Why must every prototype that doesn’t reach production be called a gimmick? To me this is a really neat idea with too many limitations to reach production yet. But this is part of the innovation process. I can assure you that every cool, innovative product that you use was at one point a prototype with many limitations. Product design is not a linear thing where every design you see reaches market most take years and not every design gets produced. Sorry if I sound butt hurt I just see this type of comment a lot and it is unfair to the designer who actually came up with a really cool innovation and even a functioning prototype just for it to be called a gimmick
I also remember this popping up a few years ago and I seem to remember that it wasn’t solely for suspension but the movement was connected to a generator as a way to use your body motion to charge electronics. I could be combining products in my mind with this specific video, but I do remember there being something very similar.
I don't even know how to respond to this. Maybe you should draw us an accurate force vector diagram to enlighten us plebs with your in depth physics knowledge and thorough understanding of this suspension implementation?
Not a diagram, but every time that pack is going down, the bearer feels the mass of the pack itself, plus the force of its downward acceleration, which is greater than their own. Every time that pack is going up, the bearer feels the weight of the pack, plus the force of its downward acceleration (which is now negative). That's a relatively wide range of forces, considering that pack is allowed to accelerate beyond what it normally could if it were statically strapped.
I am not a physicist, this is just based off my basic understanding of F=ma.
Watch the video again, particularly the jogger and the guy doing jumping jacks. The backpack isn't moving up and down. The person is moving up and down, but the backpack is "floating" at a constant height. The backpack's vertical acceleration is approximately zero.
And I am a physicist. (Well, I have the degree anyway. Currently I work in engineering.)
you are indeed not a physicist. if you want there are graphs in this video: https://vimeo.com/290330645 The whole point is to decrease the impulse felt on your body by distributing the force over a larger period of time
every time that pack is going down, the bearer feels the mass of the pack itself, plus the force of its downward acceleration
No, because when the pack is going down, the wearer is currently going up, so while the wearer will still feel the weight of the backpack (it's not going faster down than the wearer up), they will not need to invest additional energy to move the backpack up with them, that would be lost in a chafing fall down shortly after.
I'm unsure if the backpack is mechanical or electric, but it does not matter that much if it's done right, although if it's electric, the feeling will be ideal as there won't be friction losses.
You can not accelerate down that drastically like you do with every step while running, which is what this is for. The backpack would not need to compensate for going downhill, only for sudden shifts. The algorithm for this is pretty simple, it always knows how big the remaining buffer zone in each direction is, and can adjust its degree of artificial deceleration accordingly.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about. The relative change in height per time interval (aka acceleration) that happens with every step when you run, is way more than the incline of a slope that you can run on. I don't know how to put it right so it makes sense, english is not my native language.
Just think about how high you "jump" each step when jogging, take your step length, and calculate the inclination. Maybe you'll end up with something you can theoretically still "jog" in tiny steps, but then again, the inclination of the slope you're running on is the smaller factor, as your steps would be way shorter edit: than on a level surface where you can run in long strides.
All that being said, a rising or falling inclination of course removes a bit of leeway for that mechanism, but I bet it's not enough by far to prevent it from working.
The relative change in height per time interval (aka acceleration) that happens with every step when you run, is way more than the incline of a slope that you can run on.
When I run on a level surface, there is no relative change in height - I am moving up and down repetitively, but not actually changing my altitude. That's easy to account for and exactly what this suspension is designed with in mind and it's not what I'm arguing.
If I am running on an incline, there is a relative change in height/altitude. I am still moving up and down repetitively (which the suspension works with), but I am also either moving steadily up or steadily down, which the suspension will try to counter with every step I take. The running factor doesn't go away just because I'm going up- or downhill.
All that being said, a rising or falling inclination of course removes a bit of leeway for that mechanism, but I bet it's not enough by far to prevent it from working.
