[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[pct-l] ass packwards
- Subject: [pct-l] ass packwards
- From: reynolds@iLAN.com (Reynolds, WT)
- Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 09:46:27 -0800
You are correct on your hipbelt idea. However, most minimalist packs have an
integrated hip belt, actually two belts sewn into the pack bag. This usually
insures that the hip belt is too big for many people.
From: Mara Factor [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2001 9:27 AM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: RE: [pct-l] ass packwards
Hmm, I had a different thought when reading Zorra's email...
If the hip belt wasn't too long and could tightened properly, then the pack
wouldn't slide down and pound her tailbone. With those shoulder straps and
that hipbelt though, it just sounds like that pack is just plain too big.
Unfortunately though, I just don't have any alternatives in mind for you.
Even at 6'1", I have a terrible time finding packs that have a short enough
torso for my 16" torso so I can only imagine what you're going through.
(FWIW, the Kelty Vapor will likely NOT work for you. The shoulder straps
are almost too long for me and when I'm wearing just a t-shirt, I have them
cinched all the way down. Then again, I could never get any of the "women's
packs" to work for me but they might be an option for you. I imagine they
might weigh more than you're looking for though. (My Dana fits like a glove
but it's HEAVY which is why I now have a Vapor.)
As for weight distribution within your pack. The heaviest stuff should be
as close to your back as possible. For really rough terrain, you probably
want it a bit lower. For moderate terrain, the middle would be good. For
really easy terrain where you're just able to walk around, you might even
want it as high as your shoulders or higher.
Having it higher enables you to get the weight over your feet with a minimum
of "leaning" to counterbalance the weight. If you've ever seen the AMC Hut
Croo members in the Whites carrying huge loads (90 lbs. +/-) on their
packboards, you would see that they load the weight high. (And that's where
the terrain is pretty rough, too.)
>From: "Reynolds, WT" <email@example.com>
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:40:40 -0800
>I am working on a pack that might work for you. In the meantime you need a
>pack with a separate hip belt, not a hipbelt sewn into the pack bag. This
>allows the hipbelt to properly encircle your waist without distorting the
>pack bag. Also you need a vertical compression strap--a strap that prevents
>the rear of the pack from sagging. A frame solves this problem because the
>bag is suspended from the frame as opposed to being "piled up" from the
>hipbelt. I don't think that a pack like this will be available new for
>From: zorra zorra [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:25 PM
>might anyone have a suggestion for my dilemma?
>-i am 5'3"
>-currently sporting a 2.8 lb, trimmed jansport minimalist
>-and trying to keep my pack weight at a minimum for some ld hiking
>1) the worst part is that the pack is too long for my torso; therefore,
> it pounds incessantly someplace near my tailbone. to put
> it crassly, my @$$ gets quite sore by the end of the day.
> yes, this even happens when my heavier items are
> centrally placed within my pack. (am i mistaken? should
> the heavier items of my pack not be centrally placed?)
>2) i've a smaller waste, so i can't get the hip belt to go tight
>3) the adjustable straps connected to the shoulder harness are
> cinched as tightly as possible, yet still not tight enough.
>does anyone know of an internal frame pack (preferably not too much more
>than a hundred bucks) that might fit me better and still weigh only a few
>oh, yes, and i'm in love with the long, vertical, external pouch that my
[ *** too many quoted lines. automatically truncated *** ]