Articles (2020)

Introduction

The CW-X Sport Support and Firm Support bras look good. They won’t make the grade as outer garments at an upscale soiree, but they will bring a touch of elegance to your sunrise meditation at Perfect Kiva in Grand Gulch Primitive Area.

Of course the CW-X bra will be invisible most of the time, so what really matters is whether the bra is comfortable and supportive.

What’s Good

• Supportive
• Comfortable enough for multi-day, all-day wear
• Attractive
• Dries fast
• Stays in place

What’s Not So Good

• Snug bottom band can make it hard to pull on/take off
• Heavier than some mostly single layer sport tops
• Some users noticed hot spots at the arm opening

Specifications

Performance

CW-X uses technology and body movement analysis to create apparel as technical as other gear you use to enhance your backpacking experience. Their parent company, Wacoal, has spent 40 years studying the human body. The CW-X Soft Support technology was developed after extensive high-speed video analysis of women in motion. The Soft Support Web utilizes mesh webbing built into the cup of the bra in a five-point star pattern. Suspending the breast from the shoulder strap of the bra, the webbing is claimed to reduce the initial upward bounce experienced during high impact activities. Anchoring the Soft Support Web at the base strap and shoulder is intended to provide the wearer with a floating inner support web that is comfortable, yet supportive. In addition, compression is used to provide added motion control and increase the bra’s ability to move moisture away from the skin.

CW-X has extended the size range of their Sport Support Bra and added the Firm Support Bra. The Firm Support Bra uses a modified Soft Support Web for larger cup sizes. Sport Support Bras are now available in sizes 32A/AA through 36D, while Firm Support Bras are available in 34B/C through 38D. The sizing convention used by CW-X is somewhat confusing necessitating a chart (below) for clarification. Four reviewers representing the complete size range of the line tested the CW-X Sport and Firm Support Bras backpacking, day hiking and at the gym and confirmed that sizing is accurate.

Does all the technology behind these bras pan out in actual use? In a word, yes. The Sport Support Bra is very comfortable to wear day and night with no chaffing during intense activity. Testers for both the Sport Support and the Firm Support Bras all commented on the good support.

Comments were mixed on the difficulty of donning/doffing the bra. Our largest tester needed assistance taking the bra off after a sweaty workout, while another tester found the CW-X bra easier to get on and off than other sports bras she owns. Any difficulty is due to the snug bottom band (tip – keep the band from rolling over on itself when pulling the bra over your head). Once the bra is in place, the bottom band is amazingly comfortable – it holds the bra securely in place without pinching. There are no skin indentations after prolonged (multi-day) use, except for a very minor indentation at the bottom circumference that doesn’t cause any discomfort. The tag bothered some users and two of us noticed a hot spot at times at the front of the arm opening.

The CW-X Bra is constructed with an inner and outer layer of fabric with a Soft Support Web of five interconnected floating inner cup straps suspended in between. Each breast is supported individually rather than compressed together into one “mono-boob.” The two layers of fabric help hold in warmth – a plus in cool weather. CW-X offers the Mesh Support Bra and Ventilator Support Bra for warmer weather, although I have not felt overheated wearing the standard Sport Support Bra hiking in desert conditions.

Contrary to my expectations, the CW-X bra does not take excessively long to dry. In fact, in a hang to dry comparison test with an older model Patagonia Mesh Sport Top, the CW-X was completely dry first. It was neck and neck throughout the test with the Patagonia bra slightly in the lead, until the end when the CW-X pulled ahead with a faster drying bottom band.

Minimal accents give the top an understated stylish look. The straps are fixed length and long enough for those with a long torso – like me. The Patagonia Mesh Sport Top has shorter straps and feels like it will pull up out of place when I lift my arms above my head. That is not the case with the CW-X bra (see photos below). As a bonus, the CW-X bra passes the sniff test after intermittent use – 15 days and 5 nights.

What’s Unique

The CW-X Sport Support and Firm Support Bras are good looking, supportive, and comfortable enough for continuous wear.

Recommendations for Improvement

The CW-X bras are wonderful, but there’s always room for improvement. The sizing could be clearer (even the sizing chart isn’t immediately obvious).

Introduction

Mini Bull Designs claims that the Sketti alcohol stove is powerful enough for two people, is robust and simple, and doesn’t require a pot stand. This review investigates these claims.

What’s Good

• Large alcohol capacity
• Powerful
• Stable on the ground
• Strong – handles a heavy pot
• Easy to use

What’s Not So Good

• Uncertainty about amount of fuel to use
• Flaring when pot removed

Specifications

Performance

I have used many white gas, kerosene, and gas canister stoves. I have used some old alcohol stoves, but only a couple of the newer ultra-lightweight alcohol stoves. It had struck me that the new alcohol stoves were all slow and fragile, but Tinny of Mini Bull Designs assured me otherwise, and recommended the Sketti stove as an example.

