Articles (2020) - Page 110 of 144

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Mid Boot REVIEW

With the new 2006 edition of the Terrastryder, Dunham has corrected the seam failure problem of its predecessor. The new boot merits high marks, except for one annoying carryover problem.

Introduction

The popular Dunham Terrastryder has been revised for 2006, with some significant improvements over the original. I liked the fit, comfort, and traction of the original Terrastryder, but its numerous seams were its nemesis. In only 6 months of (hard) use, I blew out a total of 15 seams, which increased their breathability quite a bit, but limited their longevity! Dunham corrected that problem in the new Terrastryder II, and added some other nice features.

What’s Good

Lightweight
Nicely designed, a big improvement over the original Terrastryder
Comfortable out of the box
Waffle Stomper tread provides excellent traction
Excellent support and stability
Available in extended sizes and widths

What’s Not so Good

Not waterproof as claimed
Dries slowly

Specifications

Manufacturer	Dunham Bootmakers
Year/Model	2006 Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Mid
Style	Mid-height waterproof light hiking boot
Weight	Measured weight (men’s size 11.5 EEEE) 2 lb 14.7 oz/pair (1.32 kg), manufacturer specification 2 lb 10 oz/pair (1.19 kg) for men’s size 9.5
Materials	Upper is full grain leathers and synthetics
Outsole	Dunham exclusive Waffle Stomper tread, made by Vibram
Features	Dryworks waterproof/breathable membrane, Vibram® outsole with exclusive Waffle Stomper multi-directional lug tread, Vibram® Supertrek compound rubber outsole for enhanced grip on rocky surfaces, dual TPU plates sandwiched between the midsole and outsole for foot protection and torsional stability, compression molded EVA midsole, ABZORB® shock absorption system in the heel and forefoot, gusseted/fully padded tongue and collar, extended rubber toe bumper, extended sizes and widths
MSRP	$120 US

Performance

The popular Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder is redesigned for 2006, and available in low and mid heights. Although the original Terrastryder was comfortable right out of the box, fit well, and had good traction, its abundant exposed seams were its nemesis. Admittedly I was a little hard on them, but in only 6 months I wore them out, with a total of 15 seams coming apart on the two boots. The revised 2006 Terrastryder has far fewer exposed seams on the sides, which should correct the problem.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Mid Boot REVIEW - 1
The new 2006 Terrastryder Mid (bottom left) is substantially different from its predecessor (top left). The older Terrastryder had numerous exposed seams which often failed. In the new Terrastryder Mid (bottom left and right photo) Dunham has dramatically reduced the number of exposed seams. The new boot is also taller and adds some nice features.

As an aside, I strongly recommend that the first thing you do when you get a new pair of boots is coat all the outside stitching with McNett SeamGrip, which is a liquid urethane plastic. It really helps to protect the stitching and prolong the life of the boots.

The new Terrastryder mid is taller than its predecessor, nearly as tall as a full height boot, and consequently weighs a little more (5.9 ounces/pair more in my size). The materials used in the uppers are basically the same, consisting of thin leathers, synthetic fabrics, and plastics. The uppers cover my ankles and are comfortably padded throughout. An improved lacing system distributes pressure more evenly over the instep area.

The midsole consists of compression molded EVA foam and Thermo Plastic Urethane (TPU) plates in the rear and front for increased support and torsional stability. I like their balance of flexibility and support; they are plenty flexible for easy walking, yet provide good support and foot protection for rough trail and off-trail use.

The outsole is the familiar Waffle Stomper tread, made by Vibram exclusively for Dunham. It’s unchanged from the original Terrastryder. The tread is open and fairly shallow. I found that it gets good traction, cleans itself well, and wears well. The boots’ outsole will easily outlast the uppers.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Mid Boot REVIEW - 2
The new Terrastryder Mid has a proprietary Waffle Stomper outsole (top left) made by Vibram. The midsole (bottom left) provides excellent support and stability, yet is flexible for comfortable hiking. The Waffle Stomper compound and tread grips especially well (right).

The downside of these boots is they are simply not waterproof as claimed. Their proprietary Dryworks membrane is only water-resistant, meaning the boots stayed mostly dry inside when I briefly walked in water or wet vegetation. However, longer exposure resulted in water soaking through and getting my socks damp. The leakage never reached the point where my socks were sopping wet, rather it was a damp/cold feet situation.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Mid Boot REVIEW - 3
Simply put, the Dryworks waterproof/breathable membrane doesn’t work. Every time I walked in snow or water for some duration I had damp socks and cold feet.

Moreover, because of the membrane, the boots were slow to dry out, and I usually had to use a boot dryer at home to get them thoroughly dried out and ready to use again. When hiking in warmer weather, my socks tended to accumulate sweat from my feet, and it helped to pull them off and dry them out at midday, or put on dry socks.

Assessment

I used the new Terrastryder Mid for both desert and mountain hiking, on- and off-trail, and in cold and warm temperatures. Overall, I was very pleased with their design and appearance, fit and comfort, foot support and protection, and traction.

However, their Dryworks waterproof/breathable membrane is more of a detriment than an asset. The boots are simply not waterproof as claimed. Water readily soaks through the membrane, dampening socks, and the boots are slow to dry because of the membrane.

Nowadays, many hikers have a separate pair of waterproof/breathable shoes/boots for hiking in snow and wet conditions and another pair of more breathable or quick-drying shoes/boots for warm weather conditions. The prevailing opinion on Gore-Tex boots is they are waterproof as promised, as long as the membrane remains intact. And boots with an eVENT membrane are emerging that are claimed to be waterproof and more breathable.

The upshot of all this is that an ineffective membrane is worse than no membrane at all. The Dunham Dryworks membrane is inferior technology, and needs to either be improved or replaced. I personally would prefer no membrane rather than the Dryworks membrane; it would make the boots more breathable and faster drying.

What’s Unique

Dunham boots are available in extended sizes and widths to fit most feet. For wide or narrow feet, Dunham boots are a good alternative to custom-made boots.

Recommendations for Improvement

I really like the improvements in the revised 2006 Terrastryder, which overcome previous seam failure problems and provides better fit and comfort. However the Dryworks membrane is a carryover technology that has become noticeably ineffectual compared to Gore-Tex XCR and eVENT membranes in competitors’ shoes. Replacing Dryworks with an eVENT membrane would be an exciting improvement.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra Boot REVIEW

The feature set of this new boot from Dunham suggests that it might be an ideal lightweight, insulated, waterproof boot for snowshoeing and snow hiking. That would be true, if it were not for one serious problem…

Introduction

When I spied the new 2006 Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra (can you say that with your finger on the tip of your tongue?), I thought: “Aha, here’s a lightweight waterproof insulated boot that would be perfect for snowshoeing and snow hiking.” There are lots of insulated pac-type boots and rubber lower section boots around, and they are certainly warm and waterproof, but they’re heavy. The Terrastryder Extra is constructed of leathers and synthetics, insulated with 400-gram Thinsulate Ultra, has Dunham’s Dryworks waterproof/breathable liner, and weigh a lot less. Could they be the ideal boot for hiking in snow and slop?

What’s Good

Lightweight
Insulated with 400-gram Thinsulate Ultra
Waffle Stomper tread provides excellent traction
Excellent support and stability
Available in extended sizes and widths

What’s Not so Good

Not waterproof as claimed
Dries slowly
Too many side seams make them vulnerable to seam failure

Specifications

Manufacturer	Dunham Bootmakers
Year/Model	2006 Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra
Style	Mid-height insulated waterproof light hiking boot
Weight	Measured weight (men’s size 11.5 EEEE) 2 lb 13.1 oz/pair (1.28 kg), manufacturer specification 2 lb 2 oz/pr (0.96 kg) for size 7
Materials	Upper is full grain leathers and synthetics
Outsole	Dunham exclusive Waffle Stomper tread, made by Vibram
Features	Dryworks waterproof membrane, 400 gram Thinsulate Ultra insulation, Vibram® outsole with exclusive Waffle Stomper multi-directional lug tread, Vibram® Supertrek compound rubber outsole for enhanced grip on rocky surfaces, Dual TPU plates sandwiched between the midsole and outsole for foot protection and torsional stability, compression molded EVA midsole, Absorb shock absorption system in the heel and forefoot, gusseted/fully padded tongue and collar, extended rubber toe bumper, extended sizes and widths
MSRP	$130 US

Performance

The construction of the new Terrastryder Extra is identical to the old Terrastryder mid-height boot, with lots of different materials and loads of seams. On the old Terrastryder I found the numerous exposed seams were their nemesis – the stitching on the side seams readily abraded from creative bushwhacking, and I blew out a number of seams after just 6 months of use. However, the exposed seams may not be a problem on boots meant for cool weather hiking and active snow sports.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra Boot REVIEW - 1
The new Dunham Terrastryder Extra (left and lower right) insulated boot has the same construction as the old Terrastryder hiking boot (upper right), i.e., many different materials and lots of seams. The numerous seams couldn’t handle the abrasion of off-trail bushwhacking, and I wore them out in 6 months. Note: the redesigned 2006 Terrastryder hiking boot (reviewed separately) overcomes the seam failure problem.

Dunham boots come in extended sizes and widths, fit well, and are very comfortable right out of the box. I found that the insulated Terrastryder Extra fits and feels basically the same as its uninsulated counterpart. The main difference is the addition of a layer of 400-gram Thinsulate Ultra insulation.

Thinsulate Ultra is a 3M product specifically developed for footwear. It is claimed to be compression-resistant, lightweight, durable, hydrophobic, and more insulative than foam or felt. It’s intended for cold weather sports at moderate activity levels.

I wore the Terrastryder Extra while snowshoeing, igloo building, and snow hiking, and found the insulation level to be about right for those types of activities in cool and cold weather. It’s a good idea to get fitted in these boots wearing heavy wool socks, or perhaps two pair of socks, for extra warmth and to absorb foot perspiration. It’s also helpful to use an insulating insole to reduce conductive heat loss. However, even with heavy socks, this is not an appropriate boot for low activity use or winter camping in really cold weather; there are better insulated boots for that purpose.

As far as weight, the Terrastryder Extra at 2 pounds 2 ounces per pair (manufacturer specification) is half the weight of a pac-boot, and a little less than comparable leather/fabric insulated boots.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra Boot REVIEW - 2
The Dunham Terrastryder Extra insulated boot has the same Waffle Stomper tread by Vibram (top left) as the Terrastryder hiking boot. The midsole (bottom left) provides stability and support yet is flexible for comfortable walking. The Waffle Stomper compound and tread provide excellent traction on a variety of surfaces, and cleans itself out well.

A critical factor with using a leather/fabric boot in snow and slop is its ability to stay dry inside. Since there is no rubber lower section, these boots are dependent on their waterproof/breathable liner to keep water out. The Terrastryder Extra has Dunham’s proprietary Dryworks® moisture management membrane system that is claimed to “provide waterproof protection and breathable comfort in the wettest conditions.” I wish I could report that the Dryworks system performs as claimed, but I can’t. Rather, I found that the boots consistently wetted through while hiking in wet snow and slop, and that’s with gaiters over the uppers to prevent any snow from entering through the top.

Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra Boot REVIEW - 3
Waterproof nada! The Terrastryder Extra’s Dryworks waterproof/breathable membrane consistently wetted through, giving me damp/cold feet.

I had little leakage in dry snow, rather the leakage issue was most prevalent in wet snow or slop, or any real wet hiking condition. It typically required an hour or so for the boots to wet through to where I could feel dampness inside, which basically meant chilly feet. The boots only leaked to the point where my socks were damp, they never reached a condition where my socks were sopping wet. In addition, the boots dried out slowly if I left them on the garage floor in 50 °F temperatures. I found it necessary to remove the insoles and put them on a boot drier overnight in order to really get them dried out.

Assessment

While the attributes of the Dunham Terrastryder Extra would seem to add up to a lightweight, insulated, waterproof boot that is well suited for snow hiking and other snow sports – there is one serious problem that torpedoes them – the boots are simply not waterproof as claimed. They consistently gave me damp and chilly feet, and were slow to dry out unless I used a boot dryer. Bummer!

What’s Unique

Dunham (and New Balance) boots are available in extended sizes and widths to fit most feet. For wide or narrow feet, Dunham boots are a good alternative to custom-made boots.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Dunham Waffle Stomper Terrastryder Extra boot is loaded with desirable features to provide cool/cold weather hiking comfort. However, there are a couple of issues that clearly need to be addressed.

Upgrade or replace the Dryworks waterproof moisture management system so it is an effective waterproof/breathable system. The present technology is water-resistant, but not waterproof.
Reduce the number of seams. Construct the lower boot of a lightweight/ waterproof Hypalon-like fabric, using welded seams.

