Phillipsart wrote:I can remember with my OnePlanet McMillan at the end of the day, I couldn't wait to take of the pack, my shoulders would be so stiff and sore with that pack, I used to take it off every opportunity I get, Now with my Aarn pack, I don't bother taking it off till I arrive at my destination at the end of the day, often standing while taking my lunch break with pack on.
Wingnut wrote:Phillipsart wrote:I can remember with my OnePlanet McMillan at the end of the day, I couldn't wait to take of the pack, my shoulders would be so stiff and sore with that pack, I used to take it off every opportunity I get, Now with my Aarn pack, I don't bother taking it off till I arrive at my destination at the end of the day, often standing while taking my lunch break with pack on.
Maybe you just needed to work on building those shoulders up?
Wingnut wrote:Phillipsart wrote:I can remember with my OnePlanet McMillan at the end of the day, I couldn't wait to take of the pack, my shoulders would be so stiff and sore with that pack, I used to take it off every opportunity I get, Now with my Aarn pack, I don't bother taking it off till I arrive at my destination at the end of the day, often standing while taking my lunch break with pack on.
Maybe you just needed to work on building those shoulders up?
nihil wrote:
There is no justification for having a pack put you off balance like a traditional design does. Hiking upright is the only thing that makes sense mechanically/ergonomically/aesthetically. And no matter how much mass up top and how well it contours the upper back, traditional designs cannot offset this design flaw.
Marwood wrote:I'm also a happy Aarn owner - I've got the lighter-weight Mountain Magic 55. Though I agree with the previous posts, I have found the front balance pockets hard to get used to - no surprises there I guess. They're both useful and annoying. Useful because they're great for accessibility, but annoying as they tend to get in the way when pushing through scrub or scrambling. When going through scrub I need push on them with my hands or arms so they don't get caught and pulled out to the sides.
I have to admit I've had difficulties adjusting to a different way of carrying myself and moving around trees and suchlike in the bush. After many years of carrying a traditional and heavy pack, the habits of posture and maneuvering around things seem to be ingrained.
Nuts wrote:nihil wrote:
There is no justification for having a pack put you off balance like a traditional design does. Hiking upright is the only thing that makes sense mechanically/ergonomically/aesthetically. And no matter how much mass up top and how well it contours the upper back, traditional designs cannot offset this design flaw.
I know people rave about these, that's great but..
I don't buy this, especially with lighter weight packing. If you can adjust a 'traditional' pack then go through the exercise of removing all weight off the shoulder straps (while its on) it should sit there, all the weight on the hips... If not the waist belt isn't working as it should (designed properly or hitched tight enough)?? Reducing pack weight and getting into the habit of readjusting/making sure the weight is off yer shoulders during the day should keep it that way?? The first thing i thought when these first arrived on the market was that they seemed like a good compromise for overloading and not packing properly??
Nuts wrote:nihil wrote:
There is no justification for having a pack put you off balance like a traditional design does. Hiking upright is the only thing that makes sense mechanically/ergonomically/aesthetically. And no matter how much mass up top and how well it contours the upper back, traditional designs cannot offset this design flaw.
I know people rave about these, that's great but..
I don't buy this, especially with lighter weight packing. If you can adjust a 'traditional' pack then go through the exercise of removing all weight off the shoulder straps (while its on) it should sit there, all the weight on the hips... If not the waist belt isn't working as it should (designed properly or hitched tight enough)?? Reducing pack weight and getting into the habit of readjusting/making sure the weight is off yer shoulders during the day should keep it that way?? The first thing i thought when these first arrived on the market was that they seemed like a good compromise for overloading and not packing properly??
Nuts wrote:When i was carrying heavy guide packs I would notice the dramatic feeling of dropping the pack and 'flying'. I guess even so, while definitely a forward pull, everything was basically symmetrical and the result was a killer six pack, never resulting back problems![]()
Presuming iv'e watched the vid and get the explanation, with a light load i just can't see desired benefit being worth having those awkward pockets out the front. Iv'e tried front pockets, front packs, perhaps this is a better way of carrying them (makes sense) but i haven't 'needed' them in a long time. It's ok, each to their own and what works but i just don't see the fuss.. I did come close to buying one once but drew the same conclusions then..
Nuts wrote:When i was carrying heavy guide packs I would notice the dramatic feeling of dropping the pack and 'flying'. I guess even so, while definitely a forward pull, everything was basically symmetrical and the result was a killer six pack, never resulting back problems![]()
Presuming iv'e watched the vid and get the explanation, with a light load i just can't see desired benefit being worth having those awkward pockets out the front. Iv'e tried front pockets, front packs, perhaps this is a better way of carrying them (makes sense) but i haven't 'needed' them in a long time. It's ok, each to their own and what works but i just don't see the fuss.. I did come close to buying one once but drew the same conclusions then..
gayet wrote:They, the bits out front, already provide the counter balance to keep you centred, so if curvy enough, there is no need for the added front pockets as a balance measure.
