Front or Back-mounted vest???

[Charles King]

What is the consensus on the choice of vest design? Which do you prefer?

[Charles King]

I can tell you right away (without having much experience with the back mount), the latter is the way to go.



Advantages:



Reason one:



The weight is much more distributed at various pressure areas comfortably on the body.



Reason two:



Because of reason one, you get to operate longer with a back-mounted vest than a front mounted one. Again, opinions might differ.



Disadvantages:



Reason one:



You need stronger and lighter materials to help with this type of setup. More caution is needed as to not mis-judge the alignment of the arm support bracket.



Reason two:



There cost goes up. There are cheaper materials but you got to experiment as to not undermind the quality and strength of the mechanics.





If you are starting out, go with the back mount. You won't regret.

[Gustav]

As I am new to this and seeing that the physical law usually helps in this situation, I am also convienced that the back mount is the way to go.

 

[JP]

I understand all the advantages of the back mounted vest, but a front mounted rig looks much better!!!  

[Tracy]

This biz is all about results. Whose going to remember that a scene was held together by Gaf tape. As long as you got the shot brother. And having used the V 20 & I am in shape, 10 minutes flying a DSR 300 w/ batts is a lot of weight. That is why w/ Cody's advice & Charles book which I am anxiously awaiting I am converting my rig to a back mounted vest.



Mahalo,

Tracy

[Tom Wills]

I prefer a side mounted arm, being sort of a modification of a back mounted vest, except it's mounted to a belt around my waist, and hooked with straps to an old backpack. I found weighting the backpack, just 4 pounds works well, gives you the advantages of a back mounted vest in terms of stability and back straightness, even when it is not truly back mounted. So I guess overall I prefer the back mounted design, but I took the easy way out by designing something easier, but different.  

[Charles King]

To add to all this. If one is to fly a heavier weight capacity, let say anything over 4-5kg then a back-mounted vest should or could be used, especially if it involves long takes.



A front mounted vest would be used with anything under 4kg as the weight is less and the need to bring the sled closer to the body with the need for an adjustable (fore & aft) connector for the arm, is eliminated.



There are no rules here folks. It's just a matter of personal taste, the filming situation and the condition of the operator. All-in-all both work fine in getting the job done but one always comes out on top by a few points.  

[Joe Sanders]

Are all of you still saying back mounted then?

[Phil Kindred]

I've made both and will never go back to front mounted.

[Matthew Hovis]

Does the arm need to be made longer if you go with a back mounted vest? I am building from Cody's plans. Thanks for any info. ~Matthew Hovis

[Trevor Crump]

The arm remains the same, it's just the mount that comes from the back that wraps around you that is long.

[Joe Sanders]

Hey guys I got another idea about vest today.
Basically why not add a counter weight behind the operator? That way the load from the arm would be reduced significantly.

The whole rig would weigh more but the load would be distributed better.

Just a thought.

[MikkoWilson]

Old topic, but I'm going to pitch my vote for Fornt Mount.

I'm of the oppinion that a back mount vest can be (and often is) bad for you.
A front mount vest makes use of your body's natual support system, a backmount vest attempts to bypass that, risking major damage if something unexpected happens as your body isn't designed to support weight that way.

With proper posture, a well designed front mount vest is just as comfterble, not to mention lighter and more versitle (and smaller and cheaper) than a backmount vest which doens't give your body any feedback allowing you to operate in ways that can put you at serious risk of injury.

- Mikko

[Charles King]

Good point Mikko. Many pros prefer front mount to back due to similiar reasons.

[Bill Hawkins]

It is an old topic but since I'm new I will pitch in.  The rig I am working on is back mount.  I'm a big guy and front mount will be difficult to manage because the connection point will be far from my center of gravity.  I also and a firm believer that weight on the back is far easier to carry than weight on the front.  That's why we wear backpacks and not belly or front packs.

Way back when, I worked in an outdoor shop in Boulder.  I fit a lot of packs to folks and so weight distribution is a familiar topic to me.  Most of these packs were being used at the least on very steep terrain and often in serious mountaineering so they had to be very stable.  Trust me, when you are on a glacier at 12,000 ft and dizzy from the thin air you want your pack to stay right with your body.  Any extra movement can be a  big problem.

The most stable system that I have ever seen or used was built by a guy named Dana Gleason.  He owned a small company called Dana Designs that he has now sold to another outdoor gear maker.   The frame consisted of a single aluminum stay and a semi-ridged plastic back form.  The stay was an aluminum bar about 3/16" x 1" (not sure of the thickness but it was hard to bend by hand).  The bar was long enough to reach from above the top of the shoulder to mid lumbar (top of your backside) and was curved to fit the owners back.  Most peoples backs have a similar curve but occasionally we would have to bend a stay to fit.  The stay fit into a sleeve that ran the length - top to bottom - of the plastic back form.  I am not sure if there were any special properties to the plastic back form... it was pretty stiff for its thickness and did not flex once the stay was in it.    Padding and harness were added and the result was a frame that kept the weight very close to the back and very stable.  Most of the load rested on the top of the carrier's lumbar (butt).

You could adjust the shoulder straps so that they kept the weight close but did not rest it on top of the shoulders.  Imagine the harness pressing on your chest instead of your shoulder blades.  Now think of what that may do to allow freedom of movement and prevent fatigue.  It worked by having an extra set of adjustable straps that came off the harness just above the center of the shoulders.  Loosening the harness (not the belt) and pulling tightening those straps would lift the pads from the shoulder straps off the shoulder.  Tightening the shoulder harness adjustments (the ones on front) would then snug up the whole thing with the weight still off the shoulders.  This was like magic for those of us that had been wearing unstable external frame packs all our lives.

More to the point it is a good design and one I think will work very well when adapted to a stabilizer.