A design of Tom's from the early-mid 1980s that had load lifters: the Wild Limpet. In use, Tom found that the load lifters didn't do much for this pack (except distorting the shape of it) because it didn't have a frame.
Load lifters are somewhat ubiquitous on large internal frame and external frame packs and, on those packs, can be useful; their application or utility on smaller packs is, in our opinion, of dubious merit.
From a guide to backpacks:
“Load Lifters - Part of the shoulder strap and is used to lift the pack's weight off the shoulders.”
There’s something akin to a “sky hook” in this concept of how load lifter straps function: how, exactly, does the load get “lifted”? Where’s that weight going? Who, if not the wearer, is lifting this weight? Who, if not the doer, is performing the action? Does free will exist? We digress.
With a large capacity external or internal frame pack, there can be some advantage gained by cinching the top of the load closer in, towards the user’s shoulders, and thus closer to your center of gravity, and some folks swear by load lifters on the big packs they carry.
With an entirely frameless pack, there’s nothing rigid for the top end of the “load lifter” to pull against, and when you tighten these straps you end up simply distorting the soft, unstructured top portion of the pack, distending it over your shoulders to no avail. That applies to packs like the Synik, Guide's Pack, and Synapse as well, where the internal frame ends roughly where the padded shoulder straps attach and does not continue any higher up (as a frame/frame sheet typically would in a larger pack intended primarily for extended backcountry use).
Our backpacks have a shorter internal frame because they're fairly small daypacks: if we added “load lifter” straps to our daypacks, they wouldn’t really help “lift” any weight – it'd just distort the soft top of the pack and would do little or nothing to keep the pack’s weight closer to your center of gravity. On the other hand, if we made the internal frames used with our packs longer (taller), extending it higher than the top of the shoulder strap attachment point, it would, in our opinion, start it down a path of becoming a backpacking pack, rather than the travel, EDC, and day-hiking packs we intend them to be.
We're open to your experiences, thoughts, and feedback; post here in the comments or send a note to feedback@tombihn.com
Kieran - April 7, 2025
“it would, in our opinion, start it down a path of becoming a backpacking pack, rather than the travel, EDC, and day-hiking packs we intend them to be”. I think there’s a fundamental problem here, lumping your backpacks within these vague, amorphous categories. Many people’s EDC weighs more than a backpacker’s loadout. One person’s travel kit might be 20L and low-density; another person’s travel kit might be 40L and high-density (laptop, tablet, external screen, batteries, a drone, etc.). EDC may include a short trip to the gym where all you need is a pair of shorts and a towel, or a grocery visit which involves lugging back 30lbs of food.
I think basing design on arbitrary categories muddies the true purpose of a backpack: carrying a load for a reasonable period of time (i.e. carrying a load, comfortably). Depending on the load type (volume and density), certain fundamental features must be present on the pack. These include the carry volume (further broken down by whether the load volume is divisible) and weight-management features like frames, load-lifters, heavy-duty construction, and the like. Travel vs. EDC vs. backpacking vs. day hiking vs. grocery running are simply arbitrary divisions which might inform secondary features, like straps for poles or sleeping bags, overall aesthetic, a laptop compartment, etc. but actually don’t say much about the intended load the backpack is to manage. I think that more backpack manufacturers should be creating divisions around fundamental load types, mapping out where their backpacks fall on the volume-density spectrum, rather than barely-meaningful categories.
Chasey Chuckles - June 3, 2022
Yeah definitly got this wrong, load lifters ease shoulder blade strain on my daypack.
Stephen - September 26, 2021
I understand the physics behind your point of view, but my experience with various packs leads me to different conclusions. I once owned a Synapse 25 and sold it, solely because it didn’t fit right on my back — when loaded, it wasn’t comfortable unless I let it hang low, and there was no way I could comfortably carry it higher. My Mission Workshop Rambler has load lifters and a carbon fiber-reinforced frame, and even though the frame doesn’t extend above the straps, the load lifters allow me to dial in the fit and carry it more comfortably. I do own and use two backpacks without load lifters (both by GORUCK), and there’s something about the design of the straps that lets me comfortably carry them high on my back in a way that I could never manage with the Synapse. For what it’s worth, I’m 6-4, and carrying a TB backpack low renders the sternum strap useless on me, since the range of adjustment on the strap doesn’t allow me to put it low enough to be used.
TB Crew - November 19, 2019
@Sarah Jane Keen observations – we’ll pass on to Tom and Nik.
Craig Coombs - November 19, 2019
What really does make a difference, even with small, frameless, day packs is a chest trap. I’ve added 1/2" wide chest straps to the smallest Matador Pack and it really adds to the comfort on shoulders (top and front) when scrambling around. Their smallest pack compresses down to the size of a tennis ball during transport. We used them on day hikes in the Andes. Again, chest straps made a BIG difference. I’d love to see what TB could do in a compressible day pack.
Kieran - April 7, 2025
“it would, in our opinion, start it down a path of becoming a backpacking pack, rather than the travel, EDC, and day-hiking packs we intend them to be”. I think there’s a fundamental problem here, lumping your backpacks within these vague, amorphous categories. Many people’s EDC weighs more than a backpacker’s loadout. One person’s travel kit might be 20L and low-density; another person’s travel kit might be 40L and high-density (laptop, tablet, external screen, batteries, a drone, etc.). EDC may include a short trip to the gym where all you need is a pair of shorts and a towel, or a grocery visit which involves lugging back 30lbs of food.
I think basing design on arbitrary categories muddies the true purpose of a backpack: carrying a load for a reasonable period of time (i.e. carrying a load, comfortably). Depending on the load type (volume and density), certain fundamental features must be present on the pack. These include the carry volume (further broken down by whether the load volume is divisible) and weight-management features like frames, load-lifters, heavy-duty construction, and the like. Travel vs. EDC vs. backpacking vs. day hiking vs. grocery running are simply arbitrary divisions which might inform secondary features, like straps for poles or sleeping bags, overall aesthetic, a laptop compartment, etc. but actually don’t say much about the intended load the backpack is to manage. I think that more backpack manufacturers should be creating divisions around fundamental load types, mapping out where their backpacks fall on the volume-density spectrum, rather than barely-meaningful categories.