This thread was split from another discussion. Interesting topic that deserves it's own space. - angrysparrow


Hey Guys,

Been thinking.......

I have several Down items and in the past I often tossed them down in the pack and then preceded to pack a bunch of other gear on top to further pac them down to save bulk and internal pack volume.
I never was one to use compression sacks as I always felt it to be too hard on the Down, especially if I really compacted it for long periods at a time.

Fast forward to our future plans and this new Packing system.

Ideally we would like to have our heavier items lower on our backs.

+1 for the MMP's .

These new packs make proper weight distribution very easy and field convertible should your load change (resupply).
This got me thinking about my Down sleeping system.

We both have Big Agnes Lost Ranger 15* bags and use a custom fit 1/2" mini cell CCF pads that we will now leave stowed inside the pad sleve.
I am going to get a much larger stuff sack and very gently roll up the bag and pad as one and minimize the compression.
I think this will be the ticket for an extended section hike we have future plans for.
I will attach the sleep system bag much higher on my back and save room down lower for heavier items ( kitchen bag)

Do any of you MMP owners see major changes to how you will approach packing with your new Packs ?

I think this is going to really alter how we look at things. Packing smart was never easy with your typical ruck sac IMO.
Not impossible but certainly more of a challenge Vs this system.
Thanks Mac!;)

Darrel :D

Nice idea. :thumbup:

I have been saving our old peanut butter plastic containers and always thinking about how to use them (we go through a lot of PB here). This thread just solved that problem. I will make a stuff sack that will hold 2 back to back so that the openings are opposite each other. I will then be able to access and fill them individually from each end.

I spend most of my time on the water so this will easily help with the waterproofing issue as well.

Again ..... Nice idea.

More great ideas...
I also have a lot of plastic PB jars awaiting a use.
I just looked through the recycle bin and found several other lightweight plastic containers that show promise.
One was a nice Large Biscotti jar. Very light, sort of square with a large opening.
Two of these faced opposite in a blackbishop style bag could be real nice. One for cooking gear the other with a reflecttex cozy to be used as a cooler....

Hummmm.... this is getting fun.

Darrel :D

Ideally we would like to have our heavier items lower on our backs.

Pack you own packs.... but just some thoghts. Many years ago there was a pack company "Gerry" by name who played around with a new pack design where the compartments were horizontal rather than vertical. The idea was to be able to concentrate the weight in the upper portions of the pack and have them stay there. During the same period of time I was talking to hut boys in the Whites who had to hump the supplies and food up from the trailheads. They used the external frames and raised the load as high as they reasonably could. Here is the reasoning as I understood it.

The principle weight located above the shoulders applied the weight more veritcally to the hips.. the main weight bearing part of the system. As the load dropped the weight deflected more off the vertical reuslting in an added strain on the shoulders and back. The added weight forced a more un-natural stance with the pack loaded and more of an offset on the center of gravity, moving it farther behind.

Ultimately the Gerry system proved too limiting in terms of packing a full camping kit and was abandoned. But I think, in light of the conversation with the hut boys, the idea has merit at least from a physics standpoint. Bulky but light down low. Heavy stuff up high was the rule of the day backe then.

Hummm ?
My personal experience does not support this theory.
The farther we move a load from the fulcrum the greater the forced needed to counterbalance it.
If we think of our bodies in a similar fashion the farther we try to hold a weighted load from our center of gravity ( about two inches below our navel) the greater the force needed to counterbalance it.
Try this for yourself but I am fairly certain that you will find it harder to maintain balance the higher up you place pack weight. The worse case scenario would be to have very top heavy pac and then try to balance on a narrow beam. A small lean to the left or right will be amplified and exaggerated many times by this additional weight. Ditto for ascending or descending on a trail.
As always YMMV or HYOH

Cheers,
Darrel :)

Darrel.. I have tried it and i find it true. But... that's another story. In any event heres a pic of the Gerry pack. I had one... but this ain't me

http://www.oregonphotos.com/Resources/GERRY-Ann-HimalayanTent-St-.jpg

As I think about though you are correct in terms of changing the weight distribution for different kinds of terrain. I would agree the MMP would offer far more versatility in that regard. In general though I prefer the weight higher and the bulk lower. But personal preference is what its all about.

Love the PB / bishop sack idea. Sounds like it would work well.

..............................
This got me thinking about my Down sleeping system.

We both have Big Agnes Lost Ranger 15* bags and use a custom fit 1/2" mini cell CCF pads that we will now leave stowed inside the pad sleve.
I am going to get a much larger stuff sack and very gently roll up the bag and pad as one and minimize the compression.
I think this will be the ticket for an extended section hike we have future plans for.
I will attach the sleep system bag much higher on my back and save room down lower for heavier items ( kitchen bag)

Do any of you MMP owners see major changes to how you will approach packing with your new Packs ?

I think this is going to really alter how we look at things. Packing smart was never easy with your typical ruck sac IMO.
Not impossible but certainly more of a challenge Vs this system.
Thanks Mac!;)

Darrel :D

Yes, it is going to change some things. What you said reminded me: back when I went on a NOLS course, we used external frame packs ( kind of getting back that way a bit with these Molle packs). There was no sleeping bag compartment. You just used a quite large stuff sack into which the large synthetic bag went. But our CCF pads went in first, rolled up just enough to approximate the same diameter as the stuff sack, Then we stuffed our bags( and some other stuff if there was room) down inside the CCF pad, which was inside the stuff sack, Then strapped it all onto the bottom of the external frame pack. It made for fast and easy packing. Plus, at least theoretically added some additional water resistance(from the CCF pad) for the stuff sack.

