I am part of a group taking a course in product design and development. We are interested in marketing a product which would reduce ergonomic discomforts when portaging a canoe. A designed system would mount to the top rail/bar on an external frame backpack and act as a canoe yoke. This design would transfer the weight of the canoe down to the hips and spread across the shoulders. My questions for you, the potential customer are:

What type of canoe would you be portaging and length?

What would be the idea weight or range of weight you would be willing to carry for a portaging system?

What would you spend for a tool that would ease the burden of portaging and enjoy the overall canoeing experience?

What would be your concerns with a system like the system described above?

Would you choose a universal system which fit a variety of canoes but cost 20% more or a system which fit your brand and/or material of canoe, i.e.: Kevlar, aluminum, fiberglass…?

Do you believe this is something the market needs?

Can we reach out to you for future questions?

Someone used to have a product like this. It was different from the one in this thread as it had a full pack, but I can't recall the name. It was marketed and sold for a period of time.

https://bwca.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=forum.thread&threadId=220788&forumID=15&confID=1

From a business perspective, I can tell you the market is not large. Possibly if you retrofitted something for kayaks you might have a larger market base.

It was called the knupak. Search the forum for that. I’m a big fan and bought a lot of the remaining stock when the originator retired, so I could outfit a full 9 person trip. It sold well enough in the NE but failed to penetrate the BW market. He sold the business and the new owners failed to get it back into production.

I’ll answer your questions later. But there were too big issues: a lot of people think frame packs are a problem in canoes and I think the maker being from NY made it hard for them to be accepted in Minnesota.

I remember Knupak. I alway thought it was an ingenious idea and something that could easily retro fit existing frame backpacks of which I have several from the 1970’s.

My mistake on the spelling. It was Knu-Pac.

As for using various frames… the frames were quite beefy. On one trip we used a different frame because I didn’t yet own enough and managed to break the frame. We also once had one non-Knu-Pac frame survive, as have other people.

I'm usually carrying a 40 something pound kevlar tandem canoe. It sounds like an....ok idea. Without knowing more about the design or how it would work...my concerns would be exactly how you get the canoe on top of you? Can you do it solo? Does the canoe have to be EXACTLY in the right spot to like slip into a groove or something? Hoisting a canoe onto your shoulders by yourself isn't always an exacting, smooth move and can take some adjusting once it's up. Is that possible with this?

I could see how something like this would be handy if you had extra people at the front and back of canoe when flipping to basically place it on you and your frame. But that's not always the case...or maybe even a majority depending on the group. (if you're in a group and not solo)

For the Knu-Pac system, there was a square U-shaped piece at the top of the two sides of the frame. The yoke slipped into those and then you used a rope from bow to stern to control the tilt. Knu-Pac provided a clip buckle to go into the middle of the rope so you could separate the two ends while paddling or if you got tangled in the rope while putting the canoe down (very, very rare). It is harder to pick up the canoe and get it onto the U-s than putting a canoe on your shoulder. It is often easier to keep the bow down on the ground while doing it. It can be even easier with someone keeping the bow from sliding. But it can be done solo. Once up, it is much much nicer. So for short portages it isn't a big win. For long ones, it is great. I generally don't bother with it for day trips.

Now I will answer the OP's questions.

What type of canoe would you be portaging and length?
My tripping canoes are Souris River Quetico 17' tandems. But I have a variety of other canoes, including aluminum ones that weight a lot more.

What would be the idea weight or range of weight you would be willing to carry for a portaging system?

The portaging system should add very little weight. Maybe a few pounds for the extra weight of a pack frame.

What would you spend for a tool that would ease the burden of portaging and enjoy the overall canoeing experience?

I was willing to pay an extra about $150 to $200.

What would be your concerns with a system like the system described above?

Not sure.

Would you choose a universal system which fit a variety of canoes but cost 20% more or a system which fit your brand and/or material of canoe, i.e.: Kevlar, aluminum, fiberglass…?

The previous system naturally fit any canoe with a standard thwart or canoe. There shouldn't be any need for extra cost for a universal system unless it makes it far easier to get the canoe onto the system.

Do you believe this is something the market needs?

I do but in the past I was an outlier.