Well, I can vouch for the strong bit. The design is such that the pot sits on top of the stove; no pot supports are needed. I tried putting some very heavy pots on the Sketti, and it simply wasn’t bothered. The large Fosters can makes the Sketti more stable under these loads, compared with other smaller diameter stoves.

I set the Sketti up on my test bench, poured 1 fluid ounce of denatured alcohol into it and struck a flame over it with a butane lighter. Nothing happened. This surprised me, especially as I was in the middle of the Australian summer at the time. Maybe the vapour was sitting in the middle of the can and not coming up high enough for the flame from my lighter to reach it? So I dipped a timber splint into the alcohol, lit it, and slowly lowered it into the middle of the can. Indeed, the alcohol lit only when the flame was about 1/2 inch (15 mm) below the rim. With the alcohol near boiling I could light the stove with a butane lighter, but not otherwise. In cold weather or with a little breeze blowing I found I had to put the flame slightly closer to the surface of the alcohol to get it to light.

Once lit, a flame rises from the middle and dances around, but nothing comes out of the jets immediately. One could hold a pot over this flame and start heating water already: this does slightly improve the fuel efficiency, but it’s hard to say by how much. About 60-70 seconds later there are flames coming out of the jets and I can lower my pot onto the rim of the can. If I do this too early, the flames from the jets go out: I have to wait until they are over 1 inch (25 mm) long for the stove to work. But once it is going, things get interesting.

While the stove is just sitting there with a big flame coming up from the middle, the jets give out small flames. It functions like an open jet stove. But when I put the pot on the rim, the centre chamber is at least partially sealed, and the stove becomes pressurised. The flames coming out the side grow larger. After a while, they grow to at least 2 inches (50 mm) long and sometimes come up the side of the pot some way. Of course, flames coming up the side represent a loss of efficiency, so small diameter pots are not recommended with this stove.

Lifting the pot off the stove while it is burning normally releases the pressure inside the stove, so the flames from the jets decrease in length. However the alcohol is still boiling with lots of alcohol vapour coming off, and the centre flame will rise, up to 2 feet (600 mm) high or more. This is a bit scary and I would not want this inside my tent. I also found that lifting the pot off the stove under these conditions has to be done with some care, or with some pot grips, to avoid getting one’s arm singed – those flames can leap around a bit. If you need to remove your dinner from the flames before the alcohol has run out, much care is needed as to where and how you do it.

For the alcohol to give off enough vapour to make these long flames, it must be boiling away quite vigorously. This means the flames must be providing lots of thermal feedback to the stove, and I think this is a prime requirement for a good reliable alcohol stove. Well, the Sketti sure meets this requirement. Were the jets much closer to the top of the can this feedback would be reduced – and it might not be possible to use the can as a stove support either. That said, maybe moving the level of the holes just a millimetre or two closer to the top might throttle the stove back just a little, and the shorter flames might improve the efficiency. As it is, some heat is visibly lost up the sides of narrower pots with this stove. This is a stove for big pots.

I was a bit concerned to note that the flames come out of the stove very close to the ground. I would not be game to run this stove on any surface that was burnable, let alone on the floor of the Australian eucalypt forest in summer. The risk of starting a fire seems very real. I have compromised in the bush by only using the Sketti on bare sand beside creeks, bare rock and very clean earth.

With many of my other stoves I use a small square of plywood as a stove base, to provide stability. I tried using the same base for the Sketti, but the plywood started to get a bit hot. This is the same problem as above. So in the photo above I had planted the stove into bare sand; later on I used a small square of stiff aluminium sheet as a base in the field.

The testing of these two base materials (plywood and aluminium) made me realise that the aluminium base would suck some heat out of the stove, cooling the alcohol down. Then I realised that damp sand would do the same, only worse. Fortunately, the sand in the photo was fairly dry and did not cool the stove down much. Regardless, the stove burned well.

Measurements

I have used this stove inside at home for testing and out in the (Australian) bush for real, mainly to boil water for morning tea/coffee. I have to confess that in two cases in the field I slightly underestimated the amount of fuel needed, so that the flame went out shortly before the water boiled. I was intrigued to note that the flame did go out quite quickly when the fuel ran out: from full-bore to out in a couple of seconds. The stove cooled down fairly quickly when this happened.

I had to refill the stove each time. I wasn’t sure just what was safe and what wasn’t, so I waited a moment in each case and then poured a bit of alcohol into the centre. The can was still slightly warm when I did so, but the addition of cold alcohol quickly cooled it down. The warmth of the empty stove has not presented me with any hazard when refilling – in my experience. Relighting is done with a twig as before.

My standard test case is to boil two full cups (500 ml) of water for tea and coffee for my wife and me in our Trangia kettle with a base diameter of 150 millimeter (5.9 inches) and the lid on. The normal boil time starting from about 20 C (68 F) was 5.5 – 5.7 minutes. This compares very well with the 10+ minutes for one cup of water I have experienced with two other small alcohol stoves I have recently tested. It includes holding the kettle over the flames while the alcohol is heating up – before the jets start working.

