Packing a backpack (2014) | Hacker News Reader

Packing a backpack (2014)

info.deuter.com

233 pointstosh60 comments

Once upon a time I was homeless, and everything I owned needed to fit into a normal-size collegiate backpack, or I couldn't keep it.

Fast-forward 20 years; retaining my packrat qualities, I began to realize I was overpacking every time I left home for an errand. I also seldom unpacked when I returned home, and I would just "let it ride" whatever was still in the backpack next time I went out.

So I've tightened a discipline of keeping my bags empty while at home. I try to narrow down my mission each day: what is the core task I need to accomplish? Why do I really need to throw this item in the bag? When I return home, I evaluate each item by its usefulness to me. If I didn't even remember it, or think to pull it out, then it's gonna stay at home.

I also try to use smaller bags. I picked up a nice electronics bag at a thrift store, and it fits my phone, keys, bus pass, wallet. So I don't drag around a duffel bag or backpack if I don't need it. Honestly, it's much easier to find something if I don't need to open a dozen zippers. It's easier to ride around on an e-Scooter if I'm not bogged down by 25lbs of kit.

I also try to run drop-off errands more often. I'll take a bag of donations to the thrift store, or some recycling will go out. Then I can have the satisfaction of emptying out my bag, even discarding it and returning home lighter. This contrasts with packrats who will go shopping or picking stuff up every day and they just accumulate more and more stuff at home. You gotta balance that out at some point.

Ditching unused items isn't really that great of a strategy, as it becomes less and less useful as you approach items to handle less common but more critical situations.

Like bandages, or spare socks, phone battery, a spare ticket, and similar. You won't need them 99% of the time, but if you need them, you REALLY need them.

Somehow I doubt there are many people out there blindly following this process to throw away their winter coat every summer.

There are quite a few very minimalist people out there. I know several who don't own any tools at all and don't keep at even the crappy ones that come with furniture. Like, not even a single screwdriver, nothing at all. Tools don't spark joy and see use very infrequently, so they get tossed out, but that way a loose screw or a battery compartment with a screw on an item makes it effectively broken, possibly to be replaced with a new one. Then there's that remote acquaintance, late thirties, pretty well off, who last time I checked still owned just a single small table with a single chair. Guests were expected to not sit down at her place, she didn't have many. Not to speak of all the people who like to tag along on hikes way above the tree line wearing sneakers, all cotton clothes, no rain gear or the like and with a stylish little backpack because hiking boots or trailrunners would ruin their aesthetic etc.

I can understand your friend. I assume she rents a place that was unfurnished? I do and had to buy a couch just for guests to have a place to sit, I hardly ever use it myself. Getting rid of it will be a pain when I move.

"Tools don't spark joy": is this a case of "each to their own" or is it a case of "owning the wrong tools"? There are a lot of people out there for whom tools spark joy (ok, ok, I am one) and given that they provide a much-needed bit of control over your context/environment this seems reasonable.

As for hiking equipment, I think you really need to be somewhere remarkable to be somewhere where kit, rather than understanding and attitude, really makes a difference. These places exist. But there are a lot of places you can enjoy just fine with little or no specialised stuff and I feel the kit fetishists waste a lot of energy and material while putting normal people off.

I mean, I get limiting it if you only need it rarely and multitool with some bits can get you thru a lot, but nothing ? I guess it is choosing to be useless at life on purpose...

> Not to speak of all the people who like to tag along on hikes way above the tree line wearing sneakers, all cotton clothes, no rain gear or the like and with a stylish little backpack

I don't like this gatekeeping mentality. You can go hike with pretty much any shoes and clothes. Sure, hiking boots are going to be more comfortable if you hike a lot, but if you don't own any you can absolutely go hike in your everyday shoes.

Same for cotton clothes. They aren't the best for hiking, but you really don't need to go spend 500€ at a sporting goods shop just to walk in the mountains.

You're moving the goalposts here. Parent specified hiking above the treeline, not merely hiking. Yes, light hiking can be done with ordinary clothing, but above the treeline, that is foolish, irresponsible behavior that leads to SAR pickups. That's not gatekeeping.

Meh. There's cable cars that go above the treeline, and there's plenty of easy hikes up there that anyone can do without special equipment. That's typically where you see people hiking in street clothes.

On longer or more tricky routes I have never seen anyone with street clothes.

Also, judging by local news, the most common reason for needing rescue is going on hikes that are too long, not going on hikes with bad equipment. And it happens to people with proper kit all the time.