Interesting thoughts on weight distribution. I'd appreciate hearing any comments y'all might have on Roger Caffin's "Pack Theory" FAQ (http://www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/FAQ_PackTheory.htm).

I can't begin to synopsize it, but he seems to be focus on the spine's ability to absorb shock. He offers some thoughts on high vs low load placement, as well as some observations regarding "peasant methods" of carrying heavy loads. It's an interesting read but it seems at odds with much of what I take to be the conventional wisdom.

maybe it is my glasses but my eyes glazed over. The upshot I got was high load to shoulders distributed down the back to the hips (except for technical climbing). Not sure if that is correct tho. It seems silly I can immerse myself in theological discourse and do ok.. but if it involves math or physics... I lose all contact with comprehension. Go figure.

I love the BTB PB jars. Now I know how to put my double ended HH SS OCF pad stuff sack to use!

- MacEntyre

I just read through the paper linked to above and I now better understand the intent of the author.
We are in total agreement with regard mechanical advantage, balance points relative the "bodies" center of gravity Etc. He was referring to the distance away from the spine in a horizontal, rearward direction placing stress and strain on the pack wearers shoulders and spine. The farther away from your back the pack is allowed to extend ( rearward) the greater the required counter balance force or leaning forward would be required to balance out.

This is a given but not limited to this one direction or plane.

The Aarn packs are a very good working example of this principle of proper weight distribution and the need to minimize the distance from our bodies COG to these extended weights.

In order to maintain stability and balance over all of the possible terrain's we must traverse, we would do well to adopt the above authors advice and that of the Aarn pack developer. We must strive to keep our loads close to the "body's" COG .
The packs center of gravity is of secondary consideration and if the above is adhered to it should also fall within acceptable limits.
Common sense also applies and we would be wise to minimize pack weights in general .

Another important consideration is the use of a frame and the use of a waist belt to redirect the load downward to our hips and off our shoulders. A well designed fame/ belt system like what is supplied with the MMP's will help a lot.

There may also be personal bias's formed by experience and different body types.
I am short, compact and have very good balance so long as I don't over extend myself or allow the load to shift in any one direction.

I really noticed this while carrying my Grand kids in a back pack that allows them to ride high up near should height. Everything is fine so long as I maintain good posture and do not lean or bend at the waist excessively.
If that happens I can feel myself loading up the trekking poles in the direction of the off balance pull and using my core muscles more to steady the load.
When they were younger and I could carry them in a front pac I felt safer and in better control . Using this while also wearing a well fitted, framed and belted back pack seemed the best possible solution and I realized then that the folks over at Aarn had a good handle on this distribution /balance issue.


Mac's new pack shows promise in that we can each load it to suit or own unique body types and loading bias's.

Pack On!

Cheers,
Darrel :D

I really noticed this while carrying my Grand kids in a back pack that allows them to ride high up near should height. Everything is fine so long as I maintain good posture and do not lean or bend at the waist excessively.
If that happens I can feel myself loading up the trekking poles in the direction of the off balance pull and using my core muscles more to steady the load.

I loved having my kids right up around shoulder height. However I also learned something from Colin Fletcher that has stuck with me over the years and is apropos to the discussion. He cautions that any leaning under load should be done from the ankles and not the hips. I found that to be of earth shattering importance. I watched my mother struggle to get up a hill all bent over at the waist and suggested she change her stride. Immediately she did much better.

When they were younger and I could carry them in a front pac I felt safer and in better control .

I loved the front snugli pack. It was the best for the l'il kids.

Mac's new pack shows promise in that we can each load it to suit or own unique body types and loading bias's.

It does sound like a winner.

Thanks for the thoughts, Darrel (& Rev!)

Another important consideration is the use of a frame and the use of a waist belt to redirect the load downward to our hips and off our shoulders. A well designed fame/ belt system like what is supplied with the MMP's will help a lot.


This was the part that Caffin was at odds with, I think. His preference, illustrated by the "peasant methods" he cited, was to transfer the load to the hips via the spine rather than directly via a hip belt, so that the spine could absorb the shock from walking. That was the part that seemed to be at odds with conventional thinking, and I'm curious what flaw others might see in his thinking.

The thing I like about the MMP is that it gives you freedom to try all sorts of things, without being locked in to any one approach. I still don't know how I'll end up using mine, but I think it's going to be a great foundation to build on.

Got lots of PB jars myself, btw... :jj:

This was the part that Caffin was at odds with, I think. His preference, illustrated by the "peasant methods" he cited, was to transfer the load to the hips via the spine rather than directly via a hip belt, so that the spine could absorb the shock from walking. That was the part that seemed to be at odds with conventional thinking, and I'm curious what flaw others might see in his thinking.

I am not in a position to go to a new pack system. However, I am going to be experimenting with my current pack in the following way. Consistent with my previous training/experience I have been fastening the hip belt first by hiking the pack up and fastening the belt to carry the majority of the load on the hips. Then the shoulder straps are tightened and finally the sternum strap. I am going to start alsmost reversing tha process and tighten the shoulder straps first followed by just snugging the waist belt to provide stability against sway. Then the sternum strap to bring the shoulder straps tighter on the back. Not sure how this will play out... but I do plan to experiment with it.

I...I am going to start alsmost reversing tha process and tighten the shoulder straps first followed by just snugging the waist belt to provide stability against sway. Then the sternum strap to bring the shoulder straps tighter on the back. Not sure how this will play out... but I do plan to experiment with it.
I look forward to hearing how it works for you. I had similar thoughts about using the hip belt to counter sway. The thing I was trying to figure out, before Mac unveiled his MMP, was how to mimic the weight transfer mechanics of the dual milk pail yoke, to move the load toward the spine and off the shoulder 'notches'. That'll get deferred, though, while I figure out how to load my MMP, which I should see in a day or two.

