What is more important to you? The weight saving factor, or the bulk factor? Is the weight of the pack, or the size of the pack more important. Not the pack it's self but the contents and volume. Any thoughts?
? ??? specify what pack you are talking about. A multi pitch climbing day pack? Seige alpine ascent with everything you need for life support? Solo route on anything? Winter conditions? Backpacking a mountain trail? Alot of options depending on what your goals are and where you are headed.
It depends but I generally won't squabble over ~1 lbs for a fast solo mission but I hate carrying a big ass pack even if it's light. Then again I slept on 1/8" closed cell foam for 3 weeks and I'd do it again too. It was light and small, haha.
Totally depends on the content and intensity of the trip. For climbing I always try to keep the pack small even if it's heavy(ropes and gear.) For backpacking the most important thing is that it's packed WELL. Regardless of how much it weighs it has to be properly packed and the weight distributed right so that you can comfortably carry it for a long time.
If it comes down to bulk vs. weight, which it usually doesn't, I guess I would try to get weight down first and then work on bulk since ultimately the more weight you carry the more energy you spend carrying it.
To clarify I'm talking about a Multi-day alpine climb. Really what sparked this question is the cooking aspect. Do we (2 of us) bring individual stoves which would be lighter, or go with a less efficient but more practical and bigger 1.5 liter cooking set-up? Obviously that would be more bulky trying to keep packs to 35 liters. I agree efficiency has alot to do with it.
By Auto-X Fil From NEPA and Upper Jay, NY Jun 19, 2012
On a climb where melting snow is your only source of water, and we can get snowed in for any amount of time, my partners and I will bring two Reactors. Part of it is the convenience, but it's nice to have the redundancy in case something gets dropped or broken.