank you forum. Now can I try some contrary and see how you weigh it? The reasonable consensus is to carry the heaviest items higher up. However the head carrying example brings up an arguably certain fact - that placing weight directly above the hips is why the head carry works. With that, would any among you support the contrary idea that lower placement of heaviest items should prove easier to carry - with the reasoning stemming from the weight being nearer to the above point of the hips as opposed to the middle back which arches out and hence creates an above point over the hips that is further away than the point the lower back provides. This contrary thought also asks you to allow that a good hiker's belt is employed, eliminating any droop effect from a weight sitting slightly above the hips. I hope I do not appear to be making this post as a statement that I believe the lower back should be superior and this is a question and request for your thoughts on this subject which I ask about due to my wanting to be as well-informed on this subject as humanly possible. This subject is limited to your own thoughts as well because as far as I could gather, google will not result in the specifics of this subject.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: richardh1905 on 23:13:49, 21/03/21
Depends what sort of activity you are participating in. Me balance on the head example is fine for carrying a bag of compost to the car park; less fine for Tryfan or Striding Edge! I suppose what I am suggesting is that it is a compromise between what is best for posture, and what is best for balance. And, of course, practicality - less used items at the bottom of the rucksack, items you may need quickly or more often near the top.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: WhitstableDave on 09:04:46, 22/03/21
As a day walker who only carries what he needs for the day, the positioning of my stuff is purely down to convenience. For example, so I can reach behind me to access the lower pouch containing my hat and gloves without me having to stop. I carry things like snacks, keys and phone on the hip belt - again so as not to have to stop.

But whatever one carries, I agree with Richard that balance and posture are the main aims. Having to lean forward isn't good, because it affects the ability to breathe.

As an aside, I never tighten the hip belt. I clip it together at the front of course, but I wear it very loose to allow a good flow of air to my upper body. I don't use the chest strap either for the same reason. So the weight is carried entirely by the shoulder straps and where the corners of the air-frame touch my lower back.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: gunwharfman on 10:45:38, 22/03/21
We are all so different. Fascinating.

When I put my rucksack on I pull my shoulder straps down to fit comfortably over my clavicle bones but I keep them just about loose. I then position and tighten my hip strap just below my Iliac Crest, once secure (this is the most important decision for me) I then tighten my shoulder straps properly. I then do a little shoulder and hip wiggle to 'feel' how the rucksack is sitting on my back. I then adjust if necessary, and once satisfied I then clip my chest strap, not loose but not tight either. For me it's my little ritual, I can't move on until it feels right.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Patrick1 on 10:51:19, 22/03/21
...would any among you support the contrary idea that lower placement of heaviest items should prove easier to carry...


The reason heavy things are easier when carried higher up is about centre of gravity. To stay upright your centre of gravity has to be above your feet. Putting a pack on your back moves your centre of gravity backwards, and you need to lean forwards to compensate.

Leaning forwards basically involves pivoting at the hips. So, if the weight in that pack is low down, near your hips, you have to lean a long way forwards before you bring your centre of gravity back over your feet. If, however, the weight is high up, then just a small tilt forwards is enough to compensate and to bring you back into balance. Since walking along bent double is both uncomfortable and inefficient, the higher (and closer to you) you can carry the weight the easier it is to walk.

Extrapolating from this would conclude that, as Richard says above, on your head is the ideal, involving no shift of your centre of gravity at all. But failing this, keep the heavy items as high as possible and as close to your back as possible.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: windyrigg on 11:46:37, 22/03/21
Sorry to add to the confusion, but I disagree with putting all the heavy kit at the top. I pack to avoid bumps sticking into my back, but so the weight is transmitted through the hip belt. A would expect a heavy weight high up and off the centre line to unbalance the pack and me. It's worse with those packs where the back is padded well off the spine (if they're not already full of snow).
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: gunwharfman on 12:04:06, 22/03/21
I'm with Windyrigg on this one, I prefer the weight at the top, I just cannot function with it at the bottom. I've even seen people with a swinging tube of tent or something similar strapped to the bottom of their rucksack. The feel of that constantly tap, tap, tapping at the base of my buttocks when walking along would drive me mad!
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: richardh1905 on 14:06:07, 22/03/21
I'm with Windyrigg on this one, I prefer the weight at the top, I just cannot function with it at the bottom. I've even seen people with a swinging tube of tent or something similar strapped to the bottom of their rucksack. The feel of that constantly tap, tap, tapping at the base of my buttocks when walking along would drive me mad!