You should see it tomorrow, Frawg!

The feature of the MMP that pleased me early was the way the load can be built close to your back, and kept off your shoulders. That feels best to me when carrying less than 45 pounds.

If I were carrying significantly more weight, I would have to shift more of the load to the shoulder straps. I've got a prototype MMP that works well for heavy loads. It has the best military surplus straps and belt that I've found, and feels comfortable with far more than I am willing to carry. I want to spend some time with a wilderness EMT who can help me configure it.

was how to mimic the weight transfer mechanics of the dual milk pail yoke, to move the load toward the spine and off the shoulder 'notches'. .

With the load lifters loosened my shoulder straps go across my shoulders and taper together toward my spine on a bit of an angle. When the sternum strap is fastened I felt the shoulder straps move in toward my neck. They hugged the inside of my shoulder, over my shoulder to the back and in toward the spine almost like a yoke would do. It felt rather strange but also quite comfortable. The upper back of the pack makes solid contact with my shoulder blades when the load lifter are pulled tight. But I do not have to tighten them as much as was doing before. It feels very different. But I can see the theory in action.

You should see it tomorrow, Frawg!

The feature of the MMP that pleased me early was the way the load can be built close to your back, and kept off your shoulders. That feels best to me when carrying less than 45 pounds.

If I were carrying significantly more weight, I would have to shift more of the load to the shoulder straps. I've got a prototype MMP that works well for heavy loads. It has the best military surplus straps and belt that I've found, and feels comfortable with far more than I am willing to carry. I want to spend some time with a wilderness EMT who can help me configure it.


Hey Mac,

I anticipate a pack weight never to exceed 40 pounds for any significant amount of trail time. I may see 45 right after a resupply but that would be reduced substantial after a few meals .

I suspect that a great deal of R&D has been done on those Military issues shoulder straps and belts. I am x Air Force and have seen first hand the extent of engineering that goes into GI gear.

I will likely select a bottom stuff sac that is relatively light weight and also suitable for being placed on the ground repeatedly without too much consideration for wear or moisture damage.
Directly above this, in the lumbar section will go my Kitchen bag and most of the food stuff. Above this will be shelter and then sleeping gear and finally clothes, tarps, extra ccf pad etc.
Never should any of these stuff sacks extend rearward to any significant measure. I hope to keep everything close to my spine and fairly evenly distributed. I also hope to put 15% of my total weight in the front somehow.
Figure about 6 pounds or so.
Water, camera, some personal items that I may wish to get to without taking off the pac. Some food that can be eaten easily while on the move. That is the plan anyhow....

Q ? As I understand it you have placed vertical stays on the outside of the frame sheet...
These are made from arrow shafts in either aluminum, Fiberglass or carbon fiber.
Did you also run any horizontally on the top and bottom?
If you did and they are made from aluminum they could be shaped to approximate the shape of the wearers back and hug you even closer as in the drawing on the site we have been discussing. Stuff sacs could also be shaped in a cresent to better hug the wearer.

I personally am not anticipating any issues with regard fit, adjustability and weight distribution but it's fun to tweak our gear to optimize it's performance.


I looked at my tracking info and we should receive ours on 9/01
Yepee!:D

Darrel :D

Aha! Rev has helped me understand what you are talking about, Frawg!

I think Hawg Tyed has in his MMP a good example of what Rev described. Hawg has very wide shoulders, but the reason the MMP fits without custom adjustments is it's ability to rotate the shoulder strap attachment point in any direction. Instead of moving the straps to a wider mount point, they just make a wider "Y" around his neck. That keeps the strap portion of the load close to his spine. :cool:

Many shoulder straps, including the current military MOLLE straps, have a fixed attachment point and fixed attachment angle. However, the MMP shoulder strap is attached with one tail of 2" webbing. It can rotate in any direction. For Hawg Tyed, it self adjusts as soon as he puts it on. :)

It's nice to finally understand what I am doing! :rolleyes:

- MacEntyre

As I understand it you have placed vertical stays on the outside of the frame sheet. These are made from arrow shafts in either aluminum, Fiberglass or carbon fiber.
Correct. They are sewn into the binding along the edges.

Did you also run any horizontally on the top and bottom?
There is one on the top, but not the bottom. I call them stiffeners; they are not a frame, because the ends are not connected to one another. They just keep the cinched load from collapsing the pack.

Without the load, the pack is flexible, sort of loosey-goosey. The load provides rigidity to the structure. It's important to build the load so that nothing shifts. All you do is simply make sure each stuff sack is squeezed between two others, and the ones on the ends are tight against the stack.

If you did and they are made from aluminum they could be shaped to approximate the shape of the wearers back...
Let me know if you think that is necessary. It has not been necessary for me. The horizontal stiffener is above shoulder height for most people. Also, the load tends to pull the pack into the shape you desire. Let me know what you think after you build a load.

BTW, don't try to bend the hollow tubular arrow shafts... solid rods, which weigh a lot more, are better for bending.

- MacEntyre

Thanks for the insights, guys - really helpful. Rev, I think I'll start from your baseline.

Darrell, I'm also ex AF and originally from NW Ohio. :)

I look forward to tomorrow's delivery, Mac. :jj:

Thanks for the insights, guys - really helpful. Rev, I think I'll start from your baseline.