Can we reach out to you for future questions?

Yes, by posting here. Not interested in direct contact.

Just for reference, this is the knupak/knupac that was out there decades ago,but is currently not in the market.

Sedges' picture shows one of the features of the Knu-Pac. The bag is a dry bag and so it can go bag down in the canoe. That means the frame becomes lots of handles for putting the bag in and out. This alleviates some of the concerns for using frame packs without a dry bag and wanting to put the pack in frame down in the canoe. This may also work with a normal pack and a waterproof pack liner.

It looks like a neat idea. I think if it could be retrofitted onto any pack it might be an easier sell. Also, a silicon or similar yoke rest that kept the canoe from sliding around as much.

The frame for the Knupac looks a lot like a ALASKAN-PACK.

1. 17ft Kevlar

2. Very little. No more than a few lbs.

3. Currently, very little. $50 or less.

4. Ease of loading/attaching the system. Many of us load/unload our canoes in the water (wetfoot), and the footing is not always solid.

5. Yes

6. Personally, no. Lightweight kevlar canoes are mostly comfortable and ok to carry as is.

7. Through the forum.

I agree with Adam's comments about the kayak market.

You'll loose a lot of people with the external frame pack being used. Most people prefer a pack with no frame which fits better in a canoe. I would like to see a portage pad that sits on the upper back like a squat bar instead on top of the shoulders

1. Mad River Independence 15-6, 30# or Northstar Northwind 18-9, 50#

2. No more than my current portage yoke and pads. Maybe a couple of pounds.

3. No matter what the system you still have the “burden” or weight of the canoe to get across the portage. Different systems might feel different, but not lighter. I think I have already spent what is necessary by purchasing the lightest canoes that fit my needs.

4. I don’t like frame packs in the canoe. I like to be able to slide a pack under the thwarts and frame often get snagged, especially in the solo which isn’t very deep. I would be concerned about ease of getting the canoe properly settled on top of the frame. Putting portage pads on my shoulders I can feel what is going on, not so with the frame.

5. There are so many different canoes out there it would be crazy to make different hardware for each one. Hull material doesn’t matter, maybe gunwale/thwart material might. Universal system for sure.

6. I believe this was already on the market and it didn’t survive. Probably a reason for that. I don’t think the market needs this. If I was an investor I wouldn’t back the idea.

7. Be happy to discuss this further.

8. .Extra. Not great for kayak. Frame packs don’t fit in kayaks very well. If you want a useful design project come up with some new ideas for portaging kayaks.

9. I remember a paddler in Green Bay in 1970s found open-top oarlocks from Shaw and Tenney that fit perfect in the frame tubes of his pack. I believe this was before Knupac. I got to try it out and didn’t much like it. The canoe rode too high(shorter frame might have been better) and I kept missing getting the thwart into the oarlock creating an uncomfortable situation with a thwart jammed between my head/neck and the frame. Might be easier with a lighter canoe. All we had then were aluminum, heavy fiberglass and wood/canvas. I think all were more than 70#.

10. Dinosaur that I am I still prefer an external frame for backpacking.

It’s not the same frame but the Alaskan is one of the ones I would consider for a DIY system. The key similarity is the diagonal braces near the top. But I think the Knu-Pac frame was a bit beefier.

I no longer have the strength nor the desire to carry a pack AND a canoe across a portage at the same time, I have to do it in two trips. I have a lightweight Kevlar so although having the weight distributed lower on my body may be slightly more comfortable, it's not worth the extra weight or having another piece of gear. I can see where this would work if it could incorporate a comfortable pack like a CCS Pioneer and utilize super lightweight materials like carbon fiber or graphite.

Blake2021: "

What type of canoe would you be portaging and length? 17-20’ kevlar

What would be the idea weight or range of weight you would be willing to carry for a portaging system?Most packs weight between 3-5# now so pack weight not over 10#. Total portage weight 70-80# now, but when I was younger 100-125#

What would you spend for a tool that would ease the burden of portaging and enjoy the overall canoeing experience? $300

What would be your concerns with a system like the system described above? Would it actually be that much more comfortable? I have pretty lightweight gear. Looking at a lightweight canoe. Not sure this system would benefit me.

