Articles (2020) - Page 106 of 144

Life-Link AT Superlight Trekking Pole REVIEW

Super stiff, super strong, these are bomber fixed-length mountaineering and bushwhacking poles!

Introduction

The Life-Link AT Superlight pole is the newest member of the Life-Link Expedition series. Their claim to fame is their thick carbon fiber construction, stiffness, and durability similar to Life-Link’s Guide Ultra Light ski/approach poles that rarely ever break. Sounds good, but at 7 ounces each, they’re overkill for on-trail ultralight backpacking. So, what is their forte?

What’s Good

Very strong and durable
Very stiff
Quiet
Comfortable, slip-resistant grips
Padded, absorbent, slip-resistant straps
Highly suitable for serious mountaineering and bushwhacking

What’s Not So Good

Edges of straps fray badly
Small baskets collect mud and snow
Baskets are difficult to remove
Heavy for carbon fiber poles

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Life-Link AT Superlight
Type	Fixed length, 50 in (127 cm) tested
Shaft Material	Carbon fiber
Grips	EVA closed cell foam grip glued to a Life-Link designed small diameter molded nylon and plastic grip. Strap is a woven back over Neoprene front with Lycra cover.
Tips	Carbide
Weight Per Pole	Measured weight 7 oz (198 g), manufacturer claimed weight 6 oz (170 g) for 50 in (127 cm) length
Lengths available	44, 46, 48, 50, 52 in (112, 117, 122, 127, 132 cm)
MSRP	$119.95 US

Performance

New in 2006, the Life-Link AT Superlight is a super stiff/super durable fixed length carbon fiber pole. They reside in Life-Link’s Expedition series, alongside the likes of their Guide Ultra-Light poles that have survived Himalayan expeditions with little or no breakage. In contrast to their super-duty credentials, I used them for lightweight backpacking and snowshoeing. At 7 ounces each, their weight doesn’t even come close to the Gossamer Gear Lightrek Plus poles at 2.5 ounces, or the Bozeman Mountain Works Stix Pro poles at 2.8 ounces (all weights for one 52-inch pole). So why go with heavier carbon fiber poles? After all, lightweight aluminum poles weigh around 7.5 to 9 ounces each, and that’s for adjustable models.

The AT Superlight is available in 44, 46, 48, 50, and 52 inch lengths. They have molded EVA foam grips with a hard plastic core and cap. Replaceable grips are compression fitted to the shafts. The attached wrist straps are thinly padded and covered with a slip-resistant and absorbent fabric. After three months of steady use the edges of the straps of my sample poles were badly frayed, which degraded their appearance (Life-Link assured me that the production poles would not have this problem).

The Life-Link AT Superlight poles (left photo) are expedition grade carbon fiber fixed-length poles. The handles (top right) are molded EVA foam over a hard plastic core, and are easily removed. The carbide tip (middle right) is glued on the shaft; press-fit trekking baskets or snow baskets (not included) are interchangeable. The straps on my sample poles frayed badly on the edges (bottom right), but the problem should be eliminated in production poles.

The carbide tips are mounted in a hard plastic sleeve that is attached to the shaft with hot glue. The poles come with small 1.75-inch diameter cupped baskets that have a press-fit. They are lightweight and suitable for trekking, and can be exchanged for 3.5-inch snow baskets (not included) or replaced if needed.

To remove a carbide tip for replacement, simply heat it in boiling water, pull off the old one, and slip on the new one. There will be enough hot glue left on the shaft to hold the new tip. The slip-on baskets were more of a challenge to remove. Even by pushing the basket down with my boots, it was hard to remove but the basket eventually succumbed.

The carbon shafts taper from about 7/16-inch (11mm) at the top to about 5/16-inch (8mm) at the bottom.

I performed a stiffness test of the poles by suspending a pole between two chairs and pulling downward at the center with a digital fish scale. They bent about 2 inches with a lateral force of 25 pounds applied. These poles are stiff, but not as stiff as many aluminum alloy poles which bend only about 1.25 inches with the same amount of force. Their stiffness makes then very suitable for serious mountaineering and hard-core backpacking because of their compromise of stiff performance with a slight amount of forgiving flex.

I used the AT Superlights on nine major backpacking trips through a wide variety of terrains, both on- and off-trail. For on-trail hiking, their weight was more noticeable – while they are light, some feather-light poles would have been better. I didn’t notice any annoying vibration or noise when using them on-trail.

For off-trail hiking, the Superlights really come into their element. I used them for shelter support, vaulting across snowmelt-swollen streams, I caught them in cracks, I put my full weight on them stepping off of rocks and ledges, I bashed through brush, stepped over hundreds of logs, used them to dig a cat hole, and put many miles on them. They allowed me to vault across some gaps I might not have attempted otherwise. I even accidentally stepped on them. The only damage from all this is a few minor surface scratches.

While ultralight carbon poles will work for bushwhacking, you have to be careful with them because they are at-risk for breakage (and breaking your heart!). In contrast, I didn’t have to baby the Superlights a bit, and felt comfortable using them for any maneuver that I would do with an aluminum alloy pole. Their stiffness really made them responsive and supportive. I also liked their mass, which enabled me to use the poles to push brush aside more easily. The poles helped a lot to maintain balance through brush and slickrock, and crossing logs over streams. I could count on them to get a grip on a surface, and then lean on them to make my next move.

My biggest fear with carbon fiber trekking poles (and tent poles) is accidentally stepping on one in camp and breaking it. That’s not a problem with the AT Superlight. With the pole laying flat on the ground I did a step test with my full weight several times and the pole survived just fine. I’m sure you could break one if you really tried, but not from accidentally stepping on it.

Life-Link AT Superlight Poles REVIEW - 2
I was reluctant to do this at first, but no-worry, these poles are strong.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	Yes
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 and Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Yes
Golite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Yes
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	Yes

I used the AT Superlight poles for tarp poles and to support a single wall tent (Gossamer Gear SpinnShelter and Tarptent Virga 2), and found that they work fine if I attached the guyline to the top of the pole (either end) then down to the ground. An adjustable length pole would work a little better. I also used the Superlight poles with snow baskets for snowshoeing and loved them. The fixed length poles don’t have the versatility of adjustable length poles, but for snowshoeing they worked just fine; skiing would be a different situation.

The only annoyance I encountered with the AT Superlights (besides the straps fraying) was the cupped baskets tended to fill up with mud or snow (noticeably increasing their weight at the tips), and I frequently needed to bang then on a tree to knock it out.

Getting back to my earlier question of “Why go with heavier carbon fiber poles?” the short answer is off-trail. These poles rock for serious mountaineering and bushwhacking. They are stiff, strong, and durable and will readily handle the rough stuff. They save a little weight compared to aluminum poles and offer the vibration damping of carbon fiber. They are built to last, and should stand up to years of use without failure. They are also an excellent value at $120.

What’s Unique

The Life-Link AT Superlight is an expedition grade carbon fiber pole that is well suited for mountaineering and bushwhacking.

Recommendations for Improvement

I suggest adding a durable binding to the edges of the straps to make them more abrasion resistant. Also, a re-design of the trekking baskets might be in order so they don’t easily fill up with mud or snow. Making them easier to remove would also be an improvement.

Titanium Goat, Goat Poles Trekking Pole REVIEW

The Goat Poles rock for simplicity, stiffness, and light weight – but there are a few flaws that need attention.

Introduction

Titanium Goat’s carbon fiber Goat Poles are available in either a fixed length (reviewed here) or in a two-piece collapsible “Take Down” version. What’s unique about these poles is they are made of larger diameter (14 millimeter) wrapped carbon fiber tubing which makes them very stiff and quite strong. These are minimalist carbon poles, weighing only 3.1 ounces per pole. I really grew to like their simplicity, stiffness, light weight, balance, and performance. With a few minor fixes the Goat Poles could be one of the best ultralight trekking poles available.

What’s Good

One of the lightest available, only 3.1 ounces per pole
Wide range of lengths available
Very stiff and strong
A great value at $100 a pair

What’s Not So Good

Noisy
Fixed length limits packability and use as shelter poles
Grips slip on shafts
Baskets fit loosely and are easily lost
Blunt tips and small carbide points cause slippage on rock

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Titanium Goat Goat Poles
Style	Fixed length
Shaft Material	0.56 in (14 mm) diameter Carbon fiber tubing
Tips	Custom machined aluminum alloy with carbide points
Grips	EVA foam
Grip Size	Medium (4.5 in/11 cm)
Weight Per Pole	Measured weight 3.1 oz (88 g) each without baskets, 3.25 oz (92 g) with provided trekking baskets; manufacturer’s specification 3.1 oz (88 g) each (120 cm length) without baskets, 3.4 oz (96 g) with baskets
Pole Lengths Available	41 to 53 in (105-135 cm) in 5 cm increments, 51 in (130 cm) length tested
Baskets Included?	Yes – diameter 1.5 in (4 cm), weight 0.15 oz (4.3 g)
Basket Type	Press fit Black Diamond
MSRP	$100

Performance

At only 3.1 ounces per pole (without baskets), the Titanium Goat Poles are one of the lightest trekking poles available (the Gossamer Gear Lightrek Poles are slightly lighter). However, the extra weight is put to a good purpose – these poles are made of 14 millimeter diameter carbon fiber tubing (compared to 10 millimeter tubing used in the Lightrek), making them stiffer and stronger. The tubes are made using a wrapping technique where the wall is built up by wrapping layers of fabric around a straight core.

Titanium Goat Trekking Poles REVIEW - 1
The grips on the Goat Poles (left) are rounded EVA foam, are not contoured for the fingers, and do not have a strap. The tips (center) are machined aluminum alloy with a small carbide point. They fit Black Diamond baskets. The shaft (right) is 14 millimeter wrapped carbon fiber tubing.

I want to make it clear that these are fixed length poles, so it is not possible to adjust their length for uphills, downhills, and sidehills. No problem – I normally don’t adjust poles very much even when I have that feature. Also, the poles do not have straps on the grips, and the grips are not anatomically shaped. I got along fine without straps on the grips, but adding some removable lightweight cords would give the poles more versatility. After some experience with the Goat Poles, I appreciated their simplicity and light weight, and did not miss the extra weight and complexity of sectional poles.

I tested the poles’ stiffness both at home and in the field. At home they bent only about 1 inch with 25 pounds of lateral force, about the same as stiff aluminum alloy poles. In the field, I vaulted over streams and put my full weight on them dropping off of ledges, and they barely bent.

Titanium Goat Trekking Poles REVIEW - 2
The larger diameter carbon tubing used in the Goat Poles makes them very stiff, equivalent to a heavier-duty aluminum alloy pole.

That said, the Goat Poles were no match for the US Postal Service – the first set of poles arrived cleanly broken into four pieces! That’s not a fair test of their maximum strength, because they probably got caught sideways in a conveyer, but it does show that it’s possible to break these poles with excessive leverage. Their likely demise would be breaking a tip off in a crevice or stepping on a pole bridged across some rocks. I caught the tips on many occasions, but reacted quickly to avoid potential breakage. Overall, the Goat Poles easily handled my normal on- and off-trail abuse in all types of terrain and conditions.

The poles’ balance point is almost exactly in the center of the shaft. The shafts are so light that I could lift them with a couple of fingers as I walked along.