For travel, I have some small largely pre-packed kits that I throw in my carryon. I revisit the contents from time to time and I may adjust my electronics charger/cable kit if e.g. I have international travel. But for the most part, I find having a kit with spare glasses, first aid kit, a few sometimes needed/wanted over the counter meds and lotions, etc. is worth a pound or two to just have self-contained that I can just grab.

And certainly for group hikes for example, I carry a much larger first aid kit than I have any expectation of needing but I hopefully have the appropriate items if I need them.

That strategy assumes you're not a total moron and follow it unquestionably for everything

> Once upon a time I was homeless, and everything I owned needed to fit into a normal-size collegiate backpack, or I couldn't keep it.

> Fast-forward 20 years; retaining my packrat qualities,

Sorry, you're the opposite of a packrat. A packrat carries all the stuff it finds home.

Things currently deposited under our deck by a packrat: a flip flop, 4 fluffy dog toys, 2 treat bones, tennis ball, plastic bottle, foil wrapper, twigs, dog poop, pine needles, ...

I'm hoping Tom Bihn Bags will come out with a high quality knock-off of the spacious "Flextrek Whipsnake":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAtzN_ScKXY

But seriously, Bihn bags are extremely well designed, and are so well made they last forever!

https://www.tombihn.com/collections/backpacks

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4873988

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13684860

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/washing-instructions-idiot-pr...

    Wash with warm water.
    Use mild soap.
    Do not use bleach.
    Do not dry in the dryer.
    Do not iron.
    We are sorry that our president is an idiot.
    We did not vote for him.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bihn-label/

I've used my Tom Bihn Brain Bag every day for the past ~20 years.

https://www.tombihn.com/collections/backpacks/products/brain...

I have a larger camping-type backpack that I never use; I can fit 35 pounds of gear into the Brain Bag... although a sleeping bag takes up too much space. Haven't solved that yet.

But a fully loaded Brain Bag usually fits fine as a carry-on bag for airline travel.

People ask me why do soldiers seem to do the opposite - with the bulk of their kit lower down their backs - it’s because if your kit is high up you can’t raise your head to look up when you’re lying down.

I also think it’s strange to have your heavy kit up high even in a civilian context when you aren’t lying down - you don’t put the heaviest things on a top shelf normally. I tend to put my heaviest stuff supported by my hips, either on belt kit or lower down in my daysack or bergen.

Agreed. Heavy stuff up high has a greater turning couple with any movement of the spine, putting uneven stresses on the back. Heavy stuff around the hips is much better.

Disagreed. As the article stated, heavy stuff around the hips pulls you backwards. You have to lean forward more, and you're less nimble.

Deuter being an outdoor brand, they probably expect people to be leaning slightly forward when hiking most of the time, and strongly forward in hard slopes.

Putting the weight higher balances better under that assumption. It works with messenger bags as well: you'll want them at different positions depending on how hard you're leaning or if you're walking.

> I also think it’s strange to have your heavy kit up high even in a civilian context when you aren’t lying down

There's a good reason for this, and it's right there in TFA.

> you don’t put the heaviest things on a top shelf normally

A backpack is not a shelf, and a person is not a wall.

> There's a good reason for this, and it's right there in TFA.

Yeah I know I was offering an opposing opinion to the article. Heavy stuff up top makes you top-heavy, which isn’t good.

> Heavy stuff up top makes you top-heavy, which isn’t good.

Why isn't it good? It does make you less stable, but it makes you nimbler. I think it all depends on the terrain, weight of the backpack, and personal preferences. I've hiked a fair bit and by far prefer heavy stuff up top.

If it tips in any direction it’s taking your back with it - and potentially your neck if it’s as high as they picture! I regularly run with 30 kg, and fast-walk with 45 kg.

Well, you have control over the direction it tips. That's the idea behind top heavy being more nimble.

That said, you have more experience than me: I don't regularly run with 30kg nor walk with 45kg. I'll try your way one day.

That is a _lot_ of weight to run with, and I don’t think their advice is aimed at or, as you say, relevant to your use case.

Speaking as a highly experienced backpacker, with typical loads (10-20% body weight), the point of having weight distributed along your lower and upper back is to conform to the spine and somewhat match our natural weight distribution. Putting weight higher is awful, and putting it lower —- while it lowers your center of gravity — is awful for actually moving down the trail. Even day hike fanny packs with a few liters of water in them are annoying enough that I very often just take my regular pack on day hikes vs putting weight directly around my waist. The issue, just in case it isn’t clear, is that as you move back and forth you’re moving the weight with you. It’s much better for it to be held relatively stable against your back.