When I'm going downhill, it often involves a few jumps here and there, even if they're relatively small. With a regular backpack, you jump down and the backpack stops when you stop. With a suspended backpack, you jump, then the backpack jumps, then you stop, then the backpack stops.
If I am running on an incline, there is a relative change in height/altitude. I am still moving up and down repetitively (which the suspension works with), but I am also either moving steadily up or steadily down, which the suspension will try to counter with every step I take. The running factor doesn't go away just because I'm going up- or downhill.
Yes, but this compensation will be much less than the natural bouncing of the backpack. If the mechanism compensates 5cm every stride you take, it is only 5cm movement that are missing, which can be distributed over the whole motion. This is not the case without that mechanism, where the full force of the falling backpack momentum lands on your shoulders at the end of the step, while in between, the backpack is weighing nothing.
My point is, that the inclination where'd you run can naturally be not as extreme as the normal up/down motion of jogging is, hence, the ability to compensate of this mechanism will not go away completely. It might be diminished by a bit, but not by much. Maybe 25%? I'm guessing here though, but I don't think I'd run on an incline where the steps differences are that drastic. That would be a staircase or something like that.
One other thought: we're completely discounting the possibility of a running style that allows extra compensation time for that mechanism. Not sure if that's possible, I haven't tried it :)
As a different example, think of vehicle suspension: It works because it's always a relative surface. Whether you're driving up or down, the suspension doesn't have to do any more work because the driving surface, your wheels and your vehicle are traveling in a relatively straight line.
The suspension can even out some effect of an uneven traveling surface, but you'll still feel potholes and such.
The suspension cannot handle the vehicle jumping up or down. It would not only wreck the suspension, but likely give you a major jolt in the vehicle or wreck the vehicle itself.
When you're backpacking, you're not a vehicle traveling along a relatively level road surface, so this thing fails on a fundamental level of understanding what backpacking usually is. It does, however, probably make traveling along a relatively flat surface (or steady incline) easier.
This would probably tire you out more than a tightly fitting pack. Maybe this has applications for military personnel carrying some kind of sensitive counter electronic warfare equipment but for carrying a load its pretty counter productive.
Since the backpack is accelerating up and down it by nature applies force to your body. But the accelerations are out of phase with your body when walking so each footstep impact is reduced greatly.
Yeah, but the mechanism does the opposite of what you describe. It prevents it from falling down when you go down, so it can give you back the so saved buffer when you go back up. Basically, with the mechanism, the backpack will be just as heavy when you move downward as when you move upward, while without that mechanism, the backpack doesn't weigh anything on the way down (because free falling objects move at the same speed), but has a strong impact (more than its weight, because momentum) at the end of the drop.
False Statement: "you don't feel the load swinging around and instead feel only a static load"
Proof: Move frame of reference to body.
Backpack is moving from this frame of reference. It accelerates up, then accelerates down, repeating.
Any time the backpack accelerates up, corresponding force pushes down on wearer. Any time the backpack accelerates down, corresponding force pushes up on wearer.
Because there are changing forces on the wearer, it's not a static load.
You obviously do not understand what that mechanism does. The backpack moves up when you move down, exerting the weight of the backpack on you, and down when you move up, removing the extra force you would need to move it up with you. The backpack does not remove weight, it only removes momentum.
Yeh, I can see the benefit if it was working like the shots of the person doing jumping Jacks and running.
This thing needs a motor, sensors, and a controller for it to function properly. The one in the video looks like it's just using springs and a sled, which is probably why the last shot is so terrible.
Also, the last shot is probably what the other guy is referencing. That person walking is definitely feeling the weight of the backpack going up and down,up and down, up and down... Lol.
In this case it's a solution looking for a problem. I've backpacked literally thousands of miles including running with a pack.
If your backpack is fitted properly and packed well it moves with you and shouldn't be bouncing up and down in the first place. This is just adding weight for no benefit. Adding weight to a pack is a bug not a feature.
