Gear design philosophy

[wayno]

best tent makers? arguably hilleberg, specialise in making tents
best sleeping bag makers, arguably companies that specialise in a limited range of gear, western mountaineering, feathered friends, big agnes.. exped,
best clothing makers? arguably companies like arcteryx, montane, westcomb, rab, haglofs, outdoor research. who specialise in a limited range of gear

brands like these come up again and again in awards and reviews as being tops in design, people who have tried other brands can see the better attention to design detail and quality,

the north face would be an exception, but they have astronomical development budgets and are off the scale compared to most companies.
i'd argue most companies that try to be masters of everything , dont make a success of it compared to the specialist companies,
when i look at the specialist companies and the incredible attention to design and detail that goes into what they specialise in making i can see they have spent all their company resources perfecting what they make, you can see they have poured over th e details of the design to a greater extent to iron out potential issues, they havent spared themselves with a cheaper fix, they have designed with less budget restrictions and done it as well as can be done. they tend to test more than brands who make lesser products, they go further in the testing and design and it shows, they arent perfect but they come as close as they can get to it.
yes you can still make pretty good dear if you want to make everything but in my experience, those companies still fall short of the specialists
more and more i'm happier buying gear from comapnies that specialise in the items i am buying
things like the design of my montane jacket, they dont use pit zips. they use core vents lower down at the side of the body forward of where pit zips are because pack straps cut off the front of the body from the pit zip and they don't vent as well as core vents. they didnt follow what everyone else was doing they thought it through more, and i look at their design now and think it was such an obvious thing to do but few brands do it... and i could go on and on but its just an example to use.
and as ent has stated about the design of gear he has and what is so good about it compared to other designs, sometimes there is little comparison between how well its thought out..
marmot, make a range of gear, they have top rated sleeping bags, but the rest of their gear doesnt tend to rate nearly as highly and some of it is downright mediocre especially their lightweight rainwear with their generic membranes
i have an ultralight exped sleeping bag, half a kilo in weight, tight cut to avoid wasted weight and wasted heat loss. it functions well below its stated comfort level of 5 degrees, i've never found a down bag that light that can keep me so warm. i can move all the down to the top when i need it and move it back when i don't, that design exceeded my expectations i didnt buy it for cold weather but it functions well because of its design and top quality materials. 850 loft down, and the latest strong nlight pertex nylon, its not a cheap bag, but its a really well designed one.. i still havent pushed it to its limits, yet to find a situation i'm cold in yet havent needed the hood...

kathmandu? try to make everything and compromise too much on quality

i won't mention macpac, they've been argued about more than enough for and against on this site and for now it may be better that people agree to disagree than bring them up again.

wehn you're out there in teh wilderness and you have gear that niggles at you because you eralise the designers and testers have missed details that other manufactuerers havent then you think about paying attention to who is making the best gear more

[Pongo]

I must say I'm really enjoying this thread...

I must also confess that I wouldn't be able to tell you the difference between a design method or a design philosophy, in part probably because I don't have enough experience as some folk here, but also because I wear a consumer hat as opposed to a designer or corporate hat. I suppose that is why it helps to go back to examples of specific equipment, it grounds the theory in practice.

With that said I had a crack at coming up with some key gear philosophy points I would have in gear were I to do something like Cam's mob have done. I'd be love to see what other people would come up with (nudge nudge):

- It needs to be durable - Clearly lighter can often mean less durability, but a product shouldn't be poorly stitched or fail under basic use
- It need to be absent of unnecessary weight - Less clips and straps on packs, a more tapered back. This to me is about simple, thoughtful design.
- Is is intuitive - Simple design means you're not scratching your head trying to work out how to pitch a tent, zips work easily when you have gloves on, a harness is simply adjusted (not true of my aarn pack however).
- Is thoroughly described - I had to throw something in about what a retailer says about their product. I'm happiest when honest product weights are described, accurate material information and ethical sourcing details are provided, and perhaps most importantly the limit of function and applications are detailed.

[andrewbish]

Campbell, I would say that a commitment to real world testing - particularly by the design team - would reflect a philosophy that design cannot just be done on a drawing board - that great designs are validated and refined in the cut & thrust (and stomp and bash) of the intended environment for their use.

