Group Size

        The fact that our team consisted of 3 climbers was not by design. Our original plan was to have 6 climbers, and by March of 1994 (15 months before the climb) we had a full team. 6 is a nice number, in that it is evenly divisible by both 2 and 3. This enables you to have 3 two-person tents, and 2 three-person rope teams. Not that you have to have 2 people to a tent, or 3 people to a rope, but 6 is a number that offers a lot of flexibility.
        A month after we reached our goal of 6 climbers, one climber dropped out leaving us with 5 climbers. Now 5 is NOT a nice number, in that it is not evenly divisible by any lower number except 1. This made our planning complicated, and we desperately looked for a replacement. During this period we went on our training trip to Mount Rainier. We had 5 climbers, 3 two-person tents, and 1 five-person rope team. Someone had to sleep alone, and we had to divide up the carrying of 3 tents between 5 climbers. 5 people on 1 rope was awkward, and slow.
        Before we could find a replacement for our 6th person, another climber dropped out (11 months before the climb), and now we were left with 4 climbers. 4 is another nice number, in that it is evenly divisible by 2. So now we decided to have 2 two-person tents, and 1 four-person rope team. By this time we had come to appreciate the importance of group-dynamics, and were not too interested in adding 2 new people to our already "bonded" team. We felt that any advantage that we could derive from having a 6 person team, would be out weighted by the potential "people problems" involved in adding 2 more climbers. Besides, we had no luck finding 1 replacement, and now we would need 2.
        At some point I had figured out that there is actually 5 times the likelihood that 2 people will not get along in a 6 person team, as there is in a 3 person team. This is because there are 15 combinations of 2 in the number 6, whereas there are only 3 combinations of 2 in the number 3.
        We continued with our training and planning with a team of 4 for the next 6 months, when still another climber dropped out (5 months before the climb). Now we had a team of 3 climbers. 3 is not exactly a good number, but we were determined to make it work. There was no way that at this point in the process that we were going to mess with our group dynamics. We were all very similar in stamina, we climbed well together, and we got along well. We decided to buy a big tent for all 3 of us, with 1 three-person rope team.
        One of the major problems (for us) with having a team of 3 climbers is that 3 was the minimum number that we, at our level of mountaineering, were willing to travel roped, on a glacier. It is a lot more risky to travel with a 2 person rope team. In our situation, with 3 climbers, it meant that if any one of us did not have the strength to finish the climb, all 3 of us were committed to turn back.
        There are disadvantages to having 3 climbers in one tent. 17 days is a long time for 3 people to be cooped up in a confined space, even if only for 12-18 hours a day. The middle position in our tent was always the least desirable, so we rotated positions at each new camp. There is also a lot more traffic in and out of the vestibules with 3 climbers as opposed to 2.
There are also advantages to having the whole team in one tent. While on the mountain our planning continued, and having everybody together facilitates communication.
        So, when planning the size of the group you have to consider the factors of safety, experience, division of the rope teams and tents, group dynamics, and availability of replacement climbers.