Comparative Fuel Efficiency and Carry Weight for Six Lightweight Backpacking Cooking Systems: Part II
Calculating Fuel Usage, Carry Weight Analysis, and Cost/Efficiency Considerations

White Gas, remote canister, top mount canister, integrated canister, alcohol, and fuel tab stove systems – when factoring in fuel carried, trip length, and conditions – which system is the lightest?

You don’t have access to view this content.

Outdoor Research Flex-Tex Gaiters SPOTLITE REVIEW

Lightweight, durable, breathable, water-resistant, and stretch to fit a variety of footwear – but we had a couple of problems with the snaps and sizing.

Overview

The OR Flex-Tex Gaiters are made of a stretch Cordura nylon fabric that is abrasion-resistant, wind-resistant, breathable, and water-repellent. We especially liked their stretchiness which allowed them to cover the tops of a wide variety of shoes and boots. They are definitely one of the most versatile and durable lightweight gaiters around, but we did have a couple of issues with them, which we will cover later in the review.

The Flex-Tex Gaiters have a Velcro and snap closure on the front, plus an underfoot nylon cord and lace hook. Once you adjust the underfoot cord to length, the gaiters are basically a step-in – simply position the underfoot cord in front of the heel, attach the Velcro and snaps, and anchor the front of the gaiter on a shoelace near the front of your boot.

For warmer weather trail hiking, we wore them over trail running shoes on-trail and over mid-height boots off-trail, and found them to be lightweight, breathable, and very durable. We had no problem wearing them all day in warmer weather, and found them to be tough enough for bushwhacking.

At 3.2 ounces/pair for size S/M and 3.8 ounces for size L/XL (measured weight), the Flex-Tex gaiters are lightweight. However, they are not as light as Montbell’s stretch gaiters at 1.5 ounces/pair or Simblissity’s stretchy LevaGaiter at 1.8 ounces/pair. The primary advantages of the OR Flex-Tex gaiters are their front closure, extremely stretchy fabric, and durability.

We had two issues with the Flex-Tex gaiters:

The two metal snaps on the front of each gaiter were very tight and difficult to snap and unsnap. On one gaiter, both snaps broke as a result of being too tight. The snaps are overkill and we recommend eliminating them to save a little weight.

The Flex-Tex Gaiters fit best over taller boots and insulated boots, but fit loosely over trail runners. We found this to be true for both sizes we tested. An intermediate size is missing. We recommend adding a third size and making the fit range for each a little narrower to get a better fit, especially for trail runners.

The Outdoor Research Flex-Tex Gaiters have a front Velcro closure with two snaps (left). The snaps were very tight, and we ended up breaking both on the gaiter pictured. Although the Flex-Tex Gaiters fit taller boots very well, they fit loosely over trail runners (right). We found we could use the gaiter without the underfoot cord on taller boots, but it was necessary on trail runners to hold them down.

Winter Use

We used the Flex-Tex Gaiters on a variety of footwear for cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snow hiking, and found them to be very versatile. For active snow hiking or snowshoeing, the gaiters covered the tops of lightweight low-cut Gore-Tex XCR shoes, but fit loosely. The same size gaiters fit well over taller insulated boots and pack-type boots, stretching to fit the latter.

For hiking in slop (very wet snow and mud), the Flex-Tex gaiters in combination with a mid-height waterproof hiking boot and wool sock worked very well. We found that we could use the gaiters without the underfoot cords to avoid ice and frozen mud buildup on the cords. With low-cut waterproof shoes, the gaiters fit loosely and it was necessary to tighten the underfoot cords to hold the gaiters down.

For traveling in deep snow and snow camping, we found that the Flex-Tex gaiters adequately kept the snow out of our boots and added a degree of warmth, but they are not in the same league as taller gaiters which do the job much better and add a degree of warmth.

The stretch Cordura fabric has a DWR treatment to make them water-resistant. In all of our snow travels we did not have any problems at all with the gaiters absorbing water, or water soaking through the gaiters and dampening our socks.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer: Outdoor Research (www.orgear.com)
Product: Flex-Tex Gaiter
Sizes Available: S/M fits 5-9, L/XL fits 8-12
Height: Size S/M is 8 in (20 cm) high, size L/XL is 9.5 in (24 cm) high
Fabric: Stretch Cordura nylon with DWR
Features: Fabric stretches to fit a variety of footwear, front Velcro and snap closure, replaceable nylon underfoot cord
Weight: Measured weight size S/M 3.2 oz/pair (91 g), size L/XL 3.8 oz/pair (108 g); manufacturer specification size L/XL 4.2 oz (118 g)
MSRP: $29

Tarptent Rainbow Tent REVIEW

This radically different Tarptent is destined for greatness, but needs a few refinements here and there.

Introduction

In a radical departure from traditional Tarptents, Henry Shires introduced the Tarptent Rainbow in early 2006. Instead of headroom only at the entry, the Rainbow is all headroom, and it has a side entry with vestibule. At 32.6 ounces with the optional extended floor, it’s luxury for one person, or one person and a pooch, and it’s do-able for two smaller people. There’s nothing “tarp” about this “tent”! It advances the single-wall tent with features and user-friendliness rivaling a double-wall tent. Is the Rainbow the lightweight backpacker’s dream come true?

Tarptent Rainbow Tent REVIEW - 1
The Rainbow is radically different from previous Tarptents and sets a new standard for single-wall tents.

What’s Good

Lightweight 1+ person shelter
Loads of headroom and usable space
Vestibule entry
Quick setup
Easy entry/exit
Good ventilation

What’s Not So Good

Very difficult to insert pole ends into grommets
Velcro attachment for trekking poles gets tangled
Needs mid height guylines for wind stability
Hood over high vent gets distorted

Specifications

Mfr/ Year/Model	Tarptent 2006 Rainbow (tested with optional extended floor)
Style	1+ person single-wall tent (free standing with trekking poles at ends)
Fabrics	1.3 oz/yd² (44 g/m²) silnylon, grosgrain tie out loops
Pole Material	Easton 7075 E9 aircraft grade aluminum
Weight Full Package (As supplied by manufacturer with all included items)	Measured weight of shelter with optional floor 32.6 oz (924 g), manufacturer’s specification 30 oz (850 g); manufacturer specified weight without floor 25 oz (709 g)
Weight Manufacturer Minimum (Includes minimum number of items needed to erect tent)	Measured weight of shelter with optional floor, but without stuff sacks is 31.9 oz (904 g)
Weight Backpacking Light Minimum (Same as Manufacturer Minimum but with 0.25 oz (7 g) titanium stakes and 0.004 oz/ft (0.37 g/m) Spectra guylines)	Measured weight 31.1 oz (882 g) for shelter with optional floor, no stuff sacks, and with titanium stakes and Spectra guylines
Floor Area	23 ft² (2.14 m²); entry vestibule is 6 ft² (0.56 m²)
Floor Area/Backpacking Light Minimum Weight Ratio	0.74 ft²/oz
Dimensions	Length 88-96 in (223-244 cm), width is 38-44 in (96-117 cm), height is 43 in (110 cm). Length and width are with bathtub sides up or down.
MSRP	$185 without floor, $215 with sewn-in floor

Performance

The Rainbow is a 1+ person single-wall monopole tent that is free-standing if you attach a trekking pole to each end. It has 23 square feet of floor area, which is identical to the Tarptent Virga 2. The tent feels larger because of its headroom and steep walls which make all of the interior space usable. It also has a 6 square foot entry vestibule that provides additional sheltered space.

Tarptent Rainbow Tent REVIEW - 2
Several views of the Tarptent Rainbow: front with vestibule closed (top left), back showing the mesh vent and hood (top right), end (bottom left), and top (bottom right) showing the ridge pole and 18-inch aluminum strut that expands the tent.

The Rainbow’s single pole design reminds me of the MontBell Hexagon. However, the concept is executed much better in the Rainbow by adding a perpendicular 18-inch aluminum strut at the top (identical to the strut in the front of the Virga 2) to extend the sides so they don’t drape inward, and making the main pole almost vertical near the ends (see photos). The result is headroom and usable space galore.

Unlike the Hexagon’s funky end entry, the Rainbow has a convenient side entry through a split side “beak” or vestibule. Behind the vestibule is a vertical mesh entry wall with a large two-way zippered door. With the tent’s height and large door, the Rainbow is very easy to enter and exit.

I tested the Rainbow with the optional extended floor (5 ounces, $30), which is the most popular version of this tent. A floorless model is available that weighs 25 ounces (manufacturer specification), however a piece of Tyvek cut to fit the floor area weighs more than 5 ounces, so why bother? The optional sewn-in floor has 4-inch bathtub sides for splash protection; you can unclip the sides and lay them flat for more floor space in fair weather

Tarptent Rainbow Tent REVIEW - 3
The Rainbow has a vestibule entry (top left) and mesh entry wall with a large zippered door. Inside (top right) there’s loads of room for one person plus gear. Note the floor’s bathtub walls and the silicone stripes I painted on the silnylon floor to eliminate sliding. The top vent on the back wall (bottom left) has a mesh screen, and can be used to stow small items. At the head end (bottom right) there are two small mesh pockets for storage.

The Rainbow is just as quick to set up as the traditional Tarptents; simply insert the ridge pole (I usually leave the strut in its sleeve), stake the four corners, then stake the front and rear guylines. Two minutes max, just like the other Tarptents.

In my dry climate, I had a problem with the silnylon tent body shrinking, making it very difficult to attach the ridge pole to the grommets. I fixed the problem by shortening the pole by 1 inch. A better fix for this problem would be adding a second grommet to one end for use under dry conditions.

There is a tangle of Velcro on each end of the Rainbow to allow the attachment of trekking poles, giving the Rainbow a “free-standing” pitching option. That’s nice, but to ensure wind stability, I would want to stake the four corners of the tent anyway, so in my opinion the free standing option is not very functional. I opted to remove the Velcro tangle to save a little weight and simply stake the corners. It’s much easier than attaching trekking poles.

Tarptent Rainbow Tent REVIEW - 4
The Rainbow can be free standing if you attach a trekking pole to each end (top photo). The tension strap (bottom left) has a grommet on each end to insert the ends of the ridge pole. Due to fabric shrinkage when the tent is dry, I really had to struggle to get the tent pole tip into the grommet. A second grommet on one end would be really helpful. Velcro strips on the tension strap are used to attach the trekking poles. The stiffened brim on the high vent (bottom right) easily gets distorted and doesn’t straighten out. This was the best I could do.

Another change with the Rainbow is the use of 5.5-inch Easton 7075 E9 aluminum alloy stakes instead of the traditional 6-inch titanium stakes. The Easton stakes are actually lighter than the titanium stakes, 0.355 ounce each compared to 0.395 ounce for the titanium. The Easton stakes are a little harder to push into the ground, but you can pound on them with a rock.

Tarptent Rainbow Tent REVIEW - 5
Tarptent has switched to Easton aluminum alloy stakes (left) which are actually lighter and stronger than the titanium stakes previously supplied. The top of the Rainbow (right) has an 18-inch aluminum strut to widen the tent. The strut is removable to facilitate stuffing the tent, or you can leave it in and roll the tent.

In the field, the Rainbow is truly a lightweight backpacker’s dream. It requires very little space and is very fast to set up. It has luxurious room inside for one person, and is minimally large enough for two people. My wife and I slept in it on several trips, and found it quite workable, especially in fair weather.

The Rainbow sheds rain with aplomb in typical Tarptent style. The canopy extends out beyond the bathtub floor, and you want to make sure the netting around the edges is pulled inward so it doesn’t channel water inside. Condensation issues are typical for a single wall tent, especially in rainy weather or any conditions where it cools down below the dew point at night. In the Rainbow, the high vent on the back wall reduces the condensation issue somewhat when there is some air circulation, but it’s little help on a cool, calm night. There’s also more headroom, so you are less likely to brush against the wet tent walls while moving around in the tent. A pack towel works great to wipe down the inside walls, and it’s easy to do in the Rainbow.

In wind, the Rainbow is a little more of a billboard compared to a traditional Tarptent. It held up well to moderate 20-25 mph winds, with some flapping and rocking. I would like to see at least two additional half height guyline loops added to the Rainbow for extra anchoring.

Assessment

The Tarptent Rainbow is about the same weight and floor area as the Tarptent Virga 2, but there is a profound difference between the two tents. Having tested the Virga 2, I can easily say that I prefer the Rainbow. It has much more usable space and headroom, and overall is a more user-friendly Tarptent. It provides most of the ease of use features of a double wall tent at a much lighter weight, albeit without the condensation resistance. With a few tweaks to certain details, the Tarptent Rainbow is destined to become one of the best single-wall tents available.

The Rainbow is not the lightest 1+ person single-wall tent around. Compared to the 23 ounce Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo with 27.5 square feet of floor space and 10 square foot vestibule, the Rainbow has 4.5 square feet less floor space, but its space is more usable because of its steeper walls. The main reason for the weight difference is the Lunar Solo uses a trekking pole for support (which is not included in the tent weight) while the Rainbow uses a collapsible ridge pole (which is included in the tent weight).