What I can’t answer with precise numbers is whether the fuel economy of the Sketti is better or worse than for the slower, smaller stoves. It is very hard to do this comparison. The smaller (one-man) stoves are designed for smaller pots and smaller quantities of water, while the Sketti stove is a two-man stove and is designed for larger pots and larger amounts of water. Using a small pot on the Sketti is not very efficient as the flames reach up the side of a small pot far more than with the smaller stoves, and this wastes heat. As it is, the flames often lick up the side of the Trangia kettle.

Starting with exactly 1 fluid ounce (28.4 ml) of alcohol fuel in the Sketti had the kettle boiling at about 5.6 minutes, and the flames went out at 7.0 minutes. In practice I can use a bit less than the 1 fluid ounce to make tea and coffee: about 0.9 fluid ounce (25 ml) usually suffices.

The claimed burn time of 20 minutes would be about right if you came close to filling the Sketti with alcohol – this would be about 3 fluid ounces. However, you would want to be sure you need this much heat before doing so: removing the pot before the flames have gone out is risky, and there seems to be no simple way of putting the stove out. I tried blowing, but this didn’t always work. A snug cap of alfoil worked if I was very quick, but I don’t normally carry such a thing. Also, there is a high risk of getting burnt doing this.

Other Matters

After a while I found the inside of the can looked a bit brown and wrinkly: something had been ‘cooked’ there. Whether this is from whatever is put in the alcohol to ‘denature’ it, or whether it represents varnish off the inside of the can, I cannot say. But it didn’t seem to matter.

I also looked to see if any alcohol would leak from the join that runs around the base. This seemed like a strange place to put a join: up near the top might have been more logical. However, the process Tinny uses to join the parts together (hot rolling) seems to create a pretty much leak-proof seam. The rolled seam means that there is no worry about epoxy getting too hot and melting.

I did try pouring excess alcohol back out of the Sketti. This was not very successful. Some did come out of the jet holes, but the double wall construction means you can’t just decant. This means that you should try to gauge the right amount of fuel to put in each time. This comes with practice – and maybe a small measuring container. I just looked in the base of the stove to see how much was there.

In short, this is a powerful and robust two-man alcohol stove at a quite low price. You can throw it in your pack with few precautions. The design is more than the amateur stove maker could create, unless he had a lathe and skills in rolling tubing. It will boil enough water to make a meal for two to four people, but forget simmering.

What’s Unique

The Mini Bull Designs Sketti alcohol stove has features which are relatively uncommon, and the combination of features is unique. Mini Bull Designs offers other quite similar, but smaller stoves.

• Rolled seams which don’t leak or soften with heat
• Big heat output, enough to cook for two or more people
• Integral and very strong support for the pot
• Low profile despite the integral pot support
• Use of the pot to force a pressurised jet operation
• Very light weight
• Dead easy to get going

Recommendations for Improvement

The Mini Bull Designs Sketti has a lot going for it, but of course I have some recommendations for improvements.

• It would be lovely if there was some way of throttling the stove, but it doesn’t seem very easy to include such a feature.
• Maybe the row of holes could be moved up a very small amount, or slightly reduced in number, to reduce just slightly the power of the stove.

Introduction

The Oware poncho/tarp is a 5’2″ by 7’8″ rectangle of silnylon with a hood in the middle. The hood has a bungee drawcord closure around the face. There are 12 guy points around the edges plus four snaps to close up the sides. Just another poncho/tarp?

What’s Good

• Light weight
• Wider than most lightweight poncho/tarps
• Adequate number of tieouts
• Big hood size – a hat fits inside easily

What’s Not So Good

• Hood seams are not sealed, and can leak slowly in tarp mode
• Shorter than most lightweight poncho/tarps
• The sewn-up neck section can get warm
• The round hood opening is hard to seal in tarp mode, and can leak
• Second row of stitching attaching tieout tape is through a single layer of fabric
• Tieout tape is wide and folds flat making it hard to thread guy lines

Specifications

Performance

The Oware Poncho/Tarp has two parts: the body and the hood. The body is a simple flat sheet, hemmed all around, with five tieouts down each side, counting the corners, and one in the middle of each end. The tieouts are made from 26-millimeter (1-inch) tape and are sewn onto the hems.

There are two sets of snaps set on each side to hold the edges together under the arms. One pair is set into a reinforced bit of the hem and the other pair is set through some of the tie outs. Their positions are marked in the above photo by short blue lines.

The hood is made from two pieces and is sewn into an oval hole in the middle of the rectangle. It is sewn up the front and has 3-millimeter bungee cord around the face opening, secured with a cord lock.

The Oware poncho/tarp packs into quite a small volume – see the picture at the end of this review. The red bag is 4″ x 6″ (10 cm x 18 cm) when flat.

Poncho Hood

The hood has plenty of room inside for a hat to be worn under it. In fact, without a hat it falls over my eyes, but with a large Australian bush hat on my head it is just fine. The hood is large enough to cover the brim of my hat, keeping it dry, and the hat means that my head is insulated from the silnylon fabric and any condensation. The front of the hood is sewn shut so you can close the hood opening when the poncho is used as a tarp. However, this closed area around the neck can make the neck region a bit hot since it can’t be opened for ventilation. I would prefer 2 millimeter bungee cord to the 3 millimeter cord used: that would be softer and lighter, and quite adequate for a face opening.

The connection between the hood and the rest of the poncho should allow light rain to slide off the join, and the seam over the top has been folded over, but neither seam is sealed. There will likely be some condensation happening anyhow, so total waterproofing seems a bit unnecessary for poncho mode, but is useful in tarp mode.

Poncho Body

The poncho is 62 inches wide, wider than many lightweight poncho/tarps (see table here), but I find the width a bit small. When I put my arms out I find my wrists are sticking out a bit and my windshirt is going to get seriously wet. I could pull the windshirt sleeves up or I could just pull my arms inside the poncho. To make the poncho any wider would mean a major seam as it already uses the full width of the standard silnylon fabric. The length of the poncho is plenty for me at 5’5″ (160 cm) tall: it comes down near my ankles. The length is dictated by its use as a tarp of course and is less than many lightweight poncho/tarps (see table in link above).

The snaps down the sides seem huge, but they weigh only about 0.35 ounces (10 g) total. We aren’t always that careful at the end of a wet day when trying to whip the poncho off and erect it as a tarp, so maybe the size is justified – I haven’t had any failures to date.

The Oware Poncho/Tarp rides up in the back when worn over a big pack (a lightweight style big pack, that is), but there is still coverage. If the pack is large enough, the snaps do not line up properly on each side. However, you can get creative here and line up snap #1 at the front with snap #2 at the back. It also means the arm gaps are pulled back a bit, but in pouring rain you may well have your arms inside anyhow.

The big worry with any silnylon raingear is condensation. I find that the voluminous nature of the Oware Poncho/Tarp means it doesn’t ‘cling,’ and air can circulate freely. How freely it circulates high up in the mountains with a strong wind blowing is another matter. Under those conditions you might find it convenient to tie the back corners around your waist with some guy line or the bungee cord.

I have tried wearing this and other ponchos in thick scrub in the rain. Basically, it doesn’t work. The poncho is at serious risk of damage owing to the way it flaps around, and I get just as wet under it as without it. But I should add in all fairness that I have the same problems with a conventional parka. There are some situations where you are going to get very wet, regardless.

Tarp

The theory behind a poncho/tarp is that you whip it off and quickly erect it as a tarp at the end of the day. You can’t erect it as a tarp while still wearing it – well, not very easily anyhow. I have to say I find pitching a poncho/tarp to be a very slow process. What isn’t often mentioned is that you have to fish out a minimum of six guylines and attach them to the tieout loops at the edges before you can pitch the tarp. And this takes time, while the rain is pouring down. No, I am not going walking with all those bits of string attached. Getting the tarp pitched correctly also takes a fair bit of time, in the rain. Practice in dry weather to hone your pitching skills to reduce the time you are exposed to wet weather.

There are enough tieout loops, but the tape is wide and folds very flat, which makes threading the guylines through them difficult. Half the stitching attaching the tieout loops to the poncho/tarp is off the hem and through only a single layer of fabric (see photo). I’ve seen no failures at these points on the test Poncho/Tarp to date, but it appears this could be a weak point. Note: Dave Olsen of Oware reports that this has not been a failure point.

The tarp is wide enough for one person under low winds and under higher winds if you pitch it a bit lower to the ground. The length, at 7’8″, is shorter than many lightweight poncho/tarps. The tarp can be used in conjunction with a breathable bivy sack in milder weather but, for taller folks especially, is better suited for use as an awning over a waterproof/breathable bivy sack in very wet weather.

You will of course get rain through the hole in the middle (where the hood is) unless you close it off. The simplest solution is to twist the neck of the hood up and tie the bungee cord fairly tightly around it, and this seems to be a reasonable way of closing the hole in theory. However, the result is not entirely satisfactory as the pitched tarp shows a severe distortion in the middle no matter how the hood is adjusted. This distortion worried me a fair bit when I saw it, so it was time for a rain test. I should mention here that when it rains where I live in Sydney (Australia), it rains. We can get 1 inch (25 mm) in an hour, easily. So I simulated some ‘medium rain’ with a hose on fine spray, and the result was not satisfactory. The folds in the slight distortion collected rain, and the fold deepened steadily as more ‘rain’ was collected. Eventually the channel in the middle had lots of water in it: the edge of the pool some time later is marked by little blue line in the right hand picture above. Such pooling is obviously a worry.

The first time I did this the pool shrank as I watched, and there was only one way this could be happening. I dived under the tarp for shelter from ‘the rain,’ and sure enough there was a big stream of water coming down from the hood. Some of the leak was through the stitching in the hood but most of it must have come through the face hole in the hood, even though I had tied it off. I suspect that the hole was underwater.