Would you choose a universal system which fit a variety of canoes but cost 20% more or a system which fit your brand and/or material of canoe, i.e.: Kevlar, aluminum, fiberglass…? Universal

Do you believe this is something the market needs? I don’t know. I like innovation. I’d like to see it come out and see how it does but if someone asked me to invest I’d say no. It isn’t a sure thing. I was looking at a similar product called the Knu-pak but never bought it. It eventually went out of business. Canoes are getting lighter.

Can we reach out to you for future questions? No thanks. Good luck.
"

I had a Knu Pac . On a solo trip it was actually a liability. I fell on a portage and as the pack was essentially part of the canoe ( the u hooks did not disengage) I got hurt bad enough to ditch the frame entirely in the middle of Woodland Caribou. My neck was so twisted from the fall. I did not require rescue and intended to pick up the frame on the way back two weeks later but was not unhappy to find someone had taken it.

I prefer a system where if things can go awry I can easily throw off the canoe.

I have seen several homebuild frame systems similar in the Adirondacks where a 12-18 pack canoe is perched on top.

Northwoodsman: "I no longer have the strength nor the desire to carry a pack AND a canoe across a portage at the same time, I have to do it in two trips. I have a lightweight Kevlar so although having the weight distributed lower on my body may be slightly more comfortable, it's not worth the extra weight or having another piece of gear. I can see where this would work if it could incorporate a comfortable pack like a CCS Pioneer and utilize super lightweight materials like carbon fiber or graphite."

I second this, almost verbatim!

My thoughts went to more of an exoskeleton frame you wear like a normal waist belt backpack, but without the pack. The top would have something like padded carbon fiber shoulder protectors that would alleviate the shoulder pain from the portage pads yet transfer the weight down the frame to your hips. It might not even need traditional shoulder straps like a conventional backpack, just the hooked shoulder pads and back frame.

I kind of got the idea from when my nephew had spinal surgery and he had to wear a "harness" during his recovery. I would make it hinged similar to vertebrae, forward and back but not side to side, but not with as many joints. You would still need to be able to bend over when donning and doffing the canoe.

Small, lightweight, easy to stow, maybe collapsible when not needed on short portages, could be worn with or without a pack. Would work with any style canoe and could be offered with "wider" shoulders to accommodate the larger cockpits on kayaks.

Hmm, sounds like I might need to spend some time in the garage this winter with some fiberglass, carbon fiber, and a few beers!

Hmm, sounds like I might need to spend some time in the garage this winter with some fiberglass, carbon fiber, and a few beers!"

You nailed it! Something that no one else has mentioned yet, "a few beers".

Blake2021: "Do you believe this is something the market needs?"

If the market needed it, the system would be on the market!

TZ

TrailZen: "

Blake2021: "Do you believe this is something the market needs?"

If the market needed it, the system would be on the market!


TZ"

Maybe a better choice of wording, "If the market needed it, the system would still be on the market!" The defunct KnuPack hit all the suggested points in the OP yet failed in the market.

butthead

butthead: "

TrailZen: "

Blake2021: "Do you believe this is something the market needs?"

If the market needed it, the system would be on the market!

TZ"

Maybe a better choice of wording, "If the market needed it, the system would still be on the market!" The defunct KnuPack hit all the suggested points in the OP yet failed in the market.

butthead

"

A former commissioner of the US Patent Office once uttered something like "Everything that can be invented has been invented", and some people subscribed to this notion. That was in about 1900, and few things have come along since then. Just because the Knu-pac is no longer on the market does not mean there is no need for something like it - it may just have been a poor solution to the problem, poorly made, used antiquated materials, been poorly marketed, etc.

I dont' know if there is a true need here or not for some sort of product like this, but I think its fun to think about. When I saw the photo of the Knu-Pac, my first thought was "how do I toss the thing off if I fall", and Yellowcanoe summed up my concern there. I also started wondering what if it were less like a backpack frame and more like a comfortable portage yoke that you wear? Then Mike13 summed up the parallel of a spinal stabilization thing (I had a neighbor in one once) - so maybe it could have pads and be like a yoke pad that distributes the weight better and down the back somehow. Finally (for now) Northwoodsman brought up the concern about having an extra piece of gear. I imagined taking off my PFD and then putting on this thing - too much work - so what if it were one and the same - a PFD that both kept your chin above water AND helped distribute weight of a load better? There is idea to kick around. As a marketer, I suggest you consider more carefully defining what the problem is you are trying to solve - its not just comfort of carrying - that is too narrow.

