Articles (2020)

Introduction

One look at the MSR Lightning Ascent snowshoes and it’s obvious that these shoes are designed for traction. Instead of adapting the tubular frame design that typifies the snowshoe industry, MSR developed a revolutionary new frame using bar stock aluminum, with crampon teeth cut into the frame. At 3.6 pounds for the pair, the Lightning Ascents are heavier than some other snowshoes, but their performance features may well justify the weight.

What’s Good

• Traction never before seen in a snowshoe
• Urethane decking attaches to frame with metal clips, rather than wrapping around the frame, and is therefore better protected from abrasion
• Televator heel lifts make climbing more comfortable and spreads weight over entire traction surface
• Design prevents ice build up
• Step-on binding is quick, simple, and versatile

What’s not so Good

• Paint finish chips easily and in large pieces
• Perimeter traction teeth in the aluminum frame wear down easily (though the steel teeth on the crampons and cross braces are unscathed)
• The binding does not maintain heel alignment

Specifications

Manufacturer	MSR
Year/Model	2004-2005 Lightning Ascent
Dimensions	8 in wide x 25 in long (20 cm x 64 cm)
Surface area	Measured surface area 176 in2 (1135 cm2)
Frame	Aerospace grade vertical aluminum bar stock, approximately 1 inch high and 3/32 inch thick
Deck	Propriety urethane with a mesh fiber core
Binding	Molded clear urethane, with molded gray and black straps, secured with steel, speed hook buckles
Crampons	Aerospace grade aluminum around the perimeter, painted carbon steel on the cross braces and pivot crampon
Weight	Measured weight 3.6 lb (1.6 kg) per pair; manufacturer specification 3.6 lb (1.6 kg)
Load rating	125 lb (57 kg) to 225 lb (102 kg), depending on conditions
MSRP	$250

Performance

The MSR Lightning Ascent snowshoes have one of the most innovative designs ever seen in a technical snowshoe. Unlike the industry standard tubular aluminum frames, MSR uses a “vertical blade” aluminum frame reinforced by vertical steel cross braces, all of which are adorned with traction teeth underneath. There is also a pivoting foot crampon that drives deep into the snow while you walk. I tested the MSR Total-Traction frame in a variety of snow conditions and terrain and found it offers much better traction than the industry norm, particularly in harder snow – though it does not replace conventional crampons in icy terrain. The frame flexes much more than even the flimsiest tubular framed shoes. Rather than this being a negative point, I found the frame flex enhanced traction in most circumstances by conforming better to uneven ground.

Aptly named, the Lightning Ascents excel at climbing steeper slopes. If the snow conditions are optimal (firm, but not too hard), climbing slopes of 45+ degrees is possible. The Televator heel lift relieves the calves from climbing strain. They also distribute your weight over the entire snowshoe frame (think traction) rather than solely over the foot crampons. With the heel lifts engaged, and weight distributed over the entire frame, there is a real sense of stability when climbing steeper terrain. The Televators have a nice engagement/disengagement too, with a positive click into the two positions. With practice, trekking poles can be used to move them into position.

The Lightning Ascents are great descenders if you want maximum grip, and average descenders if you like to glissade down. Glissading is a fun, quicker means of negotiating a route back down that requires a break in traction followed by a controlled slide with each step. With the Lightning Ascents it is very difficult to break traction. The controlled slides are short with a lot of drag and snow flying. The positive side to this is a much more controlled descent when safety is a concern or when carrying a backpack.

Despite being shaped reasonably well to promote sufficient float, the Lightning Ascents are not great performers in deeper snow; they simply lack the surface area. Traction tends to weaken in softer snow too, though they still perform better than average in this regard.

The propriety urethane deck doesn’t wrap the aluminum frame, but is riveted to 20 aluminum clips that are inserted through the frame. This eliminates a common weak point of tubular aluminum frames; the decking material is much better protected from rock abrasions. The crampon-like frame, however, is quick to shed its paint, occasionally in large chips, when put in contact with rock, bare ground, or the opposite snowshoe. Some will be disappointed with the appearance of these snowshoes after a single trip. In contrast, most tubular frame snowshoes have a powder coated or anodized finish that will take much more abuse before looking as well used. After six months of heavy use, the loss of paint from the Lightning Ascents is significant, but only a cosmetic concern.