Darrell, I'm also ex AF and originally from NW Ohio. :)

I look forward to tomorrow's delivery, Mac. :jj:

Cool! I am originally from Toledo..:)

I have been doing a bit more investigation on this primitive load carry idea with regard stabilty, strain and the training one needs in order to carry a heavy load directly on the head.... interesting ..:confused:

Here is a take on this from the folks at Aarn:


http://www.aarnpacks.com/images/Burmesewoman.jpg

The traditional way of carrying load on the head practiced in Africa, Asia and South America is incredibly efficient. It creates an upright posture and the shoulders are weight free.
Research shows that African women can carry up to 20% of their bodyweight with NO additional energy exertion on level ground. With heavier loads the energy increase was only HALF that of men carrying the same loads in backpacks. This shows the efficiency of a load carrying system where the center of gravity is vertically in line with the center of gravity of the load, so that your posture remains upright. It also shows that changing to a load carrying system which keeps you upright will reduce energy consumption far more than reducing weight in a backpack.

However head supported loads are inheritantly unstable and they need well developed musculature to support the spinal loading. To be able to carry loads on their head, children start developing the balance and musculature in their early teens , and progress to heavier loads as they get older. The instability of the load prevents this being a practical load carrying system in the wilderness.

http://www.aarnpacks.com/images/Bodypkwtdstr.gif



We solve these disadvantages by splitting the load into front and back portions and dropping them to torso height, and by removing the loading on your spine and placing it evenly around your pelvis.


Darrel :)

I am not in a position to go to a new pack system. However, I am going to be experimenting with my current pack in the following way. Consistent with my previous training/experience I have been fastening the hip belt first by hiking the pack up and fastening the belt to carry the majority of the load on the hips. Then the shoulder straps are tightened and finally the sternum strap. I am going to start alsmost reversing tha process and tighten the shoulder straps first followed by just snugging the waist belt to provide stability against sway. Then the sternum strap to bring the shoulder straps tighter on the back. Not sure how this will play out... but I do plan to experiment with it.

The 2nd technique you are going to try is how I use my McHale pack to greatest success. First I hold the pack up by the haul strap ( much easier with today's lighter loads), and while holding it up with one hand I tighten a shoulder strap with the other hand. Then the other shoulder strap, resulting in the hip belt being nice and high once I let go of the haul strap, being held high by snug shoulder straps. Then I tighten the waist belt, then the load lifters. Finally, loosen the shoulder straps from a little to a lot.

I find that the carry feels MUCH more comfortable if I have the hip belts( and hence the load) good and high. At least with this pack, it makes a big dif, particularly with a neck discomfort that might develop otherwise. Often I find it worth it to have a fair amount of weight on my shoulders, so as to slow the load's progress downwards due to my too large belly interfering with good hip belt fit. This is less of a problem if I am in skinny(or at least skinnier) mode. Then I have more prominent hip bones to support a load on.

EDIT: I will have to see how all of this works different with MMP's suggested concentration of weight down lower. I think I am still going to prefer hip belts well up on the hips, from 1st impression, but we will see.

Cool! I am originally from Toledo..:)

What a small world! :cool: (St Francis, '65) :)

I have been doing a bit more investigation on this primitive load carry idea with regard stabilty, strain and the training one needs in order to carry a heavy load directly on the head.... interesting ..:confused:Sorta reminds me of the control theory problem of balancing a rocket over an engine. ...or a broomstick on the palm of your hand. ;)

Thanks for the Aarn data!

What a small world! :cool: (St Francis, '65) :)

Sorta reminds me of the control theory problem of balancing a rocket over an engine. ...or a broomstick on the palm of your hand. ;)

Thanks for the Aarn data!

Heh! Methinks we need Shug to balance a pack on his chin...while unicycling!!:boggle::boggle:

MacEntyre- I feel bad for somewhat hijacking the thread. But I think it is a worthwhile conversation about the loading of a pack which pertains to the MMP. If you are concerned about the hijack perhaps we can ask the mods to split the weight distribution posts into another thread. I did not intend to divert anything.

This where the discussion that started in this thread (http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10345) about crush-proof stuff sacks left off... it was off-topic but fascinating, so I thought I would ask Angrysparrow to move those posts to this thread.

People who have ordered or will soon order a Molly Mac Pack are interested in how others build their load. Since there are many ways to adjust the weight and balance, this discussion will be helpful.

- MacEntyre

I also hope to put 15% of my total weight in the front somehow.
Figure about 6 pounds or so.
Water, camera, some personal items that I may wish to get to without taking off the pac. Some food that can be eaten easily while on the move. That is the plan anyhow....


Has anyone tried wearing something like a Ribz front-pack (http://www.ribzwear.com/index.htm)with the MMP? Would that work to help balance the load and bring the pack's CG closer to the body's CG?

I'm probably going to try the MMP front pack at some point and see what that does:
http://www.mollymacpack.com/new.html

Since there are many ways to adjust the weight and balance, this discussion will be helpful.
- MacEntyre

Up in the great northwoods of Minnesota, I was always taught to pack heavy items towards the top of the portage pack. That way, when you've got the pack on you don't have to lean as far forward to get your center of gravity over your hips. I've always found that to be true, and more comfortable.

HOWEVER..... portaging is an entirely different type of walk in the woods than hiking! In my experience, the packs are heavier (30#, 40#, 50# + at the start of a group trip) and the distances are much shorter (typically a few hundred yards, maybe a mile at the most.)

I'm wondering if there's a set of "distance to travel" and "weight carried" curves that would have a crossover point where you start to move the heavier stuff down in your pack?

-Greg H
MN

You should see it tomorrow, Frawg!

The Frawg is very pleased to note that tomorrow has arrived and so has MMP #4. Very nice work, Mac, and you were right - the black webbing looks great. And there are enough cinch straps to secure an octopus!:laugh:

I feel like I did the Christmas I got an Erector Set. Now it's time to play with this thing. Where did I put those PB jars... :D

Hey Frawg,
Congrats on your new arrivial !
I have to wait one last day.
Good to read that you liked the Black on Black.