There are always better solutions coming along. Innovation happens in fits. Good luck to the crew playing around with this idea.

chessie: "

Northwoodsman: "I no longer have the strength nor the desire to carry a pack AND a canoe across a portage at the same time, I have to do it in two trips. I have a lightweight Kevlar so although having the weight distributed lower on my body may be slightly more comfortable, it's not worth the extra weight or having another piece of gear. I can see where this would work if it could incorporate a comfortable pack like a CCS Pioneer and utilize super lightweight materials like carbon fiber or graphite."

I second this, almost verbatim!"

Third thumbs up.

Anyone know the price point of the knu pack? In my memory I seem to remember it being $450 at a time when most packs sold for a little over a $100. I do remember it was the price that kept me from trying it.

Also I’ve noted the canoe market has changed. 20 years ago, canoeist were looked at as cheap/frugal. Titanium, Kevlar, anything light were not the norm and many considered it a waste—-I know because I read how people were mocked on these sites for spending money on something :) GG made the most comfortable canoe pack I ever carried called the Nimbus and it failed due to price point.

Now a days people spend a lot more in the canoe camping market.

Anyway I wouldn’t just say because an item failed in the past it will fail again. There are many factors to consider. I am still jot going to invest though :)

T

I’ll have to check to see if I have any receipts saved on my computer. They weren’t cheap but included a very well designed, side loading dry bag.

Knu-Pac only sort of failed. The original owner sold the company and retired and, last I knew, was having a nice life. I don’t know what other sources of income supported that. The new owners had problems setting up manufacturing contracts and never got it onto market under their ownership. Maybe they were just bad at running a business. Or maybe it was almost failing when he sold it. How much was it worth when it was sold? It’s hard to say. You had to sign an NDA to see the financials when he was offering it for sale. I was curious but decided not to look into it. And if I had, I couldn’t say.

timatkn: "Anyone know the price point of the knu pack? In my memory I seem to remember it being $450 at a time when most packs sold for a little over a $100. I do remember it was the price that kept me from trying it.


Also I’ve noted the canoe market has changed. 20 years ago, canoeist were looked at as cheap/frugal. Titanium, Kevlar, anything light were not the norm and many considered it a waste—-I know because I read how people were mocked on these sites for spending money on something :) GG made the most comfortable canoe pack I ever carried called the Nimbus and it failed due to price point.


Now a days people spend a lot more in the canoe camping market.


Anyway I wouldn’t just say because an item failed in the past it will fail again. There are many factors to consider. I am still jot going to invest though :)


T"

Lived thru those times, and took the ridicule especially on electronics.
I'm as cheap as anyone but will spend for worth and value, but in general we took what we had in the 1980's. I saw only 1 Kevlar canoe thru 4 trips into Quetico in those years. Carried gear in Camptrails/Peak One/Jansport framed packs, slept in a Sears Hillary tent, cooked solely over a wood fire.

I do think practicality killed the Knupack. Getting the canoe in the yoke, the need to use the frame whenever carrying the canoe any distance, the frame adjustments themselves restrict different users, add the other mentioned problems and the market keeps shrinking.

butthead

PS: timakin, are you sure about the Nimbus portage pack or was it the internal frame pack like Nimbus Trace Access or Nimbus Core both of which I agree on comfort and still use. bh

The nimbus backpack versions would certainly be better than the portage Nimbus version to carry. They are designed to haul less volume and for multi day hikes…they better be more comfortable. The portage version was wider/bigger volume and more suited to canoeing. With that said if one can get by with the backpack version, all the better. Nimbus Great Northern was a canoe pack with the nimbus back pack frame system.

T

I checked my email and found some old ads from Knu-Pac. At the end of 2006, holiday sale, the full Knu-Pac system (external frame, side-opening dry bag, removable shelf to use the frame as a freighter frame, and portaging U attachments) was $285 and on sale for $228.