I rearranged the tie-off to have the face opening further from the bungee cord (right picture), and a second rain test showed much less water coming through. But there was still a steady dripping of water through the stitching. You would get a wet sleeping bag from this. I tried to adjust the tarp guy lines to eliminate the folds around the hood, but to no avail. The folds are inherent in having a round hole in the middle of the tarp. Some poncho/tarps use a slit for the hood instead of a round hole: that design usually closes up much better under tension. The problem here is that you can’t really know whether you have tied the hood up properly until it rains, and you can not adjust it from the inside!

So I tried another trick with a line from pole to pole to hold the top of the hood up. This worked moderately well with only a few drips coming through the stitching.

Summary

The Oware Poncho/Tarp is a reasonable poncho if you don’t have longish arms or are prepared for the lower part of your arms to get wet (as is the case with most lightweight poncho/tarps). As a tarp it is on the short side and appropriate accompaniments (breathable or waterproof/breathable bivy sack) should be added depending on expected weather and your height.

That said, I would be quite happy to include the Oware Poncho/Tarp in my daypack for emergencies, or even just unexpected mildly bad weather. It’s light and it packs small (red bag).

What’s Unique

The Oware Poncho/Tarp, at 7.8 ounces (measured), is lighter than many other lightweight poncho/tarps (GoLite UltraLite Poncho/Tarp – 11 oz, Integral Designs SilPoncho – 10.2 oz, Mountain Laurel Designs Silnylon Pro – 9 oz). At 62 by 92 inches, it is wide but short. It offers a lightweight solution for the shorter person, or for emergency or mildly inclement conditions.

Recommendations for Improvement

• Seal the stitching around the hood, or provide seam sealant to buyer
• Change the hood attachment from a circle to a slit to avoid making a depression in tarp mode
• Reduce the thickness of the hood bungee cord
• Add a tag to the top of the hood to hold the hood up when pitched as a tarp

Introduction

The Oware Silnylon Rain Chaps are two simple trouser legs made of silnylon, without the entire backside/crotch region. Unlike full pants, they can be put on one leg at a time, and of course they weigh less. There are loops of bungee cord at the ankles with cord locks, and tape loops at the ankles for instep cords so you can tie them down for use in the snow. The silnylon extends up the sides to some sewn-in lengths of nylon cord, which are used to hold them up. The Rain Chaps combine well with the Oware Poncho/Tarp or any poncho/tarp.

What’s Good

• Very light weight
• Reasonably generous size
• Fit easily over joggers
• Very little condensation
• Tie-down loops at ankles for snow conditions

What’s Not So Good

• Leg seams are not sealed, and could leak slightly
• Cords at waist level not very easy to use
• Hard to adjust the vertical position of the chaps
• Bungee cord at ankles gets in the way

Specifications

Performance

What a silly idea – ‘chaps’ indeed! They look ridiculous!

Except that when I pulled them on, there seemed to be some logic after all. They are easy to put on in the rain, one leg at a time, unlike full overtrousers where you have to do a sort of dance to get both legs on at once without sitting in the mud or standing on the legs in the mud. They cover all my legs just as well as full overtrousers. OK, my backside would be exposed with a jacket, but it was very adequately covered by a poncho/tarp (see Oware Poncho/Tarp REVIEW). And they are so light! Hum – maybe not so ridiculous after all.

There are no zips at the bottom ends, but the legs are wide enough to be pulled over most joggers. The sewn-in cords at the waist level are there to hold the legs or chaps up, although exactly how you do this is not explained. I found two methods, described below.

The seam down the inside of the leg has been folded over so the edges are concealed, with one line of stitching visible. The inside leg length measures 31 inches (80 cm). I wore the chaps with gaiters in the snow, and this same strategy would extend rain protection for those who need a longer inseam.

They are quite roomy on me, but I weigh only 64 kg (141 lb, 10 stone).

Advantages and Limitations

I have already described one advantage: the Oware Rain Chaps are easy to get on and off one piece at a time. But there is more. By not covering my waist and backside, the Chaps allow much better ventilation. Let’s be realistic: full silnylon overtrousers can be a bit like a plastic bag. But with the open top end I get a fair bit of ventilation. Actually, it would be nice if the flair at the top of the leg opening was a shade wider, to improve the ventilation further, but this is a fine detail. You can achieve almost the same effect by not pulling the Chaps up too tightly, and this is quite possible.

The bits of fabric going up the sides are quite adequate to hold the Chaps up: more is not needed. But I found that their position made getting to my trouser pockets quite difficult.

With the Oware Poncho/Tarp on, the lack of rain cover over my backside didn’t matter, and this would apply for most walking conditions. I am able to wander around in heavy rain with the Oware Rain Chaps and a poncho and stay quite dry inside. Under very cold conditions and with a short poncho, like in the snow in the picture here, I found my backside was a little cool at times. Also, I foresee problems in the snow if you go for a slide in them: you might get a very cold wet backside. Well, at that weight and volume, what do you expect?

Problems

That’s not to say the Oware Rain Chaps are perfect. The arrangement for holding them up consists of a bit of cord sewn into the top of the fabric on each leg, as shown here. There are two obvious choices of how to use this cord: tie the bits to a belt, or tie the two of them around the waist as a belt. I very seldom wear a belt so I normally use the latter method. However, this requires that I have the ends tied together behind my back. I can tie the ends together before I put the Chaps on, but this restricts the separation of the two legs and complicates getting them on. Tying the ends together behind my back is possible, but tricky. The simplest seems to be a thumb knot (simple overhand knot) with both ends, but even that can be difficult in the rain with a pack on.

However, I have found that I can tie a knot fairly easily by dropping the tops of the Chaps down a bit so I can see the string between my legs. This looks a little inelegant while I am doing it, but works. With that done I can easily tie the other ends at the front to hold the Chaps up. This works fine.

Just what other arrangement could be devised? One would be if the top edge of the Chaps had a short wide tunnel at the top as well as a long sewn-in cord on one leg I could thread the cord through the tunnel in the other leg once they are on. We don’t want a permanent connection between the two halves or we are back to the ‘dancing in the mud’ exercise.

I also find it difficult to adjust the position of the Chaps up my legs. The slippery silnylon tends to slide down a bit on me. It would be nice if one could devise a really simple way of adjusting the vertical position of the Chaps with respect to one’s waist. Will Rietveld’s review of the Oware Gore-Tex chaps Oware Gore-Tex Rain Chaps REVIEW demonstrates his solution to this – with longer legs, he simply ties the chaps tightly to his belt loops. I usually just do the cord up tightly around my waist, hitch the chaps up every now and then, and stop worrying.

The bungee cord at the ankles turned out to be a bit of a problem. The amount of cord provided is rather long, and when I did up the cord lock there was this great length of bungee cord, with a large lumpy knot and a cord lock at the end, flapping around. I trod on it several times, and got it down the inside of my light jogger once. I tried tucking the bungee cord inside the ankle, and that worked most of the time. It might be better to use a fixed length cord totally inside the tunnel at the bottom (no cord lock): short enough that the leg would be gathered around the ankle, but long enough that it could be stretched out to full diameter of the bottom end of the legging. You don’t need the ankle done up tightly – in fact that can be uncomfortable.

However, I eventually removed the bungee cord completely and now I just put the bottom end of the Chaps inside my gaiters. This works fine and is shown in the snow picture. The use of gaiters also means I don’t need the tie-down loops at the ankle either.

What’s Unique

• The combination of separate legs (chaps) and the light weight is different from conventional rain pants, but not unique these days.

Recommendations for Improvement

For all my criticisms of fine details, these Oware Rain Chaps are very serviceable gear and I will be taking them with me on trips. A few suggested changes are:

• Improve the mechanism for holding them up (possibly have tunnels at the top or waist region and/or a longer lighter cord at the waist)
• Flare the top leg opening just a little more
• Omit the bungee cord at the ankles (lighter!)

Introduction

The NEMO Hypno AR uses the AirSupported system consisting of two connected AirBeams that are inflated by one of two available pumps. With the fastest pump, the Hypno AR can be completely set up in less than one minute (even from inside the tent) and comes down even more quickly.

But that’s not all that’s special about this tent – large side vents and a front vent provide good ventilation, Epic fabric panels increase breathability, and side support rods increase usable space. Built for adventure racing, this tent can fit two hikers reasonably comfortably or four racers in a "puppy pile." However, there are trade-offs with the design, especially in the weight category.

What’s Good

• Very fast set up – less than 1 minute with the foot pump including staking
• Comes down equally fast – less than 1 minute
• AirBeams are unbreakable – you can lay on this tent with no damage
• Large side and front vents offer good high/low ventilation and are accessible through interior zippers
• AirSupported system is reliable and field maintainable
• Lightweight at less than 4 pounds

What’s Not So Good

• Set up with lighter Integrated pump (2-3 minutes) is not much faster than conventional poled tents
• Front air dump valve on our test sample leaked air slowly (but was easily fixed with a little silicone grease)
• A replacement air bladder weighs 2.6 ounces – necessary if an AirBeam springs a leak
• Similar tents with carbon fiber poles weigh up to 2 pounds less
• Short for those over 6 feet tall
• Expensive at $434 with Integrated pump and $460 with NEMOID foot pump

Specifications

Performance

The NEMO Hypno AR is a unique tent utilizing NEMO’s own AirSupported system which sets up faster than any tent I’ve ever used. To set up, you simply stake out the corners, attach the pump to the tent inflation valve with a CPC quick-disconnect fitting, pump to inflate (the AirBeams are connected and inflate simultaneously), and you’re done. The whole process takes between 1 and 3 minutes, depending on which pump you use.

The system uses dual AirBeams (inflated tubes) in place of traditional aluminum or carbon fiber poles. These air beams consist of an outer tube made of strong and abrasion-resistant Dimension-Polyant fabric and a replaceable internal bladder.