While their fixed length was fine on the trail, there are other situations when it would be nice to adjust their length – like stowing them for travel, attaching them to your pack, or using them with a shelter. Their usefulness for shelter support depends on the pole length. As you can see in the following table, different shelters require different pole lengths, so fixed length poles are a limitation (although 45-47 inch poles work well for many shelters). I found that the 51-inch (130 cm) poles I tested will work for several popular shelters even though they are taller than the manufacturers’ recommended length. It helps to angle the base of the pole toward the inside of the shelter. This gives a taut pitch when the shelter is dry, and you can straighten the pole to tighten the shelter when it is damp or wet.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	Depends on shaft length, requires about 100-110 cm poles
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 (45 in/114 cm)	Taller poles work using an A-frame configuration, pitches taller than the manufacturer recommendation
Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Depends on shaft length, requires about 115-120 cm poles
GoLite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Depends on shaft length, requires about 120-130 cm poles
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	Depends on shaft length, requires about 130-135 cm poles
Six Moon Designs Gatewood Cape (45 in/114 cm)	Taller poles work well; pitches taller than the manufacturer recommendation

Shelters I was able to test the poles with were the Tarptent Virga 2 and the Six Moon Designs Gatewood Cape. With the Virga 2, the 51-inch Goat Poles I tested worked in an A-frame configuration, which made tent entry easier and raised the tent up higher than normal for more headroom. However the poles’ blunt tips did not fit the tent’s grommets very well. Although Six Moon Designs recommends a pole length of 45 inches for the Gatewood Cape, I liked the pitch much better with a taller pole, and a 51-inch Goat Pole worked perfectly. I used one pole as the center pole and the other to extend the vestibule so it acts like a beak.

Titanium Goat Trekking Poles REVIEW - 3
The Goat Poles used to support the Six Moon Designs Gatewood Cape. The taller poles worked very well for the Cape, giving it more headroom and extending the front out to create a beak.

While the Goat Poles are a delight to use because of their simplicity, stiffness, and light weight, there are a few notable flaws:

The grips had a tendency to slide down the shafts. This happened when I applied strong downward pressure on the grips, especially when doing stream crossings. On some crossings where I did a “leap of faith,” the grips slid down 4-6 inches, throwing me off-balance. I had to slide the grips back in place several times a day, which was a nuisance. They are a press fit, so it was easy to twist and push the grips back to the top of the shafts. A touch of adhesive on the shafts would easily solve the problem.

The press fit baskets fit loosely on the machined aluminum tips. I corrected the problem by adding some tape so the baskets would fit tighter.

The poles are noisy. The large diameter hollow shafts are open at the top of the grips, allowing them to amplify noise like a horn, pointed directly toward your ears.

The tips slip on rock and ice when I push off at a low angle. Because the aluminum alloy tip assembly is rather wide and blunt, with small carbide points (see photo below), the tips have a tendency to deflect on a hard surface at a low angle.

Titanium Goat Trekking Poles REVIEW - 4
Goat Pole issues. The foam grips slide down on the shafts (left), especially when you don’t want them to, like stream crossings. The trekking baskets provided (top right) fit loosely on the tip assembly, and can easily be lost. Finally, the machined tip assembly is blunt on the end and has a small carbide point (left pole in bottom right photo), which cause it to deflect on a hard surface.

Assessment

The Titanium Goat fixed length carbon fiber poles are a perfect match with the ultralight philosophy; they are elegant in their simplicity – simple, lightweight, adequately durable, and they perform well. It requires a little time to get accustomed to minimalist trekking poles, but once you adjust to them you realize that you don’t really need the weight-adding features.

Fixed length poles do have their limitations for stowage and shelter use, but it is certainly possible to match the length of the poles you purchase to the shelter(s) you use. With a few minor tweaks (some you can do yourself), the Goat Poles are one of the lightest and best performing ultralight trekking poles available. They are also a great value at $100 per pair.

Titanium Goat Trekking Poles REVIEW - 5
Goat Poles and Colorado Columbines. In spite of the poles’ flaws, which are easily corrected, they are still my favorite ultralight trekking poles.

What’s Unique

The Titanium Goat carbon fiber poles have a larger diameter shaft then other lightweight carbon poles, which makes them stiffer and stronger.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Titanium Goat Poles are minimalist poles, and I commend their simplicity and light weight. Following are suggestions to overcome a few minor flaws:

Revise the tip assembly so the baskets fit tighter and the tips are more pointed so they don’t deflect
Offer optional snow baskets to increase versatility
Plug the top of the shafts to reduce noise
Lightly glue the grips to the shafts so they don’t slip
Provide removable lightweight cords on the grips to increase versatility

Pacerpole 2-Section Trekking Pole REVIEW

Unique molded grips add extreme comfort and power to these heavier two-section aluminum/carbon fiber hybrids. But are they worth the weight?

Introduction

The Pacerpoles are the heaviest carbon fiber poles that we’ve reviewed. Are they worth it? It depends on where you are hiking. The innovative grip design allows you to propel yourself over level terrain with ease and in a manner where the weight is hardly noticeable (when used correctly). The grips allow you to securely hold the poles with minimum effort – your hands seem to curve naturally around it. The molded grips are also where the majority of the Pacerpoles’ excess weight is found. They also limit the poles’ usefulness in steeper terrain and require a slight learning curve. The poles are rock solid with an aluminum upper section and a carbon fiber lower section giving excellent stiffness and stability.

What’s Good

Extremely comfortable and unique grips minimize hand fatigue
Adds noticeable power to strides on level or smoother terrain
Excellent quality and construction
Light swing weight due to carbon fiber lowers
Weight savings of 0.6 ounces per pole over the aluminum 3-Section model

What’s Not So Good

At 10.6 ounce (301 g) total weight per pole these trekking poles are quite heavy
The molded grip weighs 4.4 ounce (125 g) alone. That is 42% of the total weight of the pole.
Grip design limits use in steep descents or ascents
Two-section poles only collapse to 99 centimeters (39 in), making them more difficult to stow than three-section models

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Pacerpole 2-Section
Style	Adjustable length, two-section collapsible
Shaft Material	7075 aluminum upper, carbon fiber lower
Tips	Carbide flex-tip
Grips	Molded thermo-plastic/rubber
Grip Size	One size
Weight Per Pole (without baskets)	10.6 oz (301 g) measured weight; manufacturer’s specification 10.5 oz (298 g)
Pole Length	39-54 in (99-137 cm)
Baskets Included?	Yes – diameter: 2 in (13 cm), weight: 1.6 oz (43 g)
Basket Type	Leki-style
MSRP	$114 (US)

Performance

Pacerpoles set themselves apart with their unique grip. The molded plastic/rubber grips are specific to the right or left hands and angle the hands further forward than any traditional trekking poles, which are gripped in the vertical position. It definitely took a period of adjustment for me to get comfortable with these poles. My first instinct was to use them as I would any other pole: bringing the whole pole out in front of me with each stride; however, the proper technique with Pacerpoles is different than either trekking or Nordic walking techniques.

Pacerpole 2-Section Trekking Pole REVIEW - 1
The Pacerpoles’ unique grip is what sets it apart from other trekking poles on the market.

With proper Pacerpole technique, the poles are held lower and extended behind the hiker and used to propel forward. (Pacerpoles’ website has extensive instructions on how to correctly use their trekking poles.) The poles aren’t meant to be lifted off the ground and swung forward; instead they come forward during natural walking with the tips “skimming” the ground and the entire pole basically staying at the same angle throughout the stride. When used correctly I felt a noticeable increase in my forward momentum. Using the poles on a stretch of open beach hiking I found I could set the “cruise control” and haul on down the trail at an amazing clip and I barely noticed the extra weight.

And the Pacerpoles do weigh more. At 10.6 ounces they are the heaviest carbon fiber trekking poles that we’ve tested. If the neoprene grip on the shaft is removed that weight can be reduced to 10.4 ounces but the majority of this weight is found in the grip. At 4.4 ounces alone (per pole) the grip makes up 42% of the entire pole. Subtract this weight and the Pacerpole would be comparable to several of the poles tested.

When carrying the Pacerpoles in your hand or in a pack, there is no denying the weight increase over lighter collapsible poles. However, this weight is not as perceptible in use as a traditional pole would be because the heavier grips are not a part of the “swing weight” and the light carbon fiber lowers swing with the best of them. That’s if they are used correctly; in varied terrain I found correct usage harder.

The Pacerpoles’ distinctive grip shows its limitations on moderate to extreme ascents and to a lesser extent on steep descents. According to the manufacturer’s website the correct method for ascents is to keep the hands near the sides of your torso and pump the hands up and down “like pistons.” This puts the poles more behind you and does provide forward thrust but provides no increased stability. When I used the Pacerpoles to pull myself up steeper inclines or uneven terrain (as I would with traditional poles), my wrists bent at unnatural angles. The poles do have a 14 centimeter neoprene sleeve on the upper shafts for use as a grip on steep climbs. These were indispensable on the steeper climbs but of little use of slight up-hills or stepping up onto smaller obstacles without adjusting pole length.

On steep descents or stepping down I needed to release the grip slightly to be able to reach and plant the poles. (Note: I have observed this same trend when I use traditional trekking poles.) Once I learned how to properly adjust my grip I never felt as if the difference compromised my safety.

Pacerpole 2-Section Trekking Pole REVIEW - 2
When used to pull myself up rough (even small obstacles) terrain, I found that the grips placed my wrists in uncomfortable and unnatural positions. The neoprene shaft grips only helped with this problem on steeper climbs or larger step-ups. On descents I noticed myself having to release the grip some to reach down.

Like other adjustable poles, the Pacerpoles can be used in shelters requiring trekking poles. The grips contact the ground at an angle and are slightly less stable than traditional poles but I never found this to be a problem. However, I did not try them in a teepee-type shelter that requires the poles to be linked into one long pole so I cannot comment on their usage with this type of shelter.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	Yes
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 and Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Yes
GoLite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Yes
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	Yes

The Pacerpoles show excellent construction. The twist locks never slipped, even while pole-vaulting myself across stream crossings. The poles are easily adjusted, though I found that the length I used was a good 10-15 cm less than what I would with other poles. This is because of the extra height of the grips and the fact that the poles are held lower when using the Pacerpole technique. On the newest version of the 2-section Pacerpoles the carbon lower is roughened to provide additional grip when making adjustments.

Overall, I loved the innovative grips of the Pacerpoles, especially when using them on smoother terrain. On sections of the PCT they did great. On firm open beach they excelled. When used correctly they have the potential to propel a hiker to speeds they normally wouldn’t feel comfortable trying to attain.

Pacerpole 2-Section Trekking Pole REVIEW - 3
One of the few optional accessories available for the Pacerpoles is this custom aluminum camera mount that turns the pole into a monopod. This is done by removing the colored plug in the grip and sliding the mount easily into place. The newest version includes a protective cap to cover the threading so that the mount can be left in the pole without becoming clogged with grit and dirt.

What’s Unique

The molded plastic/rubber grips are what set the Pacerpoles apart from any other pole on the market. The poles are available in both the version tested here with the carbon lowers and the Pacerpole 3-Section which is all-aluminum and was tested by Backpacking Light in 2005.

Recommendations for Improvement

Pacerpole has reduced the weight of their trekking poles by producing the carbon fiber lower section (by 0.6 oz) but I would like to see the weight reduced further in the grip, possibly with a thinner plastic or carbon fiber core and an EVA foam outer surface (though this would most likely increase costs).

Komperdell C3 Duolock Women Trekking Pole REVIEW

Three-section carbon fiber trekking poles that combine sturdy construction, rigidity, and vibration absorption in a very light and compact package. This “Women’s” pole is sized for most hikers, regardless of gender.

Introduction

Trekking poles have come a long way recently. Komperdell has developed a suite of carbon fiber poles that fill a variety of niches. The C3 Duolock Women trekking pole (also marketed as the REI Peak UL Compact for $130) is targeted at people who can get by with a more compact grip and a pole that doesn’t extend quite as far. Although marketed as a women’s model, many men will find this pole worth a closer look. At 5.8 ounces per pole these are the lightest three-section, collapsible poles we have tested. At $149.99, they are priced in the mid-range for carbon fiber trekking poles but the combination of features they embody is considerable.