Just the frame and portaging attachments, which could be used with a different pack bag or as a freighter frame, was $170 and on sale for $136.

There were a variety of other options including an attachment to allow portaging a kayak by attaching a thwart across the cockpit. He also had a mesh pack bag that was designed to take all the small dry bags that pack well in a kayak and quickly throw them in the mesh bag for portaging. He definitely liked to think about how people portage and make thoughtful designs.

The side-opening dry bag is another example of that. He started with a top-opening dry bag but those can be a big, deep, dark pit that makes it hard to find anything. The side-opening dry bag is easy to pack and find stuff. There was also a pressure relief valve on the dry bag so you could compress all the air out of it and have a solid pack. I'm not sure it would be great for whitewater rafting where a pack might get held under in a big rapid. But it is great for Adirondack or BW conditions.

my 2 cents...
1. If the brackets at the top could twist 90 deg then even withou a center thwart the Knupac type systemj would be usefule.

2. If a design could be developed that would fit onto today's internal frame packs, that would make the market a little better.
Perhaps something that attaches in some way to the hip belt connections and maybe uses the side compression straps for stability???

Wow my memory is terrible :) That wasn’t that expensive.

T

One other point... If you were going to use a system like this, chances are you would be removing the current system (pads or slings). If you were going to day trip would you bring this pack along, would you lug along standard pads/slings and re-attach, or would you just use the bare yoke? How about those that trade off carrying the canoe? Now you have to re-adjust a pack each time. We double portage and often switch off who carries the canoe on many portages.

Some trips I have removed the pads. Others I just slide them out of the way. I’ve thought of replacing the yoke with a narrower thwart, even a round tube. That would actually be nicer with the knu-pac and on an SR Q17, it would be easy to choose one for a trip. But it gives up the flexibility of having a yoke and pads. So, pluses and minuses.

We did a three person trip with my nephew, single portaging. One of us took the food pack ( which was a knu-pac). The other would take the canoe and a lighter knu-pac. We traded off just by switching packs. Portaging the canoe was nicer than the food pack for most of the trip.

I assume the goal of rotating the u pieces and doing without a thwart is for solo canoes. You would need to put the U pieces on some sort of extender bar to reach the gunwales. You would also want something on the gunwales to keep the canoe from sliding bow to stern. But I see the possibility.

Hmmm...maybe design a canoe chair which could double as a weight distributing carry-frame? Unclip from a seat and wear like a packframe...with seat clips becoming a waist-belt...and seatback angle adjustor straps becoming shoulder straps? Could work - ya think?

Hello again everyone! Thank you for all the responses!

I have some more questions for everyone and a few concepts we have developed.







Do you like the concepts we have developed, or do you have changes or suggestions?

Does the concept address the your needs, which include, weight, flotation, adjustability and simplicity of repair?

Which of several alternative concepts should be pursued?  Three similar concepts are presented

How can the concept be improved to better meet customer needs?  Lighter, stronger, more/less adjustability to fit frames...

Approximately how many units are likely to be sold/how many people are interested in purchasing this system?

Should development be continued?

What additional feature(s) is/are the designs missing that could be added?

As a reminder the design intent is to create a portage ready canoe carrying system that would mount to an already existing external frame pack frame.

Blake2021: "As a reminder the design intent is to create a portage ready canoe carrying system that would mount to an already existing external frame pack frame."

