Mesh stand-off rucksacks?

Terry Pinnell said:

I recently bought one of those with a mesh that keeps the bag away
from your body. This was to reduce the degree of sweating I get around
the back - both the immediate discomfort and also the cumulative
effect of the rucksack padding absorbing the sweat and getting whiffy.

The mesh is half the answer, the other half is that the rucksack has a
stiff backboard which holds the load away from the back. The backboard
rides on the hip belt and is drawn into the shoulders by the shoulder
straps, which should be adjusted to balance the load close to you but
not to take much weight. Air can now reach more of your back and help
carry the evaporated sweat away, but the mesh will still crush your
shirt and jacket, and limit the evaporation area, so it won't be
perfect. Still better, at least for my preference.

Quoted message said:

I planned a few days of Thames Path walking with overnight B&B stops,
so I also wanted to increase capacity a little above my 35 litre bag.
There wasn't a lot of choice, and I eventually bought a Berghaus
'35+8'.

I have one of these, bought for much the same reasons as yours. I don't
know of a larger stand-off bag.

Quoted message said:

It was pretty hot on my first short day (Newbridge-Oxford, 14.5
miles), and I did notice the reduced sweating. But I was decidedly
uncomfortable, and am now trying to pin down the contributing causes.
Obviously the weight was high, far more than I use for my usual
day-walking. But I'm sure I felt more discomfort this time than on my
first Thames Path walk last summer, using the tightly-packed 35 litre.

Are more experienced users aware of any inherent reason for this type
to be less comfortable? Perhaps due to the centre-of-gravity
difference? Or the construction itself?

The center of mass of the load will be further from your CofG, but not
far. You will compensate by leaning forward a little further. Some
extra energy will be needed to control the load as it swings. I haven't
noticed any difference myself, though.

Quoted message said:

There's also the associated question of whether I was wearing it
correctly. The store assistant in Blacks told me that "all the weight
needs to be on your hips." And, that I should have the lower strap
very tight: "If you can breathe, it's not tight enough." (BTW,
wouldn't that tend to raise the point of contact up from the hips and
into the waist?) He also said that he personally had the shoulder
straps "barely touching." With my previous bag, I'd been used to
cinching those up quite tightly.

The weight needs to be taken on the hips as far as possible, but
tightening the hip belt so it hurts is too much, in my opinion. Just
tight enough so that it rides comfortably on the hip bones. The padded
hip belt spreads the load to help avoid chafing. I find that I need to
be careful to tuck my shirt in so there are no wrinkles under the load
points, and that my trouser belt doesn't dig in under the sack hip belt.
If you can't breathe its definitely far too tight. The shoulder straps
need to be tight enough to draw the load close to your back and control
it. The sack could really use some adjusting straps from the top of the
shoulder straps to the top of the rucksack, to allow you to draw the
load in without taking weight off the hip belt.

Terry Pinnell said:

Are more experienced users aware of any inherent reason for this type
to be less comfortable? Perhaps due to the centre-of-gravity
difference? Or the construction itself?

Do you have a Freeflow ? It's not so much the mesh (which seems rather
redundant to me) as the very stiff curved inner piece that holds the sack
away from your back. The mesh does create a small "pocket" at the bottom
which is a handy size for an OS map, hat and gloves, which can be reached
easily without taking off the sack at all.

When I put mine on, I "jiggle" it to the right spot on my hips and tighten
the hip belt first. Then I tighten up the shoulder straps only just enough
to prevent any feeling of looseness there (and often loosen them off again
while walking). My sack came without a chest belt, which I added to pull
the shoulder straps in slightly - they did dig in to a degree, although I
imagine this is heavily dependent on physique.

I don't carry huge amounts of weight on day walks, but do still try to
arrange the load on my hips. I can honestly say my Freeflow is the most
comfortable sack I have ever worn. But perhaps I tend to stoop slightly to
offset the displaced centre-of-gravity ? Are you trying to walk bolt
upright ?

--
I am going crazy, wanna come along?

Mail john rather than nospam...

Terry, I've had the exact same sack for about a year, and it's a love/hate
thing. I don't think the freeflowair whatsit back systems makes much
difference, you still get a sweaty back. i do like the rigidity, though, it
always fits me no matter how it's loaded.

I think the thing I hate is the weight being held off your back, it just
means it's somehow harder to carry, and it all gets directed down onto that
think piece of padding at the bottom and onto your lower back.

It IS best to have most of the weight on your hips, but this sack can't be
adjusted for length, so if it's too long or short you're stuffed. A rucksac
is a piece of clothing more than a bag, if it doesn't fit it's a
non-starter.

I will dump mine when I find something better, but haven't as yet!

Sorry I couldntt be of help!

Lewis

I've been using both a Regatta 25 ltr and 35 ltr rucksack for about 5 years
now (not both at the same time before some smart alec asks), and have
recently gone back to a "normal" rucky. I find that the conventional
rucksack is definately more comfortable but does cause more persperation. I
think that its just a matter of personal preference, you pays your money and
takes your chance.
Regards,
"John Laird" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Terry Pinnell said:

Are more experienced users aware of any inherent reason for this type
to be less comfortable? Perhaps due to the centre-of-gravity
difference? Or the construction itself?

Do you have a Freeflow ? It's not so much the mesh (which seems rather
redundant to me) as the very stiff curved inner piece that holds the sack
away from your back. The mesh does create a small "pocket" at the bottom
which is a handy size for an OS map, hat and gloves, which can be reached
easily without taking off the sack at all.