There are other wear issues with regard to the frame. The crampon teeth on the perimeter frame are beginning to round off after one season of use. MSR should consider using higher grade 7000 series aluminum for this application. The carbon steel cross braces and binding crampons do not share the same fate. Except for chipped paint, they remain relatively unscathed.

The step-in binding is one of the easiest snowshoe bindings to get into we’ve seen and fits anything from running shoes to thickly insulated snow boots. As the name implies, you step onto the binding rather than feed your foot into it. After placing your heel against a fixed, but adjustable, heel strap, pull the two top straps over your boot and slip them into the side of the speed-hook buckles. Pull tight and lock the appropriate adjusting hole onto the pin of the buckle. This is all done in one motion, and can be done wearing the thickest gloves or with cold fingers. The strap ends are kept under control by feeding them into the small black strap keepers. The strap keepers on the test sample Ascents were installed with the openings pointing up. This caused the straps to slip out when snow or brush pushed against the straps. I found removing the strap keepers and reinstalling them with the strap opening pointing down prevented this from happening.

My heels have a tendency to shift towards the inner edges of the Lightning Ascents. The effect on performance is subtle. As I straighten my feet, the snowshoe tips rotate inwards making it easier to step on top of the leading shoe when taking a step. After tripping myself a few times, I eventually learned to adjust my gait to compensate. Such compensation should be unnecessary, and likely has an affect on performance and fatigue. Since a few of my friends who own these snowshoes have the same complaint, I conclude that the problem lies in the snowshoes’ bindings.

The Lightning Ascent binding uses a fixed hinge pivot system with a stop to prevent the snowshoe from rotating to vertical and dragging over obstacles. The stop still allows the snowshoe to rotate more than one with a pivot strap, so the snowshoes do drag when hiking. Although the shoes maneuver well over obstacles, they will trip you when trying to walk backwards. This system works well enough, but the metal-on-metal pivot parts rattle and squeak more than strap-style pivots. The clevis pins used for the pivots have been known to fail on other MSR snowshoe models, although I had no problems with the Lightning Ascent clevis pins through one season of use.

I have a pair of older snowshoes that are notorious for packing snow on the heel plate. Without stopping to chip the snow off, the heel plate becomes a “Televator” of sorts, a real problem when I’m trying to go downhill. Snow can also pack onto the bare aluminum surfaces of crampons or to the sides of an aluminum frame. Throughout my testing I never experienced snow sticking to the MSR Lightning Ascents. Ice that might normally build up on other snowshoes tends to break up on the frame’s vertical blades.

MSR claims the Lightning Ascent is the lightest snowshoe in its class at 3.6 pounds. With similar sized snowshoes like the Northern Lites Elite weighing 2 pounds 3 ounces, one must wonder exactly what class MSR is referring to. The Northern Lites Elite does not have nearly the traction of the MSR Lightning Ascent, so perhaps the Ascents are in a class all to themselves. Considering the traction, Televators, step-on bindings, and durability of materials throughout, 3.6 pounds is very respectable for the level of performance these shoes achieve.

What’s Unique

The traction! MSR designed traction into the entire frame creating a snowshoe that out performs all others in steep and technical terrain.

Recommendations for Improvement

Although the Lightning Ascent’s weight is very respectable for the level of performance they achieve, MSR could reduce the weight further by replacing steel components with titanium and using a thinner decking material. But at an already high price of $250, I don’t envision this happening any time soon.

A more practical improvement would be to apply a more durable paint finish. One or two trips are all it takes to give the present finish a well used look.

The phenomenon of the heels rotating inwards is a problem that needs to be addressed. MSR should consider making anatomical left and right specific bindings that align the feet to the snowshoes.

Introduction

New for 2005, the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail pack offers a simple, durable option for SuperUltraLight (SUL) backpacking. The Alpine Trail is available in two versions – the Alpine Trail 6 oz. and Alpine Trail 7 oz. If you are interested in a no-frills SUL backpack that is durable, the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail deserves your attention.