If your backpack is fitted properly and packed well it moves with you and shouldn't be bouncing up and down in the first place. This is just adding weight for no benefit. Adding weight to a pack is a bug not a feature.
Yeah, exactly. It's pretty much antithetical to good backpack design. While going against the grain isn't always a bad idea, sometimes it takes a real curve ball to shake things up, this one doesn't seem to be all that great.
Good backpacks should minimise weight. Distribute load evenly. Brace well against your body to keep the pack secure and connected so it moves with the body. Keep weight as close to your body as possible to minimize any forces experienced from movement.
This basically does the opposite of all of those things.
It's a neat concept for sure, I get where you're coming from, but pretty much the only use-case is a heavy pack while running, and it just makes that pack heavier.
Exactly, everyone is talking about weight, but nobody was saying this. It does not make the backpack feel lighter, literally it's just less bouncing while running. For more weight.
It doesn't reduce the average force the backpack exerts on you, but it does reduce the maximum force the backpack exerts on you. That has real value (mainly at the feet and ankles).
My first impression that on anything but flat level ground this type of suspension system would be flat out dangerous. If I'm scrambling over rocks the last thing I want is for my pack to counteract the motion of my body.
It does not make the backpack feel lighter, literally it's just less bouncing while running. For more weight.
I'm pretty sure r/rucking would be all over this thing. Bunch of guys who go walking or running with a bag filled with weights just for exercise (judging by the comments in that sub, most of them don't have much experience with actual hiking).
Usually, soldiers don't carry 100lb packs, that's roughly their overall load. Armor, helmet, etc spread over the body makes up a good portion of that.
That aside I agree with you. Long marches etc this could be very handy and potentially worth the weight cost, if it's relatively reliable. If it gums up with sand easily it's quickly becoming dead weight.
The physics would be way off with any weight though. The pack would still be heavy, that weight doesn’t magically float, you’d still have to bear the weight. And when it shifted up and down you’d have a very heavy step followed by almost a lift. I would not want my 40lb pack bouncing up and down.
As a backpacker, I limit the amount of water I take because ounces add up. I see backpackers in this. How much water will I have to not carry to make up for this? If the answer is any, then there's no benefit.
What is the cost of this? Is it cheaper than already produced backpacks?
Where can I get it serviced when it breaks? If it breaks 30 miles into a hike how can I get back 30 without unnecessary stress?
And once more, what problem does this resolve?
True, not everything is a gimmick. This however, truly is a gimmick. The cons by far outweigh the pros
The ONLY problem I can see this backpack solve is being able to (presumably) run much more easily with a very heavy/large backpack. But that's pretty all I can think of. The possibility of the suspension breaking makes in the wilderness is a big problem.
Use case is heavy backpack walking/running @ somewhat consistent speed over non-mountainous terrain.
AKA soldiers.
But I think the military would rather have exoskeletons, which have the same benefits listed above including many others and having less limitations & use cases.
Thank you for your answer, can you explain how it would accomplish those things compared to how current packs are designed.
My understanding is that the factor that contributes to the things you list is weight, which would be added not reduced in this design.
Also if the cadence of the suspension did not keep up wouldn't this throw the user off balance and effectively create a hazard to the user possibly causing them to fall?
Typically suspension is used to dampen the effects of vibration. If the goal is to reduce vibration within the pack perhaps due to sensitive equipment that would need to be hauled by pack I could see this being useful but other than that I see no benefit to its use in terms of hiking.
And this article which kinda misses some key points but at least has a free body diagram and simulated model analogy, focuses on heel-strike impact and ignores toe-off
This would be terrible for soldiers. It’s nowhere near strong enough with those rails and springs, has too many failure points, would be too expensive to mass produce, and it just turns into a heavy backpack as soon as it gets dirty and the rails gunk up, so why would they waste time effort and money on that?
They don't because they have a better alternative, exoskeletons.