Penguin wrote:Nuts wrote:When i was carrying heavy guide packs I would notice the dramatic feeling of dropping the pack and 'flying'. I guess even so, while definitely a forward pull, everything was basically symmetrical and the result was a killer six pack, never resulting back problems![]()
Presuming iv'e watched the vid and get the explanation, with a light load i just can't see desired benefit being worth having those awkward pockets out the front. Iv'e tried front pockets, front packs, perhaps this is a better way of carrying them (makes sense) but i haven't 'needed' them in a long time. It's ok, each to their own and what works but i just don't see the fuss.. I did come close to buying one once but drew the same conclusions then..
I can't believe I am saying this - but I am with nuts on this one. I have done the "balance" thing with a hybrid 50l pack and a day pack in the provided clips on the front. I felt no change in my already forward stooped posture (congenital). The best thing for my is reducing the weight of the pack and doing core body exercise. The golite jam has been fantastic to date - although I have not worn it for more than two days in a row. I find the rucksack design fine for my back.
I am awkward enough off track as it is. More stuff hanging off the front or the back, would make me look like a member of he Keystone Cops.
But as with all these things - it is whatever floats your boat. I carry no great camera gear. With a lighter pack I can get it on and off easily, so not drama taking it off to get things. And the two front hip pockets are good for bits and pieces, like sunscreen, knives etc.
I walk with folk whom are carrying traditions 18 to 20kg packs and seem to have no side effect from doing so and there is no way that I can keep up with them. Their posture looks fine to my untrained eye.
On open track and a heavier pack I can see some advantages to a "balance" system. But for my pack weight and where I generally go I cannot see a gain for the complexity.
P
Penguin wrote:Nihil
Cool drawing. I can see that the weight transference to the hips.
I am trying to keep weight and bulk down so the weight is close to my lower back. That way I do not get the pulling on my shoulders from the weight away from my back. Sorry no great drawing skill.
Different solutions to trying to move with élan through the wilderness.
Nuts wrote:You could try 'i agree with nuts' Peng?? (unless the agreeing is the hard part lol...)
Good diagram, I can see how (if your fine carrying front pockets) the system is better having than not. The backpack itself though, that is where the weight pivot should be anyway??
The COG thing I can't see it not compensated by building muscle groups (afterall, the weight itself isn't on your spine its on your hips..) I guess this is more of a problem though, I guess the design is a compromise to make things easier (Like high sided boots instead of building ankle strength)..
Phil i dont think they look 'funny' (any more than packs that come much above shoulders anyway..), go for it
Nuts wrote:You could try 'i agree with nuts' Peng?? (unless the agreeing is the hard part lol...)
Good diagram, I can see how (if your fine carrying front pockets) the system is better having than not. The backpack itself though, that is where the weight pivot should be anyway??
The COG thing I can't see it not compensated by building muscle groups (afterall, the weight itself isn't on your spine its on your hips..) I guess this is more of a problem though, I guess the design is a compromise to make things easier (Like high sided boots instead of building ankle strength)..
Phil i dont think they look 'funny' (any more than packs that come much above shoulders anyway..), go for it
Bluegum Mic wrote:Whilst I don't own an aarn pack (happy for any donations however) I will add my thoughts on COG, muscles used etc. As said in previous posts the bodies centre of gravity passes through the vertebral body of the third lumbar vertebrae. Best way to find that is to put your hands on the top of your ilia (which people call putting their hands on their hips. Your COG is deep central in their.
So whilst I agree if loading a pack you are best to carry the weight as close to your low spine and utilise the hip belt, from what I can gather the Aarn system is utilizing a similar dynamic as to what your body uses ie the body braces itself from the front and the back via core stabilizing muscles and large bracing muscles. They also criss cross front to back. A traditional pack regardless of how well its packed will always be creating a force from your back surface away and down from the body. You would have to swallow your pack and wait a couple of days for it to be truly centred over your core.
The way I see the aarn system is it distributes the weight evenly from the front and the back (if only we all were evenly distributed...mind you obtaining the beer belly is the fun part) From what I can see with the straps and supports that the front and back force is sent down towards the hip belt and not the shoulders. So in theory if you drew a line of force from the front and the back towards that hipbelt im fairly sure it would intersect pretty darn close to your COG...well at least that's what aarn would be hoping.
Sorry for the ramble, hope it makes sense. Not saying Im right but just my understanding of the biomechanics of it all
Penguin wrote:
PS how waterproof are the Aarn packs. There advertising makes a bit of a feature of this.
P
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests