Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Why are backpacks sized in liters?

+1
−0

Backpacks that we use are typically categorized in litres (Or liters if you are an American English follower).

Whats is the point?

Why don't we have backpacks that are categorized as for example 70 kg instead of 70 L?

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/18738. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

2 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+1
−0

Luggage is usually chosen on its size, not on the weight it can transport. Liters are a measure of size, kilos are a measure of weight.

To me it is harder to convert a given weight in a certain substance into a real size than it is to convert a given number in liters to a real size.

If you want to know how many kilos of water a given pack can move, you can just replace liters with kilos.

Good pack makers will also tell you the weight limits of your pack if you are likely to reach them in normal use, but as very few people will be able to lift and carry backpacks filled to the limits with heavy items, a well made pack should be able to withstand more kilos than the average human can carry.
The point where packs fail is mostly after use, so a weight limit or indication will not be very helpful.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/18753. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

Because the characteristic of a backpack in question is volume or how much content it can hold, not mass. An extreme example: If I fill lead into a 20l pack, I get ~225kg, if I fill styropor into a 50l pack, I get about 2.5kg. Mass is still specified sometimes to give the empty mass of a pack.

You might want to specify max loaded mass as either a limit for what the backpack can structurally take without taking damage or a limit for what the carrying system (shoulder, hip straps) are designed for. But these are different concerns and both are very imprecise. Maybe the max load without the pack taking damage could be estimated and the producer could recommend a max load to be carried with the pack, but as with any "soft manufacturer recommendations", that wouldn't be much help, as the human carrying the weight will be the limit.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »