Hey all
Well this has been interesting.

I forgot to mention - generally the larger "heavier" pack is heavier because it has things like a thick comfortable waist band. I would much rather carry 25 pounds in my Kelty with the nice suspension and waist band, than to carry 15 pounds in my Ray Way pack, which by the way, I only use a ski day pack.

As for torque. There's nothing heavy enough or dense enough in my pack to make a difference. Most anything metallic is in the top pocket. Cinch straps hold everything in so I'm not too moved by the torque idea, especially because you cannot get large bottles of water into a small pack to compare real loads anyway.

But for crawling under trees smaller would be better.

These frameless packs were originally designed for climbers who needed to bend while carrying a load and frame packs didn't work. Everyone knew that frame packs offer more weight carrying capacity, but it was a trade off. Suddenly BPers wanted frameless large packs that would still haul a heavy load.

A large pack can be used as a leg bivy, and a large light pack can be used as a "summiting" pack that is light yet will carry a bivy sleeping bag.

If your friend is injured, you can take half of his stuff in your pack. (been there, done that). In the once a decade event that my wife says she'll go bping with me if I carry the pack, my pack is big enough. And finally - a bigger pack means you have a wider choice in which items to take on a given trip, reather then being limited to the only things you have that will fit.

Come on you guys, we need some good strong argument for small besides crawling under trees.

Jim