Pictures when you get time.....
Cheers and thanks!
Darrel :D

Hey Frawg,
Congrats on your new arrivial !
I have to wait one last day.
Good to read that you liked the Black on Black.

Pictures when you get time.....
Cheers and thanks!
Darrel :D

Coupla quickies to scratch your itch... :cool: The red thing is a small Folgers coffee container, per the other thread discussion.

Well, now I can't find that particular post about center of gravity
BUT
I have the bear can (the heaviest single thing in my load) at the very bottom of my pack. That way it is close to my center of gravity (my hips). Who needs a sleeping bag compartment for a bag when you can stuff a canister in it?

When I was 13, the girl scout troop I was in took a 5 day backpack in the Tetons. I had an old external Boy Scout frame and I know I loaded the tent (the heavesist thing) on the very top of the pack. I guess my rear wasn't as large then. :scared:

Although I do not have a molly mac pack yet (I will be ordering one in Sept) I am looking forward to playing around with all my stuff and finding the right place for all my gear.

Hey Eay,


Although I do not have a molly mac pack yet (I will be ordering one in Sept) I am looking forward to playing around with all my stuff and finding the right place for all my gear.

Let me be one of the first to welcome you to the club of MMP packers.:D

Frawg,
Sweet looking pack ya got there....;)

I especialy Like the coffee container Idea. Two facing opposite directions could be very handy!

Darrel :)

Very nice work, Mac, and you were right - the black webbing looks great.
Thank you very much, Frawg! The original prototypes had black webbing, but they were poly. I finally found a local source of nylon webbing in different colors.

And there are enough cinch straps to secure an octopus!:laugh:
Looks like dreadlocks, doesn't it?

- MacEntyre

I'm planning on ordering one pretty soon, but for now I'll have to drool and plan. *rubs hands* How would I be able to attach pouches (snack/camera/bottle/etc.) to the hip belt? Is it possible to put a row or two of PALS a couple of sections long on either side of the waist pad? I've got a nice gas mask pouch on order that I think would fit nicely there. Also, how long is the waist pad?
Sorry for all the questions, I'm just really curious. :-D

Thanks,
Acer

How would I be able to attach pouches (snack/camera/bottle/etc.) to the hip belt?
You cannot with the present design. (That's what the fMolly Mac Font Pack is for.)
Is it possible to put a row or two of PALS a couple of sections long on either side of the waist pad? how long is the waist pad?
The waist pad is 8" by 19", but it is just along for the ride, so to speak. It's not designed to hold any weight.

Here is my favorite military surplus waist belt, which will do what you suggest.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l257/MacEntyre/MilSurpBelt.jpg

It's made in sections. The outer two sections are sleeves that slide over the ends of the middle section, with about 50% overlap. They are fastened by a single bar tack. Here is one of the sleeves.

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l257/MacEntyre/MilSurpBeltsection.jpg

I'd be glad to customize a belt to include two of the PALS sleeves, or sell one of the mil-surplus belts that I have. However, I don't recommend it. That's not where you want any weight, not even one pound. The front pack holds more weight, is more comfy, and goes on and off much easier, in my humble opinion.

Thanks for asking, Acercanto!

- MacEntyre

The original prototypes had black webbing, but they were poly. I finally found a local source of nylon webbing in different colors.
- MacEntyre

Why do you prefer nylon over the poly??? Seems like the nylon would stretch more?:confused:

Why do you prefer nylon over the poly??? Seems like the nylon would stretch more?:confused:
Good question!

There can be a lot of stress on the webbing loops, when a sack is cinched up tight. The poly "walks" instead of stretching, and tends to stay crunched up. Over 1 7/8" the nylon doesn't stretch much at all. The poly walks far more than the nylon stretches.

- MacEntyre

Why do you prefer nylon over the poly??? Seems like the nylon would stretch more?:confused:
PMFJI, but I find the nylon is an advantage here because the slight stretch makes it easier to weave straps & buckles through the webbing. It gives just enough to be useful, but not enough to become a problem. It also feels like the the small amount of stretch in the compression straps seems to help the straps grip the load a little better.

That's just my impression from very limited experimenting. So far I've just been strapping odds & ends on the pack, willy nilly, just to get a better feel for the process and to see how it rides on my back when loaded up. It feels pretty comfy, although there's a bit of pressure right against my shoulder blades that could be bothersome over a long haul. There's a learning curve here, and I'm right at the bottom of it. :cool:

...there's a bit of pressure right against my shoulder blades that could be bothersome over a long haul.
Darrel mentioned that... do you fellows have the shoulder straps too tight?

Also, the attachment point for the straps should be near your shoulder blades, so that the strap goes straight up before curving over your shoulders.

- MacEntyre

Darrel mentioned that... do you fellows have the shoulder straps too tight?
Good question. I probably do, because I'm trying to get as much of the weigh as possible onto the meaty part of my shoulders, below the base of my neck. I'll loosen them a bit and see.

Also, the attachment point for the straps should be near your shoulder blades, so that the strap goes straight up before curving over your shoulders.I'll try moving them inward one step. This flexibility in options is great!

One thing I noticed right off is how nicely the MMP moves with you. That single attachment point for the belt works well.

Update: I moved the straps inward one step, and upward to the top row. Also loosend the straps a little. This combination fits me better. The upper contact point is now between and slightly above my shoulder blades. There's obviously still some contact with the shoulder blades, but it's not uncomfortable. I think this configuration is what I'll use for a while. Plus, the MMP belt buckle now actually overlaps the belt buckle on my pants! ;) There are still some left/right balance issues, but I think that's a matter of packing things right.