Have you actually checked into the existence and current use of externally framed packs at all. I'd wager it is a very small percentage of canoeists, eliminating the idea of using existing external framed packs. Almost as small a percentage use any version of frame instead preferring a frame-less portage pack.
On the pictured designs how do the canoe supports attach to the canoe for carry. Mounting to a thwart at the balance point may work but a simpler setup is to just use pads. If the intention is to mount to gunnels then the canoe gunnels need to be narrow enough to fit the frame width, not many if any 15 inch inside width canoes are made so the base will need to be much wider than any pack frame.
These are viable considerations. One more may be just what is being improved over the current most popular portage setup, a thwart fixed or removable with a set of shoulder pads. Even with a solid frame pack mounting a canoe on it will add 30 pounds of weight to the pack. In my instance that doubles the packs load ergonomically of not that's quite the increase. Yes some like to do single portages and carry all in one trip but I feel that there are as many or more who carry the canoe on it's own or with a day-pack. Those who single generally do not carry the canoe weight on the pack but directly down the shoulders, adding that to a pack while it may transfer some to a hip-belt will still add strain pulling down and away from the spine.
This discussion make me wonder just how much experience you have portaging canoes, and that isn't meant to be sarcastic. Instead a practical question. I was using full framed packs in the 1980's that change in the 1990 to a portage pack with an internal frame, to now using a backpackers internal framed pack. To me I'd rather carry the canoe on my shoulders than the canoes weight in a well adjusted pack. I'd also never single portage eliminating the combination of a large pack and canoe carried together. So do most of the paddling folks I know.
Your market would be limited to,
1. Those who use frame packs.
2. Paddlers who single portage.
3. Possible customers who would spend money on this setup over a thwart and pads, which is the competition's price point anywhere from DIY home built to $150 commercially sourced adjustable complete.

Consider those 3 points when evaluating any market for such a portage device. Sure you can design and build such, but the end point is a marketable product.

butthead

On most frames, that curved bar is both removable and thinner than the rest of the frame. So, I don't know if I like attaching a portaging U to the curved bar. And not all frames are strong enough to handle the load of portaging, even not considering the curved bar.

I also don't know about attaching the attachment with bolts. I would worry about them coming loose. Locknuts might help that.

But the old Knu-Pac design was simpler (and could be used on many other frames). You just drop the bottom of the U-attachment into the vertical frame tube and fix it into place, at the desired height, by running a pin through frame and attachment. A locking ring makes sure that it can't come out.

I'm not a potential customer because I already have a good setup that accomplishes these goals. I would be somewhat worried for your customers due to trying to do this to frames that weren't designed for the loads.

Blake2021: "Hello again everyone! Thank you for all the responses!


I have some more questions for everyone and a few concepts we have developed.









Do you like the concepts we have developed, or do you have changes or suggestions?


Does the concept address the your needs, which include, weight, flotation, adjustability and simplicity of repair?


Which of several alternative concepts should be pursued?  Three similar concepts are presented


How can the concept be improved to better meet customer needs?  Lighter, stronger, more/less adjustability to fit frames...


Approximately how many units are likely to be sold/how many people are interested in purchasing this system?


Should development be continued?


What additional feature(s) is/are the designs missing that could be added?


"

Figure out a way to not have to use a Frame Backpack. Not many people use them in the BW. Frameless packs have stuck around for a good reason. They sit in a canoe very well which is what they'll do the vast majority of the time on your trip.

I do not have as much experience portaging as you. I would challenge your thinking in that the majority of canoes entering the BW are aluminum and are much heavier than what your considering. This system doesn't need to have a pack on it to do a single portage and carry everything at once. I agree that the market for external frames is much smaller than internal frames or frames at all. The newest waterproof bag packs have a plastic frame integrated into the pack but most internal frame packs are almost impossible to add a system like this. In the effort to save weight which appeared to be the most important aspect this was where we focused our efforts. Thank you for the expertise.

I have a Spring Creek seat/pad and I think that the biggest step towards more comfortable portaging was the added shock absorption. I realized a while ago that weight is not the problem, even with my aluminum canoe. The problem is how much the canoe digs into your shoulders and how we try to reposition to carry the weight better. We don't efficiently use our bodies and this can strain certain muscle groups and even cause injury.

I like my seat/pad because it allows the canoe to bounce just a little instead of digging in every step, or especially on elevation changes. That allows me to just hike the trail and focus on coving ground instead of constantly fighting the canoe. That and the extra height which makes it so I can see and don't have to lift the front end up just to see where I'm going. Those 2 things allow me to reduce the strain and effort required to portage.

If someone were looking to develop a portage system, these are the 2 factors I would consider in addition to the weight distribution provided by most common portage pads. Shock absorption and height for increasing your range of view. If you can find a simple way to provide these features, especially if a pack can be worn with this system, then you would have a product that people would buy.