What’s Good

5.8 ounces per pole, making them the lightest three-section poles tested
Secure locking system
Stiff and absorb vibration very well
Comfortable grips and straps

What’s Not So Good

The smooth shaft and Duolock locking mechanism are sometimes hard to tighten when the pole is wet

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Komperdell C3 Duolock Women
Style	Three-section collapsible
Shaft Material	Carbon fiber
Tips	Tungsten/Carbide Flex Tip
Grips	EVA foam with wide neoprene strap
Grip Size	Medium
Weight Per Pole (without baskets)	5.6 oz (158 g) measured weight; manufacturer’s specification 5.9 oz (166 g)
Pole Length	25-49 in (60-125 cm)
Baskets Included?	Yes – diameter: 2.0 in (5 cm), weight: 0.2 oz (6 g)
Basket Type	Komperdell
MSRP	$149.99

Performance

Key to any trekking pole is its locking mechanism. I found that the Komperdell C3 Duolock mechanism was quite good. Over the testing period I had two slips and both were near the end of a day and under extreme conditions where I effectively slipped off a ledge in an uncontrolled fashion and placed my entire weight on the pole. In more controlled conditions, where I deliberately eased my entire weight on a pole as I stepped down, the pole remained secure.

The plastic sleeves at the end of each section are smooth, which makes tightening the locks a bit more difficult when the sleeve and pole section are wet. This was more of a concern with the lower lock since the surrounding pole segments are also quite smooth but the topmost pole segment has a non-smooth surface that makes gaining a grip much easier. Roughening one of the lower pole segments in a similar fashion near the locking sleeve would solve this problem.

Komperdell C3 Duolock Women Trekking Pole REVIEW - 1
The locking mechanism will let you secure the pole quite well, but it is tough to tighten when the pole is wet. A roughened surface on either the plastic sleeve or pole segment near the sleeve would eliminate this slight annoyance.

The Komperdell C3 Duolock Women trekking poles weigh 5.8 ounces per pole. This makes them the lightest three-section, collapsible poles we’ve tested. The balance point for these poles is in the upper third of their body making them easy to swing while walking. The only time pole movement becomes tougher is when you must swing them through dense undergrowth where their light weight is insufficient to help force them through the foliage. However, their lightness also makes them easy to flip high and over brush so this is hardly an issue.

The poles reduce to a mere 24 inches (60 cm) in length and so are easy to transport. With a maximum length of 125 centimeters these poles should be suitable even for quite tall hikers though they are not compatible with all shelters because of their shorter overall length.

For those who want a slightly longer pole, the Komperdell C3 Duolock Men has slightly thicker grips, extends to a full 145 centimeters and weighs only 0.3 ounces more.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Sample shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	Yes
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 and Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Yes
Golite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Yes
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	No

The Komperdell C3 Duolock Women poles are stiff and do a wonderful job of absorbing vibrations when you cross rock or slam a pole down onto hard ground. I never noticed any vibration of the shafts while walking. Even when I placed my entire weight on the pole I felt virtually no deflection. The only time I ever felt pressure on my hands, wrists, or arms, was during descents when I placed excess stress on my wrist because I had not tightened the straps enough to permit them to carry the load.

The poles held up durably during their testing. I took no special pains to be gentle with them, which meant I stepped on them, placed my entire weight upon them, got them caught between rocks, and stuck in the mud. The poles have yet to show any sign of wear. I am not worried about them suddenly breaking on me.

The neoprene straps are easy to adjust to fit your hands. I found the broad straps comfortable and never a hindrance when I elected to just hold the pole grip. The grips are made of EVA foam and are easy to hold even when wet.

Komperdell C3 Duolock Women Trekking Pole REVIEW - 2
The EVA foam grips are comfortable when dry or wet. The ridges on the back of the grip may irritate your fingers if, like me, you tend to hold the pole using just the grip.

The Komperdell C3 Duolock Women poles use Komperdell baskets. These require a bit more effort to install and remove than Leki baskets, for example. Once the basket is on it is quite secure. Removing a basket requires a fair bit of pressure be applied to release the locking nubs before you twist the basket and pull it off (rather like removing a child safety cap on a medicine bottle). Komperdell sells a plethora of baskets to cover all needs. The C3 Doulock poles come with Summer Baskets which will be suitable for most three-season use.

Komperdell C3 Duolock Women Trekking Pole REVIEW - 3
The C3 Duolock poles use Komperdell baskets. Komperdell makes a wide assortment of baskets to cover all needs. The poles come with the Summer basket which will be sufficient for most three-season use.

What’s Unique

The Komperdell C3 Duolock Women trekking poles are the lightest three-section carbon fiber poles we tested (5.8 oz per pole). They have worked exceedingly well for me both as hiking staff and shelter support. They collapse down quite small, making them easy to transport and to stow.

Recommendations for Improvement

A roughened surface on the locking sleeve and/or the pole segment near the sleeve would make tightening the lower lock much easier. These poles are incredibly slick when wet, making length adjustments difficult.

Gossamer Gear Lightrek ‘06 Trekking Pole REVIEW

The lightest poles on the market, now with stiffer shafts and more contoured grips. Are the shafts stiff and durable enough for serious trail usage?

Introduction

The original Lightrek poles were super light but also super-flexible, especially in the longer lengths. The new Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles feature stiffer, more durable shafts and new molded grips. At only 2.8 ounces per pole (125 cm length), they are still the lightest poles on the market.

What’s Good

At 2.8 ounces per pole, they are the lightest trekking poles available
New, thicker shafts are significantly stiffer and more durable
Molded EVA grips are comfortable and offer multiple hand positions
Reasonably priced at $96

What’s Not So Good

Not stiff enough for heavyweight hikers or heavy packs
Sharp objects such as metal snow shovels or sharp talus are the shafts’ weakness
Some hikers will miss the straps (I didn’t)
Shaft are not covered by warranty; replacement shafts cost $30

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles
Style	Fixed length
Shaft Material	Layered Carbon/Glass Fiber in an epoxy resin
Tips	Carbide flextip
Grips	Molded EVA foam, wrist loops optional
Grip Size	Medium-Large
Weight Per Pole (without baskets)	2.8 oz (80 g) measured weight – 125 cm length; manufacturer’s specification: 2.6 oz (74 g) 115 cm length
Pole Length	Fixed: 41-53 in (105-135 cm)
Baskets Included?	Yes – diameter: 2 in (13 cm), weight: 0.3 oz (9 g)
Basket Type	Screw-on/Leki
MSRP	$96

Performance

The Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles have gone through some changes since the originals came out. While the original poles were super light and shock-absorbing, they were also very flexible and not very durable, resulting in several broken shafts during field testing (see original Lightrek Review here). The new generation Gossamer Lightrek poles have some important updates but only gain 0.5 ounces per pole, keeping them the lightest poles on the market.

Gossamer Gear Lightrek ‘06 Trekking Pole REVIEW - 1
The Lightrek shafts are much stiffer and more durable than the first-generation shafts and only weigh 0.5 ounces more…well worth it.

The most important update of the Lightrek poles is their shafts. The shafts are not pure carbon fiber – instead, they are constructed of three layers of carbon fiber and one layer of glass in an epoxy resin. The shafts are custom made for Gossamer Gear and are basically beefed-up versions of the original shafts. The new shafts are significantly stiffer and more durable than the original models.

Gossamer Gear Lightrek ‘06 Trekking Pole REVIEW - 2
The new EVA “Kork-O-Lon” grips give the look of cork but the lightweight comfort of EVA foam. Note the loops at the base of the grips for attaching wrist loops.

The other important update of the Lightrek poles are the molded EVA “Kork-O-Lon” grips that are found only on Gossamer Gear and Bozeman Mountain Works poles. The grips are medium sized and comfortable for a wide range of hand sizes. They give the look of cork with the feel and light weight of EVA foam.

The Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles are very simple, including the grips, carbon/glass shafts, and carbide flextips. Small loops at the base of the grips allow wrist loops to be attached (but none are provided). Small 2-inch baskets are included with the poles, which will also accept a wide variety of available Leki baskets.

Lightrek poles are not collapsible and they must be ordered to the size of the user. I’ve found that it’s easiest to find your size by experimenting with adjustable length poles to find your best all-around length and purchasing fixed-length poles of that length. The length is measured from the top of the handle to the bottom of the tip.

Shelters that require trekking poles will work best with fixed-length trekking poles that are the exact required size. However, problems can be easily avoided by placing shorter poles on rocks or placing longer poles in depressions or at an angle or making stop points by wrapping small sections of duct tape around the shafts at the correct height.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	Depends on length
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 and Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Depends on length
Golite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Depends on length
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	Only with extra support

At only 2.8 ounces for a 125 millimeter length, the Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles virtually disappear in your hands. During all-day use, I experience very little hand or arm fatigue and quick placements are effortless and automatic. The Lightrek poles are a joy to use.

While some may miss the security of a wrist strap, they really are not necessary with a pole this light. A light grip is all that’s required to keep the poles in your hands in technical situations. Despite using the Lightrek poles for many months, there are still situations when I drop them, namely when I’ve place the tip between rocks or when falling. Not having the poles attached saves the shafts from possible breakage in these situations. For times when you can’t afford to drop a pole, such as high angle snow crossings, small loops at the base of the grips allow wrist loops to be attached to the poles. Tent guylines make excellent improvised loops in these situations.

Gossamer Gear Lightrek ‘06 Trekking Pole REVIEW - 3
The multi-position grips allow you to change position based on comfort or conditions. I never miss the straps on these ultralight poles.

Another benefit of not having a wrist strap is that it gives you flexibility to use all of the hand positions of the “Kork-O-Lon” grips. I found the standard position to be the most versatile and I used this in most situations. When pushing myself along in deep sand or powder snow, the flat upper part of the grip gives a solid position for pushing the pole behind you. A lower position is nice during steep climbs when a shorter pole is favorable. But using all of the hand positions, you essentially turn the fixed-length pole into a pole with 12 centimeters of adjustable length. The grips are extremely versatile.

Gossamer Gear Lightrek ‘06 Trekking Pole REVIEW - 4
The screw-on basket system is easy to change in the field. Unfortunately, these tips lack a space above the threads (see arrow) and the baskets tend to loosen while in use.

The carbide tips of the Lightrek poles have Leki-style screw-on baskets and a wide variety of aftermarket baskets are available. The tips provide good grip on rock and the Leki-style attachment system is the way to go, allowing for easy basket changes in the field and secure attachment. Unlike other Leki-style tips, though, the Lightrek tips are threaded all the way up to stopper at the top. The space that’s usually at the top allows baskets to rotate without loosening. Unfortunately, baskets on the Lightrek poles become loose during usage and require occasional attention. This is especially a problem when using them in snow. During testing, baskets fell off on several occasions.

Carbon fiber trekking poles are known for their ability to naturally absorb trail shock and vibration. The Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles are especially good at this, bending slightly during serious hits and absorbing vibration without being overly flexible. I found the shafts to be very comfortable in conditions ranging from off-trail hiking to snowshoeing in icy conditions.

I am a very aggressive hiker, frequently jumping off of drop offs and running through difficult terrain and at 6 foot 1 inch tall and 185 pounds, I’m no lightweight either. I’m tough on poles and after breaking one of the original Lightrek poles, I really put these through the ringer. Despite my best efforts to test them to the limit in off-trail and icy snow conditions, they had no durability issues. That said, these poles are not for everyone – if you are much heavier than I am, frequently carry heavy loads, or like the feel of very rigid pole, these poles aren’t the best fit for you. But for most of the lightweight backpackers that will read this review, the new generation Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles will be a very comfortable compromise of rigidity and shock absorption.

While I experienced no durability issues with these poles, there are weaknesses. They will bend far more than aluminum poles without problems but when stressed to the limit, they will break instead of bending. A more realistic problem, though, is the shafts snapping when they are side loaded or come into contact with a sharp surface. You’ll want to avoid putting these poles into holes in a talus field or between slats on a boardwalk. By using a small amount of care in these situations, though, these poles should last for many seasons.

If breakage does occur, the poles are not covered by warranty. New shafts are available for a reasonable $30.

For $96, the Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles are a great value. They are the lightest poles on the market, very comfortable to use, and provide the basic features needed for hikes of any length.

What’s Unique

The Lightrek poles offer a winning package of light weight, balanced rigidity and flexibility, versatile grips, and durable tips. Their carbon and glass fiber shafts are also unique among trekking poles.

