external frame rucksack

[Toddy]

My first rucksacks, in the early 70's, were external frame ones, and I hated them. They do carry big loads, and right there is part of the problem, big loads hurt, and if the frame is too big for you anyway ( I'm just over 5'2" / 155cms) there is no way to properly adjust your balance.
Carrying big loads balanced on your back is a bad idea, it knackers knees and ankles, but carrying on the head just isn't going to catch on in Europe even if it is far better for the spine.
They are much less sweaty to carry though, and for things like logs or boxes a much easier pack......except in Woods and when louping over burns.

Each to their own. I now use the Lady Berghaus range with adjustable back lengths and airflow built in. I still don't like heavy loads though.......travel light by knowing more.........as they say

cheers,
Toddy

 

[Geuf]

Have tried 3 and owned 2 other external frame packs. I somehow doubt that this would be drastically different. There is a reason why almost noone does external frame packs no more

It is also a question of how you do stuff. An external frame isn't any good if your doing a few days on the trail. They come to their use with loads over 20 kgs. Personally I've carried 35+ kgs (in the army... not my choice!) in a vulcan, and it just doesn't work. We were happy when we got the big frame packs from sacci, for a while that is, 'cos after that they increased our load to around 40 for some times. As a civvy I did 21 days in Sarek. I challenge anyone to take the same weight in an internal frame pack.

And as for frames moving the weight out from your bodies, get a doctor to sort that hump of yours out..

That is the exact reason why no-one uses external framed rucksacks anymore. Rucksacks with an external frame originate from scandinavia and other places where vast distances can be traveled without comming across stores to resupply. Thus you need to take all your food for a week, 2 weeks, 3 weeks, etc with you. Not the most lightweight situation. External frame backpacks are designed to carry heavy loads and they do that very well. If you're fit enough that is, you can carry 35 kilo's or more on your back. You don't really want that with and internal framed pack. To come back to Mikkels remark about why they're not popular anymore, it's because the average backpacker nowadays takes 20 to 25 (max 30) kilo's with him. This has a few reasons: most of the time resupply is easy to come by. Second, the backpackers of external frame days where few, but I recon stronger then your average backpacker nowadays ( boy if I see the what people I sell backpacks, I often think the pack will outlast the person by far). And thirdly, because of lightweight material that are produced today, the weight of your equipment has drasticly dropped, so no need for external framed backpacks.

just my thoughts.

 

[big_swede]

It is also a great differences between modern framepacks and old school with steel frames. Aluminium frames are used in both externals and internals. A powerframe from bergans gives almost the same weight/volume ratio as a vulcan, but offers a better carrying comfort. (On a separate note one can discuss true volumes, as vulcan is no way near 100 metric liters).

Sometimes when I look at internal frame 'expedtion' packs I wonder if the designer ever considered them to be users. It wouldn't be possible for anybody to carry one of those fully loaded.

And as for toddys balancing problems, there are packs (both external and internal frames) that has a freefloating hipbelt, which reduces the fatigue in the core muscles caused by the long term balancing act of load carrying.

Geuf, you certainly have a point. Hiking up in the north is different from central europe. There are areas with virtually no infrastructure (no roads, no huts, no bridges) at all, making it necessary to carry everything. A bit OT, but I've experienced the need for planning these trips first hand, we did a longer hike on spitsbergen and ran out of fuel, which forced us to walk some 25 km to the coast to search for driftwood for cooking, and then leave the shoreline every night for fear of polar bears (bi-polar bears are even worse! ). Luckily for us this was during the summer so we had sun around the clock. Thankfully the long walk parallell to the coastline back to longyearbyen was beautiful.

 

[Geuf]

Wow big swede. They trip you made sounds like a dream. Most often wonderful things happen when things don't go as planned. I love that. Just shrug and say: oh well, what else is there?
Anyway, I was thinking about your remark regarding toddy's problem. It made me think of a particular pack. The Naos 70 from Arcteryx. This bag is totally waterproof (debatable if that's wise though) and the hipbelt is suspended on one pivoting point. it "wears" like a dream. Very comfortable to wear. It's only 70 liters though, so not much of use for long self sustaining walks. but, I must say, one of the most beautifull and well constructed packs. too bad it's an expensive one too.

Cheers!