Ah yes, the stereotypical hiker with a frame rucksack and tent poles, camping mats, mugs, kitchen sink strapped onto the outside of their pack! Would drive me mad  - the only thing on the outside of my pack would be an ice axe or walking poles.


..although I once did a 'walk in' to a spot high in the Pyrenees with a full sized baguette strapped across the top of my rucksack - that particular brainwave didn't end well.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Perranwell on 14:54:19, 22/03/21
Other than bottled water, which gets sort of mid carried in my side pockets, I try to keep my weightier items spread out equally inside the rucksack, so that there is no heavy spot. I split up my inner tent, fly, poles, and stakes to help with that.

*

I don't know anything about the science. But I had an external-frame Karrimor from the 70s to 1991 (when it got nicked), and that carried very high on the back and above the shoulders. I remember it being very comfortable; but I presume the scientific thinking behind those has been superseded.


The move to carrying more weight on the hips makes some sense to me. But my instinct is that it's overkill when the shoulder straps do little except hold the pack on straight. I once worked loading sacks at a mill, and shoulders were our beasts of burden, so it's a shame to waste what they can do. Therefore my view is that for pack carrying weight should be shared between shoulders the hips, which is why I try to distribute weight evenly throughout my pack. I'd rather have a bigger rucksack than have to stick items on the outside.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Patrick1 on 15:21:13, 22/03/21
I think its incorrect to suggest that putting the weight in a rucksack low down means you carry more of that weight on your hips. At least in a framed rucksack, the frame should allow the bag to be treated as a single rigid container, with the weight distribution between hips and shoulders dependent on the relative tightness of the straps. Keeping the weight high up will allow it to have less effect on your centre of gravity while the frame does the work of transferring that weight to your hips. It may be slightly different in an unframed rucksack, but even there there's usually some back stiffening to try and fulfill the same purpose.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Casual Ambler on 16:00:37, 22/03/21


 
Looks about right to me

 
https://www.cotswoldoutdoor.com/the-knowledge/walking/how-to-pack-a-rucksack.html
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: richardh1905 on 17:04:02, 22/03/21
I think its incorrect to suggest that putting the weight in a rucksack low down means you carry more of that weight on your hips. At least in a framed rucksack, the frame should allow the bag to be treated as a single rigid container, with the weight distribution between hips and shoulders dependent on the relative tightness of the straps. Keeping the weight high up will allow it to have less effect on your centre of gravity while the frame does the work of transferring that weight to your hips. It may be slightly different in an unframed rucksack, but even there there's usually some back stiffening to try and fulfill the same purpose.


Agree - in fact, I suspect that a lot of weight down low will make you lean forward more, with bad posture and more strain placed upon the shoulder straps.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: gunwharfman on 17:44:50, 22/03/21
When I carry my tarp (just a rectangle of material) and my groundsheet, another rectangle, I just wrap them around my 2-piece sliding tarp pole and then slide them all into a 'sausage' shaped nylon bag. The bag is then strapped horizontally across the top of my rucksack, the width is less than the width of my shoulders.

When I hike with my tent I don't take the tarp pole with me, my tent, poles, and tent pegs are slid into a larger 'sausage' shaped nylon bag and secured in the same way horizontally across the top of my rucksack. My groundsheet is folded into one of my rucksack sidepockets and the width is also less than the width of my shoulders.

The rest of my stuff, except for my whistle and small plastic cup, is packed inside my rucksack.
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: Davidedgarjones on 17:52:19, 22/03/21
I only do day walks so: At the bottom are emergency kit and survival bag in winter. Then spare clothing, Drinks in bottles either side of the clothing; then food on top of that. Small items in lid pocket - gloves, buff, windproof specs.
Waist belt pouch has compass, whistle, monocular, magnifier for maps. Map is in the main compartment or around my neck in map case when needed for navigation. Phone with OS mapping is in a jacket pocket. This all fits into a 35 litre pack.
Dave
Title: Re: Fine details of gear placement
Post by: NeilC on 17:16:44, 23/03/21
I must say I've not really noticed much difference however I pack it.
I tend to pack it for convenience - stuff I need on the actual walk near the top, camping stuff at the bottom.


I have my sleeping bag at the very bottom as it is soft and conforms to the pack shape making it space efficient. Tent minus the poles on that, poles vertical on one side (inside the pack) then food/stove, clothes and finally extra top and waterproofs on top so they're easy to grab when needed. Side pockets usually have food and water in them. Top flat pocket has loads of crap I would otherwise lose - phone, keys, torch, batteries, first aid - all the small bits.