Recommendations for Improvement

While the Gossamer Gear Lightrek poles offer a great overall package and are a huge improvement over the first generation Lightrek poles, I would still like to see the following improvements:

Leki-style tips that have the space above the threads offer a much more secure basket attachment and should be used instead of these tips.
A stiffer shaft option would be better for bigger hikers or beginners to ultralight techniques.

Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock Trekking Pole REVIEW

Two-section carbon poles that are very light weight, adjust for different size users, and perform great in the backcountry.

Introduction

The Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock are two-section poles marketed as ski touring/snowshoeing models. However, they are solid poles that work equally well in summer or winter adventures. They weigh 6.0 ounces each, extend to a full 145 centimeters, offer excellent vibration damping, and are a good value at $129.99. While two sections means there are fewer parts that might be damaged, it also means the poles don’t compact below 110 centimeters.

What’s Good

One of the lightest two-section poles at 6.0 ounces (170 g) each
Adjust from 110 to 145 centimeters to accommodate different sized users
Well designed and high quality
New locking system provides no-slip adjustment
Reasonably priced at $129.99

What’s Not So Good

Only compact to 110 centimeters making them cumbersome when strapped to a backpack
Snow baskets are difficult to remove
Serrated Foam grips not as comfortable as competitors’ models

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock
Style	Two-section collapsible
Shaft Material	Carbon fiber
Tips	Tungsten Carbide
Grips	EVA foam with strap
Grip Size	Medium-Large
Weight Per Pole (without baskets)	6.0 oz (170 g) measured weight; manufacturer’s specification 6.2 oz (176 g)
Pole Length	43.3-57.0 in (110-145 cm)
Baskets Included?	Yes – diameter: 2 in (5.1 cm), weight: 0.2 oz (6 g)
Basket Type	Twist-on/Komperdell
MSRP	$129.99

Performance

Komperdell provides a nice compromise in the C2 Carbon Tour Duolock trekking poles. As two-section poles, they are heavier than one-section poles, but with the added feature of adjustable height to accommodate different users and varied terrain. A comparable three-section pole would be heavier (and have double the locking mechanisms to adjust or possibly slip) but pack down smaller for easier stowage. My actual measurement for the minimum length was 110 centimeters. The G’reptile grip-zone on the upper section is a rubber textured material that worked very well for easy tightening in all conditions but a small section of textured bumps on the lower section provides minimal grip of the lower section.

Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock REVIEW - 1
The EVA foam grips with adjustable straps are serrated on the back.

The grips are EVA foam that is serrated on the back. The serrated section is a little uncomfortable after long periods of use. The wrist straps are neoprene and easy to adjust but cannot be removed.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	No
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 and Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Yes
Golite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Yes
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	Yes

The provided baskets are large, snow baskets. I removed them for testing during summer months, but smaller baskets are available as well as even larger snowshoeing baskets. It is hard to get a good grip on the lower section of the pole, making it hard to twist off the basket. Reinstalling the baskets is equally as hard (this is typical of Komperdell baskets). The tips of the poles are tungsten carbide, which is often used as a cheap diamond substitute in cutting tools since the material is very hard. The tips grip various terrain well in a variety of different conditions.

Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock REVIEW - 2
The tungsten carbide tips grip well. The snow baskets shown are included with the poles.

The Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock poles are very stiff and stable; I put all my weight on the poles and they held just fine. Trail vibration is minimal because the carbon shafts and foam grips dampen the vibration. The poles are durable and showed minimal wear during testing.

Each pole weighs 6.0 ounces, making them one of the lightest two section poles on the market. They are perfect for backpackers who want to keep their overall weight to a minimum, yet have the flexibility of a two-section pole. At $129.99 they are a great value for lightweight carbon poles.

What’s Unique

The Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock trekking poles have a new Duolock locking mechanism which claims to be 80% more stable then traditional locking mechanisms. As seen in the pictures below, when the two pole sections are turned clockwise the locking mechanism expands and locks the pole at a certain length. Because the locking mechanism expands and compresses against the upper pole parallel to the sides there is more surface area of the locking mechanism touching the inner walls of the pole. This creates more friction and leads to more stability when compared to a traditional locking mechanism that diagonally expands. I had no trouble adjusting the poles, but to keep them from slipping I often over tightened them and heard a slight creaking sound. While this caused no durability issues, the sound was disconcerting.

Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock REVIEW - 3
Duolock locking mechanism.

Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock REVIEW - 4
Komperdell claims the Duolock system (left) is 80% more stable then a traditional locking mechanism (right) since a larger surface area of the expander contacts the inner pole walls.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Komperdell C2 Carbon Tour Duolock poles are solid performers. That said, I offer the following suggestions to improve the poles:

Add G’reptile grip-zone on part of the lower section instead of the raised texture to improve grip on the lower section when adjusting the poles.
Redesign how the snow baskets are attached to make them easier to remove.
Angle the grips slightly to make them more comfortable.

Alpkit Carbonlite Trekking Pole REVIEW

Stiff, lightweight, and reasonably priced, the Alpkit Carbonlite poles are the carbon trekking pole value leaders. How did they stand up to months of abuse?

Introduction

With major competitors charging as much as $150-$200 for adjustable carbon fiber trekking poles, you might assume that the $95 Alpkit Carbonlite poles would be second rate. However, you’d be wrong; these poles are very light (6.6 ounces), have comfortable grips and straps, extend to a full 140 centimeters, and are the stiffest in their class. Are these the ultimate value in carbon fiber trekking poles?

What’s Good

Among the stiffest trekking poles we’ve reviewed
Very light (6.6 oz) for a pole this stiff and with this maximum length (140 cm)
Solid locking mechanisms never slip
Comfortable grips and straps
Reasonably priced at $95

What’s Not So Good

Grips became unglued in the field and couldn’t be field-repaired (replaced with one-piece grips in new models, eliminating the problem)
Not as durable against sharp side impacts as aluminum poles
The poles are currently unavailable but should be back on the market in September ’06

Specifications

Year/Model	2006 Alpkit Carbonlite trekking poles
Style	Three-section collapsible
Shaft Material	Carbon fiber
Tips	Tungsten carbide
Grips	EVA foam with strap (synthetic cork grips are optional)
Grip Size	Medium
Weight Per Pole (without baskets)	6.6 oz (187 g) measured weight; manufacturer’s specification 6.9 oz (195 g)
Pole Length	26.5 – 55 in (67 – 140 cm)
Baskets Included?	Yes – diameter: 2.2 in (6 cm), weight: 0.4 oz (10 g)
Basket Type	Press fit/Life Link or Black Diamond
MSRP	£50 (approx $95)

Performance

The Alpkit Carbonlite is the first trekking pole brought to market by Alpkit, a web-based, direct-only manufacturer from the United Kingdom. Recent increases in the cost of carbon fiber have caused Alpkit to temporarily pull their Carbonlite poles from the market but they plan to reintroduce a slightly-modified design in September 2006.

With top shafts that measure a whopping 11/16 inches (17 mm), the Carbonlite are some of the stiffest adjustable trekking poles we’ve reviewed.

The Carbonlite poles feature oversized carbon fiber shafts; the upper shaft measures a full 11/16 inches. Each of the sections are between 1/16 and 1/8 inch (1.5 and 3.0 mm) wider than comparable Komperdell Carbon Duolock C3 or Leki Carbon Ergometric models. While the upper sections of the poles I reviewed are made of woven carbon fiber and the lower sections are spun carbon fiber, all sections will be spun carbon fiber on the reintroduced poles.

The internal locking mechanisms use metal threads with plastic expanders. They locked consistently and never slipped in the field during testing.

The EVA foam grips with plastic top are medium-sized and very comfortable. The adjustable straps are also very comfortable and never rubbed my hands.

The grips are EVA foam which is glued to a plastic base with a plastic cap at the top. The grips are medium-sized and are comfortable for a wide range of hand sizes. The adjustable straps are thin foam with a nylon backing and are sewn around the edges, giving them a finished look. The straps are very comfortable with no rough seams to come in contact with the hand.

In reintroduced models the grips will be one-piece EVA foam models which, according to Alpkit, will be lighter weight. This design should also alleviate a durability issue I encountered (explained below).

The tungsten carbide tips grip well in all situations and accept press-fit baskets such as those from Black Diamond and Life-Link.

The tips are tungsten carbide flextips that allow for some give on the trail and will break away in extreme conditions, saving the carbon fiber shafts. The metal tips are more rounded than those offered from other manufacturers; while I found the tips to grip well in all conditions including slippery Washington rock, there may be situations where sharper tips are slightly better.

Alpkit includes 2.2-inch trekking baskets with their poles. The poles also accept any press-fit baskets such as those offered by Black Diamond and Life-Link. I found Black Diamond snow baskets to work very well when snowshoeing with the Carbonlite poles. Changing the baskets is not as easy as with Leki-style screw-on models but was easily done in the field and they never came off accidentally.

The Alpkit Carbonlite poles adjust from 67 to 140 centimeters, making them usable by all but the tallest hikers. They will also work with virtually any shelter that requires trekking poles.

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Shelter type and pole length required	Usable with this shelter?
Gossamer Gear/Tarptent Squall Classic (42 in/107 cm)	Yes
Tarptent Virga 2 / Squall 2 and Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo / Europa (45 in/114 cm)	Yes
GoLite Trig 2 (48 in/123 cm)	Yes
MSR Missing Link (54 in/137 cm)	Yes

At 6.6 ounces, the Alpkit Carbonlite poles aren’t the lightest adjustable carbon fiber poles on the market, but they are close (the lightest are Komperdell C3 Duolock Women at 1 ounce lighter). But for the extra weight, they offer a full 140 centimeter length and are the stiffest adjustable poles we tested. If you are looking for maximum stiffness and enough length for folks well over six feet, the Carbonlite poles are a great package.

Because much of the weight is centered in the upper shafts, grips, and straps, these poles swing easily and make for quick placements on the trail. The wrist straps are also helpful in keeping the Alpkit poles under control when moving quickly or through technical terrain.

The Carbonlite poles were used and abused over several months including this climb of Mount Rainier.

While the Carbonlite poles scored a perfect 5.0 in stiffness, they also provide the comfortable vibration damping that makes carbon poles so enjoyable to use. They are silent on the trail and deaden the feel of sharp hits better than any aluminum pole.

During several months of heavy usage ranging from off trail hiking, to snowshoeing in icy conditions, to a climb of Mount Rainier, the Alpkit poles held up nicely – with two exceptions. First, the grips came unglued from their plastic bases and could not be field repaired. At home, it was an easy fix with super glue. Fortunately, the re-released poles due out in September ’06 will have one piece EVA foam grips that will avoid this gluing issue.

The Alpkit grips became unglued during a snowshoe trip but were easily repaired at home with super glue. The upcoming model will feature lighter one-piece grips that will eliminate this problem.

Another problem that arose with the Alpkit Carbonlite poles was due completely to user error and highlights a downside of all carbon poles – the fact that carbon shafts, while very strong and stiff for their weight, are susceptible to sharp side impacts.

While winter camping on Mount Hood, it rained for hours and hours and then froze. Oh YUK! The poles, which we had used as guy line anchors, were now frozen in several inches of ice. When using a snow shovel to dig them out, I hit the pole’s lower shaft, snapping it. I believe this would have happened with any carbon poles but aluminum shafts would probably not have broken. When using carbon fiber poles it’s important to realize their limits; sharp impacts or extreme leverage situations (such as placing the pole between talus slabs) are the weakness of this material.

This break should not be considered a weakness specific to Alpkit Carbonlite poles – these poles are bomber and treated with reasonable care, will last many seasons. They survived numerous falls and even jumps off small cliffs without any problems – using the poles as intended should yield no durability issues.

A user-error break caused by hitting the shaft with an aluminum shovel highlights a weakness inherent in carbon fiber as a shaft material that is not specific to Alpkit Carbonlite poles.