One AirBeam is outside of the tent and the other bisects the tent body. The two AirBeams are connected at the front of the tent with a long tube that connects both tubes to the valve interface. This interface, at the bottom right hand corner of the front of the tent, consists of the inflation valve with CPC connector and the deflation dump screw-on cap for easy deflation. At the base of each AirBeam is a CPC quick-disconnect for easy bladder changes.

The NEMO Hypno AR requires one of two pump options:

Of the two pumps, I prefer the NEMOID foot pump. Despite the 1.1 ounce weight difference and slightly larger size, the ease of use and faster set up made this pump my favorite in all situations.

Once set up with a basic pitch, side guyouts add significant usable interior space and an additional four corner guyouts add stability in windy conditions. There is one interior pocket as well as a pump pocket that fits the Integrated pump and is accessible from both inside and outside the tent. The pump pocket with external zipper makes it possible to store the Integrated pump in the pocket and get to it without opening the door during normal set up. The pump pocket also allows the user to inflate the Hypno AR completely from inside the tent – just enter the deflated tent, close the door, open both the inner and outer zippers of the pump pocket, connect either pump with the quick-disconnect, and inflate. Voila! Tent set up while completely dry inside the tent with the door completely closed!

The NEMO Hypno AR is constructed primarily of silnylon with a 4.3 square foot panel of breathable/water resistant Epic fabric on each side. The tent comes with a tube of Silnet for sealing the silnylon seams and Granger’s waterproofing spray for the Epic panels. While the spray increased the waterproofing of the Epic fabric, it also seemed to decrease its breathability somewhat. The floor is PU coated 70 denier nylon.

There are two triangular side vents on the tent that close with Velcro and can be staked out for weather protection or rolled completely open and secured with Velcro tabs in clear weather. Each vent also has a 9.5-inch zipper which makes it possible to open and close the vents from inside the tent.

The front door has a zipper that overlaps the interior zipper, creating a door that is stormproof when unzipped at the bottom. A supporting rod Velcros into place, creating a large front vent. This entryway/vent combination is an excellent idea, providing good floor-level ventilation with minimal extra materials. However, when not in use, the supporting rod had nowhere to go, flopping around and getting in the way of the zipper. A second Velcro tab would provide an easy way to get the rod out of the way.

The Hypno AR comes with five aluminum Y stakes which are stiff but hard to place and even more hard on the hands. At 0.5 ounce each, they are twice the weight of the 0.25 ounce titanium skewers that are the Backpacking Light staff favorites.

Included guylines are nylon with woven reflective threads. Guylines for the side guyouts are doubled for half of their length and include plastic clips for easy separation of the main guyouts from the vent guyouts. This makes it very easy to open the vents during a downpour: open the vent zipper, separate the Velcro securing the vent, disconnect the plastic clip from the main guyline attachment, and readjust tension (if necessary) via the plastic slider.

Also included in the kit are a silnylon stake bag, a PU-coated and seam-taped dry sack tent bag, two replacement bladders, waterproofing package including Seamgrip, Silnet, and Granger’s spray, and an illustrated manual.

The minimum trail weight of the NEMO Hypno AR is about 3.75 pounds and it has 30 square feet of space. The area to weight ratio is 0.51 ft²/oz with the Integrated pump and 0.50 with the NEMOID foot pump. This puts the Hypno AR on par with some lightweight freestanding single wall tents that we’ve reviewed but other models offer much more floor space for the weight. Examples include the all-Epic Black Diamond Firstlight (0.63 ft²/oz) and the adventure-racing angled Mandatory Gear Puppy Pile (1.26 ft²/oz). In fact, the Puppy Pile gives 3.8 more square feet of floor space than the Hypno AR and a weight savings of over 2 pounds.

While it’s important to note that the NEMO Hypno AR offers superior ventilation options, faster set up, and better usable space than the Mandatory Gear Puppy Pile, the AirSupported technology obviously comes at a significant increase in weight. While it’s still lightweight, especially when shared among four adventure racers, there are certainly lighter options.

While 30 square feet of floor space is pretty average for a two-person tent, the unique side-guyout design and rectangular layout maximizes usable space. The side support rods create vertical sidewalls that make the floor plan very livable; this is an elegant and lightweight solution that made a big difference in usable space. However, a short 80 inch length with steeply sloping ends makes for a tight fit for those over 6 feet tall. At 6 foot 2 inches tall, my feet pressed on the end when stretched out.

Even when fully inflated, the AirBeams can easily be collapsed by hand. This led me to think that the Hypno AR wouldn’t do well in winds, but I was wrong. When guyed out on the side, the NEMO tent pitched very taut and stood up quite well to moderate winds. With the sloping front and back, relatively low ceiling, and strong side support, it took quite a gust to cause the Hypno AR to deflect. In winds up to 40 miles per hour, the AirSupported tent deflected no more than comparable single wall tents with carbon fiber or lightweight aluminum poles. The four corner guyouts were a little too low to make a big difference in wind stability but did anchor the tent well.

Although moderate winds didn’t affect the NEMO Hypno AR more than other tents, snow load had a dramatically different effect. Using the side guyouts with side vents open created a roofline that was a little too flat to shed wet snow and about 2 inches caused the roof to flatten even more. Shoveling about 4 inches of snow onto the roof caused it to completely collapse. On a positive note, collapsing the tent (or even jumping on top of it) results in absolutely no damage. By removing the snow (or the body), the Hypno AR popped right back up to its original shape with no harm done. Try doing THAT with a traditional poled tent!

While the Hypno AR was not designed as a four-season tent, it could hold its own in light snow and dealt very well with rain downpours. The side vent covers and overlapping front vent provide sufficient coverage to keep them open in wet conditions. While the tent is not huge inside, it wasn’t horrible to sit out a storm with two people inside. Without a vestibule, though, you have to leave gear outside or live with it inside.

When it’s raining, opening the door brings the weather straight into the tent. By using the overlapping base of the door and sliding inside underneath the door, it is possible to make a dry entry. Good thinking. The door uses a waterproof zipper and waterproofing supplies are included to seal all the seams.

The large mid-height vents on the sides and low vent at the front door create a chimney effect that provides excellent ventilation. This is further improved by the large Epic fabric panels. Epic is a highly water resistant and breathable fabric that has been used successfully in Black Diamond tents. However, I’d never seen Epic and silnylon walls used in combination like this before and it gave a good opportunity to compare the condensation resistance of the two fabrics. I tested this by setting up a stove inside the tent and boiling water for several minutes (with me outside the tent). The Epic panels were definitely drier at the end. However, they didn’t seem breathable enough to effectively reduce condensation on any of the silnylon panels. The walls seemed to condense just as quickly as an all-silnylon tent would have, leading me to question the design: while these panels create less dripping on the sides of the tent, they have little effect in reducing condensation at the head and feet. One positive aspect might be the greater ability to pass stove exhaust when people cook inside the tent, although I was unable to test this theory.

When conditions were humid and the temperature dropped below freezing, both the Epic and silnylon panels condensed and froze, causing the standard "snowing inside the tent effect." In these conditions, the Epic panels seemed to be no different than the silnylon ones, possibly because the water molecules froze more quickly than they could pass through the fabric.

With its large mesh vents and full mesh front door, the NEMO Hypno AR offers complete protection from bugs, although it is not the most comfortable space to hide out in. The large mesh front door offers good views when conditions are dry and buggy. The front door rolls away completely and is secured by small Velcro straps.

The NEMO Hypno AR is well constructed and had no durability issues during field testing. The AirBeams and vent frames use Dimension Polyant fabrics which have proven extremely durable. All guyouts are reinforced. The main question of durability comes in the AirSupported technology. Despite having the tent pitched over 20 nights in a variety of conditions, inflating and deflating constantly, and laying on the tent many times, no part of the AirSupported system had any issues of durability. Once, the main dump valve had a slow leak but this was easily fixed by putting a small amount of silicone grease around the cap (Vaseline worked just as well).

In the off chance that an AirBeam should leak, four access points on each beam make it easy to get to the beam for repair or replacement. Replacing a beam is very simple: 1) disconnect the AirBeam using the quick disconnect, 2) open an end access point, 3) tie the new AirBeam to the old one, 4) pull it through, being careful not to twist it, 5) connect the new AirBeam and inflate. The whole process took me less than 5 minutes my first time. However, a replacement AirBeam weighs 2.6 ounces, meaning that there’s a good chance it will be left at home. Even with one AirBeam totally deflated, though, the tent still remained upright and will get you through the night.

What’s Unique

At $434 or $460 with the Integrated or NEMOID foot pump, respectively, the NEMO Hypno AR is not cheap. For this price, it is also just barely breaks the 4 pound mark, something done by the Black Diamond Lighthouse, the MontBell Hex, and the GoLite Den for much less money. While the Mandatory Gear Puppy Pile tents are more expensive, they are also up to two pounds lighter. However, none of these other tents pitch as quickly as the Hypno AR, nor can they survive someone falling on top of them. The NEMO also offers excellent durability and a ventilation system that exceeds these other tents. For the backpacking or adventure racing team that doesn’t mind trading an extra pound or two for these features, the NEMO Hypno AR is a unique and well thought-out design.

Recommendations for Improvement

The NEMO Hypno AR is a well designed tent that offers some unique features. However, I would offer these suggestions to improve the design:

1. Select one shell fabric and stick with it – either all silnylon for decreased weight and stormproofness or all-Epic for breathability. The Epic panels only help to keep the Epic sections of the tent condensation-free.
2. Use a gasket or something similar on the main air dump valve – hearing a slow leak in the field is disconcerting, even if it is easily fixed.
3. Reduce the overall weight of the tent to below 3 pounds to be more competitive with poled tents. This may come with further design improvements or material changes. (Note: see the upcoming NEMO Hypno PQ for steps in this direction.)
4. Provide an additional Velcro attachment point for the door vent support to move it out of the way when not in use.
5. Increase the length of the tent to a full 84 inches to accommodate taller hikers.