I'll try moving them inward one step.
Go ahead and try that... it should improve things to move the load closer to your spine, if it doesn't chafe your neck. (see discussion above)

...but I was thinking of the vertical dimension. The straps should attach slightly below the height of your shoulders, so that the pack is suspended vertically. In other words, there should be minimal horizontal component to the way the straps take the weight of the pack.

I probably could find a better way to describe it...

With a single stack load, you can put the MMP on with shoulder straps loosened up so they are not carrying any weight. The belt, being essentially part of the panel, takes all the weight, and helps the panel lay right against your back without pulling away much at all. When you tighten the shoulder straps, they should take the up load without pulling the panel tighter to your back.

One thing I noticed right off is how nicely the MMP moves with you. That single attachment point for the belt works well.
You want to take advantage of that: Loosen those shoulder straps, and find the right position for the belt (which might be higher than you are used to).

Check out Slowhike's video (http://picasaweb.google.com/slowhike/LinvilleGorgeMay09#5331755991126780482)... I was surprised to see how upright I was walking while carrying a single stack weighing about 32 lbs. It's particularly noticeable at the end of the video. Here is a still picture showing the same thing:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_1nvpLp4p__s/Sf4yZhjXX0I/AAAAAAAAD5o/-yUf5uCYezM/s512/P5020011.JPG

- MacEntyre

MacEntyre, it looks like my update and your post crossed in the ether. :cool:

I'll keep playing with this and try out your suggestions. I'm wearing it comfortably as I type this. So, what are you wearing? :scared::lol:

Update: I moved the straps inward one step, and upward to the top row.
The pack was delivered with the straps on the third row, which roughly fits a 19 inch measurement from hip to neck. You moved them to the second row, then to the top row... that's four inches higher! You are now in unexplored territory!

Build a load and let us know how it works!

- MacEntyre

So, what are you wearing?
...a tool belt with scissors, markers, tape measures, etc. :boggle:

...a tool belt with scissors, markers, tape measures, etc. :boggle:

The gear makers equivalent of a garter belt. Very macho.!!

The pack was delivered with the straps on the third row, which roughly fits a 19 inch measurement from hip to neck. You moved them to the second row, then to the top row... that's four inches higher! You are now in unexplored territory!

The crude torso measurements I was able to do on myself put me at 21.5", but this last move feels pretty comfy. I'll stick with it for a while and let you know.

Build a load and let us know how it works!

I think my brother has a 40 lb sack of rocks. I'll check it out. ;)

Check out Slowhike's video (http://picasaweb.google.com/slowhike/LinvilleGorgeMay09#5331755991126780482)... I was surprised to see how upright I was walking while carrying a single stack weighing about 32 lbs. It's particularly noticeable at the end of the video. Here is a still picture showing the same thing:

I like the upright stance, and that's great feedback on how the pack should fit. That gives me a good baseline, thanks!

BTW, who's the graybeard masquerading as that youngster MacEntyre??? I thought I was the O.F. here. :laugh:

I thought I was the O.F. here. :laugh:
You are. :rolleyes:

- MacEntyre

Go ahead and try that... it should improve things to move the load closer to your spine, if it doesn't chafe your neck. (see discussion above)

...but I was thinking of the vertical dimension. The straps should attach slightly below the height of your shoulders, so that the pack is suspended vertically. In other words, there should be minimal horizontal component to the way the straps take the weight of the pack.

I probably could find a better way to describe it...

With a single stack load, you can put the MMP on with shoulder straps loosened up so they are not carrying any weight. The belt, being essentially part of the panel, takes all the weight, and helps the panel lay right against your back without pulling away much at all. When you tighten the shoulder straps, they should take the up load without pulling the panel tighter to your back.


You want to take advantage of that: Loosen those shoulder straps, and find the right position for the belt (which might be higher than you are used to).

Check out Slowhike's video (http://picasaweb.google.com/slowhike/LinvilleGorgeMay09#5331755991126780482)... I was surprised to see how upright I was walking while carrying a single stack weighing about 32 lbs. It's particularly noticeable at the end of the video. Here is a still picture showing the same thing:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_1nvpLp4p__s/Sf4yZhjXX0I/AAAAAAAAD5o/-yUf5uCYezM/s512/P5020011.JPG

- MacEntyre

You were pretty upright, especially with 32 lbs. How did you come up with the idea to put most of the weight low, which is kind of opposite older approaches( though that would vary with dif packs)? Just a theory that you checked out and it worked, or something you came on by accident? Any theories on why this should work better with this pack?

I hiked a couple of miles last time, a lot of it off trail on steep but short hills, with about 20 lbs this time. Once again I was favorably impressed. I'm still not sure it is as comfy as my old pack adjusted high, but it seemed as comfy as it needs to be with such a load, always surprisingly so. And at the same time it is saving me about 3 lbs of pack weight, so that has to be an advantage, I'm sure!

Most of the hike I was simply aware of how surprisingly comfortable such a simple and UL frame and belts are. But at the very end of the hike, I suddenly noticed my shoulders were sore. Which was odd, because until that moment, I had not noticed any shoulder or other discomfort at all. And most of the weight seemed to be on my hips any way. I was thinking mine came adjusted about right for me, but having read your above advice to Frawg, I'm going to double check it with a load.

So what is up with your front pack? Is that just a means of keeping some items handier or do you think it contributes to even greater comfort by dividing the load front to back?

