Hi,
I've never really noticed before that packs come in different lengths.
I guess, on a shorter person a longer back length may cause discomfort, rubbing on hip bone maybe?
But is there ay advantage to a longer back on a taller person?
Looking at the blue ice warthog 30l, the difference seems to be 2cm, which seems insignificant.
Spotted a good deal on it but only in small, I'm 6'5".
Any help appreciated.
Phil
In reply to Phildavies91:
It's about what feels more comfortable. For a 30l I can't imagine it would make that much difference to you.
In reply to Phildavies91:
To get the perfect pack size you are supposed to measure from the 7th vertebra and the upper edge of the pelvic vane
In reply to Phildavies91:
The bigger the load and the longer it's carried the more it matters, to share the mass over more skeleto-muscular groups. A 30L pack with a day or two's gear in it won't matter too much.
In reply to Phildavies91:
Women tend to have longer back length than men - men wear their height in their legs, women in their torsos
In reply to nniff:
I'm a 5'8" girlie and have broad hips, so the waist band always rides up and sits comfortably on top of my pelvis. Standard back length packs often end up sitting above the shoulders with baggy straps, so 100% of the weight is on the waist band and the bag feels unstable.
Other half seems to manage better using my sack than I do with his - possibly because he can extend the shoulder straps to compensate.