What’s Good

• Much more durable than silnylon or spinnaker SUL packs
• Choice of lighter weight (6 oz) or more durable (7 oz) versions
• Right sized for SUL
• Outside pockets are low on the pack for lower center of gravity
• Narrow, simple, streamlined design
• Flawless construction

What’s Not So Good

• No top or side compression straps make it impossible to compress small loads
• Shoulder straps are too narrow
• Edges of shoulder straps have seams that can rub bare skin
• Non roll-top closure doesn’t seal well
• No provision for attaching gear to the outside

Specifications

Manufacturer	Fanatic Fringe
Year/Model	2005 Alpine Trail
Style	Frameless, top loading, drawcord closure
Volume	2400 ci (39.3 L) all sizes
Weight Size L tested.	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is 5.9 oz (168 g) measured weight, manufacturer’s specification 6 oz (170 g); Alpine Trail 7 oz. is 7.0 oz (198 g) measured weight, manufacturer’s specification 7 oz (198 g)
Fabrics	Main body (both packs) is coated 1.9 oz/yd2 nylon ripstop with coated 200d nylon oxford back and bottom; Alpine Trail 6 oz. has no-see-um mesh outer pockets and silnylon top closure; Alpine Trail 7 oz. has nylon mesh outer pockets and coated 1.9 oz/yd2 nylon ripstop top closure
Features	Three outside mesh pockets, padded shoulder straps, top drawcord, haul loop
Volume To Weight Ratio	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is 407 ci/oz; Alpine Trail 7 oz. is 343 ci/oz
Comfortable Load Carrying Capacity	12 lb (5.5 kg) estimated maximum comfortable load an average person can carry all day in this pack
Carry Load to Pack Weight Ratio	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is 32.5; Alpine Trail 7 oz. is 27.4
MSRP	Alpine Trail 6 oz. is $89; Alpine Trail 7 oz. is $99

Performance

Three Backpacking Light editors tested the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs on SuperUltraLight trips in different regions of the US. Our impressions are combined in this review.

The Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs are a simple design. They are both the same size and have identical features. They are simple narrow pack bags with shoulder straps and no hipbelt. They are constructed of coated 1.9 oz/yd² nylon ripstop on the pack bag with coated 200 denier nylon oxford on the backpanel and bottom for extra durability and waterproofness. The difference between the two versions is in the fabrics used in other places. The 7 oz. version uses 200 denier nylon oxford on the top closure and nylon mesh on the outer pockets; the 6 oz. backpack uses silnylon in the top closure and no-see-um netting in the outer pockets. We had no durability or wear issues with either model. In fact, both are SUL pack options that are more durable than silnylon packs and far more durable than spinnaker packs such as the Gossamer Gear Whisper Uberlight (3.7 ounces) or Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet 25 (4.4 ounces).

Where the Alpine Trail packs save weight is in their simplicity. They consist of a pack bag, padded shoulder straps, three outer pockets, a haul loop, and a drawstring closure – just a simple, tough, well-designed bag.

However, there is some utility lost in what isn’t in these packs. These are frameless packs, depending on a “virtual frame” to create pack stiffness. A virtual frame can be created by putting a pad inside the pack, either rolled or flat against the back, and by compressing the load (or filling the pack). This makes a solid pack. However, the Fanatic Fringe packs do not have a top strap or any type of compression system to adjust for smaller loads. This makes it very difficult to achieve a virtual frame when the pack is under filled. Further, not having any compression straps means that you don’t have any places to carry a pad, poles, or other items besides the low outside pockets.

The outside pockets are very well designed. There is plenty of room in the side pockets for larger Platypus bottles and the pockets are low on the pack, improving the center of gravity. Having side pockets is a serious bonus on a pack this light.

The Alpine Trail packs have well-constructed, padded shoulder straps. They have Cordura nylon on the outside and a softer mesh on the inside that is very comfortable against the skin. However, there is a hard seam where these two fabrics attach that occasionally rubs bare skin. The narrow straps were fine for loads below about 12 pounds, but became uncomfortable for loads above that. For SUL trips, where total pack weight rarely goes over 12 pounds, the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs were quite comfortable.