How did you come up with the idea to put most of the weight low...? Any theories on why this should work better with this pack?
When I loaded the first prototype, all of my hammock and insulation related stuff sacks were relatively light, compared to the grub and galley. So, I put the heavy one low. I think it works because the weight cannot be placed closer to you than with the MMP. It's a lot like a really good fanny pack.

I'm still not sure it is as comfy as my old pack adjusted high...
Try loading the MMP with the heavy sacks high and compare.

...such a simple and UL frame...
Bite your tongue! There's no frame... just stiffeners that are not connected to one another.

So what is up with your front pack? Is that just a means of keeping some items handier or do you think it contributes to even greater comfort by dividing the load front to back?
Once you find your sweet spot for the shoulder straps, it will balance the load well. How can it do otherwise?

So, find your sweet spot, then order a front pack!

- MacEntyre

Try loading the MMP with the heavy sacks high and compare.

I'll play with that, but I bet it's best the way you suggest.


Bite your tongue! There's no frame... just stiffeners that are not connected to one another. OOPS! Forgive the blasphemy and ignorance! :scared: But it kind of looked like a frame, though a really light one. But now I remember it is not really a frame, per your web site and posts.


Once you find your sweet spot for the shoulder straps, it will balance the load well. How can it do otherwise?

So, find your sweet spot, then order a front pack!

- MacEntyre

OK then! Sounds like a plan. Any one here using it( front pack?) yet?

Any one here using it( front pack?) yet?
Five people on planet earth have one, or will have one soon:


I have one, of course.
My sister, who will be at Hot Springs but is not on HF, has one.
Lorethian received one this week.
Poker88 will receive one next week.
Frawg just added himself to the list!

It's a bargain at $25.

- MacEntyre

I am not in a position to go to a new pack system. However, I am going to be experimenting with my current pack in the following way. Consistent with my previous training/experience I have been fastening the hip belt first by hiking the pack up and fastening the belt to carry the majority of the load on the hips. Then the shoulder straps are tightened and finally the sternum strap. I am going to start alsmost reversing tha process and tighten the shoulder straps first followed by just snugging the waist belt to provide stability against sway. Then the sternum strap to bring the shoulder straps tighter on the back. Not sure how this will play out... but I do plan to experiment with it.

Interesting. I use an external frame pack and position the pack as follows:


close and snug hip belt
pull shoulder straps snug
pull chest belt tight, as tight as possible
retighten hip belt.


I altered my "sternum strap" into a leather belt from shoulder strap to shoulder strap and about 2" wide.

When I have the system properly tightened I carry almost all of the load on my chest belt and hip belt. The chest belt pulls the load as tight to my back as possible. I don't really use the shoulder straps to accomplish that.

With a 50 lb pack, I estimate the load on my shoulders at about 5 lbs.

If I follow my DIs oft repeated instructions to "stand straight, chest out, shoulders back", I actually carry no weight at all on my shoulders, the entire weight is primarily on my chest with the remainder on my hips. Unfortunately I tend to get lost in my thoughts about 50% of the time and end up carrying about 5 lbs or a little more on my shoulders.

And yes I find that I can walk straight up with this arrangement quite comfortably. I can go as high as 75 lbs on the pack weight, but prefer to keep it at about 50 for long term field trips.

Interesting. I use an external frame pack and position the pack as follows:

I followed much the same procedure with my external frame. But have since switched to an internal frame and I have found many significant differences in the way the pack carries and loads. None of this is scientific you understand. The should straps had limited attachment points and usually were above my shoulders. In other words the straps came over my shoulder and went somewhat up to the frame. This seemed most common among the packs of that day and is what I was told was supposed to happen. The upper support net hit right across my shoulder blades and formed a primary contact point with my back.

The internal frame pack has the straps actually curve over my shoulders and head downward to the attachment point. This was a fundemental difference when I bought the pack and I tried to compensate for that difference with the torso adjustment. I am going to have to rethink that adjustment. I was trying to get the waist belt down to my hips where the external frame liked to ride. It was a very frustrating experience getting that pack set up for me. The clerk was not entirely helpful but it certainly was not her fault.

So given the material in this thread I am going to be rethinking the adjustments of the internal frame and see where I go.

...but I was thinking of the vertical dimension. The straps should attach slightly below the height of your shoulders, so that the pack is suspended vertically. In other words, there should be minimal horizontal component to the way the straps take the weight of the pack.

I probably could find a better way to describe it...

With a single stack load, you can put the MMP on with shoulder straps loosened up so they are not carrying any weight. The belt, being essentially part of the panel, takes all the weight, and helps the panel lay right against your back without pulling away much at all. When you tighten the shoulder straps, they should take the up load without pulling the panel tighter to your back.


You want to take advantage of that: Loosen those shoulder straps, and find the right position for the belt (which might be higher than you are used to).
- MacEntyre

Well, that was interesting. I put the 20 lb load on much like I did yesterday and much like I do with my int. Fr. pack: Hold it up so waist belt is up on my hips, belt at the very top of my hips, tighten shoulder straps which then supports the pack holding it up while I get the hip belt tightened up. Then I loosen the shoulder straps a bit. I did this and noticed that the shoulder straps enter the pack a few inches below my the neck/shoulder line, which I suppose is about right?

So, anyway, this time I went ahead and "loosened those shoulder straps" more aggressively, and marched around the back yard. The weight shifted quite dramatically to my hips and sacral area, and I had more air between pack and back. I was surprised to feel so much more weight shifted so to my hips with such a light NON-frame and belt. And it still seemed to stay up while I walked. I was, in fact, reminded of a heavily loaded fanny pack.

Well, it seems before this I was carrying a good bit more weight on my shoulders than I realized. Maybe that was the cause of the sore shoulders, even though I felt no discomfort for most of the hike.

