Aug 9, 2007 at 11:58 pm #1224509
@cmcrookerLocale: Desert Southwest, USA
Companion forum thread to:Aug 10, 2007 at 6:47 am #1398012
That is quite a selection of shelters. Looks like they are re-investing the $$ from sale of their brand name, very good.
I'm not so sure about the claim of “world's first free-standing ultra-lite tarps” though …. TarpTent Rainbow, anyone?
Concerning the weights, while clearly not in the SUL range (h*ck, neither myself nor my pack are SUL), they are pretty much competitive (slightly heavier) with alternatives offering similar degrees of enclosure.
Any chance of providing footprint size (can't call it "floor size" if it is floorless)Aug 10, 2007 at 8:59 am #1398026
Ben 2 WorldParticipant
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
I thought I read earlier that the hybrids have Epic fabric for the vestibule and SilLite fabric for the tent body??? Can you confirm please?
The tarptents Rainbow and Double Rainbow are not inherently self standing — although you can make them so by velcroing on two poles — which you supply yourself.Aug 11, 2007 at 1:47 am #1398129
A bit hard to tell from that picture, however they all use two poles. One that has some potential (for me) is the Shangri La 1, with the option of a floor or netted inner.
This picture may give a better idea.It is from http://lighthiker.wordpress.com/, Roman, the owner of the site and picture is at the moment stomping through my ancestral lands so I feel free to post it here.
Shangri La 1
Aug 12, 2007 at 10:28 am #1398265
@jcarter1Locale: Pacific Northwest
Roman lists the Shangri-La 1 as 18 oz, vs. 21 oz in the above list. I'd be very curious to find out the weight of the shelter alone, no stakes, no stuffsack. Roman's listed height also suggests one can sit up in it. Imagine a 4-season shelter you can sit up in and requires no bivy for 18 oz!
I was pleasantly surprised to find that my Hex 3, with no stuff sack, stakes, or poles weights only 25.3 oz. If the Shangri-La 1 is truly 21 oz for bare-bones, I'd rather keep my Hex 3! but if the Shangri-La performs like the Hex 3 in the wind, and weights 18oz, it's a no-brainer for my solo 3-season camping above timberline.Aug 12, 2007 at 10:52 am #1398269
I have been looking for a solo version of my Hex 3. The Wild Oasis looks interesting but I held off waiting to see what the Shangra La looks like. It looks like it would be a little difficult to crawl in an out of. The picture doesn’t show much. Hopefully someone will post some better photos. This particular shot is from an OR show in England or Europe. It has been in circulation for at least a couple of weeks.Aug 12, 2007 at 11:35 am #1398273
pictures from OUTDOOR Friedrichshafen::
MartinAug 12, 2007 at 11:42 am #1398276
MartinAug 12, 2007 at 12:55 pm #1398280
Thanks for posting the photos. Do you happen to have some photos of the Shangri-La 1 and/ or 2? It appears that only one pole is necessary for the 3, but the photo of the 1 indicates that 2 poles are necessary for the smaller tent?Aug 12, 2007 at 3:38 pm #1398318
All of these look very interesting… it'll be interesting to see how the 'Utopias' stand up to the ID Sildome… in oz/sqft coverage type comparisons…Aug 13, 2007 at 5:09 am #1398389
I have no pictures from Shangri-La 1 & 2, but Shangri-La 1, 2, 6 and 8 require all two poles.
MartinAug 13, 2007 at 5:35 am #1398390
Sorry to have added to the confusion, I had just finished reading the article from TGO were it mentions only the 1 and 2 and had forgotten about the others.
In fact I was going to comment that the former are not a pyramid design at all, it is a bit difficult after all to make a space efficient solo shelter with that design unless you cut it in half and call it alph a mid.
FrancoAug 17, 2007 at 6:54 am #1398981
@williwabbitLocale: Southwest Colorado
Here's some clarification on the pole issue.
The Shangri-La 1 and 2 use two trekking poles, and poles are not included in the weight given.
The 3 and 4+ are pyramid tents (similar to old Hex) that use one pole, and the weight of that special pole is included in the weight.
The 6+ and 8+ use two special poles and the their weight is included in the total.
Hope this helps. Sorry for the confusion. I corrected the information in the article.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.