ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/utahoutdoors/archive/v02.n102

Internet Message Format | 1998-07-07 | 11KB

From: [e-mail] (utahoutdoors-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: utahoutdoors-digest V2 #102
Reply-To: utahoutdoors-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


utahoutdoors-digest       Tuesday, July 7 1998       Volume 02 : Number 102




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 10:52:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: David Kenison <[e-mail]>
Subject: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

There's an article in today's Salt Lake Tribune titled "Backpacking
basics: Be honest about how much you can carry."  See:
  http://www.sltrib.com/1998/jul/07071998/outdoors/42080.htm

The article talks about backpack sizes, normal loads, the "internal vs.
external" issue, etc.  Some interesting stuff.

One paragraph from the article said:

"Holbrook said while there are no hard and fast rules for distributing
weight inside a backpack, it is usually a good idea to put the heaviest
gear on top and the lightest on the bottom. When hiking in more rugged
terrain, he suggested putting the heaviest gear in the middle so there is
no problem with the center of gravity."

I've always put heavier items towards the bottom or middle, not the top.
Anyone know why the recommendation for top-heavy packing?  I've seen
scouts literally tip over because of packs that were top-heavy... of
course, most scouts tend to WAY overpack anyway, but that's another topic.

- ----------------------------------------------------
David Kenison - Orem, Utah     [e-mail]
 My Homepage URL:  http://www.xmission.com/~dkenison/
 Internet Lists:   LDS-GEMS, Cougar-Net, UtahOutdoors, Brasil-SUD


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:06:50 -0600 (MDT)
From: Eric Cytrynbaum <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

That's sounds very surprising to me.  I always try to pack heavy stuff as
low and close to my back as possible.  My impression is that changes the
center of gravity the least (lowering it, if anything).  Convenience of
access is the only reason I would do otherwise (I have a single, top
access bag).  Can't imagine any benefit to a top heavy bag ???

Eric





> One paragraph from the article said:
>
> "Holbrook said while there are no hard and fast rules for distributing
> weight inside a backpack, it is usually a good idea to put the heaviest
> gear on top and the lightest on the bottom. When hiking in more rugged
> terrain, he suggested putting the heaviest gear in the middle so there is
> no problem with the center of gravity."
>
> I've always put heavier items towards the bottom or middle, not the top.
> Anyone know why the recommendation for top-heavy packing?  I've seen
> scouts literally tip over because of packs that were top-heavy... of
> course, most scouts tend to WAY overpack anyway, but that's another topic.
>


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:16:28 -0600
From: "Jeff Porcaro" <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

My understanding of load balancing is:

The Heavy packing on the top of the pack is most used when you have a
External Frame pack.

The Low load balancing of an internal frame pack works better when the
weight is on the bottom.

Jeff Porcaro

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail]
> [mailto:[e-mail]]On Behalf Of Eric
> Cytrynbaum
> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 11:07 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article
>
>
>
> That's sounds very surprising to me.  I always try to pack heavy stuff as
> low and close to my back as possible.  My impression is that changes the
> center of gravity the least (lowering it, if anything).  Convenience of
> access is the only reason I would do otherwise (I have a single, top
> access bag).  Can't imagine any benefit to a top heavy bag ???
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> > One paragraph from the article said:
> >
> > "Holbrook said while there are no hard and fast rules for distributing
> > weight inside a backpack, it is usually a good idea to put the heaviest
> > gear on top and the lightest on the bottom. When hiking in more rugged
> > terrain, he suggested putting the heaviest gear in the middle
> so there is
> > no problem with the center of gravity."
> >
> > I've always put heavier items towards the bottom or middle, not the top.
> > Anyone know why the recommendation for top-heavy packing?  I've seen
> > scouts literally tip over because of packs that were top-heavy... of
> > course, most scouts tend to WAY overpack anyway, but that's
> another topic.
> >
>
>
> -
>
>


- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 12:29:00 -0500
From: "Andrews, R. Boyd" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

Having used a number of different packs packed a number of different
ways - and watched as many others have as well - I think there is no set
way to achieve perfection - though I concur on the internal/external
frame observation made earlier


Here are several things that have helped me :(I tend to travel heavy as
I travel with assundry others who are less than able)

I like the heaviest stuff smack in the middle (non-lunch food
+fuel+stove)

I've added a couple of H2O holders and a small carry case (from Lowe) on
to my front straps - this takes maybe 4 pounds (possibly 10%)  and
shifts it forward and helps on convenience -

I go wide and not up - a balanced, wide load that is a bit easier to
negotiate than a mile high pack

I studied the guide on how to correctly (sequentially ) adjust straps
that adorn the new packs - it's vital to how you will carry the load on
your back  - (just as important as how you stuff your pack)

I always offer my Gross Old Rotten Peanuts to the group first - lightens
the load sooner

I enjoy the list -

keep the recommendations on spots coming!











