Bombproof Geodesic 2 Man Mountain Tents

[Paul Doran]

Chris – authorative and eloquent as usual, thanks.

I must say that I used to get frustrated looking for a spot for the Scarp 1 and sodden ground made pitching it properly very hard. It does appeal to not have to worry as much about pitching location and having a pretty compact footprint.

Also, in reviewing Hilleberg's range, it seems to get a tent with equal size and vestibule area to, say the TNF Mountain 35, I would need the Keron 3 GT anyway. That is 3.8 kilos, so only slightly lighter and yet I would have to spend literally 400 more pounds to get it!

[nanook ofthenorth]

I'm a big fan of the Trangos, seems very well thought out

[Bob Gross]

I mentioned this a bit, before.

A group of 14 of us went to climb Aconcagua, which is nearly 7000 meters high. The high camp ended up being nearly 6000 meters high, and the weather conditions were certainly "mixed."

The 2-man TNF Mountain 25 tents were present, and also my 3-man version. Additionally, there were others such as a Garuda (which seemed worthless in the high wind). Some of our tents have a front door with vestibule, and there is also a back door.

As Roger pointed out, it takes a fair amount of labor to erect one, and the first night or two it was tricky. However, we had to learn, so by the third night we had it wired. After one week up high, we didn't have to think about it.

No, we had no porters, but we did carry to each higher camp in two stages. My total pack load was around 60 pounds, and it is impossible for me to climb with that weight at those altitudes. The tent always got moved in the second carry.

If I had to do it all again, I would take the same exact tent.

–B.G.–

[Paul Doran]

Its also such a shame that Hillebergs don't have luxuriously big vesitbules. Their dome tents, for example, do not have the extra vestibule space that an extra pole allows as they slope down agressively, removing real world space.

[Paul Doran]

Not discussed anywhere on the forum are Exped tents, in particular the Orion. Outdoor magazine, kindly shared above, shows that the wind resistence is immense! Better than Hilleberg dome tent too!

[Paul Doran]

Exped Orion
Storm proof trekking palace (Outdoor Magazin 7/09, Germany)
The most storm proof tent in the test comes from Switzerland. Three poles that cross each other and a wrinkle free and clean setup allowed the Orion to stand up against the howling 75 mph gust of the wind machine. Only at a windspeed of 81 mph did it give in. You can rely on this tent. It keeps you dry, vents well and offers easy handling. Setup takes less than 4 minutes and is easily done. Adjustable loops allow pegs to be set without trouble. The large amount of space in the vestibules is just great. The canopy is less generous but steep and high walls offer enough space for 2 campers.

Conclusion: High quality, comfortable and extremely storm and rainproof tent for any season.

view the Orion tent in front of the windmachine:
http://www.outdoor-magazin.com/test/zelte/video-zum-test-neun-kuppelzelte-vor-der-windmaschine.320519.3.htm?skip=0

Mountain Tents in Test: by Customer Magazine "Forbruker-Rapporten", Norway, 04/2006
Norway is famous for its harsh weather contitions, quite a challenge for Mountain Tents. The very well regarded Forbroker Magazine in cooperation with several Norwegian organisations tested nine of the most known brands in the Norwegian market.

Testwinner is the Orion Extreme of Exped!

As translated from the original script about the test:
Products:
We picked out nine of the most known brands in the Norwegian market. Many of the tents are also available in other models. The models where chosen after getting information from the distributors of these brands about their most popular models: Exped, The North Face, Fjällräven, Helsport, Haglöfs, Halti, Hilleberg, McKinley, Bergans.

What is tested?
2 kinds of test runs were done:
1. the technical tests which were weighted as 60% in importance: water proofness, tensile strength, tear resistance, abrasion resistance, repair kit contents and quality of the (taped) seams.
2. pracitcal tests which were weightetd as 40% in importance: these were done by experienced outdoor people. Many of them have also long experience in camping with children and family. They tested 30 different points as setup time, space for storing and cooking, sleeping space, pole quality, stakes, guylines, openings, and ventilation. They evaluated the tents for summer and winter use.

Only one samle of each tent is tested. The brand names where hidden during the test!

Characters:
The technical test is evaluated to the ISO 10966:2005 standard.
Technical test counts for 60% of total results.
The test was done is a cooperation between different nordic organisations.