Finally, I’m trying to work out what you do that you run with 30kg on your back. Trail runners carry significantly less than I do, and even people trying to set through-hike records and who therefore are trail running things like the entire PCT don’t carry anywhere near that weight. Are you in the military? Honestly running with 30kg is pretty damn hard on your body. My knees hurt just imagining it.

In the military yeah.

(Also a serious backpacker)

Keeping weight at shoulder height is substantially easier on smooth terrain. It’s a biomechanical fact that I also didn’t believe at first. The best way to illustrate this is to think about balancing a stick on end, its significantly easier to balance a yardstick than a ruler, likewise, it is much more difficult for your body to balance weight at your hips than at your neck because you get the advantage of leverage. The higher the weight is, the easier it is to stay “underneath” it.

They actually agree with you.

Their difficult terrain advice is to put the bulk of your load above your sleeping bag close to your back which puts it near your center of mass where you have the best support.

I agree with you that I don’t get their easy terrain advice. Anyone who has ever tried to turn back suddenly while top heavy know it’s a bad idea.

> I agree with you that I don’t get their easy terrain advice.

It allows you to keep a more up-right posture, which is more ergonomic when walking.

Honestly I don’t think Deuter’s advice and yours differ that much. You’re not going to carry weight below your belt line, because if you do you’re wasting energy moving it back and forth as you walk. You’re not going to carry weight above your shoulders, because it’s pretty damn dangerous in anything approaching technical terrain (throws off your center of gravity too much, and risks causing uncontrolled head first falls). So you’re left with how you distribute weight along your back. Deuter’s advice doesn’t distinguish, but the usual thing is heavy, dense things go on the lower back, and as you move up the back you put still-heavy but less dense things, and then lighter but dense, etc. Your sleep system goes at the very bottom, usually in its own compartment, and you put lighter stuff along the outside. This means when you rotate your body, the heavy stuff is close into your center of mass and easily controlled. You reserve the top of the pack for heavily accessed, light stuff.

They don’t say this explicitly, but the entire logic of the system revolves around having things that will throw you off your stance as close to your body as possible, so that you remain stable as you move.

> You’re not going to carry weight above your shoulders

But that's what their diagram shows?

One if the diagrams shows the heaviest weight AT the shoulders, not above.

It reads that it should be above the shoulders.

If you're a long distance hiker, Matt Shafter's video [1] is very useful. The sleeping bag, instead of going first thing in, kind of spreads _around_ the other heavier objects, which we try to keep close to the lower back / belly button level.

Having done my own share of hikes, though, I will say that going ultralight right from the beginning has been a gift that has kept on giving. Seeing people carry heavy tents and stainless steel cooking gear and ridiculously heavy sleeping bags makes me quake in my shoes. I just couldn't do it.

And then lastly, I really, really, cannot say enough good things about ease of access. I have shoulder pockets for compass/sunglasses. A bottom pocket in my backpack (Palante) for snacks and trash storage. Side pockets for water that I can reach without taking the pack off, and they're deep enough to not have the bottles fall out. A fanny pack for small items like chapstick, sanitiser etc. And finally _deep_ pockets in my shorts for my phone. NOT having to take my pack off makes me happy over and over and over again.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ut4R4JMHEE

> Having done my own share of hikes, though, I will say that going ultralight right from the beginning has been a gift that has kept on giving. Seeing people carry heavy tents and stainless steel cooking gear and ridiculously heavy sleeping bags makes me quake in my shoes. I just couldn't do it.

I agree but as soon as you cross one week of autonomy, food starts to be the bulk of your pack and you just can’t be that light for the first few days.

Going ultralight improved my hiking experience so much that I went from "if this is it I don't think it's for me" to "I kind of forgot I had a pack on; anyway what a cool hike". I know it's not for everyone but I cannot imagine bulking up with luxury hiking items anymore.

I do a bit of both. A few UL items allow me to bring some luxury along without being overly heavy.

For example, I’ll bring a hammock or Helinox camp chair. Both around a pound. Having a place to flop by the campfire at the end of a long day is really nice.

I actually added a Helinox this year as well. Straps just fine to the outside of my pack and the 1lb is worth it.

I have a military backpack (Savotta) and you can buy additional MOLLE bags and attach them easily pretty much anywhere on it. Extremely useful.

Ive tended to pack just like this, though got there through trial and error. I'll often pad between heavier items and the rear most of the pack such that it stacks them close to my back. (Edit for clarity: I pack like the second image, weight int he middle for good stability in harder terrain)

I found it interesting on a hike recently, seeing my buddy's 15yr newer pack, how many little features made load carrying far easier. 'Load lifters' in particular, drawing the load forward towards your neck, made such a large difference to shoulder weight that I retrofitted them to my own pack on the trail.

