>>609441>Frame packs makes you back breath a lot more.Objectively more surface area covering your back, I can't imagine why you would argue this.
>"I'll only fill my tank 1/4 up, since I'm not going that far.Oh, I see, because you don't understand basic logic. This analogy isn't even remotely applicable.
Say you are going on a three day hike, and you need four pounds of food to keep healthy and comfortable for your hike.
By your logic, you should instead bring sixteen pounds of food because "Why not bring as much as possible?". Well, you're not a car, and you have to carry that twelve extra pounds of useless deadweight. That's full retard. And that's talking food alone, by your logic you should also be carrying six gallons of water and a four person tent.
If you have to carry the weight yourself, yes you should only fill your tank up 1/4th of the way, because who wants to carry twenty gallons of gasoline?
>>609446>you're a faggot for preaching it as some universal truth. Carrying unnecessary weight and bulk when hiking long distance is, universally, a stupid decision. There's no way to argue this. You guys are mad at somebody giving solid and sound advice about hiking because "muhsurvivalgear and outdoor fashion".
>than using an inadequate backpack with shit hanging on the outside.Don't use an inadequate backpack then. Also, don't use one that's too large. Use one perfectly sized for your journey. Generally, a camel-bak for 2-3 day trips, a school bag for 2 day to 1 week trips and a framed back for 5 day+ trips will work out, it's a good thing to have multiple packs for multiple journey lengths so you aren't hauling around something big, awkward and stupid and also aren't trying to stuff a week's worth of food into a backpack.
>decrease the risk of losing stuff.Once more: "I don't know how to properly fasten things to a pack so I think it's a bad idea for everybody."
If you're losing stuff, it's your fault, not an inanimate object's.