What’s Unique

The Rainbow is a monopole design with a top strut to provide loads of interior headroom and usable floor space.

Recommendations for Improvement

While the Tarptent Rainbow introduces some major improvements in single wall tent design, and advances the user friendliness of the single wall tent, there are a few details that could be refined.

Because the ridge pole and sleeve are so long, a small amount of fabric shrinkage can result in the grommet connection being too tight. I recommend adding a second grommet to at least one ends of the tent’s tension strap to use when shrinkage occurs.
Although attaching trekking poles does gain a freestanding status for this tent, I don’t feel that the feature is really that functional compared to staking the corners. I suggest eliminating the Velcro pole attachment straps, which can easily become tangled.
The stiffening in the hood over the high vent easily becomes distorted and is difficult to re-shape, so some improvement is needed. A larger vent to provide better ventilation and views should also be considered.
To enable stability in serious winds, I suggest adding at least two more mid-height guyline loops.

Comparative Fuel Efficiency and Carry Weight for Six Lightweight Backpacking Cooking Systems: Part I
Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data

Introduction

Have you ever pondered the question: If I chose the lightest stove in each category and used it as efficiently as I could, how would the cooking system carry weights compare for different usage levels and trip lengths? My inquisitive mind couldn’t resist the challenge, so I rounded up the lightest/most efficient white gas, remote canister, top mount canister, integrated canister, alcohol, and fuel tab stoves commercially available and pursued answers to the following questions:

What is the real carry weight of stove plus fuel for different cooking systems?
How do I calculate the amount of fuel I need for a trip?
How much does fuel efficiency make up for stove weight on a longer trip?
What is the comparative cost for stove plus fuel?
Considering the fuel cost, which cooking system is the most economical and weight efficient?

These are, of course, difficult questions. There are many variables involved, and the answers depend on the type of trip you are taking and its location. No matter. This project provides a lot of insights into the issues, and will increase your understanding of how the weight and efficiency of different cooking systems compare, how they affect the weight you carry on your back, and how they affect your wallet. In this article you will find information to help you choose the cooking system(s) that meets your needs, and dial in the amount of fuel that you actually need to take on your trips.

Cooking Systems Compared

In this section I describe the cooking systems I chose for comparison. Their weights are summarized in Table 1 below.

Fuel Containers

For comparison, the weight of each cooking system needs to include a fuel container. Three bottle sizes are available for a white gas stove – the “11-ounce bottle” has a fill capacity of 10 fluid ounces, the “22-ounce bottle” holds 20 fluid ounces, and the “33-ounce bottle” holds 30 fluid ounces. Fuel canisters for canister stoves generally come in 4-ounce and 8-ounce sizes, although there is some variation among different brands of fuel. For comparability, I included the empty weight of the fuel canisters as part of the cooking system. In the alcohol cooking system, I listed the 375 milliliter Platypus Little Nipper and 0.5 liter and 1 liter Platypus flasks, all with a red dispenser cap. The fuel tab stove does not have a fuel container, other than the packaging for the individual fuel tabs, which can be left at home and the fuel tabs carried in a plastic bag.

Windscreens

I experimented a lot to find the “perfect windscreen” for each stove, which of course doesn’t exist. In the process I managed to fry a top mount canister stove by using a tight windscreen with it, and I discovered the KiteScreen invented by Jim Wood (http://jwbasecamp.com/Articles/KiteScreen/index.html). Read more about what I learned about windscreens in my companion articles Stove Windscreen Dynamics and Design: Part I Wind Effects on Stove Performance and Part II Practical Applications for the Field. For this project I chose to use the manufacturers’ aluminum windscreen and heat reflector with the white gas and remote canister stoves, the KiteScreen for the top mount canister and integrated canister stoves, and a traditional tight aluminum windscreen and heat reflector for the alcohol and fuel tab stoves.

White Gas. At 8.7 ounces (burner + pump), the MSR SimmerLite is the lightest of the white gas stoves. The total weights in Table 1 include the MSR windscreen and heat reflector (2.3 ounces), and an MSR fuel bottle (three sizes available).	Remote Canister. A remote canister stove puts the fuel canister safely off to the side, so you can use any type of windscreen you want. I chose the MSR WindPro stove, which at 6.9 ounces (burner and fuel line) is the lightest available. I used the windscreen and heat reflector (2.3 ounces) that came with the stove, which are identical to the ones that come with the SimmerLite. The burner is also identical to the SimmerLite, but the fuel line has an attachment and valve for canister fuels. For comparability with other stoves, I included the weight of an empty fuel canister as part of the cooking system.
Top Mount Canister. The mini-canister stove is as simple and light as a canister stove gets. The canister itself serves as a base, and the burner attaches directly to the fitting on the canister. I chose to use the Coleman Exponent F1 Ultralight (2.7 ounces), which was the top performer in my canister stove tests (Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use). For comparability with other stoves, I included the weight of an empty fuel canister as part of the cooking system. I used the KiteScreen (18 inches high x 60 inches long, 1.2 ounces) for wind protection and to avoid the problems and hazards with using a conventional aluminum windscreen.	Integrated Canister. The Jetboil Personal Cooking System is the only stove in this category right now, although the MSR integrated canister stove is on the way. The Jetboil is well-known for its superb fuel efficiency and wind resistance. The complete system weighs 14.9 ounces, which is a bit hefty. However, for comparability with the other systems (which do not include a cook pot and drinking cup), I deducted the weight of the pot and cup, which pared the weight of the Jetboil system down to 8.6 ounces. The cooking system weight does include the pot cozy and heat exchanger, which are essential parts of the Jetboil system that help account for its efficiency, and also includes the weight of an empty fuel canister. To further increase the Jetboil’s fuel efficiency I used the KiteScreen (1.2 ounces) for wind protection.
Alcohol. I chose Gossamer Gear’s Fire Fly stove (1.0 ounce for burner and pot stand) for this project because it is a good balance of stove size/weight, heating rate, and fuel efficiency. For wind protection I used a traditional close-fitting light aluminum windscreen and heat reflector (0.8 ounce) to maximize stove heating efficiency. The cooking system also includes the weight of a fuel bottle.	Fuel Tab. The lightest fuel tab stove available for purchase is the Esbit Wing Stove (1.3 ounces). I used it with the same windscreen and heat reflector used for the alcohol stove (0.8 ounce). I burned 0.5-ounce Esbit hexamine fuel tabs, which are individually packaged. A fuel tab stove has no fuel container as such, especially if you leave the packaging at home.

Table 1: Summary of Cooking System Components and Weights
Cooking System	Fuel Container Capacity/Container Weight Empty (oz)	Total Weight (oz)	Cooking System Total Weight Includes:
White Gas	10 fl oz/ 3	14	Burner, empty fuel bottle, pump, windscreen, heat reflector
	20 fl oz/ 5	16
	30 fl oz/ 6.8	17.8

Remote Canister	4 oz/ 4.1	13.3	Burner, empty fuel canister, windscreen, heat reflector
	8 oz / 4.6	13.8	Burner, empty fuel canister, windscreen, heat reflector

Top mount Canister	4 oz/ 4.1	8.0	Burner, empty fuel canister, KiteScreen
	8 oz/ 4.6	8.5	Burner, empty fuel canister, KiteScreen

Integrated Canister	4 oz/ 4.1	13.9	Burner, cozy, heat exchanger, empty fuel canister, KiteScreen
	8 oz/ 4.6	14.4

Alcohol	13 fl oz/ 0.6	2.4	Burner, pot stand, fuel flask, windscreen, heat reflector
	17 fl oz/0 .8	2.6
	34 fl oz/ 0.9	2.7

Fuel Tab	0.5 oz/ 0	2.1	Fuel holder/pot stand, windscreen, heat reflector
Note: Each total weight includes an empty fuel container. Three fuel bottle sizes are available for the white gas stove, with capacities of 10, 20, and 30 fluid ounces. Canister fuel container sizes are typically 4 and 8 ounces (113 or 225 grams), and that refers to the weight of the fuel inside. Alcohol containers included are the Platypus Little Nipper and 0.5 and 1-liter Platypus flasks.

Highlights

The white gas stove with fuel container was the heaviest of the lot, followed closely by the integrated canister stove and then the remote canister stove.
The top mount canister stove with fuel container was intermediate in weight.
The alcohol and fuel tab stoves were by far the lightest cooking systems.

Stove Testing Procedure and Results

I lab tested the stoves under a set of standard conditions to ensure that the data are comparable. In each test I measured the time and fuel consumption to boil 1 pint (0.47 L) of water. I subjected the stoves to the following test conditions:

Optimal Conditions – 70 °F air and water, calm

Cold – 40 °F air and water, calm

Wind – 70 °F air and water, 12 mph wind from a box fan

Part I - Assembling Comparable Cooking Systems and Test Data - 7
Stove testing setup shown with the KiteScreen protecting a top-mount canister stove (left). Measurement equipment included an analytical scale, signaling digital thermometer, stopwatch, wind meter, and box fan.

I used a 1.5 liter MSR titanium pot 6 inches in diameter for tests with the white gas, remote canister, and top mount canister stoves, the Jetboil cup for Jetboil stove tests, and a 0.85 liter MSR titanium pot for the alcohol and fuel tab stove tests.

Tests were conducted at 6,650 feet elevation, where the boiling temperature of water is 201 °F. Boiling was measured with a signaling digital thermometer at 197 °F with the temperature sensor placed in the same position each time. I used 197 °F for my boil tests so I did not have to contend with the Latent Heat of Vaporization, which takes additional time and energy to overcome, and adds complexity and potential for error. The pot and stove were cooled between test runs.

Fuel for the white gas stove was a fresh can of Coleman fuel. Canister fuel was MSR IsoPro. I used Kleen Strip S-L-X Denatured Alcohol for alcohol stove tests, and Esbit hexamine for the fuel tab stove. Boil time/fuel consumption test procedures are as follows:

I fueled each stove and recorded the weight of the fuel container plus fuel to the nearest 0.01 gram.
I started timing when the stove was lit. Priming time for the white gas stove was not included in the boil time.
I used a moderate flame (very subjective) for the white gas and canister stoves to conserve fuel.
When boiling (197 °F) was reached I immediately stopped the stove and reweighed the fuel container (or alcohol burner and remaining fuel, or remaining fuel tab). The difference between starting and ending weights was the fuel consumption.
I repeated each test at least two times until I obtained consistent boil times within 30 seconds under optimal conditions and within 1 minute under windy conditions.

Table 2: Cooking System Test Results
Cooking System	Average Boil Time (minutes:seconds)			Average Fuel Consumption (grams)
	Calm	Cold	Wind	Calm	Cold	Wind
White Gas	2:38	3:11	3:48	11.0	11.9	15.7
Remote Canister	3:28	6:17	4:01	7.6	7.2	11.9
Top Mount Canister	3:31	3:23	2:34	6.2	6.5	9.2
Integrated Canister	2:38	6:25	2:41	4.8	5.1	5.2
Alcohol	7:54	9:20	8:50	10.9	13.9	24.2
Fuel Tab	7:41	6:47	8:25	8.4	11.9	20.7
Note: Test results (boil time and fuel consumption) are for the stoves and windscreens pictured above. Note that there are a few inconsistencies because a moderate flame (which is subjective and hard to duplicate each time) was used for all of the white gas and canister stove tests.

Highlights

Under optimal conditions, boil times for the white gas and canister stoves were in the 2.5 to 3.5 minute range, while alcohol and fuel tab stoves were around 7.5 minutes.
Cold air and water extended boil times for most stoves, especially the remote canister stove and Jetboil stove.
Wind (with a windscreen) resulted in somewhat extended boil times for most stoves. For the alcohol and fuel tab stoves, the extra oxygen increased combustion, so the boil time is close to calm conditions but fuel consumption is greatly increased.
Fuel consumption of the white gas stove under optimal conditions was about the same as the alcohol stove. Priming of the white gas stove consumed about 0.1 ounce of fuel.
The integrated canister stove was the most fuel efficient of the canister stoves, followed by the top mount canister stove.
The alcohol and fuel tab stoves consumed much more fuel in windy conditions compared to the other stoves.
The white gas and fuel tab stoves had the same fuel consumption in cold conditions.
The integrated canister stove (Jetboil) with the KiteScreen was least affected by wind.
Despite the use of windscreens, turbulence within the aluminum windscreens (used on all but the integrated top-mount canister stoves) was a persistent problem, which resulted in reduced heating efficiency.