Progress in packs is weird. I still have a Karimore Jaguar from the early 90s (back when they were made in the UK) that seems to have most modern features you could think of.

It weighs 1600g for a 66L pack which compares pretty well with modern rucksacks too.

I’ve mostly replaced it with a modern OMM Classic 32 trail running pack. At between 430-630g.

Again, that’s a design that originally goes back 1973. I think they got design nailed back then. I haven’t see much in the way of innovation other than slightly better materials.

I agree, my pack is the first I ever bought as an adult, an upgrade in volume, materials and comfort from my Vietnam era cadet issued pack. While there is quite the difference between those two, most differences to a normal modern pack are minor. I'm disappointed it's approaching time to replace it as it feels like home, but some of the fabric is rapidly degrading with repair seeming unlikely.

Bad advice if you are at high risk of, or already suffering of sciatica, which also benefits of hiking / active and long walks. Backpack center of gravity has to be as low as possible, under such circumstances. (Note: dealt with the issue for many, many years - controlled it with a lot of assistance from Dr McGill books)

Any particular book/resource you recommend from Dr McGill? How do you combat it during work days if you don't mind me asking?

"Back Mechanic" was by far my favorite, but he has a lot of own articles and also certified specialists in his area of expertise, with specific techniques and advice. The "secret" was to know your body to the point of being able to anticipate harm before too late. Took me years to learn this part, as no book can teach how your own body works.

Cheers. Ordered. I do a bit of backpacking (photo gear can be heavy) and i have back issues. I alwyas backed it like deuter suggests. does the book mention why the center of gravity needs to be different for sciatica folks? do you stand/walk more than you sit during work hours now?

It's fine, most people need to learn it the hard way.

And then the two wheeled trolleys many old people use look more attractive than funny.

I don't know if it's just my backpack, but there's not much chance to put heavier items close to my back, as there's not enough back-front space for more than one item for most things; maybe water bottles, but most other heavy items (tent) are almost as deep as my pack is.

Depends on the pack and tent. Most modern 2-person backpacking tents are 1/2-2/3 the depth of a 30l pack.

This was definitely NOT true when I was a kid. Tent and sleeping bag bulk and mass have come way down between the 90s and today.

My pack, tent, and sleeping bag… https://www.osprey.com/us/en/product/exos-48-EXOS48S22.html

https://www.bigagnes.com/Tiger-Wall-UL2-Solution-Dye

https://seatosummit.com/products/spark-ultralight-sleeping-b...

Sidenote.

I have had a Deuter cyling pack for around 20 years and it is still in perfect order. I am not exactly easy on gear either

> Heavy equipment – tent, food, big jackets – above shoulder height, close to the back.

I understand the "close to the back bit", but "above shoulder height"? I've always been told it should be distributed vertically.

I think the idea is that you want to keep as normal a posture as possible. You need to lean your torso forward to move the combined center of gravity (body+backpack) over your feet.

The lower the center of gravity of the backpack, the more you need to lean your torso forward to counteract it.

If the center of gravity is very high, just a few degrees forward will suffice.

So a high center of gravity should be more comfortable (but you lose a bit of stability).

It also makes a huge difference how close to that 33% body weight max you carry. What kind of backpack carrying people do affects what kind of advice they've heard.

The weight of a military pack will absolutely send you toppling over if you lose your balance, and you need to start packing it a bit lower just to deal with uneven terrain. So you pack it a bit lower than what would be otherwise ideal, to stay on your feet.

If you're carrying closer to 10-15% of your body weight, you can put it much higher without stumbling, and you get the benefits of the more upright posture.

It's been some years since I've looked into this, but from what I recall there are different packing strategies for internal and external backpacks.

And that gets even more interesting as many Deuter backpacks are hybrids, with a rigid frame that leaves a cooling air pocket between your back and the pack, while looking like a non-frame backpack.

Somehow I didn't realize that Deuter is a backpack manufacturer.

Probably, though external frame packs mostly don’t exist any more. At least not in the normal consumer outdoor gear market (REI, etc).

A fair chunk of the UL market forgoes a frame completely, and just uses some foam to add rigidity and padding. That’s usually for people going with a truly minimal base weight… Tarp tent, minimal quilt, possibly no stove (living off overnight oats and other things that can be consumed after soaking).

Interesting. It's been so long since I've looked into this stuff that I didn't realize external frame packs were mostly gone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com