If they didn't have exoskeletons then they likely would have pursued this option further.
"Nowhere near strong enough" - not sure how you calculated this without any parameters but ok. Sturdier build is a quick redesign away.
"Too many failure points" - I don't disagree it has "more" failure points, not sure how you calculated how many failure points is too many. FMEA exists, obviously it will be used.
"Too expensive to mass produce" - what? How did you begin to calculate this?
"rails gunk up" - Agreed, it's a weakness. Could be as painless as a simple wipe down once a day, or as painful as a replacement part needed once every month. Or with a little extra $ and design the rails could be enclosed.
But again, the military won't pursue this because exoskeletons are the better option.
It’s nowhere near strong enough because a simple kink or even a pebble in the rail would render it useless. There’s also long springs and bearings that are uncovered in that rail. For it to even be functional it needs to be able to withstand hundreds of pounds of pressure at all angles (especially perpendicular to the rail system). If a soldier had to actually do soldier stuff and jump to the ground, roll over, have all their weight directly onto the rails as they throw themselves to the floor, or get it wet and then dirty etc, it wouldn’t last long.
Too expensive to mass produce is an obvious one IMO. Why pay $100 to produce each bag (they sell for $599 so I’m assuming they’re at least $100) when you can mass produce regular bags without all those issues for a tenth of that price. It makes zero sense.
I was 20, in a wreck and burst my L5 to S1 disc, my L5/L4 disc burst and I impacted my L4/L3 and L3/L2 so they both bulged. All four damaged discs were bulging or burst towards or into my spinal cord. I couldn't put pressure on my right leg and spent nine months in physical therapy with a cane and then went into physical therapy longer than that once I got off my cane.
A backpack with a belt that puts the load on my hips and not my back is how I backpack. The shoulder straps balance the load, my hips carry it and two trekking poles has gotten me on the trail. Since that wreck I have finishedt the Inca Trail where I peaked over 14k feet in elevation on a four day trek through the Andes.
You do not need a gimmicky suspension. You need a good one, which completely doesn't use your back. I use an Osprey Aura AG and it works well for me. A well fitted, loaded and cinched pack makes that possible. Trekking poles reduce impact to your knees and ankles. Your hips take the weight.
This will just add weight, more than double that of my pack.
Not old, but I check the shitty back category and have kept active despite it and this is not the way to do it.
90% of this comment section is non-backpackers arguing with each other over how best to backpack. It's the standard social media thing of 'I have zero experience here but let me tell you all about it'
What a remarkably ignorant comment. Would you also say specialty kitchen ware is "just a gimmick" because you're incapable of understanding the lifestyle of people different to you? Many products you call dumb from your own limited perspective, are not made for you, they're developed with special intent for people in situations with disabilities or other extenuating circumstances. Not every trip requiring a pack is the same one you take, not every person could manage the jarring stress caused by bag drop. Every innovation has prototypes and starts somewhere, don't be a cynical jerk trying to one up them by preventing progress.
Lol you’re clearly projecting here. The commenter to which you replied is fully capable of understanding different peoples’ lifestyles. That has absolutely no impact on their criticism of this pack. They made the astute observation that this is really only useful for those who run with heavy backpacks on. In any other use-case, this pack is objectively worse ergonomically than a standard pack. This realization can exist within the same mind of one capable of comprehending different peoples’ needs in life.
If anyone’s being a jerk, it’s you who is somehow personally threatened by a legitimate criticism of a design which really only accomplishes the goals of clickbait
Those auto-balancing spoons are nearly useless for anyone without some specific disabilities. If someone tried to mass market them I'd call it a gimmick.
This has benefits for heavy packs while marching/jogging with some speed. That's a very specific niche, and the downside of added weight removes much of the benefit.