Extrapolating Cooking System Test Results to Field Conditions

Now that we have assembled cooking systems that are as comparable as possible, and lab tested them under controlled conditions to obtain comparable fuel consumption data, we are ready to tackle the challenging task of extrapolating the data to the field. In Part II of this article I will address the questions posed at the beginning of this article, and deal with some of the tricky issues of estimating fuel usage under field conditions and determining how much fuel efficiency compensates for cooking system weight. I even take a shot at estimating the stove plus fuel costs for the life span of the stoves.

Camera Selection Basics for the Lightweight Backpacker

Features for a lightweight backpacker to look for in a digital or film camera.

Introduction

Cameras For Lightweight Backpackers - 2
The author holding a Pentax WPi. The WPi is a rugged all-weather camera with a moderately fast 38-114mm (35mm equivalent) / F3.3-4.0 fully enclosed lens.

Amazing! Having turned the last corner out of a dense forest, you are facing a magnificent little lake that is reflecting some glorious peaks on top of it. You are overwhelmed by the incredible beauty. Now it is time to relax, set up the tent and prepare dinner; it just does not get better than this!

As you smile to yourself, the desire to freeze the moment in time comes to mind. Pity, you do not have a camera. You have pondered getting one but they are either too heavy and too big or they don’t shoot quality pictures. Well, fortunately you are wrong. Maybe that was the case, but now there are several choices for the lightweight backpacker and even some for the ultralightweight backpacker.

When looking for a good camera, what items should you consider? To start with, the camera should be able to take pictures that will not only be of good quality in the standard size print of 4×6 inch, but also up to at least an 8×10 and worthy of a frame and wall space in your favorite location.

Another desirable requirement is some “weatherproofness,” better still, waterproofness. Battery types and their expected life should also be examined. I do not believe in absolute “best” in a camera; in the end, you will have to decide according to your particular preference.

I will divide the different options available into three categories:

One-use (disposable) film cameras
Compact film cameras
Compact digital cameras

(Note: camera model names and numbers can vary wildly across the globe for identical models. Wherever possible we’ve included both US and overseas nomenclature.)

One-Use Cameras

Cameras For Lightweight Backpackers - 3
Disposable cameras are available from many camera manufacturers. FujiFilm’s QuickFlash is shown here.

Tip: There are also some “panorama” types available. Check the focal length in millimeters, the lower the number the better. Standard on a compact is 35mm, 28mm is wider, and 17mm is the widest of this type. (Note that the panorama effect is created by masking off parts of the top and bottom of a standard 35mm negative.)

One-use cameras are available from most film suppliers, Fuji/Kodak/Agfa, and generic brands. Look at the weatherproof type for an extended trip, or simple non-flash standard type for a day trip.

There are also “digital” one-use cameras that provide prints and a photo CD as part of the processing.

Pros: Inexpensive to buy and you are not out much money if you damage or break them. Also, very important to the lightweight backpacker, they are very light. 4.5 to 5.3 ounces (130 to 150g).

Cons: Image quality is only good enough for a standard size print; they have a fixed lens and no exposure or focus settings, so are generally restricted to fair weather use. If you think you’ll want more pictures than the camera holds, you’ll have to bring a second camera, limiting the weight and bulk advantages.

Compact Film Cameras

With the advent of digital cameras the range of available film cameras has been reduced dramatically. But the good news is that they have also gone down in price and there are some real winners left. Star performers are the Olympus Stylus/MjuII, the Kyocera (Yashica) T4 and the Canon A1. Some of these cameras will be hard to find.

Pros: Very affordable, choice of high performance, low light lens (Olympus Stylus Epic) or mini zoom, auto focus and auto exposure for sharp and well-exposed negatives or slides. Generally they have good battery life.

Cons: You do not know what the results will be until the film has been developed and printed. Because of this, some shots will translate into wasted money and time and others will never be captured.

MODEL	WEIGHT oz (g)	SIZE mm	BATTERY TYPE	NUMBER OF SHOTS**	LENS***	OTHER
Canon A1	11.29 (320)	133x88x53	CR123	240	32mm / F3.5	Waterproof/Grade 7*. Great for tough environment
Minolta Explorer EX / Riva 75	8.9 (255)	121x66x44	CR123	300	28-75mm	Good wide to tele zoom
Nikon 100w	7.76 (220)	115x65x41	CR123	350	28-100mm	Very light for a 3.5x zoom film camera
Olympus Mju II/Stylus in U.S.	5.29 (150)	108x59x37	CR123	280	35mm / F2.8	Weatherproof/Grade 4*, bright sharp lens
Pentax Espio 24EW	7.3 (215)	113x62x45	CR2	350	24-105	Widest wide angle available. Expect darker and softer edges
*Refers to the Japanese Industry Standard (see the sidebar on Weatherproof Grades for more details).
**A very approximate number for the number of shots the camera can take before its batteries are exhausted.
***The first value describes the lens focal length or range of focal lengths if it is a zoom lens. The second value is the lens’ maximum aperture represented by the F-Number.

Compact Digital Cameras

Here we have a huge range of choices, but the standards we are using of size, weight and weatherproofness reduce the choice to a much smaller number. A digital camera is a rather fragile piece of equipment. Water, condensation, dust, and sand are the enemies, so some sort of weather protection is very important for the typical outdoor user.

Tip: To save battery life on multi day hikes, avoid chimping. Chimping: The act of reviewing one’s pictures and emitting oh, oooh sounds.

Use power save mode.

Avoid consecutive flash shots, give the battery time to recover.

Turn off the sound effect mode. On my Pentax WPi I get at least another 50 shots by foregoing the shutter noise and various other amusing but power hungry sounds.

Cameras For Lightweight Backpackers - 4
The Ricoh GR-1 is a tough, fixed focal length – 28mm (35mm format equivalent), fast, weather resistant camera.

Another major consideration is the type and the capacity of the battery used. Digital cameras either use standard AA or AAA batteries or proprietary Lithium-Ion batteries. The former are easy to acquire anywhere and come in non-rechargeable (alkaline or lithium) and rechargeable (Nickel Metal Hydrate, NiMH). The latter are typically camera specific, rechargeable, higher capacity, and only available through specialty stores. The single greatest advantage cameras that use standard batteries have is that you can purchase replacements quite easily. However alkaline batteries – which are what you will most readily find – are fairly low capacity and will not yield as many photos. Recharging standard size batteries in the field may be easier too with the use of a solar charger, but this of course adds significant weight. Proprietary batteries are harder to recharge, cost more, but are typically considerably more powerful.

Many digital cameras will tout their water and weatherproofness. There are relatively few waterproof cameras that can actually tolerate immersion. For example, the Olympus Mju/Stylus is weatherproof (JIS Grade 4) which means it can tolerate splashed water and dust particles 1mm and larger. While the Pentax Optio Wpi, possessing a JIS grade 8 rating, can be submerged for up to 30 minutes in water up to a depth of 4.9 feet (1.5m). Another practical choice to improve the weatherproofness of your digital camera is a compact digital camera with a waterproof housing. There are two types of waterproof covers. A thin and relatively light (about 5.3 ounces/150 grams) waterproof case to about 9 feet (3m) or a heavier (around 9 ounces/250 grams) and larger housing waterproof to 100-130 feet(30-40m). The former is available for the Sony L1, T7, S60 and 90, also for the Olympus Verve/Mju Mini. The latter can be had for most of the models by the top brands.

Pros: Instant gratification, point/shoot and review, don’t like it? Delete and shoot again. Choice of functions and zoom range.

Cons: Startup cost (camera, spare battery, memory card).

Models

The following is a list of some of the latest digital still models. There are several hundred on the market. This list focuses on what I consider backpacker friendly cameras.

MODEL	WEIGHT oz (g)¹	SIZE mm	BATTERY TYPE	NUMBER OF SHOTS²	LENS³	PIXELS megapixels	OTHER
Canon Powershot A520	8.5 (240)	91x64x38	AAx2	…	35-140mm	4	Great value for money
Casio EX-Z55	6.7 (190)	87x57x23	NP40 Li	…	35-105mm	5	Great battery life, winner of the Camping Camera 2005 award
Fujifilm F10	6.7 (190)	92x58x27	Li-Ion	500	36-108mm	6	Long battery life. Best in low light. Largest CCD
Nikon Coolpix 5600	6.7 (190)	85x60x35	AAx2	…	34-102mm	5	Another one for the long trail
Olympus Stylus 720 SW	5.3 (150)	95x56x20	Li-Ion		37-114mm	7	Waterproof to 3m (9ft); Shock proof
Olympus Stylus Verve/Mju Mini	4.5 (130)	95x55x27mm	li 30b	…	35mm-70mm	4	Weatherproof /Grade 4*
Panasonic DMC FX01	5.5 (155)	94x51x24	Li-Ion	270	28-102mm	6	Widest angle+16:9 capture and playback. Great for that HD TV screen
Panasonic DMC FZ5	12.0 (340)	108x68x85	CGA S002E	…	36-432mm	5	Very small for a 12xzoom. Close to SLR performance. Includes optical stabilizer
Panasonic DMC LZ2	8.11 (230)	101x64x33	AAx2	200	37-222mm	5	Compact for a 6x zoom with optical stabilizer (anti-shake)
Pentax Optio WPi	4.8 (135)	102x51x22	DL18	…	38-114mm	6	Waterproof/Grade 8*, Silicon skin now available for a better grip
Ricoh GR Digital	7.1 (205)	107x25x58	Li-Ion	…	28mm fixed	8	Solid construction, high quality wide lens, low noise
Ricoh R2/Rollei Dr5	7.1 (200)	100x55x25	Li10 / AA	400 with Li10	28mm-135mm	5	Wide angle lens/ can use 2x AA Batteries
Sony DSC L1	4.94 (140)	95x44x25	Li NPFT1	240	32-96mm	4	Small and light, with an extra battery you could do a multi week walk
Sony S90	9.2 (260)	108x52x26mm	AAx2	400	39-117mm	5	Heavy, but great colors and long battery life with 4x spare AA Li you can do all of the AT
*Refers to the Japanese Industry Standard (see the sidebar on weatherproof grades for more details).
¹Weight does not include battery and memory card. Save weight with AA batteries by using the lithium type.
²Number of shots is according to CIPA standards.
³Lens size is presented as its 35mm equivalent, e.g., a 50mm focal length is standard, a 25mm would be twice as wide and a 100mm twice as long (the subject would appear twice as far or twice as close).

Cameras For Lightweight Backpackers - 5
Olympus continues to improve the Stylus camera line with the waterproof (to 9 feet / 3 meters) 720SW.

Most of the above models are available as 3 or 4 megapixel (mp) or 4 and 5mp versions. With some, the higher mp version has a larger screen or better battery performance.

Digital cameras have a very short product lifecycle and are replaced quickly. The above list is only a guide highlighting some of the best of each type, see the “other” column for the reason.

The Pentax WP has been replaced by the WPi, same camera but with a 6MP sensor from the current 5mp,

The Olympus Verve is now the Verve S, from 4 to 5MP, also see the Stylus 800, which is a bit bigger and heavier but 8MP.

Battery Performance

Digital Cameras – what is mAh? mAh stands for MilliAmp hour. This is a capacity rating telling you how much power a particular battery has. A higher mAh means the battery should hold a charge longer, which means that you can take more photos before recharging. When using multiple batteries in a camera, make sure that their mAh values match.

Tips: Different camera brands and models have different power drain, so do not assume that the 800 mAh battery inside model X will last longer than the 600 mAh powering model Y. As an example, the same battery will deliver about twice the number of pictures when used with the Olympus Verve S compared to the Verve.

Sony, Casio and Ricoh have put a lot of effort into delivering more shots per charge. There is a standard established by the Japanese Industry Standard Association to guide us with the expected performance with each model. The test sequence is as follows: power up the camera, zoom out, take a shot with flash, zoom back, take another shot without flash, and switch off. Because of different habits and temperatures, in practice what you get will vary from this, or any other standard.

Generally speaking, for better performance avoid powering up the camera too often; better to keep it on for a couple of minutes than to switch it on and off. If you can, use the viewfinder and not the LCD screen and use the “power save” mode. Limit unnecessary zooming and flash use.

Battery Types Compared

Disposable	Pros	Cons
AA and AAA
	Cheap, easily available	The disposable types are not exactly a “green” solution”, bulky compared to many proprietary rechargeable batteries.
Alkaline	Cheap	One use and low power
Lithium	Very light (about 2 ounces / 60 grams for four) About three times the power of the alkaline battery and has a very long shelf life, up to 10 years.	More expensive, harder to find.
Lithium cells such as CR123, CRV3, 2CR5 and CR2 power many film and some digital cameras.
	Long life, light weight.	Can be difficult to find, expensive.
Rechargeable	Pros	Cons
	Rechargeable batteries offer the obvious benefits of many reuses and always being able to leave home with a fully charged battery. Few film cameras and most digital cameras use rechargeable cells.	On longer trips, backpackers face carrying expensive extra cells or some way to recharge them in the field.
Ni-Cad (Nickel-Cadmium)	–	Not usable with most compact digital cameras, avoid them.
Ni-MH (Nickel Metal Hydride)	Reusable (up to 500 charges), available in capacities from 1200 mAh to 2500 mAh (the higher, the better)	High self-discharge rate, about 10% after the first 24 hours and 25% per month after that, so not recommended for long trips. No “memory.”
Li-Ion (Lithium Ion)	Small and light (some will give up to 500 shots per charge), have a relatively long life, have a self-discharge range of only about 5% overnight and 8% per month after that. No memory. Now available in AA and AAA size.	Expensive and too many types (proprietary) makes them hard to find. Available from tiny 500 mAh to 1800 mAh – most cameras can only take one size.