Wayno, those core zips sound pretty handy, but I'll wager that there will be a goodly number of people out there who prefer pit zips (for whatever reason). So many hikers, so many different views on what is important in a piece of gear. Run a survey of gear feature preferences and you'll get a wide range of views. A pack maker can get their designers testing the packs, but how can we know that the testers will have the same view on utility and value as each of us? Perhaps what matters is that the company has a genuine commitment to innovation, which means they are constantly seeking to improve their products. (Keeping in mind that not all innovations last the test of time - I work in IT where there's a grand litany of failed innovations that seemed like a good idea at the time.)

Another thought. Sometimes debates like this come across as focussing on the differences in minutiae, when the substantial, core elements are much the same. Hilleberg make excellent tents for tough environments, but so do Nemo, Macpac, TheNorthFace. Can we really give them across the board PASS/FAIL ratings on their philosophy or is it just a matter of personal preference and requirements?

A

[wayno]

the design needs to be fit for purpose for the conditions its to be used in according to teh design brief.
if the priority is to be lightweight then it needs to be lightweight and it will sacrifice durability to be light, unless they put some super expensive super strong material in it... but otherwise thats generally the way gear is designed.
if the first priority is to be durable, it will sacrifice being lightweight to make it strong enough to be durable
but today gear can be hybrid with a mixture of light and heavier materials depending on what its design brief is.

[wayno]

i wouldnt use the term pass/fail.. its degrees of quality of design, people are noting design that causes problems, i think there was a comment of tents letting in unecessary water because of the lack of overhang of fabric above the door as an example, the design is not as good. on the whole it may still be a storm proof tent so you can't fail it as such but aspects of it could be better designed. on the whole if the gear does what you need it to then all good, i think this is just giving examples of how designers can miss details and others can spot details that make a design better and those details can add up when one design pays attention to addressing more design detail issues than some other designs do
i've got a macpac olympus. i havent tested it in heavy rain, but its stood up to 100k winds as they claim it should. so its hardly a failure as an alpine tent design.
for experienced bushwalkers if they use the gear a lot they pick up on various design issues that could be improved.

[Ent]

Hi Photohiker

I think that we will have to disagree on what product information should be. In Australian agriculture, there is a growing trend to sell cattle, wool, grain, etc on specifications supplied by the seller. Now if we have a commercial market dominated by a “Ferengi” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi philosophy to marketing then the system will not work. More and more goods are brought on the internet based on specifications so the ability to “bite” the coin to test for gold content is not there anymore. So, if a company has the “Ferengi” tendencies to marketing then once I am aware of this then I would steer clear of them. But then some are welded to the idea of “buyer beware” or “a sucker is born every minute”. Such a concept is out of step with modern commercial reality in my opinion. Actually, the internet has opened up and destroyed the necessary secrecy that such practices rely upon. And yes people posting their bad experiences are the key to stopping such outmoded ideas.

Blacksheep

I note with interest on your definition of success by quoting Porsche and BMW to take but two brands. Ignoring that Porsche stole his basic design from Skoda then attempted to cover it up (and cost WV almost their existence in paying back royalties in the 60s) I can disagree that Porsche is brilliant at everything. In fact both BMW and Porsche’s attempts at four wheel drives get harshly dealt with by the like of Top Gear. Here they have both designed brilliant soccer Mum shopping trolleys but are a failure for serious off road work. Given both companies are brilliant at over engineering so I would consider that is their design philosophy is to take something and max out the complexity and rely on their superb craftsmanship to make it work. So, for off road work getting to a bushwalking jump of point I think I would adopt a brand that understands offroad. If hurtling down an Autobarn then yes a BMW 750 is something that I long desire. I would consider both companies superb marketers but rather dismal when operating outside their core design areas.

Design philosophy is like Pratt & Whitney compared to BMW. P&W focused on reliability to achieve a reputation that meant the phrase for pilots was “In Pratt & Whitely we trust”. BMW licensed P&W design and went there merry way with reliably a lower concern than absolute performance. It could be argued that at the end of the development cycle of the common design there was not much differences in power output.