At $95, the Alpkit Carbonlite poles are the least expensive poles in their class, coming in $35-$105 cheaper than other adjustable carbon fiber poles. Although you save a lot of money, you still get very high quality poles. They are very stiff, well constructed, and at 6.6 ounces, among the lightest poles you can buy. Because of manufacturer-direct pricing, the Alpkit poles are the best deal going in carbon fiber adjustable trekking poles.

What’s Unique

The overall package of light weight, quality construction, comfortable grips, good vibration damping, and shaft stiffness puts the Alpkit Carbonlite poles among the best in their class. The fact that they cost less than $100 makes them a standout.

Recommendations for Improvement

My only recommendation would be to swap out the two piece plastic/EVA grips for lighter and more reliable EVA-only models, but this will already be done in the updated poles to be released in September 2006. I’m also curious to see the effect of the new carbon uppers on pole weight and stiffness.

Gear List
Clothing Worn While Hiking	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
hiking hat	full brim	Tilley LT5	3.3	94
hiking shirt	warm for hiking and sleeping	SmartWool Lightweight Zip-T	7.7	218
sport top	comfortable	CW-X Sport Support Bra	2.7	77
underwear	synthetic briefs	Moving Comfort Microbrief	1.3	37
pants	nylon	Columbia PFG zip off	10.3	292
hiking socks	thin merino wool blend	SmartWool RBX Racer socks	1.3	37
hiking shoes	lightweight and supportive	Inov-8 F-Lite 300	23.4	663
Other Items Worn or Carried	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
trekking poles	lightweight, carbon fiber	Bozeman Mountain Works Stix Pro	5.4	153
Other Clothing		WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
bandana	protect neck from sun	bandana	0.8	23
torso insulation	in camp and sleeping	Bozeman Mountain Works Cocoon Pullover	8.3	235
wind jacket	water resistant, full zip, hooded	GoLite Helios	3.3	94
warm hat	warmth for sleeping under a quilt	GoLite Snow	1.9	54
gloves	thin and light	Outdoor Research PL Base gloves	0.7	20
extra socks	thin merino wool blend	SmartWool RBX Racer socks	1.3	37
Shelter and Sleep System	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE
overhead shelter	poncho/tarp	Bozeman Mountain Works SpinPoncho LITE	4.7	133
tent stakes	titanium skewer stakes	Bozeman Mountain Works Hi-Vis Ti Stakes (6)	1.3	37
guylines	20 feet, thin cord able to hold a tautline hitch	275 lb EZC spectra-core line	0.3	9
bivy sack	breathable top, waterproof bottom	Bozeman Mountain Works Vapr NANO Bivy	4.6	130
sleeping bag	down quilt	Jacks ‘R’ Better No Sniveller Quilt	20.1	570
sleeping pad	closed cell foam	Gossamer Gear NightLight torso	3.5	99
Packing	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
backpack	small volume frameless	Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet 30 with waistbelt	4.9	0
waterproof pack cover	keep pack contents dry	Gossamer Gear Pack Liner (medium)	1.3	37
Cooking and Water	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
stove	alcohol	Mini Bull Designs Mini-Sith Stove with alcohol measuring cup	0.8	23
wind screen	wind screen	oven liner windscreen and paper clip	0.4	11
fuel container	squirt	Platypus Lil’ Nipper with red spout cap (lip trimmed for leak proof seal)	0.6	17
cook pot	lightweight, at least 16 oz capacity	Heineken beer can with top cut out	1.1	31
cook pot lid	aluminum foil	foil cut to size, doubled	0.1	3
ignite fuel	matches	book of matches in tiny zipper bag and lighter	0.7	20
utensil	spoon	GSI Lexan soup spoon	0.3	9
water container	1 liter	1 L Platypus Water Bottle	0.9	26
water container	2 liters	2+ liter Platypus Water Bottle	1.2	34
water treatment	container for KlearWater	Bozeman Mountain Works 0.35-oz Capacity Dropper Bottle	0.2	6
food storage	bag	plastic grocery bag	0.2	6
Other Essentials	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
personal hygiene	toilet kit	alcohol hand gel, zip bag for used tp, antibiotic cream with pain relief in zip bag	1.1	31
personal hygiene	teeth cleaning kit	toothbrush, floss, baking soda (in tiny zip bag) – in food bag	0.9	26
ditty bag	miscellaneous	paper cutter, headlamp, wound kit, firestarting kit, sunscreen, keychain compass, DEET in silnylon bag	2.6	74
light	LED headlamp	Doug Ritter Photon Freedom on string with whistle	in ditty bag	n/a
first aid	minor wound care, meds, repair	ibuprofen, duct tape, butterfly bandages (2), DEET in tiny bottle, safety pin	in ditty bag	n/a
firestarting	emergency, firestarting	storm matches (2), no-blow out birthday candles (2), whistle, Spark-Lite firestarter, book matches	in ditty bag	n/a
sunscreen	SPF 30, sunscreen and lip balm	Banana Boat Kids repackaged (0.6 oz) in Bozeman Mountain Works balm jar, OraLabs Lip Sun Shield (0.2 oz)	in ditty bag	n/a
Consumables (3-Day Trip)	WEIGHT
FUNCTION	STYLE/Rationale	EXAMPLE	Ounces	Grams
fuel	alcohol	3/4 oz/burn, 2 burns	1.5	43
food	2.5 days	24 oz / day	60.0	1701
water	plentiful	1 quart	32.0	907
water treatment	KlearWater (excluding packaging)	0.5 oz	0.5	14
toilet paper	soft but strong	1 oz/3 days	1.0	28

Weight Summary
Weight Summary	Pounds	Kilograms
(1) Total Worn or Carried While Hiking	3.5	1.6
(2) Total Base Weight in Pack	4.3	1.9
(3) Total Weight of Consumables	5.9	2.7
(4) Full Skin-Out Base Weight (1) + (2)	7.7	3.5
(5) Total Initial Pack Weight (2) + (3)	10.2	4.6
(6) Full Skin-Out Weight (1) + (2) + (3)	13.7	6.2

Cost (US$)	Weight (oz)	Time to construct (hours)	Skill (scale 1-10)	Tools (scale 1-10)
$140*	9.6 total	One long weekend	6	7**
*Depends on sourcing of materials.
**Tools include a hobbyist level sewing machine.

Material	Quantity	Uses
spinnaker	5 yards (54 inches wide)	Tarp, pack, stuff sack
1.9 ounce urethane coated ripstop nylon	0.5 yards (60 inches wide)	Pack backpanel
watch band clip (center release buckle)	one	Pack top closure
3/4 inch ladder locks	two	Pack shoulder straps
3/4 inch micro cord locks	three	Pack, stuff sack
3/4 inch nylon webbing	1 yard	Pack shoulder straps
1/4 inch thick closed cell foam	3 inches x 36 inches	Pack shoulder straps
3/4 inch grosgrain	3 yards	Tarp, pack
shock cord	2 yards	Pack
1/4 inch nylon webbing	1 foot	Tarp
Aircore 1 Spectra cord	30 feet	Tarp, pack, stuff sack
white Gutermann thread	1 spool (274 yard)	Tarp, pack, stuff sack
black Gutermann thread	1 spool (274 yard)	Pack
Sil-net	1 tube	Tarp


When cutting fabric for several projects, I like to place each projects’ pieces and notions into separate plastic bags as I work. This helps to keep things organized, which reduces errors.

Gear List
(not finalized)
Category / Items	Weight
	Grams	Ounces
PACK
Gossamer Gear G6 with compression cord, Camelbak attachments, sternum strap and waist belt	128	4.5
Homemade frontpack	17	0.6
Perry whistle, cord loop and UrsaLite Micro Carabiner	10	0.4
Timex Ironman chronograph	49	1.7
Total	204	7.2
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
SLEEP/SHELTER
Total	0	0.0
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
HYDRATION
Camelbak 100 fl oz Omega Reservoir – collar removed and pack attachment system added	187	6.6
12 fl oz plastic cup for filling reservoir	3	0.1
Total	190	6.7
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
EMERGENCY
Mini Bic lighter	11	0.4
Total	11	0.4
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
REPAIRS
Ziploc bag	4	0.1
Gerber Microlite LST locking blade knife with cord loop	11	0.4
Dual Duty thread and needles	1	0.0
Duct tape	14	0.5
Bailing Wire	5	0.1
6 Safety pins	3	0.1
6 ft of 2 mm cord	4	0.1
Total	42	1.5
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
TOILETRIES
Soap and container	57	2.0
Poo Kit – shop towels, 2 ziploc bags, Purell	43	1.5
Ora Labs Lip Sun Shield SPF 30	6	0.2
Sunscreen	28	1.0
Total	134	4.7
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
MEDICAL
Antibiotic ointment	9	0.3
Bandaids	6	0.2
Medications	6	0.2
Ibuprofen	9	0.3
Ziploc bag	4	0.1
Total	34	1.2
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
FOOTCARE
Collapsible scissors	14	0.5
Tape	28	1.0
Moleskin	28	1.0
Compound tincture of benzoin	43	1.5
Bodyglide skin lubricant	85	3.0
Ziploc bag	4	0.1
Total	202	7.1
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
CLOTHES (Carried in pack in warm, dry weather)
Spare Injinji Mini Crew Coolmax Tetratsok, medium	49	1.7
Spare Balega Enduro running socks, medium	42	1.5
Spare GoLite C-Thru polyester lightweight brief, medium	46	1.6
Thin polyester balaclava	33	1.2
Nunatak down balaclava in 0.85 oz /yd² fabric	84	3.0
Montbell UL Down Inner Jacket, medium	221	7.8
GoLite C-Thru Polyester Men’s Lite Weight Tight, Large	126	4.4
Outdoor Research Zealot Gore-Tex packlite jacket, medium	210	7.4
Montbell UL Wind Pants, medium	65	2.3
Outdoor Research Talus waterproof/breathable mitten shells, medium	78	2.8
Rocky Gore-Tex Socks, size 12	83	2.9
Bozeman Mountain Works Spin Sack NANO UL, medium	8	0.3
Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil Dry Sack 4 Liter (for down)	23	0.8
Total	1068	37.7
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
ADMINISTRATION
Wilderness permit, ID, Trail junction log, cash, credit cards, contact sheet, pencil, ziploc bag, blank paper, emergency note and medical card in ziploc bag with safety pins, 2 cards in ziploc bag to drop at Red’s Meadow and Tuolumne Meadow asking hikers to call my home to report my progress in case I disappear	28	1.0
Total	28	1.0
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
MISCELLANEOUS
Petzl Tikka Plus headlamp with 3 lithium AAA batteries	78	2.8
2 sets spare batteries	45	1.6
Total	123	4.3
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
FOOD
21 Clif Bars deflated and resealed @ 250 Calories	1470	51.9
21 oz Teriyaki turkey jerky @ 80 Calories	595	21
42 quarts Accelerade @ 320 Calories	3473	122.5
Ziplock bags	57	2
2 Watchful Eye Designs 12.5″x15.5″ O.P. Bags (odor proof)	57	2
GoLite Landlubbers Sil-lite Stow Sack, Large	29	1
Total	5681	200.4
Category / Items	Grams	Ounces
WORN ON BODY (in warm, dry weather)
Marathon white mesh ball cap with mesh cape added	71	2.5
SportEyz rollup sunglasses	8	0.3
Ziploc bag glasses case	4	0.1
Nike Ladies White Stretch Shirt with mesh sleeves added, large	170	6
Asics Relay Field Stretch Short, large	134	4.7
GoLite C-Thru polyester lightweight brief, medium	46	1.6
Injinji Mini Crew Coolmax Tetratsok, medium	49	1.7
Balega Enduro running socks, medium	42	1.5
Dirty Girl Gaiters “Lime Gatorade Hurl” pattern	33	1.2
Mizuno Wave Rider 9 road running shoes, size 10	612	21.6
Superfeet green footbeds	94	3.3
Total	1263	44.6
NOTES
Food: On a 5.25 day record breaking schedule the 20,370 Calories will provide 3880 Calories/day
Completing the 208 mile distance in 4 days increases the daily allotment to 5093 Calories/day
28.2% of weight of fully loaded pack will be base load plus food packaging
71.8% of weight of fully loaded pack will be food
My food averages 3.7 Calories/gram.
Clothing: 52.5% of the weight of base pack is clothing (spares, cold and wet weather)
47.5% is non-clothing

Weight Summary
	Weight
Category	Kilograms	Pounds
Base Weight (A)	2.0	4.5
Consumables – food and packaging (B)	5.7	12.5
Fully Loaded Pack (A+B) (no water will be carried at start)	7.7	17.0
Worn on body (warm, dry weather) (C)	1.3	2.8
Full Skin Out Weight (A+B+C)	9.0	19.8

Introduction

Buy a small stove these days and it is likely to come covered in dire warnings about the risk of carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning and that you must not use the stove in any sort of confined space. And yet walkers have been using small stoves inside their tent vestibules in bad weather for many, many years with very few instances of trouble. What is the risk, why are all those warnings there, and how seriously should we take them?

