Loading Notifications...

Back length of packs

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
 Phildavies91 12 Jan 2021

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

 marsbar 12 Jan 2021
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.  

 JimbotheScot 12 Jan 2021
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

 innes 12 Jan 2021
In reply to Phildavies91:

Dane wrote a good blog post a while ago, which is well worth you reading....

http://coldthistle.blogspot.com/2012/04/fitting-and-detailing-on-climbing-packs.html

 waitout 12 Jan 2021
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.

 nniff 13 Jan 2021
In reply to Phildavies91:

Women tend to have longer back length than men - men wear their height in their legs, women in their torsos

 Jenny C 13 Jan 2021
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. 


Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.