Discontinued Cameras

There are a lot of very good but discontinued models out there. The shelf life of a digital still camera is now less than 1 year, keep in mind that newer is not always better. Here are some suggestions for some of the better discontinued models.

Film Camera

Contax T series

Minolta Riva

Olympus XA/XA2

Rollei 35T/S

Stylus/Mju

Yashica T

Digital Camera

Canon Ixus /Powershot S-SD (various models)

Olympus Mju/Stylus (various models)

Sony U30/40/60 (Only 2mp but tiny. The 60 is waterproof. Great for 6 by 4 prints.)

For more details check these two excellent sites http://www.dpreview.com and http://www.steves-digicams.com.

Tip: the lens size and coating is always a good indication of the quality of the results. A small mono-coated (bluish tinge) lens spells cheap.

As stated at the beginning of this article, there is no single best camera; you have to choose according to your own preferences. The brand is only important for after sales service, no single brand makes only good cameras, however there are a lot of No Brands that are sold on the Internet and in some shops that are best avoided. Do not buy by comparing numbers, I can show you better pictures from a 2MP than from some so called 10MP. The price is an indication, the look and feel of the item is another way to tell the quality. I very rarely see a cheap looking camera that takes sharp pictures.

None of the cameras that I have highlighted should disappoint; however, I suggest you handle and compare them before you buy. I started selling cameras when the Kodak 110 was the people’s choice and as bad as they were, they did give a lot of joy and preserved memories for most.

Now, go and buy a camera, return to that fantasy lake and freeze that magic moment. Happy shooting!

About the Author

Cameras For Lightweight Backpackers - 1
The author at Waterfall Valley in Tasmania. The Bennett’s wallaby (Macropus Rufogriseus) is wild and common at this campsite.

Franco Darioli was born in 1955 in the Italian Alps. He did some hiking up to the age of 18 in elevations from 2500 to 7000 feet. He has worked in London, then New Zealand and Sydney, Australia. Since 1980, he has been living in Melbourne. He is the still digital and video buyer for a busy photographic shop and a regular contributor to the photographic section of the largest Melbourne newspaper. He has recently started hiking again and is gradually changing to lightweight gear, (e.g., from a Bibler Pinon to a Black Diamond Lighthouse to the TarpTent Rainbow and soon the TarpTent Squall Classic).

Headsweats Race Hat SPOTLITE REVIEW

Way cool hiking hat that really manages the moisture and stays put, but snags fairly easily.

Overview

The Headsweats Race Hat is a baseball cap style lid constructed of Coolmax fabric for rapid moisture dispersion. It features Coolmax wicking fabric in the main cap, Coolmax terrycloth sweatband, large stiff bill with black underside for face protection and glare reduction, an easy to adjust cinch strap on the back, and Invista sun protection.

Headsweats hats are marketed to adventure racers and runners, who really need high performance clothing to stay dry and comfortable. That’s especially true for the head area, which puts out a lot of heat and moisture during an endurance race.

I used the Race Hat for backpacking, which doesn’t come close to adventure racing, but it does get pretty darn hot and sweaty on a 3,000 foot climb carrying a pack in the hot sun. Over a two-month period, I wore it on weekly backpacks in a wide variety of conditions.

The outcome – the Headsweats Race Hat really works! In normal trail hiking, the Race Hat soaked up sweat and dispersed it without having to wear a bandana under it. However, I did wear a bandana under it on some really hot bushwhacks up steep slopes, so there are limits to its wicking ability. With its cinch strap adjustment on the back it was very easy to put on a bandana then slip the Race Hat over it and snug it.

Headsweats Race Hat SPOTLITE REVIEW - 1
The Coolmax fabric is textured on the outside (left) to increase its surface area for moisture dispersion. The Race Hat (right), has a 1.5-inch wide Coolmax terrycloth sweatband, a cinch strap on the back, and black underbrim to reduce glare.

Everyone has a different hiking hat preference, and I personally prefer a baseball cap style because it’s cooler. I have tried hats with an integrated sun cape, and they’re simply too hot unless there is a good breeze. That said, the downside of wearing a baseball cap is I get a lot of sun exposure and have to really slather up with sunscreen. One combination I often use is laying my bandana over my head and then putting the Race Hat over it, which provided good sun and wind protection when I really need it.

Headsweats Race Hat SPOTLITE REVIEW - 2
Ok, this is a bit dorky, but wearing a bandana under the Race Hat works well for extra sun protection when you really need it. A lighter color would be cooler than the dark blue bandana I used here.

The cinch strap on the back of the Race Hat adjusts easily and really holds the hat on. When a wind came up, all I had to do was reach back and snug the hat to make it stay on. The hat even stayed on when I hitch-hiked a ride in the back of a pickup truck to get back to my car after six days on the Continental Divide Trail.

In a rain shower I could feel every drop wet the top of my head, so the Race Hat is not showerproof by any means. However, it works great under the hood of a rain jacket or poncho to ventilate my head and keep the hood from restricting my vision.

The Coolmax fabric is somewhat durable, but I still managed to get a few snags in it from bushwhacking through brush. So expect some damage if you wear it off-trail.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer: Headsweats (http://www.headsweats.com/)
Product: Coolmax Race Hat
Fabric: Coolmax polyester body, Coolmax terrycloth sweatband
Sizes: One size fits most with rear cinch strap
Features: Coolmax fabric, 1.5-inch Coolmax sweatband, black underbrim
MSRP: $20

Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil Dry Sacks (Production) SPOTLITE REVIEW

The lightest dry sacks, but also the leakiest (compared to lightweight dry sacks from four other companies) when subjected to harsh conditions.

Overview

Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil dry sacks are incredibly light. And, like other ultralight gear, the user needs to know the limitations and use accordingly or be disappointed in the performance.

I released a SpotLite Review of prototype versions of these dry sacks in August 2005. I have now tested two production dry sacks and compared their performance to dry sacks from Outdoor Research, Cascade Designs (SealLine), Granite Gear and Pacific Outdoor Equipment. The Ultra-Sil dry sacks did not fare well in these tests.

Although the web site does not indicate anything other than that the Ultra-Sil dry sacks are waterproof, the instructions that come with the sacks say, “Ideal for keeping contents dry in any situation that the bag is not submerged.” Also, as noted in the 2005 SpotLite Review, the Ultra-Sil Dry Sacks are waterproof when used as designed, according to the US marketing rep. She adds, “If you are going to be getting really wet, as in floating them in a river, we also recommend another layer of protection for expensive items such as cameras or GPS. They are not recommended for prolonged submersion.”

Other lightweight dry sack manufacturers include similar caveats and all the dry sacks tested provide more protection from moisture than a typical stuff sack.

However, even the caveated claims did not hold water in my testing. The Ultra-Sil bag did not keep its contents dry after 10 minutes under a hard shower with seam side up. The Ultra-Sil bag did successfully safeguard contents when standing upright under a shower for 10 minutes. Of course, a dry sack inside a pack is unlikely to experience such conditions.

It was disappointing that these dry sacks – the lightest by a significant amount of all the dry sacks commercially available – also did not satisfy the following claim, the “Dry Sacks will not leak in that situation [dry sack in the bottom of the pack … partially submerged underwater for quite some time].” The prototype dry sacks did not pass this test, but Sea to Summit was sure that further tweaking of the taping technology would stop water leakage through the seams.

However, the round bottomed Sea to Summit dry sack performed the worst of the dry sacks I tested in two tests with the sack sitting upright and on its side (seam down) in a couple inches of water for 8 hours. The idea was to simulate a worst case scenario, e.g. backpacking in horrible storms in Patagonia resulting in a couple of inches of water in the bottom of the pack at the end of the day. Contents of the Sea to Summit dry sack were soaked after this test. Two other bags failed one or both of these tests, but allowed just a wet spot or two on bag contents.

The Ultra-Sil sack leaked so badly after 8 hours in shallow water that I wondered if some water might be soaking through the fabric. To check this idea out, I formed a small pocket in a sack where there were no seams. I put a t-shirt in the pocket, closed it off, and sat the pocket in water. The t-shirt was completely dry after 8 hours. The fabric is not leaking when immersed in shallow water – the circular seam is the main culprit.

Happily, Sea to Summit appears to have improved straight seam taping procedures since the prototype I tested. The production dry sack with a straight seam on the bottom kept contents dry after standing on end in water for 8 hours and during a 5 minute submersion test.

The Sea to Summit dry sack was the only one tested to leak through the roll top closure. It appears that the very things that make these sacks so light contribute to this. The Sea to Summit dry sacks use Siliconized Cordura fabric. It is very light, and did not absorb water during a 10 minute hard shower (see Lightweight Dry Sacks: Comparison Testing Results). Fabric on the other sacks I tested absorbed some water which kept at least some water that was working inside the roll top closure towards the top of the dry sacks from making it all the way. The Sea to Summit sack is the only sack that doesn’t use webbing along the top opening. Sea to Summit sacks have a lightweight ribbon/tape and plastic stiffener at the top opening. The webbing used on other sacks absorbs more water than the accoutrements at the top of the Sea to Summit sacks and helps to keep water out of the inside of the pack.

Keep in mind that much of my testing was harsher than a dry sack will normally experience inside a pack. The Sea to Summit dry sacks provide more water resistance than a normal stuff sack at not much more weight. The prototype Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil sacks I tested in the field and at home by floating them in a pool of water, kept my gear dry. The reason – both the round and flat sacks floated with the round seams out of the water.

Sea to Summit recommends double bagging valuables. Double bagging using a Gossamer Gear pack liner and Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil Pack Liner or dry sack is still quite light. I used a prototype 20 liter Sea to Summit Ultra-Sil dry sack (1.8 oz) and a medium Gossamer Gear Pack Liner (1.3 oz) inside the Gossamer Gear G6 for a SuperUltraLight canyoneering trip. I floated my pack on a TorsoLite self-inflating pad when I needed to swim, and the pack contents stayed dry. The total weight, 3.1 ounces, for double bagging using these options is still less than most 20 liter dry sacks.

Note that I have not done any testing on the Ultra-Sil dry sacks to determine how their performance holds up with use.

The Ultra-Sil dry sacks offer viable options for ultralighters who know their limits and manage them properly. For those who want more protection and are willing to carry the extra weight, Sea to Summit also offers Lightweight Dry Sacks constructed from 70-denier nylon, laminated with polyurethane with weights still in the lightweight range (e.g. 3.7 oz for the 13 L size, same size Ultra-Sil weighs 1.4 oz). Other companies also offer heaveir, more robust options – see the listing in Lightweight Dry Sacks: Comparison Testing Results.

Features and Specifications

Dry Sack

Super compact and ultra lightweight
Made of Ultra-Sil nylon, a polyurethane coated Siliconized Cordura
Watertight, non-wicking Hypalon roll top closure with stiffener at the top for a better seal
Soft and flexible with a slippery finish for easy packing
Nearly transparent allowing good visibility of the contents
All seams are double stitched and tape sealed
Smaller sizes have flat bottoms, others are round
Uses low profile buckles

Pack Liner, additional features

Ultra-Sil Pack Liner opens wide for easy packing when it’s inside a pack
Unique top closure: extra fabric at the top folds in and velcros in place, then rolls down, creating a more compact closed loop at the top
Designed to fit the internal contours of a backpack, so the base is oval, rather than round

Size	Volume ci	Volume L	Dimensions in	Dimensions cm	Weight Specified [Measured] oz	Weight Specified [Measured] g	MSRP $
1	61	1	6 x 9 (flat)	15 x 23	0.7	20	8.95
2	122	2	8 x 12 (flat)	20 x 30	0.8	23	10.95
4	244	4	9 x 15 (flat)	23 x 38	0.9 [0.8]	26 [23]	11.95
8	488	8	6.5 x 18	17 x 46	1.1	30	15.95
13	793	13	8.5 x 21	22 x 53	1.4 [1.4]	40 [39]	18.95
20	1220	20	10 x 24	25 x 61	1.8	50	22.95
35	2136	35	12 x 27	30 x 69	2.3	65	29.95
Pack Liner Small	3000	50	21 (H) x 19 x 16	53 x 48 x 41	2.6	74	34.95
Pack Liner Medium	4300	70	35 x 20 x 8	89 x 51 x 20	3.4	96	39.95
Pack Liner Large	5500	90	48 x 22 x 10	122 x 56 x 25	4.4	125	44.95

Lightweight Dry Sacks: Comparison Testing Results

The lightest dry sacks from Granite Gear, Outdoor Research, Sea to Summit, Pacific Outdoor Equipment and Cascade Designs (SealLine) subjected to five tough tests – with lots of failures.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) Relay Backpack REVIEW

Both lightweight AND durable, the new ULA Relay is a full-featured frameless daypack capable of comfortably carrying a heavy load – but there are a few nits to pick.

