Gear

I never mentioned Aarn packs.  I was talking about front pockets in a generic sense.  OMM chest pockets, for example, will not feature a front frame for load transfer. 

Pete.

Rucksack:- I will use my framed,(Go-lite Quest), rucksack and put more weight on the hips.

Tent:- the problem with tent/tarps is they are built for weather over in the US of A. I prefer solid roof in my inner and outer tent. The Akto has both of these and great ventilation.

Peter Clinch wrote (see)

I never mentioned Aarn packs.  I was talking about front pockets in a generic sense.  OMM chest pockets, for example, will not feature a front frame for load transfer. 

Pete.

Lost Sheep has his solution so this academic, but I was talking about Aarn front pockets, you quoted me in a partial way and then you say talked about something else! My assumption which I believe I was entitled to, was you were disputing with me about the contents and context of the quote.

You mostly make sense so many people listen to you. It is more important therefore that you do not mislead.

Please read my posts for what they actually say, not what you've assumed they might do.  If Imake a partial quote it is because I am talking about the contents of that partial quote, not because I'm trying to mislead.

I don't think I'm any more guilty of misleading than you.  I try to be quite careful to qualify my statements, yet you haven't made much effort to qualify things like but you can have no weight at all on your shoulders, if that is what you want and if you pack them correctly which is missing rather important points like you need exactly the same load front and back.  (I also suspect "no weight at all" to be a misleading over-claim, unless there are rather more elaborate frames involved than I can make out, because unless a perfectly matched load rotating down/away from the wearer is linked to its opposite clearly above the shoulder there will inevitably be at least some downward load on it, though having not used one that's a suspicion, not a definite thing)

Pete.

I dont think you aim is to mislead but maybe you do inadvertently. What other read into your words is what matters to me, not what you thought you said. I agree you do try to qualify your remarks. So do I! 

You are nearly right to say " exactly the same load front and back" what is actually needed is a matching horizontal component of the rotating moment front and back. This is quite subtle and transient and is why you need the shoulders to provide stabilization. It is however the state I try to acheive with my backpacking and I can usually achieve it whilst standing still. It is not at all impossible to pack correctly to this aim. I stand solidly behind my statement.

I agree I was sailing closer to the wind with your second point. Whether a line from the load lifter anchor at the back, to the front pocket anchor point at the front clears my shoulder or not I have not tested. However I can assure you it is in that region, the loads involved in any deflection will be less than the stabilization forces which I did qualify my remark with. within that tolerance I stand by that remark too.

Big Kev wrote (see)

Wanton pedantry. That's what I find burdensome.

I get the impression that maybe some of the last 3 posters do not want to understand the difference between Peter's suggestion and mine, in which case I apologise, you dont have to read on.

I did a trial up Pendle hill with a 64 pound overloaded pinnacle with added front pockets. according to Peter's suggestion I would need to load 32 pounds in the front and 32 in the back. I got the elusive balance with 10 pounds in each front pocket and the other 44 pounds in the back. I would call a difference of 12 pounds more than just pedantry, but suit yourself!

I still don't think anything carries like the old Karrimor K2 frame with a padded hip belt.

Or the old Berghaus Cyclops internal framed rucksacks.

Must say my old Cyclops Roc 70l canvas sac was the dogs. The later Xtrem that I had 55+10 I think in nice purple/pink cordura rather than olive drab canvas was pretty much the same apart from the moulded back.  Still a brilliant carry.

And just to upset Woozle Could an entire Commando Brigade have helped to ruin the free speaking Argentinian world without them in 82?

Actually it would be interesting to see how heavy the same sac would be today in Dyneema and a lighter frame.

 edited to add in about a 45-50 l size with mesh side bottle pockets.

I still don't think anything carries like the old Karrimor K2 frame with a padded hip belt.

Or the old Berghaus Cyclops internal framed rucksacks.

Is that good or bad?

You can still get external frame packs.  I'm pretty sure Bergans still do them, and various left-pondian pack builders.  They transfer weight better than anything else, but at the expense of weight, bulk and flexibility.

I prefer old Lowes to old Barghaus packs (for values of "old" from eightes back): they used better (IMHO) foams, laminated with softer on the contact side to harder on the load side while the Berghaus ones (at least thiose I came across) just had the harder stuff. And they sat away from one's back a little better IME, nicer for scrathing itches and ventilation.

Pete.

True Peter,

The Roc (bought in 82 or 3) just had a canvas back with some vertical lines stitched in it so no ventilation whatsoever.  The Extrem (bought some time in the 90's) was a moulded  back panel with some groves but still not very ventilated.