This multi-part article explores the carbon monoxide issue. The first part will cover the basic theory underlying how stoves work and how they can generate carbon monoxide, the second part will cover an extensive amount of laboratory testing of a wide range of stoves, and the third part will cover field tests of some selected stoves inside several tents. It is mainly focused on butane/propane, white gas, and kerosene stoves, although some brief mention is made of alcohol and solid fuels.

Background

First of all, let’s make it very clear that a stove can make carbon monoxide or CO gas, and that this gas is poisonous above a very low level. It gets absorbed by the haemoglobin cells in your bloodstream, stopping them from absorbing oxygen. Without that oxygen circulating around in your body, you die.

The hazard from breathing in CO is real.

This is a well-ventilated tent, and it was cold outside.

What’s more, there have been a few cases¹ where walking/mountaineering people in tents have suffered from CO poisoning. However, many of these cases have been inside tightly sealed tents at high altitude, and the number of cases is very small. Many other ‘tent’ cases have involved poorly operating lanterns or even charcoal BBQs in more tourist environments. On the other hand, I have spent a significant part of my life walking and ski touring, usually with my wife, and almost always in a small mountain tent. For the last 15+ years I have always used a small stove to cook dinner, and if the weather has been poor I have used that stove inside my tent. I have never been conscious of any hazards from carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, or lack of oxygen. Just why that may be so is discussed further on.

Now let’s look at the problem from the perspective of a stove manufacturer. Consider the quantity of highly volatile fuel involved with any stove, the potential for all sorts of fires and explosions, and the current propensity for people to sue companies over anything at all. One has to wonder why any sane manufacturer would even consider making and selling stoves! It seems inevitable that the company lawyers will stick as many warnings as possible onto the stoves. Since lawyers tend to focus more on human error and legal risk rather than the actual physics and chemistry of what’s going on, one can also expect the company lawyers to do everything short of saying ‘don’t even use the stove’.

This seems fair enough really, given the hazard and their liability concerns, but it throws the responsibility of understanding the nature of the hazard back onto the consumer, you, the walker. And there is very little real technical information in the market place about the hazard. This article aims to help explain what is really going on.

Overview of Part 1

In Part 1 of this article I start with a brief review of the medical knowledge. The nature of carbon monoxide poisoning is well understood: it can preferentially join with the red bloods cells which normally carry oxygen around your body, forming carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) and, basically, cutting off your oxygen supply. It displaces oxygen from your blood supply because haemoglobin has an affinity for carbon monoxide which is 200 to 250 times greater than its affinity for oxygen (O2).Yes, it can kill.

Then we review published reports and statistics, which support the idea that carbon monoxide does kill people each year, but the number killed is not great and the big hazards are not with small cooking stoves in well-ventilated walkers’ tents, even in the snow. Some medical research into this problem has been done. We list some very useful references under Medical Knowledge. A couple of other key non-medical references into the CO problem are also listed: these can be hard for walkers to find, and have not had the publicity they deserve. They are very much to the point.

Having dealt with the published literature, we will then move on to discuss Flame Chemistry, or what goes on inside those little flames coming out of your stove. As is so often the case, it is not quite as simple as you might think. Well, that’s what scientists say of course (and the author is one of them). However, a very simplified version is possible and is quite enough to make the rest of this article clear.

From all the above, the author has developed a fairly simple hypothesis about the source of the carbon monoxide hazard. If this hypothesis is correct, it means that a correctly-operated stove in a tent with adequate ventilation does not present a carbon monoxide hazard. It also explains how you can create or eliminate the hazard. The testing of this hypothesis will be covered in the two following parts of this article.

Medical Knowledge

Just how does CO affect you? The author is not a qualified medical practitioner, so the answers here will consist largely of quotes from published research papers.

Simon Leigh-Smith, MBChB, MRCGP, FRCSEd (A&E) from the Defence Medical Services, United Kingdom, wrote in a review² of carbon monoxide poisoning in tents:

“Carbon monoxide is a chemical asphyxiant gas with a haemoglobin affinity 200 to 250 times greater than that of oxygen (O2). Carbon monoxide also interferes with cellular oxidation by binding myoglobin, cytochrome oxidase, cytochrome P-450, hydroperoxidases, and other haem proteins. Because it has an affinity for tissues with a high O2 demand, its main targets are the neurologic system, cardiac tissue, and fetus.”

My understanding is that this means your blood will prefer to absorb CO rather than oxygen, and that this limits the supply of oxygen to your body. This is not good. In addition, the CO interferes with various processes in your body – all rather critical ones. What levels of CO are medically hazardous? The following quote is from the above paper and gives UK figures in parts per million (ppm):

“Occupational exposure limits in the UK are set by the health and safety executive to avoid a COHb concentration greater than 5% in healthy nonsmokers. The maximum acceptable exposures are 200 ppm for 15 minutes (short-term exposure limit) and 30 ppm (time-weighted average) for 8 hours. Other sources state that in cases of extreme emergency, 200 ppm could be tolerated virtually indefinitely and certainly up to 24 hours without leading to collapse, which requires levels of 300 ppm (Ministry of Defence, unpublished data). To put these figures into context, 25 ppm is commonly encountered on major roads in urban areas and can reach 100 ppm during weather inversions.”

A paper³ on ‘Carbon monoxide exposure from cooking in snow caves at high altitude’ by Keyes, et al. gives the following American figures, where ‘COHb’ stands for carboxyhemoglobin or haemoglobin which has picked up CO:

“The threshold limit value for CO in industrial exposures is 35 ppm for an 8-hour workday and a maximum COHb of 5%. A concentration of 200 ppm is considered the ceiling level to which a worker may be exposed transiently without raising COHb level.”

The problem Keyes is highlighting here is that the concentration of CO in the air is not what affects you; rather it is the concentration of COHb or CO bonded to haemoglobin in your body which causes the damage. Different people have different responses, depending on their health and how long they are exposed. When considering cooking in a tent in bad weather, should we worry about the 15 minute 200 ppm figure, or the 8 hour 30/35 ppm figure? Both exposures seem rather low compared to the figures quoted for traffic situations where you can be stuck for an hour – although admittedly the latter can be pretty bad!

A secondary concern is that CO appears to clear out of your blood stream slower at high altitude than at sea level. However, in this case ‘high altitude’ usually means Himalayan altitudes – but Denali would qualify just fine.

It should be noted that there are an awful lot of junk publications around as well. It seems that some ‘medical researchers’ think the best approach is to stick a few uninformed volunteers inside a sealed tent with a running liquid fuel stove, and wait until they stop replying to questions about their health. Well, that may be slightly exaggerated, but not by much! I think it is unethical conduct. References are not listed for these, for obvious (legal/libel) reasons.

Published Statistics

The US Consumer Product Safety Commission collects statistics on carbon monoxide poisoning. In a comprehensive report on ‘Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide Deaths associated with the use of Consumer Products’⁴ issued in 2005 the fatalities for 2002 in the USA were analysed. Over the years 1999 – 2002 there were an average of 141 deaths from CO poisoning per year, and 188 in 2002 itself. Space heating systems were involved in 55% of the cases, engines in 28%, charcoal stoves in 5%, and camp stoves and lanterns were involved in 2%. It’s that two percent which concern us: just four people.

Storm-bound and losing ventilation around the edges.

Some 71% of deaths took place at home, while 23% took place in tents and temporary shelters. Most of the latter were, as the previous figures suggest, associated with space heating. It seems that many tourist-type campers have taken heaters into their tents at night – and left them running the whole night – and didn’t wake up.

The report does not even itemize the number of deaths which have occurred to walkers in little tents cooking dinner. It seems that even where a ‘camp stove’ was involved, there may also have been an LPG space heater. One gets the impression that holiday car campers in large family tents are the principal victims, and this is borne out by the following.

A report from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) entitled ‘Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Deaths Associated with Camping’⁵ details two cases where people died in tents. In the first case ‘a 51-year-old man, his 10-year-old son, a 9-year-old boy, and a 7-year-old girl were found dead inside a zipped-up, 10-foot by 14-foot, two-room tent at their campsite in southeast Georgia (a pet dog also died). A propane gas stove, still burning, was found inside the tent; the stove apparently had been brought inside to provide warmth.’ In the second case ‘a 34-year-old man and his 7-year-old son were found dead inside their zipped-up tent at a group camping site in central Georgia. They were discovered by other campers just before 9 a.m. A charcoal grill was found inside the tent; the grill apparently had been brought inside to provide warmth after it had been used outside for cooking.’

Two New Zealand Dept of Conservation volunteers died in the Chatham Islands in 1996. They had been monitoring the flight paths of tagged birds in an isolated area. The subsequent investigation⁶ found that the ventilation in their tent was poor – it seems the tent was zipped right up, and it was considered likely that the carbon monoxide had come from a butane gas lantern they had been using inside the tent.

Coleman Fyrestorm fuel tank, with ventilation warning.

The review by Simon Leigh-Smith cited above contains references to other cases, dating back to 1911, in Arctic and Antarctic regions as well as high mountain regions. In all cases it seems that the enclosures were seriously sealed: tents zipped up and iced over for instance. It doesn’t take a lot of snowfall to block all air ventilation at ground level for instance, as the photo of the author’s orange tent above shows. (That was in the morning, after the storm had passed.) When that happens, all you have left are the top vents.

It is interesting to note that the fuel tank for the latest multi-fuel stove from Coleman, the Fyrestorm Ti, carries a very explicit and extremely sensible warning on it: ‘This camp stove consumes air. To ensure its safe and proper operation and avoid health hazards, provide a fresh air opening of at least 10 square inches’. (The fine print underneath does say to not use it in a tent, but that’s just the lawyers speaking.) If you think about it, a vent some 5 inches wide by 2 inches high is fairly easy to have at the top of the door in many good tents. Just make sure there is somewhere down low for the air to get in – if necessary, clear the snow away to make an inlet hole at ground level.

Other References

There is an excellent but very short publication on the carbon monoxide problem from the Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, by T. Neil Davis entitled ‘Carbon Monoxide from Melting Snow, Article #336’. It is available at www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF3/336.htm. The report briefly covers what causes the carbon monoxide problem, and states ‘tests were conducted in 1942 by a group that included two scientists well known in the North, Drs Laurence Irving and Pete Scholander. Somehow in the years that have lapsed since 1942 the consequences of the tests seem to have been forgotten.’ The hypothesis I will be testing in the next part of this article is essentially the same as was proposed in 1942.

An experiment⁷ by Schwartz, et al. into running stoves inside a sealed box showed that measured CO levels quickly soared to very dangerous levels with all fuels, with kerosene apparently being the worst offender. The experiment showed that stoves can keep burning despite high levels of CO being present, thereby exacerbating the problem.

Finally, an article in Backpacker Magazine⁸ from 1978 entitled ‘Carbon Monoxide in Tents’ covers a small number of tests done on stoves in tents. Some stoves were found to emit a lot of CO, and the authors found that they could reduce the amount of CO emitted by a simple change to the offending stove: they raised the pot a little above the normal position. Why this happens is discussed below; the effectiveness of this method to control the CO levels emitted in practice will be examined in the next part of this article– but basically, it works. Unfortunately, the information in this article has also been largely forgotten.