When I put mine on, I "jiggle" it to the right spot on my hips and tighten
the hip belt first. Then I tighten up the shoulder straps only just

enough

Quoted message said:

to prevent any feeling of looseness there (and often loosen them off again
while walking). My sack came without a chest belt, which I added to pull
the shoulder straps in slightly - they did dig in to a degree, although I
imagine this is heavily dependent on physique.

I don't carry huge amounts of weight on day walks, but do still try to
arrange the load on my hips. I can honestly say my Freeflow is the most
comfortable sack I have ever worn. But perhaps I tend to stoop slightly

to

Quoted message said:

offset the displaced centre-of-gravity ? Are you trying to walk bolt
upright ?

--
I am going crazy, wanna come along?

Mail john rather than nospam...

In message <[email hidden]>, Terry Pinnell
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

The store assistant in Blacks told me that "all the weight
needs to be on your hips." And, that I should have the lower strap
very tight: "If you can breathe, it's not tight enough." (BTW,
wouldn't that tend to raise the point of contact up from the hips and
into the waist?)

I would have thought so, and this is definitely not where it should be.
However, it is the point of contact between the sack and the hips that
is crucial. The hip belt is simply to hold the sack in the correct
position.

Quoted message said:

He also said that he personally had the shoulder
straps "barely touching." With my previous bag, I'd been used to
cinching those up quite tightly.

The advice is good, but I was always taught that at after any sizeable
absence from walking with a full rucksack your hips need time to get
used to the weight. You should start with the weight mostly on the
shoulders and partly on the hips and gradually tighten the hip belt and
slacken the shoulder straps over the first week. I have tended to
follow this advice, though using a rather faster schedule than a week.

As someone else has said, if the rucksack is the wrong size you're
scuppered. For the system to work the weight must definitely be on the
hips, not your bottom and not your waist. You can see exhausted walkers
by the score whose problems lie entirely in the miscarrying of their
rucksacks!

--
Michael Farthing
Aardvark Ltd

Terry Pinnell said:

There's also the associated question of whether I was wearing it
correctly. The store assistant in Blacks told me that "all the weight
needs to be on your hips."

I'm not familiar with the exact model, but note that where the weight
goes will generally depend on the overall harness design. Big packs are
designed for hip loading with a big, usually conical, hipbelt to take
the load. Daypacks are for lighter loads where the extra weight of a
hip loading harness basically isn't worth the extra weight and expense,
and these bags usually have a simple waist belt which is more for load
control than actually loading. At around 40 litres you're in a sort of
half-way house between the two...

Quoted message said:

And, that I should have the lower strap
very tight: "If you can breathe, it's not tight enough." (BTW,
wouldn't that tend to raise the point of contact up from the hips and
into the waist?)

As long as the /load/ is places onto the hips, ideally done by riding on
/top/ of them, that's not the problem. But with a light load you may
not need to load your hips so much.

Quoted message said:

He also said that he personally had the shoulder
straps "barely touching." With my previous bag, I'd been used to
cinching those up quite tightly.

His advice fits for getting the load onto the hips, but OTOH if the top
straps are loose then the bag will tend to rotate away from your
shoulders with the belt as the pivot. That gets the load further back,
which isn't so good. This is an inevitable problem anyway with a design
that seeks to put space between you and the load.

Quoted message said:

So, any and all advice/recommendations on these and any related points
would be much appreciated please.

Experiment.
Weight should always be as far forwards (towards your body) as possible,
but vertically you want it high for comfort of low for balance. Or
somewhere between for compromise. Leaning forwards with a high centre
of gravity, you can get the pack's CoG nearly over the top of your own
for less effort in keeping the load comfortable. With weight low, the
pack's CoG is closer to your own so you have less overall effect on your
balance.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Terry Pinnell said:

There's also the associated question of whether I was wearing it
correctly. The store assistant in Blacks told me that "all the weight
needs to be on your hips."

I'm not familiar with the exact model, but note that where the weight
goes will generally depend on the overall harness design. Big packs are
designed for hip loading with a big, usually conical, hipbelt to take
the load. Daypacks are for lighter loads where the extra weight of a
hip loading harness basically isn't worth the extra weight and expense,
and these bags usually have a simple waist belt which is more for load
control than actually loading. At around 40 litres you're in a sort of
half-way house between the two...

Unfortunately, this is no longer true. Many 25-35 litre daypacks now
come with frames, shaped backs and padded hipbelts. These needed to fit
properly or they'll be uncomfortable. Ones with sprung frames that have
an air gap between the sack and your back can feel very uncomfortable if
too short as the lower edge of the frame then presses into your lower
back.

Quoted message said:

Many thanks for all those helpful replies. I'll experiment with the
suggestions made on my next trip.

BTW, I'd forgotten how pleasant walking can be when carrying *nothing*
until a 4-mile 'family ramble' last Sunday.
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Walks/5Sep04Ardingly.gif

(No walking-on-water actually occurred, despite appearances at that
north footbridge! Not sure whether the displacement was due to GPS
tracking error, an incorrect setting on either my GPS 12 or GPS
Utility software, or what.)

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell said:

a 4-mile 'family ramble' last Sunday.
http://www.terrypin.dial.pipex.com/Walks/5Sep04Ardingly.gif

(No walking-on-water actually occurred, despite appearances at that
north footbridge! Not sure whether the displacement was due to GPS
tracking error, an incorrect setting on either my GPS 12 or GPS
Utility software, or what.)

The bridge could have been rebuilt in a slightly different location.
The rest of the track seems to line up OK.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"