As far as price, combining a portage pad and pack seems like a pretty narrow market and would cost too much. I'd stick to stand alone pads that cost between $50 and $80. Maybe as much as $100, but you would loose some sales at that range unless you really engineered it to be slick, light, and easy to use.

" I would challenge your thinking in that the majority of canoes entering the BW are aluminum and are much heavier than what your considering. "

I wonder where that came from? Do you think most canoeist use aluminum or do not?

"This system doesn't need to have a pack on it to do a single portage and carry everything at once."

Without a pack how would your design work? Without a pack how do you carry everything at once?

Blake2021, you asked for comments. Do not take them in the wrong way, the last post was confusing, at least to me, bordering defensive.

butthead

Blake2021: "As a reminder the design intent is to create a portage ready canoe carrying system that would mount to an already existing external frame pack frame."

Talk to the outfitters and see if anyone uses a frame pack, if they see anyone bringing them on a tow, etc. I’m pretty sure they don’t offer that type of pack for rent. The outfitters may also have info on how many people use aluminum canoes compared to kevlar canoes.

As for my experience I’ve never tripped with anyone using an external frame pack in 15+ years I’ve been tripping in the BWCA/Q. Nor do I recall ever seeing one in another party passing by on a portage…but maybe my memory is bad.

Personally, I wouldn’t be interested in this product. The canoes are light, most portage pads are reasonably comfortable, and a half mile portage only takes 15 minutes to traverse at a leisurely pace with the canoe-no big deal.

From an ergonomic perspective I would be interested in an effective and easily installable/removable canoe seat back that fits on either of the two types of canoe seat. When I’m tripping I spend most of my time paddling my boat, not carrying it.

I would not want my canoe's weight distributed to the pack then down to my waist for a number of reasons.

1.) With a well-balanced canoe you can actually walk with your hands at your side while in a portage for extended periods of time and the center of mass of the canoe is in line with yours creating no rotational forces(If the wind decides to cooperate). It will be very difficult to distribute the weight from the top of a frame pack to the waist.

2. A line from the canoe thwart or bow can be used to give leverage to the person portaging the canoe, this is my personal favorite to do big portages.

3. Aside from the line I also like to hold onto the portage pads to leverage the load while portaging the load

4. In my opinion waist belts can be a little overrated, tump lines are really weird but are the king in weight distribution

5. My biggest issue is the portage pads sliding off the solution to this would be creating parabolic portage pads to help with stability.

6. If you are applying weight off the center of a mass attempt to apply it to the front to offset the pack weight.

7. Do not make your design dependant on an arbitrary frame pack, a good idea but there are some issues. A-frame pack will have to have the crossbar in the perfect position for it to not be too high or low for a user to properly use, and also will depend on the torso length of the user.

let me know if you have any questions on this I have messed around with this a decent bit.

Theokbushman: I never noticed any center of balance issues with the Knu-Pac. A line from bow to stern is exactly how they were designed to control the canoe and it worked quite well with them. As you note, the canoe often stays well balanced on its own.

The curved top cross bars on many frames do adjust vertically. But I do fear that with this design that pushing that bar up means providing more leverage from the canoe onto the point where that cross bar enters the frame.

I thought I had read somewhere about using a modified tumpline to help in portaging a canoe.

I did some "googling" and sure enough Cliff Jacobson came up with an idea years ago.

Basically he created a trampoline tumpline that was adjustable and allowed one to adjust the amount of weight on your shoulders by transferring a portion of the canoes weigh (50%) to your head and down into your skeleton frame.

Cliff Jacobson Canoe Tumpline

OldScout48: "I thought I had read somewhere about using a modified tumpline to help in portaging a canoe.


I did some "googling" and sure enough Cliff Jacobson came up with an idea years ago.


Basically he created a trampoline tumpline that was adjustable and allowed one to adjust the amount of weight on your shoulders by transferring a portion of the canoes weigh (50%) to your head and down into your skeleton frame.

Cliff Jacobson Canoe Tumpline "

...and here is a video showing how to set up with a regular tumpline-start watching at the 3:54 time point.

tumpline for canoe video

And here is a link to a pdf document that desibes another approach to a tumpline for a canoe-presented at Canoecopia in 2008.

canoecopia 2008 canoe tumpline demo