Introduction

Ultralight Adventure Equipment’s entire pack line has been redesigned for 2006, and the frameless Relay at 2100 cubic inches and 17 ounces is the smallest pack in the new lineup. It’s a roomy multi-purpose daypack with plenty of pocket space and load-carrying ability. So does the performance of the Relay meet our expectations?

What’s Good

Lightweight AND durable
Ample volume for a day pack, and good volume adjustment
Lots of outside storage
Wide, well-padded shoulder straps spread weight
Optional removable accessories
Quality construction

What’s Not So Good

Pack torso length is shorter than specified
Shallow front pocket
Delta wings on hipbelt are too small

Specifications

Manufacturer	Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA)
Year/Model	2006 Relay
Style	Frameless, top loading, drawcord closure
Sizes	S/M fits 17-19 in (43-48 cm) torso, M/L fits 20-22 in (51-56 cm)torso
Volume	2100 ci (35 L)
Weight	1 lb 2.3 oz (519 g) measured weight (size M/L); manufacturer’s specification 1 lb 1 oz (482 g)
Fabrics	Main pack body is 210d Dyneema Gridstop polyurethane-coated nylon, pockets are durable polyester mesh with an elastic binding, frontpanel is 1.9 oz/yd² (64 g/m²) urethane-coated ripstop nylon
Features	Angled mesh side pockets with drawcord closure, bellowed fabric pocket and bungee attachment system on front, two equipment loops, two ice axe loops, removable foam backpanel pad, two side and one top compression straps, two hydration tube ports, 1.5 in (3.8 cm) webbing hipbelt, interior pad sleeve, sternum strap, haul loop, attachment loops for optional accessories
Options	Zippered internal stash pocket (1.1 oz/31 g, $5), hydration sleeve (1.4 oz/40 g, $5), water bottle holsters (0.4 oz/11 g, $2 each), handloops (0.8 oz/23 g, $2 each)
Volume To Weight Ratio	114.8 ci/oz size M/L (based on 2100 ci and a measured weight of 18.3 oz, without options)
Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity	20 lb (6.8 kg) estimated maximum comfortable load an average person can carry all day in this pack
Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio	17.5 (based on a 20 lb load and measured weight of 1.14 lb)
MSRP	$99

Performance

The distinctive trait of ULA packs is their Dyneema Gridstop fabric, which is both durable AND lightweight. The fabric contains polyethylene fibers that are claimed to be ten times stronger than steel and two times stronger than Kevlar. The mesh used in the side pockets is also very durable. This is a lightweight pack that is also bomber.

With 2100 cubic inches of total volume (main body 1500, front pocket 150, side mesh pockets 250, extension collar 200), the Relay provides plenty of room for everything you need for a day and the ability to organize it the way you like.

Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) Relay Backpack REVIEW - 1
A tour of the ULA Relay pack. The front (top left) has a fabric pocket, bungee attachment system, ice axe loops, and Velcro pole retention loops; each side (top right) has a mesh pocket, one compression strap, and a hose port; the backpanel view (bottom left) shows the Relay’s wide shoulder straps, sternum strap, and webbing hipbelt; and the top view (bottom right) shows the drawstring closure and top compression strap.

The Relay pack is full-featured (see specifications), and only lacks load lifters, which one can argue are not needed on a pack this size. Besides the standard feature set, the Relay (like all ULA packs) will accept ULA’s optional internal stash pocket, hydration sleeve, water bottle holsters, and handloops. All of these options are removable, so you can use them when you want them or transfer them to other ULA packs you own. The options are also bargain priced (see specification table).

Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) Relay Backpack REVIEW - 2
Optional accessories for the Relay (that attach to all ULA backpacks) are a zippered internal stash pocket (top left), hydration sleeve (top right), water bottle holsters (bottom left), and handloops (bottom right). See specification table for prices and weights.

The Relay comes in two sizes (S/M and M/L), each with a fixed torso length. The size M/L tested is claimed to fit torsos 20 to 22 inches, but I measured the pack torso length to be only 18 inches. For me (6 feet, 170 pounds, 20 inch torso), the pack was a bit small, but acceptable. It would definitely be too small for a taller person. Basically, the longer your torso, the lower this pack rides on your shoulders (see top photo).

In the field, I used the Relay on a variety of outings and found it to be very versatile and a serious load hauler. I liked its 3-D Spacer Mesh padded 3-inch wide contoured shoulder straps, which did a great job of distributing weight. For a daypack, it also has a serious 1.5-inch webbing hipbelt. I found that I could easily and comfortably carry a 20-pound load with the Relay, which is right on target with the manufacturer’s claim. The pack also has a slight hourglass shape, which helps to provide elbow room.

Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) Relay Backpack REVIEW - 3
The Relay’s well padded 3-inch wide shoulder straps account for its excellent load carrying ability.

A good measure of a pack’s user-friendliness is whether you can reach and replace a water bottle in a side pocket without having to take the pack off; the Relay passed. I also found the ULA optional accessories to be very useful. The internal stash pocket and hydration sleeve easily clip in, provide a lot of utility for little extra weight, and can be transferred to other ULA packs. The water bottle holsters are simple and light and keep a pint of water very handy. The handloops…, well, you will just have to try them and see if you like them.

Now for a few nitpicks. Although many people will like the Relay exactly the way it is, there are a few design elements that I personally differ with. On the frontpanel, I would prefer to have a full height mesh pocket instead of the shallow fabric pocket at the bottom and bungee attachment system above it. The bungee system interferes with inserting items into the pocket. I used the bungee system, and it works fine, I just prefer a large front mesh pocket.

Also, the frontpanel does not have a good provision for attaching bulky items. The pocket can handle a narrow snow shovel or a gear bag, but it’s difficult to attach anything larger. To provide more versatility, it would be nice to have four attachment loops sewn into the front seams and optional accessory straps offered.

The angled mesh side pockets are a ULA trademark, but I personally don’t find them to be very functional. To me, they amount to half a pocket. I would prefer to have full-height mesh pockets, one with a side opening to facilitate inserting a water bottle.

I would also like to see the top compression strap reversed, so the female end is attached to the top of the backpanel. As it is, the strap (which is too long) dangles behind your back. Finally, I found the delta wings (that the webbing hipbelt attaches to) so small that the padding on them has little function. Larger wings that pad the hipbelt across the hipbone would be more functional.

Assessment

At a little over a pound, the ULA Relay is a full-featured pack that provides a generous amount of volume for a day pack, organization options, weight-carrying capacity, and durability. Other daypacks with the same volume and weight carrying capacity have an internal frame and weigh 2 pounds or more. The Relay is very comfortable to carry, if its torso length is a good fit for you. Its standard feature set is very nice, but could benefit from some tweaking (depending on your preferences).

The Relay should not be overlooked as a potential pack for fastpacking. Its rugged construction, weight-carrying capacity, water carrying capability, and hourglass shape are features that adventure racers look for, but it lacks hipbelt pockets.

The Relay at 2100 cubic inches and 17 ounces could be used as a durable overnight backpack, however it has a weight penalty compared to the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail pack at 2400 cubic inches and 7 ounces (but no hipbelt), and the GoLite Dawn at 2500 cubic inches and 14 ounces.

What’s Unique

The use of Dyneema Gridstop fabric for most of the pack makes it both lightweight and durable. ULA’s optional accessories are removable and can be interchanged in other ULA packs.

Recommendations for Improvement

Please don’t misunderstand my nitpicks above; the ULA Relay is a fine lightweight pack. However, I do have a few suggestions for improvements that are worth considering:

Replace the shallow fabric pocket and bungee system on the frontpanel with a full height mesh pocket.
Replace the angled side pockets with full height pockets, possibly with an angled entry near the bottom to allow inserting a water bottle without taking the pack off.
Reverse the top compression strap so the strap hangs on the front side of the pack.
Enlarge the delta wings on the hipbelt so there is adequate padding over the hipbone.
Add four attachment loops to the frontpanel seams, and offer optional accessory straps for attaching larger items to the front of the pack.

Modified Vargo Triad XE Stove REVIEW

Robust, lightweight, stable titanium alcohol stove that can be hard to get going – until a small modification is made.

A Modified Vargo Triad XE Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 2
The Triad XE stove in operation, with priming cap.

Introduction

The Vargo Triad XE is a jetted and pressurised alcohol stove that looks superficially a bit like its sibling, the Triad, but there are a number of significant differences. It is promoted as being ‘dual-fuel’: you can use the assembly to burn solid fuel tablets as well by removing the alcohol tank. This review will focus on using the Triad XE with alcohol, and a small modification I made to the stove.

The Vargo XE is light, robustly constructed of titanium, and it has really strong legs and pot supports. However, getting it going proved very difficult at first, and the stove usually just went out with fuel remaining. Basically, there’s a lack of thermal feedback without a very close-fitting windscreen.

The reasons for the poor performance suggested that a small modification might make the stove far more tractable. I tested the modified stove and the result was wonderful: the modified stove works with or without a windscreen, and it burns far hotter than before. Best of all, the modifications are easily made.

What’s Good – as bought

Robust construction
Stable on the ground
Strong – handles a heavy pot
Easy to set up

What’s Not So Good

VERY hard to get going
Can go out
Needs a very close windshield to get going properly

What’s Good – after modifications

Strong, stable and robust still
Burns much hotter
Can operate without a windshield in still air

Specifications

Manufacturer	Vargo Outdoors
Year/Model	2006 Triad XE
Construction Material	Titanium
Construction Process	Stamped, spot-welded and riveted
Mechanical Design	‘Pill can’ with holes around the top, in a small support base with legs and pot supports
Jets	12, drilled around rim of lid
Alcohol Capacity	Not stated, but a shade over 1 fl oz (28 mL) of denatured alcohol
Stove Style	Pressurised jet
Boil Time	Claimed: 6 minutes for 2 cups
Burn Time	Claimed: 9 minutes when filled (packaging) or 25 minutes (web site)
Target Use	“One weight-conscious backpacker,” boiling water and light cooking
Weight	Measured: 1.73 oz (49 g) total, claimed 1.5 oz (42.5 g)
MSRP	US $32.95

Performance

Overview

The Triad XE looks a bit like the Triad at first, but there are several differences.

The XE design has separated the support structure from the fuel tank/burner.
The XE fuel tank has a lid, so filling and emptying it is much easier.
The XE is pressurised.
The XE is heavier (but it’s still very light).
The flames on the Triad go upwards; the flames on the XE go outwards.

Before we get into the operation of the stove, I should mention that the design makes the stove very stable. The fold-out legs can be dug into the soil a bit, after which the stove doesn’t move. The fold-out pot supports are just as rugged. I can confirm that the stove will support many pints (or litres) of water without a worry. However, if your pot/cup has a base smaller than 3.6 inches (92 mm) diameter, it does not sit on the pot supports very well unless you fold the pot supports inwards, to rest on the fuel tank. The support circle is then rather small. This is a stove for wide pots.

The tips of the legs and pot supports are quite sharp and could damage other gear if not folded away carefully. I did worry a bit that the tips would gouge my aluminium pots. Of course, a titanium pot or cup would have no trouble. If this really worries you, it is fairly easy to smooth the tips down a bit with a grinder or small sharpening stone.

Field Experience – Part 1

I spent some time with this stove, but I could not get it to burn well. Time and again the flames went out while there was still some alcohol inside the tank. Obviously I was doing something seriously wrong. I sat down and had a careful look at how this stoves works, and came to the conclusion that the support base was actually cooling the fuel tank down by channeling air against it. This is illustrated in the photo here, where the green lines show airflow being sucked in through the holes by the flames to hit the side of the tank. If this incoming air is cool, it will cool the tank and stop the alcohol from boiling.

A Modified Vargo Triad XE Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 3
The Triad XE stove with green lines showing cooling air flow.

Subsequent discussion with the designer, Brian Vargo, revealed that I should be using a very tight windshield (as with the Triad). While the XE packaging does not mention the use of a windshield, the web site states: “NOTE: A special windscreen is required! The windscreen will maintain the intensity and efficiency of the flame.” The windshield will cause the air around the support to be heated by the flames so the tank won’t be cooled down.