If we take a statement of corporate intent that longevity is a good thing then I would expect THAT every item that this company produces mirrors this. By that, no cheap and cheerful single use items. Commitment to design philosophy must be pure and consistent to work, or at least in my humble opinon.

[andrewbish]

If we take a statement of corporate intent that longevity is a good thing then I would expect THAT every item that this company produces mirrors this. By that, no cheap and cheerful single use items. Commitment to design philosophy must be pure and consistent to work, or at least in my humble opinon.

History is full of stories of small businesses run by decent folks with a clear vision and which produced industry leading products, only to lose their way as the founder handed over control to a wider organisation. It is very hard to sustain the vision of one in a corporate environment - the vision inevitably is alloyed by the (mostly well-intended) 'improvement ideas' of others.

A

[tasadam]

Generally when I am happy with a product, I will share what I like about it with my friends, and sometimes on this forum.
If there is something that I have a problem with, generally I believe a better approach is to take that problem back to the seller / company that made it so as to try to get the problem rectified.
The internet is far too full of poor reviews of things based on one person's bad experience / bad luck / Monday morning or Friday afternoon product, you know what I mean - the vocal minority that have a bad experience. Check productreview.com.au
What defines a good outcome and essentially what this topic seems to be about is in that the companies that listen to the consumer when things go wrong, and actively seek to improve their product where possible, based on any identified shortcomings - whether they find these shortcomings or potential improvements themselves, or through consumer feedback.

I can disagree that Porsche is brilliant at everything. In fact both BMW and Porsche’s attempts at four wheel drives get harshly dealt with by the like of Top Gear. Here they have both designed brilliant soccer Mum shopping trolleys but are a failure for serious off road work. Given both companies are brilliant at over engineering so I would consider that is their design philosophy is to take something and max out the complexity and rely on their superb craftsmanship to make it work. So, for off road work getting to a bushwalking jump of point I think I would adopt a brand that understands offroad. If hurtling down an Autobarn then yes a BMW 750 is something that I long desire. I would consider both companies superb marketers but rather dismal when operating outside their core design areas.

An interesting criticism. Porsche make a four wheel drive, that is, all four wheels offer the vehicle "drive". But is it an offroad four wheel drive? And is it marketed as such? Or, more to the point, if you can afford to buy one and expect it to do what other four wheel drives (specifically, typical offroad 4WD's) do, you probably won't care if it breaks as you can afford to just go buy another. Horses for courses.
It's like going bushwalking in Tasmania with a single skin tent (wrong product for the task), or shopping for the trendiest bushwalking clothes to wear down the local park (blow your money to look cool).
Besides, the claim wasn't that Porsche are brilliant at everything, the claim was that the company Porsche (and others) are doing okay (in the marketplace, or at the challenge of trying to produce greatness in different categories) because they take the approach of producing products in different product streams. It's very easy to read something and interpret it as meaning something else, such as the origins of your misguided "pet brand" comment earlier.

[blacksheep]

I note with interest on your definition of success by quoting Porsche and BMW to take but two brands. ...........Porsche’s attempts at four wheel drives get harshly dealt with by the like of Top Gear.

Not sure if you think that is seriously a legitimate barometer for design excellence or not? Actually, I was not talking about different models of car porsche make. Porsche, as a design company are involved in a huge range of highly resolved, well design products. (I used to have a sink that Porsche designed for Franke in my old house- beautiful...and I'm talking about a kitchen sink!) .They have designed award winning medical equipment, have used their design expertise on a wide range of items, including some classic consumer items like eyewear and watches since the 1970's. They still make nice cars (their efforts in bicycles were a bit off-trend I will concede)

Here they have both designed brilliant soccer Mum shopping trolleys but are a failure for serious off road work. Given both companies are brilliant at over engineering so I would consider that is their design philosophy is to take something and max out the complexity and rely on their superb craftsmanship to make it work. So, for off road work getting to a bushwalking jump of point I think I would adopt a brand that understands offroad.

I don't think they were aiming for an off roader. Nothing, other than the fact that the Cayenne has 4 driving wheels would suggest there is anything off road about it at all.

