Everything is lightweight except for my backpack.

The typical suggestion is that a comfortable pack which can reliably carry what you want is worth the weight, as long as you can meet the total carried weight target you are trying to achieve. If it can be accomplished with a lighter pack, then great, but the point is to be comfortable. At some point, going lighter is just part of the hobby and not of any real practical importance.

You DO notice the extra weight, but it does typically carry better than some heavy thing inside the pack, because the weight of the pack is relatively spread out and close to your back, like, literally on and against your back.

That’s an interesting point! I was of the understanding that I should obviously get everything light weight as much as possible first and then carry a lightweight backpack. However most of the lightweight backpacks that I have been using have not been as comfortable and they are maxed out as I approach 30 pounds which sometimes happens on a six day trip.

The typical suggestion is that a comfortable pack which can reliably carry what you want is worth the weight, as long as you can meet the total carried weight target you are trying to achieve. If it can be accomplished with a lighter pack, then great, but the point is to be comfortable. At some point, going lighter is just part of the hobby and not of any real practical importance.
+!00

Cheers

The Baltoro is a nice pack and carries very well if it fits well…but you can say that about almost any pack.  I finally got rid of my Dana Designs Arcflex Terraplane, which is the most comfortable pack I ever carried and was great for hauling 60-lb loads in Alaska, but the thing probably weighed 7+ lbs.  I’d take a heavier comfortable pack over a light uncomfortable pack any day, but I will never carry 60 lbs again.

I wouldn’t sweat a weight difference of a couple of pounds to chase a lighter weight pack if you like the Baltoro.  Just make up the difference somewhere else: lighter sleeping bag and pad, lighter tent, less stuff, whatever.  Or not, the point is to have fun!  I like the way my 2-lb Granite Gear Crown2 carries loads up to 30 lbs, but I have to go to a burlier (and heavier) pack for loads heavier than that.  Clearly, you need more than one pack!

 At some point, going lighter is just part of the hobby and not of any real practical importance.

Absolutely. It’s somewhat unfortunate how much of a focus this becomes when it goes from having practical impacts on comfort and safety, to just being an arbitrary metric to chase after. Once your pack is comfortable and you’re taking the trips you enjoy most it seems to make more sense (and often cost less money) to just try and do more of those types of trip and to work on useful skills like cooking/food prep (or figuring out good no-cook options, whatever), navigation, trip planning, etc.

“better to have ultralight gear in a traditional pack than traditional gear in an ultralight pack.”

Another one lifted from SMD’s website.

It’s somewhat unfortunate how much of a focus this becomes when it goes from having practical impacts on comfort and safety, to just being an arbitrary metric to chase after.
It gets worse when it becomes ‘Stupid Light’.
That can be disadvantageous to your health …

Eh, whatever makes you happy. Go stupid light if you like, just don’t do it again if it fails you – live and learn, right?

I guess I will need to do more investigation into this.  I was just curious if people had taken all of their gear and stuffed it into different backpacks and noticed any real difference in a few pounds.  Probably would but seems like it would be negligible.

curious if people had taken all of their gear and stuffed it into different backpacks and noticed any real difference in a few pounds.
I think I can speak for many BPL members here: the difference is not in the weight but in the comfort.

Cheers

I was just curious if people had taken all of their gear and stuffed it into different backpacks and noticed any real difference in a few pounds.

Yes. I have two different packs I use right now, from the same manufacturer, and one weighs a pound less than the other; one is 2 pounds, one is 3 pounds. Both are comfortable, but the heavier one feels better when loaded than the lighter weight pack. The heavier pack carries the load better on my hips. This is with the exact same contents in the pack.

Is that what you were asking? If I have my fully loaded 3 pound pack (loaded with my usual gear) and I add a pound of whatever to it, I would not notice the difference on my back. I would notice that same added pound in the lighter weight pack, because it pulls more on my shoulders.

Not sure if that helps you with whatever you’re looking for. I feel pretty good about my current pack and overall weight up to about 30 pounds. Over that and I definitely “feel it.” I try not to put more than 30 in, but occasionally I do. I try to stay under 25 with food and water added. I’m ok with not being lighter than that; it is comfortable and I have everything I need, plus a few luxuries.

Challenge accepted! I’m going to pull my Kelty Redcloud 90L and Osprey Atmos 65L packs from storage and test them against my HMG3400

Pack weight is immaterial to me.  If it takes a 6-lb. pack to do whatever I’m doing, so be it; if I can do the same activities with the same gear and the same comfort for the same duration with a 1-lb. pack, great.  If not, that’s great as well.  My main focus with my pack is to carry my gear well, and to protect both the gear and my back in the process.

I ditched UL packs a long time ago. Still have a light base weight (under 10 lb.), I am happier and never uncomfortable. A pack is the foundation that stores and transports your gear.

An arbitrary total weight goal is silly, IMO. My packs are a dream to carry, whether the total weight is 15lb. or 35 lb.

I know this is a hard one to put any real world data to as it comes down to user preference so much.  Stoves on the other hand can be calculated, investigated, and mathematically isolated in an easy to read graph.  Backpack comfort on the other hand is so personal.  I loaded my Gregory Baltoro up with gear and water and it weighed 27.5lbs total.  I took it on a hike in my neighborhood and hiked for about an hour.  Probably should have done more time, but it felt pretty good and my hip flexors did not get numb…..which they do when the hip belt six for me.  Very Supportive and sturdy.   I will next be trying out the Gossamer Gear Mariposa with the same contents.  It weighs 25 lbs total with the same gear.   I will hopefully hear what Simulacra has to say about their experience.

I’ve used several very lightweight packs, almost all have gone away.  I now use a Seek Outside Flight- a wee bit over 2 lbs, but is able to carry 35 lbs without any drama whatsoever.

If you know that your pack will never be north of 20 lbs, the very lightweight packs are probably the way to go; if it go north of 20 lbs quite often, pass on them.

Stoves on the other hand can be calculated, investigated, and mathematically isolated in an easy to read graph.  Backpack comfort on the other hand is so personal.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Stove considerations include what kind of fuel, fuel costs, availability of fuel in remote towns,  convenience of use, wind worthiness, boil time, fuel efficiency, packed size, weight, stove bans, etc.

And so it goes with everything backpacking. One person’s gem is another’s distain. BIC mini-lighters excepted ;-)

A good pack has a VERY good waist belt.

I used to have packs with hipbelts that required a very sturdy pants belt to help transfer the weight. Never again.

Even below 15 lbs, even below 12.5 lbs I wouldn’t want a pack without a waist belt.

Even below 15 lbs, even below 12.5 lbs I wouldn’t want a pack without a waist belt.

Agreed.  I’m even switching out my daypack for one with a hip belt; it’s just way more comfortable for my shoulders.

It gets into total packweight, especially when needing to carry several  liters of water in addition to food and gear.  The weight can add up if hiking in hotter, drier areas.

On the flip side, hiking in cold may require more down, but if one doesn’t need to carry much (if any) water, that can call for a lighter pack.

It meant a lot to me. I went from a pack that weighed 6 lbs to one that weighed just over 1. It was the difference between slogging up a hill to walking quickly and comfortably. Same contents BTW.  So I don’t see the point in not trying to slim down pack weight as long as it serves the intended purpose and is comfy.

A good pack has a VERY good waist belt.
As many of you probably know, I MYOG my packs, and they work very well over a wide range of loads. But they do not NEED a waist belt.
Beware generalisations.

Cheers

All generalizations are wrong.

A few years ago, I did an experiment of 1 on this. I took 17 lbs of gear, food, and water and loaded it into an 18oz frameless pack and did a 18 mile loop. 2 weeks later, I took the same gear, food, and water and put it into a framed pack weighing 40 oz and did the same loop. At the end of the loop, I felt much better with the framed pack. I was less fatigued and enjoyed the hike more.

After that, I concluded that frameless packs are a no-go for me. That said, I still want the lightest framed pack that carries well for me.