However, it seemed to me that there should be another ways to make this pressurised stove burn well, so I decided to see if my ideas would work. This means that the rest of this review concerns a modified Triad XE. However, the modifications are simple.

Design Theory

The alcohol has to be boiling to be forced out the holes in the lid, to make flames. This means the fuel tank has to be heated. The flames coming out of the standard holes all point away from the tank, so they won’t do this. Could I add a couple of flames which would heat the tank? Certainly this would be possible if I could get them pointing downwards from the lid rather than outwards.

A Modified Vargo Triad XE Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 4
Modifications to the Triad XE.

When the lid of the fuel tank is pressed on properly it comes down to the pink line in the picture above. I marked this line, and drilled four small 0.7 millimetre diameter holes at 90 degree intervals around the wall just above the line. The red arrow points to one of them. This was easy to do with a sharp new drill bit. These holes would make four more jets of flame, except that they would be largely blocked when the lid is pressed down. So then I lightly tweaked the rim of the lid away from the hole at each hole. The tweak is visible at the two blue arrows, with the lid slightly rotated out of position. This tweak makes a gap over the new hole, and this gap lets the alcohol vapour come out, but the jet is deflected downwards. The deflection is most obvious when you look at the right hand blue arrow. When the alcohol vapour burns there will be a flame going down the side of the stove for a little way before it curls back upwards toward the pot on top of the stove. This flame (all four of them actually) will heat the side walls of the fuel tank.

The four tweaks to the lid were done with some round-nosed pliers, and are pointed to by the red lines in the photo below. There is one tweak to each hole I drilled. The exact shape of the tweaks isn’t critical as long as the alcohol vapour can come out. Equally, I found that the tweaks don’t need to be very large: what is shown is probably more than is needed. Only a very small gap is needed, so don’t overdo it.

A Modified Vargo Triad XE Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 5
Tweaks to the rim of the lid to deflect gas flow.

With the extra flames going down the side of the fuel tank for a little way the tank will be heated. The flames will soon turn around and go upwards because they are trapped inside the support base. There may be a very small loss of fuel efficiency, but I haven’t been able to measure it with any reliability.

Field Experience – Part 2

Does the modification work? It certainly does. A little bit of priming fuel in the support bowl plus some under the support (in the green cap shown in the first picture) is enough to get the stove started, and once the flames start coming out from the new holes the stove is up and running. In fact, too much alcohol can make the stove roar a bit too much at the start. Priming now requires a delicate touch rather than a big slosh. The flames now coming out from the main jets are at least 1 inch (25 mm) long.

In fact, the first test run was perhaps a shade too successful, so I flattened the tweaks down a bit to restrict the flow out of the new holes. I found that not much flame was needed from those new holes to make the stove go just nicely. It is quite possible that only two new holes would suffice, but it was a bit hard to test that when I already had four holes.

It is hard to see alcohol flames in the daylight of course, but the next photo shows them coming out: there is an orange glow at the right hand side and a faint trace of blue at the left. There is a windshield in this photo, but it is more for convention and priming than for real need. The stove will now run quite happily with no windshield at all, as shown in the first photo at the top.

Modified Vargo Triad XE Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 5
This photo shows a small green aluminium bottle cap under the stove. I use this for priming both the XE and the Triad. The use of the cap lets me monitor how much alcohol I use for the priming, and I found that I really needed only a millimetre or two of alcohol in the cap, plus slightly less in the support bowl. Too much priming is to be avoided. As soon as the alcohol in the cap is lit I poke it under the stove, where it makes a nice controlled flame which burns for between 3 and 4 minutes. The fuel in the support bowl is lit by the flame from underneath, especially if I put the little cap at one edge rather than right under the middle of the stove.

Field Experience – Part 3

The Vargo Triad has jets pointing upwards, while the Triad XE has flames pointing outwards. I found I needed to use a fairly wide pot with the XE to take advantage of the flame spread. This is especially so now the stove burns more strongly. Typically I use my 150 millimetre (5.9 in) diameter Trangia kettle. If you don’t want the flames spreading out so much, you should have only two small extra holes under the lid, to apply less heating to the tank.

Boil time depends on a lot of things, but there was no question about whether the modified stove could bring 2 cups of water to the boil. It did so very reliably, and much faster than the Triad. With the windshield shown in the pictures set about 1 inch (25 mm) out from a Trangia kettle, priming to a good flame took about 20 seconds, and then the boil time for two cups of water (500 mL) was about 5 minutes 20 seconds after that, from 20 C (68 F).

Filling the container up with 1 fluid ounce of alcohol, which is the maximum amount of alcohol it can reasonably take, gave a burn time of about 7 minutes after I had done my modifications. If you run the stove without the modifications the burn time will be longer, but so will the time to boil. A definite time cannot be given since the burn rate depends so much on the amount of thermal feedback provided.

Other Features

Putting fuel in the stove tank is very easy (especially compared with the Triad).
The packaging claims that the burn time is 9 minutes, while the web site claims 25 minutes. The 9 minutes seems about right for the modified stove.
Dual fuel operation: tip the stove upside down and burn solid fuel tablets on it. Not tested.
Recovery of unused alcohol is easy once the stove has cooled down, provided you haven’t pushed the lid on too tightly.

Modified Vargo Triad XE Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 7
Morning tea with the Vargo Triad XE.

What’s Unique

The Vargo Triad XE is a very sturdy combined alcohol and solid fuel burner.

Recommendations for Improvement

I’d like to see the modifications I discussed offered on the stock stove. I have discussed these modifications with Brian Vargo and at present he does not wish to adopt them as he is happy with the stove as he uses it. This is fair enough.
You should use metal layer under the stove for safety; a windshield is a very good idea anyhow, and the small priming pot is very useful.

Vargo Triad Stove REVIEW

Lightweight, simple titanium alcohol stove with very stable, secure legs but just adequate heat output.

Introduction

The Vargo Triad stove is a jetted but unpressurised alcohol stove with a lot of good things going for it. It is light, it is very robust being made of titanium, and it has really strong legs and pot supports. However, if it is used incorrectly it can be a poor performer that is hard to start and doesn’t bring water to the boil. In this review I focus on how to use the stove properly. With proper operation it is possible to use this stove to make cups of tea and soup for two people.

What’s Good

Adequate alcohol capacity
Robust construction
Stable on the ground
Strong – handles a heavy pot

What’s Not So Good

Hard to get going
Not very hot
Needs a very close windshield to get going properly
Priming mistakes can send boiling alcohol everywhere
The instructions which come with the stove are very minimal (check the web site)

Specifications

Manufacturer	Vargo Outdoors
Year/Model	2006 Triad
Construction Material	Titanium
Construction Process	Stamped, welded and riveted
Mechanical Design	Basic can with legs for stove support and pot supports as well
Dimensions	Can is 2 1/4” (58 mm) diameter by 3/4” (18 mm) high
Jets	28, drilled around top of rim
Alcohol Capacity	Open centre well holds about 1.3 fluid ounces (37 mL) of denatured alcohol
Stove Style	Open jet
Burn Time	Claimed: 30 minutes when filled, but this depends on how the stove is run
Target Use	One person, boiling water
Weight	Measured: 0.77 oz (22 g), claimed: 1.0 oz (28 g)
MSRP	US $29.95

Performance

Overview

I am not an expert with alcohol stoves, and at first this stove had me beaten. I simply could not get it to generate much heat, and there was always the possibility that the flame would go out. However, some email discussions with the designer, Brian Vargo, cleared up some major misunderstandings, and I was eventually able to get the stove going moderately well.

Before we get into that, let me point out here that the design makes the stove very stable. The fold-out legs can be dug into the soil a bit, after which the stove doesn’t move. The fold-out pot supports are just as rugged. I can confirm that the stove will support many pints (or litres) of water without a worry. However, if your pot has a base smaller than 3.6 inches (92 mm) diameter, it may not sit on the pot supports very well.

That said, the tips of the legs and pot supports are quite sharp and could damage other gear if not folded away carefully. As the photo shows, this can be done. I did worry a bit that the tips would gouge my aluminium pots. Of course, a titanium pot or cup would have no trouble.

Vargo Triad Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 2
The Vargo Triad titanium alcohol stove with legs open (left) and folded (right).

Field Experience – Part 1

I will start by describing what I did wrong. That way the significance of what Brian told me later on will have real meaning.

I set the stove up by opening the legs and pot support out, placed it on some sheet steel in my laboratory, poured alcohol into the well in the middle – and made a mess. I found I had to pour the alcohol into the well quite slowly: it doesn’t run down through the tiny central hole very easily. Now I had alcohol inside the stove, over it and under it on the sheet steel. So I lit the alcohol and waited for the stove to fire up. It didn’t: the flames went out. I think I had used too little priming fuel.

I reread the instructions, which say to ‘Carefully pour denatured alcohol into the centre until the stove is full and alcohol creates a small pool. Ignite the pool of alcohol (which acts as a primer).’ So once the stove had cooled down I did that, filling up the stove until the alcohol level was just above the bottom of the central well. However, again the stove failed to light up once the surface alcohol had burnt away. I think the amount of priming fuel I used was still not enough to heat the volume of alcohol inside the stove enough. Maybe I should have added yet a little more fuel to the stove.

To make this stove work you have to get the alcohol inside the container hot enough for it to be pushing vapour out of the holes. So I tried again with some alcohol on the steel under the stove as well as some in the middle of the stove. Well, I got the alcohol hot all right: it started to boil inside the stove and there were splashes of burning alcohol erupting everywhere for a while. Maybe this time I had used a little too much priming fuel underneath plus too much inside the stove? At least it was burning, so I put a pot of water on the stove and waited for it to boil. The flames died down to a low level and the water never got past the hot stage.

What was happening inside the stove was that the alcohol was boiling away, giving off vapour, and cooling down. Once the temperature of the alcohol drops below its boiling point there is relatively little vapour coming out through those little holes, and the stove will die. As far as I could see, there simply wasn’t enough thermal feedback from the flames to keep the alcohol boiling. They were going straight up in the air, away from the stove.

It was at this stage that I got some advice from Brian. He assured me that he manages to use the stove quite happily, but he emphasised the need for a close windshield right around the stove and pot, with holes at the base of the windshield. This is actually written on the packaging: “A wind screen is highly recommended to maintain flame”. Read the instructions! What this windscreen does is to trap some of the flame between the stove and the windshield and recirculate some of the heat downwards, to heat the stove and the incoming air.

So I tried again, with a Backpacking Light titanium windshield around the pot about 1/2 inch (12 mm) away from the rim of the pot all around, and with small holes around the base of the windshield. I used a discrete amount of alcohol under the stove plus some pooling in the middle top. A flame was applied to the alcohol under the stove, and after a while the stove lit up. This time the stove ran continuously, right to the end of the alcohol inside it. There were little flames coming up the side of the pot the whole time. Success! The water in the pot got hot, even to ‘mostly boiling.’ That is, there were lots of little bubbles coming up, and even a bit of obvious boiling, although it wasn’t the typical ‘rolling boil’ you get with more powerful stoves.

This means is that the Triad simply isn’t a ‘high-powered’ stove. Will Rietveld’s testing of alcohol stoves also found that the Triad stove wouldn’t work very well in windy conditions. The hot air is not being trapped sufficiently to heat the stove. But if all you want is simply to heat up a cup (or two cups) of treated water for some soup, it probably doesn’t matter whether the water reaches a rolling boil.

Field Experience – Part 2

I subsequently tried using a little aluminium cap (green out, gold inner, visible below) off a bottle to hold the priming fuel instead of sloshing it around. This let me monitor how much I was using for the priming, and I found that I really needed only a millimetre or two of alcohol in the cap. As soon as the alcohol in the priming cap is lit I poke it under the stove, where it makes a nice controlled flame. Usually, the vapour at the top of the stove is lit by the flame from underneath, once the alcohol is hot enough, especially if I put the priming cap at one edge rather than right under the middle of the stove.

I found that the further out I put the windshield, the smaller are the flames. The greater the space inside the windshield and the greater the gap between the windshield and the pot, the less the thermal feedback, as the flames are able to escape upwards more easily. So just where you put the windshield is fairly critical. In windy conditions the windshield is especially critical, and holding it down becomes part of the exercise! By using a tight windshield (about 1/2 inch or 10 – 12 mm gap all around) I am usually able to get a satisfactory flame from the stove and boil two cups of water for morning tea and coffee for my wife and myself. But it takes much care.

Controlled Testing

I ran some tests under controlled conditions in my laboratory at about 20 C (68 F) using a 6 inch diameter (150 mm) Trangia Kettle and two cups (500 mL) of water. I used common ‘methylated’ alcohol for the trials: this does not contain much water. For each trial I used a measured 1 fluid ounce (28 mL) of alcohol. About 1 – 2 mL of the alcohol went into the priming cap, with the remainder in the stove. This amount of alcohol filled the stove to near the central filling hole. The specifications claim up to 1.3 fluid ounces (37 mL) can be put in the stove. This is pushing it a bit, but is possible, and the alcohol is then visible in the central well. I surrounded the stove with a 3-inch (75 mm) high windshield with holes around the base. This was positioned to give a 1/2 inch (10 – 12 mm) gap around the edge of the Trangia Kettle.