If hurtling down an Autobarn then yes a BMW 750 is something that I long desire. I would consider both companies superb marketers but rather dismal when operating outside their core design areas.

Then you are either unaware of other projects the design divison is involved in, do not understand design, or believe that design is only good if you benefit from it directly. I'll assume that you are not aware of the designwork the BMW house has done in other industries, from furniture to electronics (check out their computer mouse!)

Design philosophy is like Pratt & Whitney compared to BMW. P&W focused on reliability to achieve a reputation that meant the phrase for pilots was “In Pratt & Whitely we trust”. BMW licensed P&W design and went there merry way with reliably a lower concern than absolute performance. It could be argued that at the end of the development cycle of the common design there was not much differences in power output.

If we take a statement of corporate intent that longevity is a good thing then I would expect THAT every item that this company produces mirrors this. By that, no cheap and cheerful single use items. Commitment to design philosophy must be pure and consistent to work, or at least in my humble opinon.

so now the very first words you typed on this subject, and the last sentence share the dubious merit of be aligned to my thinking. yikes.

[wayno]

i dont pay attention to companies like porsche or bmw, companies who i'll never have or want to spend that much money on their product, good design is redundant if you cant afford it or dont consider its worth spending the money on. and i dont think their prices are reflective of their quality either, japanese make cars just as or more reliable that are cheaper.
in the outdoor industry i have far greater chance of affording top of the line gear than i do a top of the line car,
there are so many areas of life i'll never want spend on to or be able to afford top of the line gear. we can go on about porsche all we want its a bit different from talking about the outdoor brands that people on this forum have a far greater likelihood of being able to purchase and experience.

[photohiker]

Hi Photohiker

I think that we will have to disagree on what product information should be. In Australian agriculture, there is a growing trend to sell cattle, wool, grain, etc on specifications supplied by the seller. Now if we have a commercial market dominated by a “Ferengi” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferengi philosophy to marketing then the system will not work. More and more goods are brought on the internet based on specifications so the ability to “bite” the coin to test for gold content is not there anymore. So, if a company has the “Ferengi” tendencies to marketing then once I am aware of this then I would steer clear of them. But then some are welded to the idea of “buyer beware” or “a sucker is born every minute”. Such a concept is out of step with modern commercial reality in my opinion. Actually, the internet has opened up and destroyed the necessary secrecy that such practices rely upon. And yes people posting their bad experiences are the key to stopping such outmoded ideas.

We may disagree, but we are not talking about the same thing yet, so a conclusion of disagreement is premature

I'm relating about what product information IS, not what it should be. I'm also relating to the realisation that a product may be just fine (and actually be accurately described in it's product info) but still be unsuitable for my particular situation because I will be stressing it beyond the undocumented duty cycle it was built to. Classic example is Gaiters in Tassie. Although all the product info would suggest that the contenders are all up to the task (and they are to an extent) I need to access others' experiences to find out which brand will likely take the most hammering before failure. Without independent testing (like that EN thermal comfort done for sleeping bags) product info is never going to help beyond the basics.

I would suggest that many companies operating in this space in Australia seem to adhere to at least some of the Ferengi 'Rules of Acquisition', especially the first:

"1. Once you have their money, you never give it back."

I agree regarding what the Product Information should be. We're not there yet, and for more extreme personal uses, we may never get there. Manufacturers like to have a single product information for the whole planet even though the conditions and terrain vary across the planet. There is only so much they can do...

[wayno]

i look at some lightweight packs that use dynema fabric .. supposed to have reinforced threads stronger than steel in them and wonder why that sort of technology isnt incorporated into heavier packs to boost durability.. or use kevlar threads which i understand has been used in the past and at least one outdoor brand is bringing it in for shell jacket.

[Strider]

i look at some lightweight packs that use dynema fabric .. supposed to have reinforced threads stronger than steel in them and wonder why that sort of technology isnt incorporated into heavier packs to boost durability.. or use kevlar threads which i understand has been used in the past and at least one outdoor brand is bringing it in for shell jacket.

Possibly because dyneema has quite poor abrasion resistance - it's high strength (20x flexible steel wire rope of equivalent diameter) is really only in the tensile department.