Flame Chemistry

Basic hydrocarbon chain of carbon atoms (green) and hydrogen atoms (red),
held together by carbon-carbon bonds (blue) and carbon-hydrogen bonds (yellow).

What causes the production of CO? Surely the flame from a stove should be producing carbon dioxide and water? Well, yes, it should, but let’s look into the chemistry of flames to see what else is happening. It turns out that things get a little more complex when you have atoms flying around in a hot flame which can peak around 2,800 to 3,200 F (1,540 to 1,760 C). Actually, the flame should reach 3,600 F (1,980 C) if it didn’t lose heat to the surroundings – but it always does.

Let’s start with a basic hydrocarbon molecule containing a chain of carbon [C] atoms with hydrogen [H] atoms hanging off them. The molecule shown symbolically in the picture here has four carbons, and is called n-butane. (Isobutane has the same number of atoms in it, but the structure is slightly different.) If there were only three carbons in the chain the molecule would be propane. When this is heated in a hot enough flame all the bonds between the C and H atoms break, and you get all those individual atoms flying around in the flame. At the same time the oxygen molecules (two oxygen atoms bonded together) break up and you have individual oxygen atoms flying around. All this requires energy (a high temperature) for it to occur.

Then combustion starts, and a carbon atom links up with an oxygen atom to make carbon monoxide or CO, which we write thus:

C + O => CO + energy

When the carbon atom bonds with the oxygen atom energy is given off, and this helps make the flame hot. (If the flame gets really hot this reaction can be reversed, but that won’t happen under our stove conditions.) Now we have our CO. But a molecule of CO can burn too: in a second reaction it links up with another oxygen atom to make a carbon dioxide molecule or CO2 , and in doing so gives off more energy, thus:

CO + O => CO2 + energy

Under ideal conditions the combustion should go all the way to CO2. But the second reaction (CO to CO2) does not happen under all conditions: the atoms have to be pretty hot for them to get close enough to join, and there has to be enough oxygen around. One could say, for simplicity, that the first reaction of making CO happens more readily. It has to happen first, anyhow.

For those concerned about the fate of the hydrogen atoms, fear not. They too find oxygen partners and get hitched up, giving off energy in the process, thus:

2 H + O => H2O + energy

They create H2O molecules, or water, and you can see this condensing on a very cold pot sometimes right at the start of a cooking exercise. Later on when the pot gets warmer, the steam (for that is what it is) no longer condenses on the pot. It may of course condense on the inside of your tent, or create fog if you are cooking in colder weather.

That the C + O => CO reaction happens first will be seen as the critical factor in stove flame chemistry and unwanted CO emission. Now let’s follow a carbon atom in a hydrocarbon molecule coming out of a hole in a stove’s burner head and going up the flame. First the hydrocarbon molecule is heated up by the energy from the flame, and when hot enough it breaks apart (dissociates) to give free carbon and hydrogen atoms. The hydrogen burns quickly, giving off energy to keep this process going. A little further up the flame the carbon atom combines with a free oxygen atom to make a CO molecule. So far, so good. Then a little further up the flame the CO molecule comes across another oxygen atom and combines with it to give a CO2 molecule – if it is hot enough. If it is, the flame gives off CO2; if it isn’t, the flame gives off CO.

So what matters is whether the higher parts of the flame are hot enough for the second burning reaction to take place. If the flame suddenly runs into a ‘cold’ surface and transfers energy to it, the temperature of the flame is going to drop, and if it drops far enough the second reaction won’t happen. This drop in temperature is called ‘quenching.’

The key point is this: if the flame is quenched too soon, CO results.

Obviously, having a ‘cold’ pot too close to the flame could do this, and in this context even a pot of boiling water will seem cold compared to the flame. Forget any ideas about pots of snow being worse than warm water – they are all ‘cold’ compared to the flame temperature of about 3,000 F (1,650 C). BUT, if we have enough clearance between the pot and the burner the combustion process will complete before the flame hits the pot.

Does having enough clearance between the pot and the burner to avoid this problem reduce the fuel efficiency? This is unlikely to happen as most of the flame energy will still be in the flame – and with the burning of the CO there will be extra energy added to the flame. A very small amount of energy will be lost through infra-red radiation from the flame as it travels the extra distance up to the pot, but given the short distances involved ( about 1 inch or 25 millimeters) and the high speed the gas is traveling at, the amount will be small. Part 2 of this article will examine this question in detail.

Some researchers⁹ have also suggested that using a very wide pot can cause CO production. If true this would be unfortunate as a wider pot is favoured for efficiency in fuel use. However, it should be clear from the discussion so far that the width of the pot is not a direct factor here. If a wide pot sits too close to the burner so the flame is being quenched there may be a problem regardless of pot width, but raising the pot so the flame is not quenched should solve that. This too will be examined in Part 2.

Long Flames and Orange Flames

We should consider what happens if there just isn’t enough oxygen present in the fuel/air mixture coming out the stove’s burner. In this case some of the fuel could travel quite some distance away from the face of the burner before finding some oxygen from outside the flame. This leads to long flames. You frequently see this with an alcohol stove, where the fuel doesn’t get premixed with air.

It is also possible that some of the carbon atoms won’t meet up with any oxygen atoms before they reach the edge of the flame and the cold pot. They may start to cool down – but this is relative of course. While they are in the flame they are quite a bit hotter than ‘white hot,’ and emit mainly in the blue part of the spectrum. That’s why the flame seems blue. But as the carbon atoms cool down they pass through the ‘red hot’ stage, and will radiate just like a red hot bit of steel. They will emit red/orange/white light, and this is seen as an orange tip to the flame. You may notice some soot collecting on the underside of your pot when this happens. A traditional kerosene lantern creates a lot of this free carbon, that’s why it makes a bright light. If it is managed poorly, you will see a lot of soot coming off the flame too. Can a kerosene lantern make CO? It shouldn’t when properly adjusted, despite the bright flame, because there is little to quench the flame.

So if your stove has orange tips to the flame it means that it is not burning very well. It may be making soot, and it may be emitting CO. This is a warning sign!

Differences between Fuels

The central tube (green arrow) and burner head on an MSR WindPro stove.
The blue arrow points to the jet inside the tube.
The red arrows point to some of the air inlet holes around the jet.

Now let us examine the differences between the common fuels. First we will simply list a number of key factors, then we will put them together to show that the different fuels do behave slightly differently, and finally we will see what that means for us.

None of the common fuels are a single hydrocarbon; rather they are all mixtures of several hydrocarbons. For convenience we will describe propane which has 3 carbon atoms as C3, and butane which has four carbon atoms as C4. Following this convention makes white gas a mixture of hydrocarbons ranging from C4 to C12, while kerosene is a mixture ranging from C11 to C16. Yes, some of those hydrocarbon chains are very long. Why are white gas and kerosene mixtures of hydrocarbons? It would be very expensive to separate all the different hydrocarbons out at the refinery, and anyhow the mixtures actually work better than single hydrocarbons.
In a typical stove we have a stream of fuel vapour coming out the jet (blue arrow) and shooting up a central tube (green arrow) to the burner head. The higher the pressure behind the jet, the faster the fuel vapour will come flying out of it, and the more fuel vapour will come out per unit time as well. Many walkers will have noticed that the performance of a white gas stove is affected by how much they pump the tank. The pressure at the jet is controlled by the pressure in the tank and the valve opening.
The stream of fuel vapour goes flying past some large holes (red arrows) in the side of the central tube, and the speed of the vapour stream sucks in air through those holes to mix with the fuel vapour. If not enough air is sucked in for the amount of fuel vapour passing by, there won’t be enough oxygen inside the flame, the flames may be rather long, and both CO and soot may be emitted. On the other hand, if more than enough air is dragged in, the flames are going to be very short at the burner face, and the metal there is going to get very hot and possibly start oxidizing away. What size holes to provide in the central tube is therefore a trade-off. You may notice with some stoves that when you have the stove turned down to a simmer the flames are short, but when you turn the stove up the flames lengthen and may get orange tips. There isn’t enough air coming in at the higher settings. Stove design is quite an art.
One of the things you learn in basic physics and chemistry is that the size of the molecules does not really affect the pressure in a gas: all that matters is the number of molecules present. So for a given pressure behind the jet you will have pretty much the same number of fuel molecules streaming out of the jet per unit time.

Now, let us put all this together. We have these molecules of fuel flying up the central tube, and each molecule contains a number of carbon atoms. How much oxygen does a single molecule require for complete combustion? It depends very much on the molecule. The chemical equations for the combustion of some of the hydrocarbons are as follows – you can work out the rest from these:

# Carbons	Name	Chemical equation
3	Propane	C₃H₈ + 7 O₂ => 3 CO₂ + 4 H₂O
4	Butane	C₄H₁₀ + 9 O₂ => 4 CO₂ + 5 H₂O
5	Pentane	C₅H₁₂ + 11 O₂ => 5 CO₂ + 6 H₂O
8	Octane	C₈H₁₈ + 17 O₂ => 8 CO₂ + 9 H₂O
12	Dodecane	C₁₂H₂₆ + 25 O₂ => 12 CO₂ + 13 H₂O

We see that as the number of carbon atoms in a fuel molecule rises, the amount of oxygen needed per fuel molecule rises dramatically. One molecule of propane needs seven molecules of oxygen, but one molecule of dodecane needs twenty five – more than three times as much. What this means is that white gas is going to need considerably more oxygen (or air) than butane/propane, and kerosene is going to need even more again – much more! Now try to achieve this with one stove design spanning all three fuel types. You would need to make massive changes to the amount of air being dragged inside the central tube, and that is simply not possible at the air inlet.

As an aside, when Australia switched from coal gas to ‘natural gas,’ which is a form of LPG, every stove in Australia had to have either the jet or the whole burner assembly changed. The fuel/air mixture required for safe operation had changed.

This is why some stove manufacturers provide several different jets with a multi-fuel stove – they have to throttle down the flow of white gas and kerosene relative to butane/propane. For instance, Primus supplies several different sized jets with their Omnifuel and Gravity MF multi-fuel stoves, thus:

Fuel	Omnifuel jet size	Gravity MF jet size
Butane/propane	0.45 mm	0.45 mm
White Gas	0.37 mm	0.40 mm
Kerosene	0.28 mm	0.35 mm

Even so, the instructions on the Primus Gravity MF stove specifically warn against pumping up the tank too hard. If you do, the flames become long, wild and have orange tips. Yes, I have done this, and it is so. It was also slightly scary. A serious case of ‘read the manual’! I also tried the 0.45 mm jet on the Gravity MF with white gas – by accident. That too was a bit scary, with very long wild flames. Once was enough.

Does this mean that there may be differences in safety between the fuels when they are burning? Obviously the chance of having not enough oxygen for complete combustion is far more severe for kerosene than for butane since it needs so much more. The paper by Schwartz, et al. cited above confirms that kerosene was worse than white gas in their tests, and other small tests suggest that butane/propane is cleaner than both of these. It is notable that all the multi-fuel stoves I have tested seem to work far more reliably on butane/propane than on either white gas or kerosene. The flame patterns are far more stable with butane/propane.

Other Burner Designs

MSR XGK XE burner cup and splash plate, with brass jet visible at bottom pointing upwards.

All of the above discussion has assumed the traditional ‘quiet’ burner with the premix tube underneath, but this is not the only sort of burner available. We also have what is technically known as a ‘vortex’ burner, and this is seen on the big old Primus stoves, the elderly but highly respected Optimus 8R and Svea stoves, and the modern MSR XGK series.