Vargo Triad Alcohol Stove REVIEW - 3
An ‘exploded’ view of the laboratory test arrangements for the Triad.

I lit the alcohol in the priming cap and pushed it under the edge of the stove so that the flames just came up the side of the stove. I also tried to light the alcohol in the central well, but this was not always possible at the start when the alcohol is cold. In my tests I found it usually took about 2 minutes before the alcohol became hot enough for vapour to start coming out of the jets: the flame from my priming cap is rather small. I could usually hear the alcohol starting to boil inside the stove just before the flames appeared from the jet. It is important to understand that until the alcohol is near boiling inside the stove, little vapour will come out the jets. The amount of priming fuel I was using actually seemed to last about 4 minutes, which helped to get the stove hot enough to sustain operation.

The stove is a bit slow to get going once the jet flames appear: it is still heating up. However, after several minutes of operation the water in the kettle would be heating up at about 10 C (18 F) per minute. About 11 minutes after I lit the priming fuel the water would reach boiling. That’s about 9 minutes of jet flame time. The measured quantity of fuel continued to burn generally for a total of 16.5 minutes after the jet flames appeared. The specifications claim that a full tank will burn for 30 minutes, but under the test conditions I used I was not able to get the jet flames to burn for more than about 21 – 22 minutes. If the windscreen was placed further out so the feedback was lower and the flames smaller, the 30 minutes could possibly be reached. But it would take longer to boil the water like this.

These test conditions give me two cups of boiling water. This is enough to make soup or tea/coffee for two people, and dinner for one person. So for day walks this stove would be sufficient for two people. But the windscreen is essential for the stove to work.

Other Features

The packaging claims that the stove will boil 1 1/2 cups of water in 7 minutes. This depends on the conditions under which the stove is running: how hot you keep it. But it certainly can be done.
Dual fuel operation: tip the stove upside down and burn solid fuel tablets on it. This was not tested.
The packaging claims you can decant unused alcohol by pouring it back into a bottle using a leg as a spout. I managed to get about half the alcohol into the bottle; the rest went everywhere. And there was still some left inside the stove: the holes were too small to let it all drain out.

What’s Unique

The Vargo Triad, unlike many alcohol stoves, is very sturdy.

Recommendations for Improvement

I would prefer a stove which didn’t have to be cosseted so much, and had a little more power. (The Vargo Triad XE is worth considering.)
You will need a windshield and a metal layer under the stove, and the small priming pot is very useful. It would be nice if these were included with the Triad.

Outdoor Research HydroLite Dry Sack SPOTLITE REVIEW

The lightest dry sack available – almost.

Overview

The Outdoor Research HydroLite Dry Sack is a lightweight dry sack with roll top closure and taped seams.

The HydroLite Dry Sack has not been field tested. It was subjected to a series of tests simulating conditions beyond what normally might be expected inside a pack (its implied intended use). For test results, click here.

Outdoor Research also makes a heavier series of dry sacks, Hydroseal, that are still in the lightweight range. The 15.9 liter Hydroseal sack weighs 4 ounces and is constructed of Antron nylon with a durable waterproof coating. These sacks were not tested.

Features and Specifications

HydroLite coated fabric is waterproof and ultralight
Waterproof taped seams
Roll-top waterproof closure
Durable buckle secures roll top
Webbing bottom handle
Website: “This dry sack offers lightweight, compressible protection. The fabric has a waterproof coating and the seams are taped to keep moisture out. A roll-top closure keeps your gear dry and secure.”

Size	Volume ci	Volume L	Dimensions in	Dimensions cm	Weight Specified [Measured] oz	Weight Specified [Measured] g	MSRP $
#1	498	8.2	15 5/8 x 6	45 x 15	2.1	60	16.00
#2	775	12.7	20 1/8 x 7	51 x 18	2.6 [2.5]	74 [70]	17.00
#3	1137	18.6	22 5/8 x 8	57 x 20	3.0	84	18.00
#4	1983	32.5	25 ° x 10	64 x 25	3.8	107	19.00
#5	2590	42.4	27 ° x 11	69 x 28	4.4[4.3]	124 [123]	21.00
#6	3894	63.1	29 x 13	74 x 33	5.2	146	23.00

Cascade Designs SealLine Storm Sack Dry Sack SPOTLITE REVIEW

Top performing lightweight dry sack with roll top closure and taped seams.

Overview

The Cascade Designs SealLine Storm Sack is a lightweight dry sack with roll top closure and taped seams.

The SealLine Storm Sack has not been field tested. It was subjected to a series of tests simulating conditions beyond what normally might be expected inside a pack (its intended use). For test results, click here.

Features and Specifications

Roll-Down Closure
Sewn and Taped Construction
PVC-free 210D PU-coated nylon body and bottom
Website: “Our lightest, most versatile dry bag is also plenty rugged. It boasts a roll-down closure and seam-and-taped construction to ensure water tightness. Use it for organizing and protecting gear in a pack, or on its own when you really need to watch every ounce.”
Instructions inside packaging: “There is no roll-down closure from any manufacturer that is totally waterproof when submerged. This bag is not suitable for protecting from submersion such items as optical, electrical or photographic equipment, which can be permanently damaged by immersion or impact…SealLine Dry Bags are intended to protect your equipment and belongings from rain, splash, spray and intermittent shallow immersion. They are not intended for submerged use.”

Size	Volume ci	Volume L	Dimensions in	Dimensions cm	Weight Specified [Measured] oz	Weight Specified [Measured] g	MSRP $
2.5	165	2.7	4.5 x 12	11.4 x 30.5	1.6	45	9.95
5	390	6.4	6 x 15	15 x 38	2.2	62	12.95
10	656	10.8	7.5 x 17	19 x 43	2.7 [3.0, 3.0]	77 [84, 85]	15.95
20	1310	21.5	9 x 21	23 x 53	3.8	108	18.95

Granite Gear Drysack SPOTLITE REVIEW

Fairly lightweight dry sack with roll top closure and taped seams.

Overview

The Granite Gear Drysack is a lightweight dry sack with roll top closure and taped seams. Unlike the typical dry sack the roll top closure buckles clip to the bottom of the pack.

The Granite Gear Drysack has not been field tested. It was subjected to a series of tests simulating conditions beyond what normally might be expected inside a pack (its intended use). For test results, click here.

Features and Specifications

Hot-weld waterproof tape over sewn seams
Body of sack leak proof up to 200 psi
Roll top closure
Website: “Although our Dry Sack is intended for use in wet, stormy weather, it is not recommended for extreme submersion situations, such as white-water paddling.”
Package: “Our Drysack is intended for use in wet, stormy weather inside a pack.”

Size	Volume ci	Volume L	Dimensions in	Dimensions cm	Weight Specified [Measured] oz	Weight Specified [Measured] g	MSRP $
SM	600	9.8	6.5 X 16.5	17 x 42	3.5	99	15.00
MD	900	14.7	8 X 18.5	20 x 47	4.2	119	16.50
LG	1200	19.7	9 X 20	23 x 51	4.5	128	17.00
XL	1600	26.2	10 X 21	25 x 53	5.2 [5.2]	147 [148]	18.00

Pacific Outdoor Equipment WXtex Pneumo Lightweight Dry Sack SPOTLITE REVIEW

Lightweight dry sack with a twist – purge/inflate valve and welded seams.

Overview

The Pacific Outdoor Equipment WXtex Pneumo Lightweight Dry Sack is a lightweight dry sack with roll top closure and, unlike other lightweight dry sacks, welded seams. Another unique feature is an inflatable sleeping matt style purge/fill valve.

The Pneumo Lightweight Dry Sack has not been field tested. It was subjected to a series of tests simulating conditions beyond what normally might be expected inside a pack (its intended use). For test results, click here.

Pacific Outdoor Equipment also has a Pneumo line using 50-denier instead of 40Dx30D fabric. Weights are still in the lightweight range, with the 15L size at 5 ounces as compared to 4.4 ounces for the 15L Penumo LTW dry sack.

Features and Specifications

Roll down closure with double seal opening
Purge/fill valve for load compression
Welded dry construction
Lightweight PU coated
40Dx30D ripstop fabric
On package: “…they are totally waterproof, allowing you to stay worry free in even the mightiest downpour or inopportune river crossings.”
On package: “If the bag is to be submerged temporarily, keeping as much air inside the bag as possible will keep pressure against the [roll top] seal and provide the greatest potential for dryness.”
On package: “If you are storing a critical item, it is best to have redundant protection; e.g. use two dry bags layered together.”

Size	Volume ci	Volume L	Dimensions in	Dimensions cm	Weight Specified [Measured] oz	Weight Specified [Measured] g	MSRP $
5L	305	5	10 x 20	25 x 51	3 [3.1]	85 [88]	17
15L	915	15	14 x 28	36 x 71	4.4 [5.0]	125 [141]	24
25L	1525	25	16 x 33	41 x 84	5.8 [6.4]	164 [181]	28

GoLite DriMove Long Sleeve Top SPOTLITE REVIEW

Lightweight, good fit, very comfortable, really wicks moisture away, but snags easily.

Overview

Weighing only 5.6 ounces in size Large, the GoLite DriMove Top is a very functional and versatile piece that can be worn as a base layer or outer layer in a variety of outdoor activities. The fabric is a polyester knit with a very soft inner surface for comfort against the skin and a textured outer surface. The combination is very effective for wicking sweat away and staying dry.

On me (6 feet, 170 pounds, 41-inch chest, 34-inch arms), a size Large DriMove LS Top had a relaxed fit. GoLite lists it as semi-fitted, and it probably is on a huskier person. I found the sleeve and tail length just right. It has flat seam construction and raglan sleeves, which gives it good freedom of movement without binding or chaffing.

I wore the GoLite DriMove Top as an outer layer on nine backpacking trips (ok, I’m bragging a little bit) in cool, windy, and warm/hot weather. I can easily say that this is the driest top I have worn. The only area that got wet was the patch behind my backpack, and it dried out quickly when I took my pack off.

For its weight, the DriMove Top had a surprising comfort range. As long as I remained active, I was quite comfortable hiking in a wide range of temperature and wind conditions. I also wore it as a base layer in camp, in my sleeping bag, and on cold mornings and found that it added extra warmth without bulk. I also wore it as a base layer while hiking on cold mornings, and managed to stay comfortable until the temperature rose into the 60’s.

GoLite DriMove Long Sleeve Top SPOTLITE REVIEW - 1
The DriMove wicking polyester fabric is smooth and soft on the inside (left) and textured on the outside (right). Unfortunately it snags easily.

The only downside I found with this top is that it snags fairly easily. When bushwhacking through brush I was quite careful with it, and it still acquired a collection of snags. So, a bushwhacking shirt it is not.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer: GoLite (www.golite.com/)
Product: DriMove Long Sleeve Top
Fabric: DriMove wicking polyester knit
Features: Men’s crew neck/women’s V-neck, raglan sleeves, flat seams
Sizes Available: S, M, L, XL, XXL
Weight: Measured weight 5.6 oz (men’s L), manufacturer specification 6 oz (men’s L)
MSRP: $25

Make Your Own Gear Sewing Primer: Sewing a Felled Seam

A tarp and tent ridgeline standard thanks to its water impeding fold.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Make Your Own Gear Sewing Primer: Reinforcement Stitches for Lightweight Fabrics

Why standard reinforcement stitches may not be suitable for your lightweight fabric, which ones are, and how to sew them.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Username
Password
	Remember me

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not so Good

Specifications

Performance

Assessment

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not so Good

Specifications

Performance

Assessment

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Overview

Winter Use

Specifications and Features

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Assessment

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

Cooking Systems Compared

What’s a KiteScreen?

Fuel Containers

Windscreens

Highlights

Stove Testing Procedure and Results

Highlights

Extrapolating Cooking System Test Results to Field Conditions

Introduction

Weatherproof Grades (Japanese Industry Standard)

One-Use Cameras

Compact Film Cameras

Compact Digital Cameras

Models

Battery Performance

Battery Types Compared

Discontinued Cameras

About the Author

Overview

Specifications and Features

Overview

Features and Specifications

Dry Sack

Pack Liner, additional features

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Assessment

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good – as bought

What’s Not So Good

What’s Good – after modifications

Specifications

Performance

Overview

Field Experience – Part 1

Design Theory

Field Experience – Part 2

Field Experience – Part 3

Other Features

What’s Unique

Recommendations for Improvement

Introduction

What’s Good

What’s Not So Good

Specifications

Performance

Overview