At $89 for the Alpine Trail 7 oz. and $99 for the Alpine Trail 6 oz., the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail packs are an excellent value. Both versions are strongly constructed of durable fabrics and will definitely outlast comparable spinnaker or silnylon packs.

What’s Unique

The Alpine Trail packs weigh 1-3 ounces more than comparable spinnaker fabric packs, but they are much more durable. If you’re looking for a simple, durable, no-frills SUL pack, the Alpine Trail is a good choice.

Recommendations for Improvement

The simplicity of the Fanatic Fringe Alpine Trail is one of its selling points. However, it needs certain essential features to make it more functional. The first is adding a top strap so the top can be rolled down to help compress the pack when carrying small loads and to better seal the top. It also needs a side compression system, like loops for a bungee system that could be used for adjusting pack volume and attaching gear to the outside. Finally, the shoulder straps are too narrow and the side seams on the straps are abrasive. Slightly wider straps with smoother edges would be more comfortable and distribute weight more evenly.

Overview

What do you do with that box full of partially full fuel canisters for your backpacking canister stove? A canister lantern might be a good way to finish them off on family camping trips. Brunton has introduced what they claim is the world’s first mantleless camping lantern. It is also globe-less, and is claimed to be windproof. To evaluate the utility of this new technology, I lab and field tested the Brunton Liberty mantleless canister lantern with the Markill Peak Illuminator (Markill is a subsidiary of Vaude), which is a conventional mantle lantern with a glass globe. Although the technology has promise, at this point the Liberty simply does not measure up to the Peak Illuminator in terms of quantity and quality of light or fuel efficiency. Despite the potential breakage problems with mantles and globes in canister lanterns, the "old" technology continues to be the best technology, at least for now.

Note: A mantle is a cloth mesh which, when burned, leaves a chemical ash matrix which, when heated, produces a bright incandescent light. Mantles are tough enough for car camping, but too fragile for backpacking or any other rough use.

What’s Good

• Both lanterns come with piezo-electric ignition
• Fuel consumption is not affected by wind
• The Liberty is more durable, with no mantle or globe to break
• The Peak Illuminator puts out lots of bright, white light and is non-directional
• The Peak Illuminator will run about 20% longer than the Liberty on an 8-ounce fuel canister
• The Peak Illuminator is silent

What’s Not So Good

• The Liberty’s light is yellow/orange, dim, and directional
• The Liberty uses significantly more fuel
• The Liberty is sensitive to cool temperatures
• The Liberty is somewhat noisy
• The Peak Illuminator flickers, especially in the wind
• The Peak Illuminator’s mantle and globe can break

Specifications

	Brunton Liberty	Vaude/ Markill Peak Illuminator
Measurements	4 x 2.5 x 1.3 in (10 x 6 x 3 cm)	4.3 x 2.4 x 2.4 in (11 x 6 x 6 cm)
Weight with case	9.4 oz (266 g)	7.2 oz (204 g)
Piezo-electric Ignition	standard	standard
Light output (manufacturer specification)	80 W	80 W
MSRP (USD)	$115	~$60

Performance

I measured fuel consumption of both lanterns by weighing them (with fuel canister) before and after 15 minutes of use. The difference in weight was the amount of fuel consumed. Tests were done under calm and windy (12 mph wind from a box fan) conditions. Each test was repeated three times and the results averaged. In the field I used both lanterns to provide light for camp chores and reading. I tested each with full and partially full canisters, and used different brands of fuel.

Overall, I found that the Markill Peak Illuminator "outshined" the Brunton Liberty. The Peak Illuminator puts out more light, has better light quality (white versus yellow/orange), is virtually silent, and is more fuel efficient than the Liberty. Data are presented in Table 1, and the main findings are summarized below.