The Results:
EXPED ORION EXTREME
80 POINTS,
This is the test winner after testing nine tents both in laboratory and out in the field. It is one of the smallest tents in the test, with a selfstanding construction, meant for expedition use. Its a hybrid between a tunneltent and an igloo tent, with two poles like a tunneltent, and one crossing the others making it free standing. With this tent you can feel safe camping in the woods as well as and in the mountains in wintertime under extreme weather conditions.
TESTPANEL SET UP TIME 10 MIN

THE NORTH FACE VE 25
77 POINTS
This is the second runner up in the test. Expedition grade tent that weighs 5 kg for three pesons – they all are needed for helping carrying!
Solid, and the test crew really liked this model. The rainfly did not get a satisfying result on water resistance. All over this is a 4-season tent also suitable for extreme conditions.
TESTPANEL SETUP TIMR 14 MIN

FJÄLLRÄVEN AKKA R/S 3
76 POINTS
This tent is doing good in the test. 4-season tent for camping in summer and in the mountains in wintertime. The rainfly should have better tensile strength, but this is a problem for most of the tents. Over all good results on the technical test. The testpanel liked this model: easy setup – functional openings and lot of space in the canopy for luggage and cooking.
TESTPANEL SETUP TIME 9 MIN

HELSPORT FJELLHEIMEN 3 CAMP
74 POINTS
This tent is almost the same as Helsport Fjellheimen. The “Camp” series has a bigger canopy. The abrasion resistance was not good enough. – Otherwise a good 4- season tent. The waterresistance results could also be better. All over a good tent with low weight.
TESTPANEL SETUP TIME 9 MIN

HAGLÖFS GENIUS 23
71 POINTS
This is a 4-season igloo tent. The tensile strength was just over the average. Narrow cooking and storage place made a bad impresion on the testpanel. The ventilation system was not satisfying, bad air and condensation. This was not a problem on any of the other tents. This was the heaviest tent in the test.
TESTPANNEL SETUP TIME 13 MIN

HALTI ALFA XPD II
67 POINTS
Good test results, but last place of the 3 expedition tents we tested. Good tunnel tent from Finland, with space enough for 2 persons. The testpanel liked this tent.
TESTPANNEL SETUP TIME 8 MIN

HILLEBERG NALLO 3GT
61 POINTS
This is a good tent, but not more. Mostly because water easily penetrates through the rainfly. In the laboratory test this tent got the worst results The floor abrasion resistance was not satisfying either. The bad water resistance really pulls this tent down in this test. It is the lightest of all the tents, otherwise it was well liked by the test crew. It is a 4-season tent, and is supposed to be used even in the mountains in wintertime. It is not an expedition tent.
The GT- models has a more spacius canopy than for example Nallo 3 (not tested).
TESTPANNEL SETUP TIME 8 MIN

MCKINLEY ESCAPE 3 CAMP
49 POINTS
Middle (average) tent for 3 seasons.- Not a winter tent. Good for camping in the woods, can take a rain shower, but the tear resistance is not good. This really drags the total result down. The cheapest tent in the test. A tent suitable for camping close to the parking lot or train station. The testpanel liked the construction.
TESTPANNEL SETUP TIME 9 MIN

BERGANS 6003 KOMPAKT 3-MANNS
46 POINTS
Testpanel meant this was an OK tent after setting it up and down. It is the laboratory results that puts this tent in the last position. Tensile strength was OK, but the tear resistance was terrible. Not satisfying repair kit. One pole broke during the tests outside- and no repair pole followed the tent. This shows how important a good repairkit is.
TESTPANNEL SETUP TIME 11 MIN

Description of the test methods
Water penetration
Resistance to water penetration was tested according to NS – ISO 811:1992 Textiles – Determination of resistance to water penetration – Hydrostatic pressure test (EN 20811:1992). The values are given for the water pressure that is needed for the third water drop to penetrate the material. The maximum pressure achieved with the apparatus is 1000 mbar (about 1020 cm H20). Five specimens of the rainfly (outer tent) material were taken. If the five results showed large variation, additional specimens were taken.

Abrasion resistance
The floor material was abraded according to EN 530:1994, method 1 and the mass loss was measured according to NS-EN ISO 12947-3:1999. Three specimens were abraded towards fine glass paper P600 under a pressure of 9 kPa in a Martindale abrasion apparatus. Used test interval was 50 rubs up to 200 rubs, followed by 100 rubs intervals up to the test end point. The debris was removed at every second test interval. The test was continued until there was a hole in the coating of the specimen. The interval when two threads are broken was noted during the test, and the total weight loss of specimens is calculated.

Tear strength
The tear resistance was tested according to NS-EN ISO 13937-1:2000 Textiles – Tear properties of fabrics – Part 1: Determination of tear force using ballistic pendulum method (Elmendorf). It is taken five specimens in each direction of the rainfly material (outer tent). The higher the value, the higher the resistance to tearing.

Tensile strength
The tensile strength was tested according to NS-EN ISO 13934-1:1999 Textiles – Tensile properties of fabrics – Part 1: Determination of maximum force and elongation at maximum force using the strip method. It is taken five specimens in each direction of the rainfly material (outer tent). The higher the value, the higher the tensile strength (=breaking strength).

[Paul Doran]

Can you trust this vid?

This kind of stuff represents my ambition, though, and shows exactly why Geodesic's have their place.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTzYI-BhhiA

[Jack H.]

It's an advertising video of paid employees "reviewing" their company's product. Is that something you'd trust?

[Paul Doran]

But what they are saying is logical. I don't think such a thing would be entirely staged; after all the M25 IS seen everywhere on those kind of trips. And it would seem like a lot of effort to go to.

[Roger Caffin]

Hi Paul

> What are the excellent tunnel designs on the market besides Hilleberg?
Yeah, problem. You see, making tunnels is expensive, so not many companies do really good ones. Of the commercially available integral pitch ones (apart from Hilleberg) you could look at the Macpac Olympus from New Zealand. But as I said, it is quite expensive. We lived in one for many years in the snow. Never worried.

> What weight do you think I should be aiming for, then?
Ah – what you aim for and what you can get may be two different things. I wanted a tent as good as the Olympus but lighter, and there was nothing on the market. So I made my own. V1 weighed 2.0 kg (tent and poles), V2 weighs 1.86 kg with CF poles.

This is V1, at about 2,000 m. Corn snow like a machine gun all night. Didn't worry us: we slept fine.

Dawn in V1, breakfast being prepared in vestibule. This one has adequate but not large space there.

You may have read my article "When Things Go Wrong". The problem is that making this tent commercially might result in a price tag of US$1000. Now, I think it was worth the effort, but when you can buy an alternative (but heavier) for about $500, many don't worry so much about the weight increase.

This is V2 after a noisy night at 2,000 m. The wind was mild, only 50-60 kph, but had dropped a bit in the morning. Wind was diagonal, but we slept well.

> I require a comfortably big vestibule.
Tunnels can have big vestibules without any trouble at all.

This is the vestibule of V2: enough room for two packs, cooking dinner, getting changed, etc. The wind was ~100 kph outside.

Pulling the tent down was interesting. The entire operation was done crawling, with our backs to the wind. We could see about 3 metres.

Cheers

[s k]

Hi, Paul,

We use a Hilleberg Stalon, (pre-modular model), which is quite similar to the Orian, sans the third pole and the requisite triangular vestibule shape. The floored area of the Stalon is about five inches wider, but other dimensions are close. With a reasonable array of pegs and a GG ground cloth, the weight is around 7# 14oz.

Given the Orian's similarity to the Stalon, the high point total in the comparison that you sited doesn't surprise me. With its large interior volume, vertical doors, eighty inch wide doors, forty-eight inch center height, large vestibules, and excellent venting options, the Stalon, and this tent style in general, is debaucherously livable.

I can't attest to seventy-five mph wind performance, but straight westerlies, blowing at half that speed, into the vestibule, were not an issue. I'm sure that the third pole on the Orion increases vestibule end wind stability,(and snow load), but the wind shedding weakness of the Stalon/Orian design appears to be the tent side. Their broad swaths of side fabric and 48" plus height make a sizable target.

Does the end to end center pole effectively contribute to side stability/wind shedding? In some ways the third pole seems contrary to the deflect and spill concept often sited about tunnels. Others certainly have thoughts on this.

I saw a wind performance video of the Orion's tent end but did not notice a video testing the tent side.

My inclination regarding a bomber tunnel, if you go in that direction, would be for shorter poles, and more of them. Less luxurious, but lighter and stronger.

[Diplomatic Mike]

Something to bear in mind Paul.
You'll only have about 6 or 7 hours of daylight in a Scottish winter, so you'll want plenty of relaxing room in whatever tent you choose. That's probably the reason most folk winter climbing in Scotland don't spend a week in a 'base-camp' type situation. Much better to stay in someplace like Fort William or Aviemore where you can chill out at nights.

[Paul Doran]

True Mike but if you passioantely love the true NW, the walks are huge. Eg Applecross and such.

[Steven McAllister]

Nobody mentioned pyramid/tipi designs.

Pyramids are popular with cross country skiers.
The ones I've talked with swear that they are as wind and snow-proof as any other design, but are quieter in the wind and much lighter.

So why lug a geodesic or tunnel with all those heavy poles?

[Paul Doran]

I have opted for the M25, as I have found someone willing to see me one in basically new condition for a good price. This way, if I don't like it I can always move on. But it was always my favourite from the experience in the shop.

Thanks for all your help

[Bob Gross]

Pyramid-type tents are popular among cross country skier/snowcampers, but only depending on snow conditions.

If you have good snow and a good shovel, you can "dig in" with a snow block wind wall around the tent. If you have powder, this doesn't work good at all.

Last weekend, we dug down for two layers of snow blocks, and set those into a wind wall that went up about 2-3 feet. The result was that the high wind was hitting only the very top of our Betamid, so there was no excessive flapping all night.

If you have really firm snow and high wind, then often a snow cave is best. It all depends.

–B.G.–

[Author]

Posts