The vortex burner starts with a jet, up from which streams the fuel vapour. It flies up inside a burner cup and hits a ‘splash plate’ on top, and is deflected outwards. Along the way it drags up some air through the slots in the side of the burner cup and the flame starts burning. But owing to the design of the burner head, some of the fuel cycles back downwards to mix with the air coming in through the slots again, and then flies back up the middle. The central column of fuel vapour is surrounded by a vortex of fuel and air, mixing and burning furiously. The heat from the surrounding flame breaks down the fuel molecules in the central column of vapour. In practice this donut-shaped vortex and the flame can oscillate in an unstable manner at very high frequency. You hear this as a roar. Yes indeed – the jet-plane-taking-off noise made by an MSR XGK is an integral part of the burner design and operation! Finally, some of the flame and a lot of the hot gas emerges from the open ring around the edge of the splash plate.

Very old Optimus 8R with splash plate removed from burner cup to show interior of vortex chamber, with jet and air slots.

Clearly the operation is a bit different here from the silent burners shown before – even though the chemistry is exactly the same. The design of these burners is tricky. It is possible to alter the shape of the burner cup and have the stove just not work. Aficionados of antique Primus stoves (they exist, as whole web-based societies!) are well aware that you cannot fit a burner cup from stove model X to stove model Y and have it always work. The air flow and mixing patterns may not be just right. This is a common topic of discussion. (Do these guys actually use these stoves in the field? Probably not; mostly they just polish them.) Editor’s Note: So, Roger, how is it that you are so intimately acquainted with these stove polishers?

What happens if the splash plate burns out while you are on a long trip? The answer should be obvious now – without the precisely designed deflection the original plate provides, you may be in deep trouble. This has happened in the Antarctic in times past – but the trip was pretty epic anyhow. On a very long trip you should carry spares! By the way, even the Optimus shown here, built in the 60’s, had an integral jet cleaning needle inside the jet. Crank the valve over to one end, and the needle cleaned the jet. The ‘Shaker Jet’ concept was not all that novel when MSR introduced it.

Handy Camper stove, with jet drilled in the tube at top of blue line.

Finally, just for fun, we have the classic but somewhat rare “Handy Camper’s Stove”: surely one of the most inspired designs ever created! It was a model of utter simplicity in design and manufacture, but totally lacking in any degree of control. Like the Optimus 8R it uses a wick to get the fuel from the tank underneath up to the preheat tube, which in this case is just one and a half turns of copper tube brazed in place. You light it by sloshing some fuel around in the centre depression, at the foot of the coil. The rusty baffle plate leaning up against the green carry-can behind the coil is normally attached to the coil as a sort of draft-excluder. Was it safe? Well, I used it for some years in my youth, and it never gave me any problems. How hot the tank got has to be an open question, but I didn’t worry about such things in those days. Does the flame get enough air? Well, it was certainly all blue, and there are no restrictions to the airflow.

As I said, there are no controls. You put the flame out by very quickly jamming a cork inside the coil to block the jet hole at the bottom of the coil. The cork, still functional, is to the right of the burner coils. Yes, this is a vortex burner: the two copper coils at the top act as the splash plate. Yes, it worked fine in my youth, but no, I haven’t used it recently!

Fuel Vapour: another Hazard

While we are on safety, it should be mentioned here that CO may not be the only hazard associated with a stove. Most walkers who have used white gas and kerosene stoves will be familiar with the smell of the fuel. This is often noticeable when priming the stove and more so when the stove has just been turned off. I am sure many walkers will be familiar with the practice of putting the stove outside the tent or hut as soon as it has been turned off because of the smell. Is this smell dangerous?

Primus Gravity pump housing with OFF label.

The answer is probably yes, albeit to an unknown degree. Consider what is in white spirits and kerosene. There are high-order hydrocarbons galore, and we do not always know exactly what they are. We do know that auto gas or petrol contains benzene, and that this is carcinogenic. We also know that ‘petrol sniffing’ can be extremely bad for the brain, due to some of the chemicals found in the fuel. There have been many reports of people feeling unwell after spending some time in a closed hut with a liquid fuel stove. It would seem reasonable to assume that inhaling too much of the fuel vapour would not be good for your health.

The problem with many liquid fuel stoves with remote tanks is that the valve is necessarily located at the tank. This means that when you turn the valve off, some fuel will remain in the fuel line. This fuel will slowly evaporate into your air space if the stove is still inside your tent or hut. In this context, it may be worth noting that the latest Primus Gravity MF stove features a rotating connector at the tank, and that the instructions explicitly tell you to flip the tank over to drain the fuel line before turning the stove off. The pump housing has ‘ON’ and ‘OFF’ labels on the two sides for this.

The connector on the latest Coleman Fyrestorm stove does rotate, but sadly this does not drain the fuel line for some strange design reason. On the other hand, popular earlier stoves such as the MSR Whisperlite and Simmerlite have connectors which definitely do not permit this practice.

Alcohol and Solid Fuels

Is any of this relevant to alcohol and solid fuel stoves? Well, not entirely, because in general they don’t have the same sort of burner construction and flame dynamics. The basic chemistry still applies of course, but there is no pre-mixing of fuel and air before the flame starts.

The slower flame velocity in open alcohol stoves normally gives the flame plenty of time to get enough oxygen. Even pressurized alcohol stoves have low velocity flames in comparison. However, they can be tested for CO emission, and have been found to offend if the air supply is restricted. Of course, every user of alcohol stoves is familiar with the smell of alcohol being splashed around, but are you aware that methyl alcohol is far more toxic than ethyl alcohol? You might like to check which fuel you are really buying. Some brands of ‘denatured alcohol’ are a mixture of ethyl and methyl alcohol, and then there is the denaturing agent (methyl ethyl ketone) that is also included. If your alcohol stove is not getting enough air for combustion (e.g., because of a very tight windscreen), it can put out a lot of unburned alcohol and ketone vapors, and breathing these vapors in a confined space (your tent) is not a very healthy practice!

The chemistry in the flame from a lump of solid fuel is a bit different: the basic hexamine is a far more complex molecule. Once it has broken all the way down to carbon and hydrogen atoms the reactions are the same, but getting a complete breakdown is not always guaranteed. Some nasty molecules (ammonia and formaldehyde have been frequently mentioned) can be released under some situations, so these fuels should always be run in lots of fresh air.

Wood is actually not very far away from all of these. If wood is heated (in a ‘down-draft gasifier’) it gives off ‘volatiles’ or ‘wood gas,’ and this is a great mess of hydrocarbons. The chemistry for these is basically as above. Left behind we find carbon or charcoal. But this could be a whole subject in its own right, and is not pursued in this article.

Summary of Part 1

Carbon monoxide can be emitted by a stove under the right conditions.
This carbon monoxide really can present a serious health hazard.
This hazard would seem to get worse as we go from butane/propane to white spirits to kerosene.
Some stove designs may be worse than others because the pot is placed too close to the burner.
The hazard is not inevitable: there would seem to be ways to reduce it to negligible levels.
Long flames and yellow flames may indicate a CO hazard.
Ventilation is crucial under any circumstances.

Preview of Part 2

In Part 2, I will present my actual measurements of carbon monoxide concentration taken in a backpacking situation – when using a backpacking stove inside a tent. (Part 3 will cover field measurements.) Specifically, in Part 2 I evaluate several variables in relation to the amount of carbon monoxide produced:

Measurement of CO concentration for different models of stoves.
Measurement of CO concentration as the distance between pot and burner is changed.
Measurement of CO concentration as the fuel is changed from butane/propane to white spirits to kerosene.
Measurement of CO concentration as the stove power is varied from low to high.
Measurement of CO concentration as the pot diameter is varied.

References

Foutch RG, Henrichs W. “Carbon monoxide poisoning at high altitudes”, Am J Emerg Med. , 6, pp 596–598, 1988
Simon Leigh-Smith, MBChB, MRCGP, FRCSEd (A&E), “Carbon Monoxide Poisoning in Tents — A Review,” Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 15, pp 157-163 (2004)
Linda E Keyes, MD et al, “Carbon monoxide exposure from cooking in snow caves at high altitude,” Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 12, pp 208-212, 2001
Debra S Ascone & Natalie E Marcy, “Non-Fire Carbon Monoxide Deaths associated with the use of Consumer Products,” US Consumer Product Safety Commission, Directorate for Epidemiology, 12 July 2005
‘Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Deaths Associated with Camping – Georgia 1999,’ Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, CDC, vol 48 / No 32, pp 705-6, 20 August 1999
Private communication
Schwartz RB, Ledrick DJ, Lindman AL, ‘A comparison of carbon monoxide levels during the use of a multi-fuel camp stove’, Wilderness Environ Med. 2001 Winter; 12(4):236-8.
William Kemsley & the editors of Backpacker Magazine, ‘Carbon Monoxide in Tents’ in “Backpacking Equipment Buyer’s Guide” by Backpacker Magazine, 1978
Simon Leigh-Smith et al, ‘Does Pan Diameter Influence Carbon Monoxide Levels During Heating of Water to Boiling Point With a Camping Stove?’, Wilderness and Environmental Medicine: Vol. 15, No. 3, pp 171–174.

Seasons:	Summer – lows to freezing, rain possible
Trip Length:	Up to a week if dry camping is not required
Terrain:	On and off trail

Manufacturer	Primus
Year/Model	2006 Gravity MF
Fuels	Butane/propane mix, white gas and variants, kerosene
Power	10,500 BTU/hr (3 kW)
Stove Weight	8.57 oz (243 g), hard sheet steel, brass, braided fuel line
Pump and Tank Weight	3.63 oz (103 g) for the aluminium and plastic pump, 3.53 oz (100 g) for the aluminium tank with capacity 1 pt (0.6 L)
Minimum Field Weight	8.57 oz (243 g) + any canister support legs for canister version, 15.7 oz (446 g) for ‘liquid’ fuel version
Stove Leg Radius	4 in (100 mm)
Stove Pot Support Radius	2.7 in (70 mm)
Stove Pot Support Height	2.5 in (65 mm)
Packing Size	Claimed: 4 x 4 x 1.6 in (10 x 10 x 4 cm)
Burn Time	Canister – not quoted, depends on canister size, white gas approximately 1.5 hr, kerosene approximately 2 hr
Accessories	Tank cap, multi-tool, extra jets, silicone grease, windshield, base plate
MSRP	US$110

Manufacturer	The Coleman Company, Inc
Year/Model	2006 Fyrestorm Ti (also Fyrestorm SS)
Fuels	Butane/propane mix, white gas and variants
Power Output	14,000 BTU/hr or 4.1 kW ( butane/propane canister), 10,000 BTU/hr or 2.9 kW (white gas)
Stove	7.6 oz (216 g) for Ti version, made of brass, steel, titanium, magnesium alloy, braided fuel line
Canister Tripod	3.28 oz (93 g), brass, aluminium and magnesium alloy
Pump and Fuel Bottle	2.96 oz (84 g) for aluminium and plastic pump, 4.20 oz (119 g) for aluminium tank, nominal capacity 22 fl oz
Minimum Field Weight	10.9 oz (310 g) with tripod for canister, 14.8 oz (419 g) with pump and tank
Boil Time	Claimed: canister 3.2 minutes, liquid fuels 3.5 minutes
Burn Time	Claimed: canister 45 minutes, liquid fuels 75 minutes, on high
Stove Leg Radius	3.5 in (90 mm)
Pot Support Arms	Radius: 2.7 in (70 mm), Height above ground: 3.5 in (90 mm)
Packing Size	Claimed: 3 ¼ x 5 ¼ x 3 ¾ in (83 x 133 x 95 mm)
Accessories	Tank cap, spares kit, protective caps, bag, windshield, base plate
MSRP	US$190 (Ti), $150 (SS)

Username
Password
	Remember me

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

Assessment

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Compatibility With Trekking Pole Shelters

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Overview

Specifications and Features

Overview

Specifications and Features

Introduction

Context

Rationale for Selected Gear

Backpack

Shelter/Rain Gear

Sleeping Gear

Sleeping Bag

Hammock

Sleep Pad

Trekking Poles

Insulation

Stove

Pot

Water bottles

Water Treatment

Light

Gear List and Weight Summary

Overview

Design Elements