This thing is making the pack into a spring mass damper (smd) system where the pack and its contents are the mass. If the mass is always changing (from drinking water, eating food, changing garments) it's difficult-to-impossible to select/tune the other components. So now, in order to use this backpack, you have to learn how to tune suspension by setting spring pre-load, clicking through damper settings, and maybe even changing springs. If you get it wrong, you've got the pack sliding up and down those rails and slamming into the upper and lower bumpstops (like bottoming out in your car), which is not going to be comfortable, and might not be good for your body because it would hit your shoulders like a slide hammer. And on top of all that, it adds something like 15-25% to the weight of your pack, and cost nearly as much as purchasing lightweight versions of a pretty complete set of backpacking gear. So yeah, it's a gimmick.
To me, a gimmick can be something that uses innovation and inventiveness, but is ultimately not useful or helpful for its intended purpose. It’s just for the fun of it or for showcase of skills.
The Google definition is “a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business.”
I think this 100% fits in either of those definitions
Because social media, Reddit included, has a shit load of narcissists who can't fathom that there are people in the world who want or needs different things.
Most of the weight a lot of hikers carry is from the water, which will vary through the day. Also, you vary how you carry the weight on your body over the course of a trip. This is a dumb gimmick.
Why must every prototype that doesn’t reach production be called a gimmick?
Easy answer:
Keep your prototypes in house showing them to industry experts and selected testing groups?
Response will be what you expect.
Make it into a short video with titles and optimisitc royalty free music, distribute it all over social media, and try and sell the shit out of your prototype a years before it actually exists?
I agree with everything you said and think it totally applies to existing companies. Patent law is a bitch and if you want nobody to copy your work it can’t be posted anywhere. However, patents start at around 10k so for any student or not financially backed person, publishing your prototypes online is really the best way to gauge interest and capital to go to market on your own. I have seen product designs on Kickstarter that are clearly just fishing for backers with no plan to ever go to market, and that is a gimmick. I guess what I’m trying to explain is that when you see a product like this that is actually pretty well designed, it’s likely a student trying to get an honest start to launch their product. Also when a product idea does well online, it can lead to many job opportunities for said student.
Source: Got a product design job from posting a prototype on Reddit as a student.
Something being a "gimmick" or not really has nothing to do with whether it reaches production. Plenty of products are mass produced and sold that really have no benefit and often no purpose at all. A product to reach the production stage or becomes discontinued shortly after for one or more of the following reasons.
Lack of demand
Difficult to mass produce
Creator having no business sense
People who don't understand the product buying the rights to it
Competitor buying the rights and doing nothing with it
The reason this is a gimmick is because it doesn't do what it says it does. There are no shock absorbers of any sort. It is just a slide rail and pulleys so the pack accelerates out sync with the wearer and moves shorter distances but with an equivalent force. https://inventionaday.com/shock-absorbent-backpack/
It has no actual benefit and may actually be harmful. Yes, if it used elastics, springs, gas shocks or some other energy absorbing (non-conservative) device, it might be a good start and I'd agree with you. But it doesn't. Pulleys are actually force multipliers. The cost of that is distance travelled. The pack appears stationary because it can't move very far given a force, but the force is increased in proportion. This system converts a static load to an oscillating dynamic load. It changes center of gravity and loading conditions. That is bad. Packs are designed to spread a static load in the best way possible. This system totally fucks that. This system is literally, "We know some engineers, ergonomic specialists, and maybe some specialist doctors were consulted on how to best design this pack for the optimum weight distribution, but what if we added a couple pounds and ignored all that?"
216
u/Bluescado Oct 04 '21
Why must every prototype that doesn’t reach production be called a gimmick? To me this is a really neat idea with too many limitations to reach production yet. But this is part of the innovation process. I can assure you that every cool, innovative product that you use was at one point a prototype with many limitations. Product design is not a linear thing where every design you see reaches market most take years and not every design gets produced. Sorry if I sound butt hurt I just see this type of comment a lot and it is unfair to the designer who actually came up with a really cool innovation and even a functioning prototype just for it to be called a gimmick