Does this sound like about like the right way for adjusting this pack? I imagine there comes a point where the straps are too loose. And I can also imagine that with looser straps, it would be more important to have the weight down low rather than hanging off your shoulders.

Fun to experiment!

Say MacEntyre, in Slowhike's video and the accompanying picture it doesn't look like you have a hip belt on your pack. Did I miss something, or is it hidden from view?

Does this sound like about like the right way for adjusting this pack? I imagine there comes a point where the straps are too loose. And I can also imagine that with looser straps, it would be more important to have the weight down low rather than hanging off your shoulders.
I think you have found it!

That sounds exactly like my experience. I am always messing with the shoulder strap tension, depending on terrain.

Say MacEntyre, in Slowhike's video and the accompanying picture it doesn't look like you have a hip belt on your pack. Did I miss something, or is it hidden from view?
It is underneath my shirt tail.

- MacEntyre

The pack was delivered with the straps on the third row, which roughly fits a 19 inch measurement from hip to neck. You moved them to the second row, then to the top row... that's four inches higher! You are now in unexplored territory!

Build a load and let us know how it works!

I've been multiplexing myself between tarp experiments and the MMP, but I just cobbled together a load from odds & ends (tools, books, etc.) too silly to describe except that it weighed right at 40 lbs.

I wore it around the house for a couple hours and it was surprisingly comfortable, given what I was carrying and how poorly the weight was distributed. Even with the load COG farther from my back than a proper packing would yield, though, I was still standing basically upright but tilted slightly forward at the ankles as someone else described earlier.

With my "uncharted" placement of the straps I did notice some inward pressure where my neck meets the shoulders, much as you suggested although I wouldn't call it chafing. I need to experiment with this. Think I'll go back to your initial setup and suggestions as a baseline and test incremental changes from there.

I did learn enough to know that this will work fine for me, as expected. I don't anticipate carrying more than 30 lbs on my back, and the front pack will be more for convenience of access than for load balancing, although I'll definitely do that as needed.

I'll report back after I've done up a proper load.

Did a fast 3 miles today with the 18 or so lbs. No sore shoulders with the shoulder straps loosened up a lot more. I apparently had them too tight.

I made some stuff sacks for use with my MMP, and did a bit of gear loading to check out the overall setup. There's not a lot of rhyme or reason to the load yet, as that's still TBD, but I wanted to fill out the sacks and get a sense of how they would load up. Here are port, starboard and bow views:

http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/files/2/5/3/3/img_0067a_thumb.jpg (http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=7028&c=4) http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/files/2/5/3/3/img_0068a_thumb.jpg (http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=7029&c=4) http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/files/2/5/3/3/img_0070a_thumb.jpg (http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=7030&c=4)

Note the port / starboard 'lighting' per the discussion in the 'crush proof container thread (http://www.hammockforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=145515#post145515). ;) The bottom stuff sack holds two large steel coffee cans which are place holders for a suitable food container, TBD

The tarp and hammock go at the very top for ready access. The stakes and suspension are held between the tarp and hammock. The stakes are inside a Tyvek envelope made from material salvaged from the package my MMP came in. (I have Scottish genes too, MacEntyre! :cool: )

http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/files/2/5/3/3/img_0071a_thumb.jpg (http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=7031&c=4) http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/files/2/5/3/3/img_0075a_thumb.jpg (http://www.hammockforums.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=7032&c=4)

The fun continues. :jj:

Note the port / starboard 'lighting'
Bristol fashion... very yar, Frawg!

The bottom stuff sack holds two large steel coffee cans which are place holders for a suitable food container, TBD
I messed with HOI's two Bearikades this weekend. Seems that if you put the cannister between two stuff sacks, with all cinched tight, it will do just fine.

The tarp and hammock go at the very top for ready access.
My hammock is at the bottom, and my tarp is at the top, but all positions are readily accessible!

...stakes are inside a Tyvek envelope made from material salvaged from the package my MMP came in.
Very cool! People will be saying, "Yer tighter than Frawg skin, and that's water tight!"

Q: What's in the water carrier?

Q2: Is that a horizontal water bladder I see?

- MacEntyre

Bristol fashion... very yar, Frawg!

Aye, mate.... arghhh! :laugh: (actually, my dad was the Navy man, 1942 - '45)

I messed with HOI's two Bearikades this weekend. Seems that if you put the cannister between two stuff sacks, with all cinched tight, it will do just fine. That's good to know; I'll make use of that. I'm also looking forward to eay's feedback. I've got some large plastic coffee containers back in Virginia that I'll try out in the meantime.

My hammock is at the bottom, and my tarp is at the top, but all positions are readily accessible! I think your way provides a bit more rain protection for the hammock, but it's all good! :) I put my insulation (just DIY a synthetic top quilt at the moment) in the stuff sack just under the tarp and hammock. I was thinking of making a variation on the M.O.L.L.E. sleep system bag for the sleep/shelter group.

Very cool! People will be saying, "Yer tighter than Frawg skin, and that's water tight!" I've been accused of being tight before, but that was a long time ago! :laugh:

Q: What's in the water carrier?Nelson's blood? ;) ...actually it's just water.

Q2: Is that a horizontal water bladder I see? virtually speaking... it's a 2L vertical bladder sandwiched between two 32 oz plastic water bottles to its left and right inside the sack you provided. I wanted to see how much I could cram in there. There's room for more. :D

This is like the old "top down modular programming" -- now I need to figure out how to organize what goes in the stuff sacks! ;)
Old programmer's joke: Q. How do you fit four elephants in a Volkswagen? A. Two in front and two in the back. <rimshot>

:jj: