>>266544>it is expensive Define "expensive" please.
>and not everyone has someone that can teach them to sew Youtube, bro. What year do we live in? 1994 or 2014?
>it's basically the same thing as getting weight down on a bikeThat's so missing the point. Bicycles can be made pretty lightweight for a pretty reasonable price, and then after a certain point, you have to pay for super high tech materials, so the price skyrockets.
Ultralight backpacking really isn't to the point of needing to use high tech carbon fiber, like race bikes. Significantly, the difference in weight in an ultralight backpacking kit offers a proportional decrease in body strain, and an increase in the number of miles you can cover. I don't think the decrease in body strain and increase in number of miles you can cover with ultralight bicycles is at all comparable here.
>the price goes up and the durability doesn't necessarily stay the sameAt the extreme end, you have materials like cuben fiber which are strong, but less durable. But in the middle are backpack materials like dyneema, and tarp materials like silnylon that are far from fragile.
>which is why I don't typically worry that much about getting my weight downI really have no interest in converting you. I'm just trying to get the facts straight because all I am hearing from you is hyperbole which distorts the truth.
>>266545What is the average person's budget? I am comparing quality ultralight gear to quality traditional backpacking gear, and when comparing equivalent quality, the ultralight gear is about the same. It's far from this "significant investment" that you keep claiming it is. Compare ultralight backpacking with other hobbies. The initial investment is minuscule compared to something like motorcycle riding, shooting guns, computer gaming, and many other hobbies represented on 4chan.
>>266547 also raises a good point in that down sleeping bags are in fact more durable than cheaper, heavier synthetic bags. 