 ----------
From: Eric Cytrynbaum
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article
Date: Tuesday, July 07, 1998 1:06PM


That's sounds very surprising to me.  I always try to pack heavy stuff
as
low and close to my back as possible.  My impression is that changes the
center of gravity the least (lowering it, if anything).  Convenience of
access is the only reason I would do otherwise (I have a single, top
access bag).  Can't imagine any benefit to a top heavy bag ???

Eric





> One paragraph from the article said:
>
> "Holbrook said while there are no hard and fast rules for distributing
> weight inside a backpack, it is usually a good idea to put the
heaviest
> gear on top and the lightest on the bottom. When hiking in more rugged
> terrain, he suggested putting the heaviest gear in the middle so there
is
> no problem with the center of gravity."
>
> I've always put heavier items towards the bottom or middle, not the
top.
> Anyone know why the recommendation for top-heavy packing?  I've seen
> scouts literally tip over because of packs that were top-heavy... of
> course, most scouts tend to WAY overpack anyway, but that's another
topic.
>


 -

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 11:54:04 +0000
From: "Randall R. Arabie" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

I have an internal frame pack and have always tried to load the
heaviest items on the bottom.  This just seemed the most logical way
to load the pack and has always worked for me.

I have heard the "heaviest on top" recommendation before, but I have
not tried it.   I was told that having heavier items on top would
distribute the weight straight down  (or place the burden) onto your
hips, whereas if the heavier items were in the bottom, the weight
there would pull down (or place the burden) on your shoulders.


Randall R. Arabie
Senior Staff Scientist
EnecoTech, Inc.
1580 Lincoln Street, Ste. 1000
Denver, CO 80203

[e-mail]
[phone]

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 13:11:53 -0600 (MDT)
From: Terri Smith PlanB John Horn <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

I know the worst trip I ever did was with a full
water bladder at the top of my pack.  Too much weight,
too high and threw my balance off.  Now, at 5'2"
my center of gravity is lower than most and at
105# my pack is only 30# but its all relative.
I pack the heavy stuff in the middle.

Terri Smith
[e-mail]

- -

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998 21:34:11 -0400
From: "Roger Jenkins/Susie McDonald" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [OUTDOORS] Backpacking article

Ok time for our two cents worth.  I hve been backpacking for 21 years, and
am noted for my non-small packs (or body, for that matter.)  I have owned
several packs, two external frame (both Kelty Tiogas) and am on my second
internal frame.  (First was Lowe Special Expedition, now I am wearing a
Gregory Denali).  The latter is the most comfortable pack I have ever put
on, even when pushing 65 lbs.  (I weigh 210, so such is not an unreasonable
load, especially when my partner is only 100 lbs dripping wet.)

First, when thinking about packing the pack, forget weight.  What counts is
density (weight per unit volume.)  ( I know, I am starting to sound like
some damn engineer or worse, yet, a chemist - the latter is who I am.).
Except for some of the small metal objects in your pack (knife, SLR lens,
etc) probably nothing will be as dense as the water you carry.  Dense things
need to go close to the point at which the pack system attaches to the body
(shoulders and hips)..Why?  Remember your high school physics class?  The
concept of leverage:  a small force a long way from the point of support can
lift more mass than a large mass close to the point of support.  You don't
want movement, so put the dense stuff where it can not act as a big lever.
Near your shoulders, back and hips.

That said, virtually everything in the main compartment of a backpack gets
so squished together, it is all pretty much the density of packed nylon.  I
am not sure that moving it around inside the main sack will help much.  I
usually put the tent and and thermarest inside the pack, standing up.  The
rest of the gear (other than sleeping bag and incidentals, which go in the
lower compartment) just get stuffed in.

One last comment:  my opinion is that people get packs that are too small,
and end up hanging all kinds of gear on the outside.  Think what that does
for leverage.  when I moved from external frame to internal frame, I
measured the volume of all the bags that were on the outside of the frame
(at the time, food sack, tent, sleeping bag and pad) and added such to the
known volume of the frame's sack and came up with ca 7000 cu. inches for an
8 day trip.  so that is the internal frame pack size I have.

Roger

Roger Jenkins/Susie McDonald
Co-Editors:  the Tennes-Sierran
Our newsletter is available at:
www.cs.utk.edu/~dixon/hbgsierra.html
Check out the report of our Grand Canyon Backpack at:
www.kaibab.org/happy/gctr9805.htm




- -

------------------------------

End of utahoutdoors-digest V2 #102
**********************************