• Under warm conditions the Peak Illuminator will run about 8.2 hours on an 8-ounce canister of fuel, versus 6.5 hours for the Liberty.
• Fuel consumption in warm/windy conditions was very similar to calm conditions.
• Under cool conditions both lanterns used less fuel (because a lower rate of fuel vaporization at cooler temperatures is equivalent to a low (conservative) valve setting), and fuel consumption was similar. Both lanterns should provide about 11.4 hours of light from an 8-ounce canister under cool conditions.
• The Peak Illuminator produced substantially more light than the Liberty, and light quality was much better (bright white for the Peak Illuminator and dim yellow/orange for the Liberty, see photo below).
• The Liberty is highly directional (the flip out reflectors direct light in one direction only), while the Peak Illuminator puts out a full circle of light. Under cool and cold conditions the Liberty had low light output, while the Peak Illuminator was affected very little.
• The Peak Illuminator had a slight flicker under warm conditions, a moderate flicker under cold conditions, and it flickered a lot under windy conditions.
• The Peak Illuminator provided good light for camp chores or reading most of the time (except in the wind), but the Liberty provided marginally adequate light only in warm conditions.
• The Liberty has a moderate roar (similar to a canister stove), but the Peak Illuminator is silent. At warm temperatures, I could not detect any performance differences due to different brands of fuel or a partially full canister (as compared to performance with a full canister).

From my tests, I could find very little to recommend the Liberty canister lantern. I commend Brunton on their effort to bring new technology to market, but based on the performance of our test sample, the mantleless lantern is not yet competitive with existing technology.

What’s Unique

The Brunton Liberty lantern features a platinum element (a mesh dome) that heats up to high temperatures when an air valve is opened to provide more oxygen. At elevated temperatures, more light is emitted, which is enhanced and directed by a reflector wing on each side of the flame. The problem with the Liberty at cooler temperatures seems to be that the platinum element does not get hot enough, so the light produced is dim and yellow.

Recommendations for Improvement

At Backpacking Light we really love new innovations in outdoor gear, and we are supportive of the concept of a mantleless lantern. Specific improvements we would like to see in the Brunton Liberty mantleless lantern are:

• Provide more and better quality light
• Less sensitive to cool temperatures
• Lighter weight. At 9.4 ounces (without the carry case), the lantern is simply too heavy for lightweight backpacking.

Introduction

Kovea is a South Korean stove manufacturer that simultaneously sells under its own brand name and wholesales to other companies. Thus, you are likely to see their stoves with a variety of brand names. The X2 is a little heaver and bulkier than other canister stoves we reviewed, but it is solidly built, has piezo-electric ignition, and is inexpensive.

What’s Good

• Sturdy steel construction
• Standard piezo-electric ignition
• Precise flame control
• Inexpensive

What’s Not So Good

• At 5.7 ounces the X2 is heavy compared to mini-canister stoves
• Does not collapse to a small carrying size

Specifications

Manufacturer	Kovea (South Korea)
Stove	X2 top-mount canister stove
Weight	5.7 oz (162 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 5.7 oz (163 g)
Size	40.6 in x 40.6 in x 37.4 in (103 x 103 x 95 cm); does not collapse
Materials	Steel
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, hard plastic carry case
Heat Output	9,000 BTU/hr
MSRP	27,000 South KoreanWon (approximately $27 US)

Performance

If you live in or travel to a country where the Kovea X2 is available, it is worth considering because of its good performance and value. It is solidly built and comes with a piezo-electric igniter that works well. Its main drawbacks are its heavier weight and bulkiness (however, its size and weight are about the same as the Jetboil burner). If these factors are not a problem for your style of backpacking or car camping, then the X2 may serve your needs very well.

The X2 has four pot supports in a 3.25-inch square pattern that are anchored to a steel heat reflector. Contact with the bottom of a cook pot is mostly at the outside of the pot supports. I found this design to be stable for small to medium sized cook pots with a smooth bottom, but it may be tipsy with some pots with indentations on the bottom.. A fry pan had to be balanced off-center or hand held to stay in place.

The Kovea X2 piezo-electric igniter worked fine in warmer temperatures as well as in cold temperatures. It looks like the same igniter as on the Kovea Camp 3 (reviewed separately), but for some reason this one works better. Flame control is precise with no readjustment required. The flame easily adjusts from a fine simmer to full throttle in a little less than one-half turn of the controller.

As explained in Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves, the Kovea X2’s heating efficiency is impaired by “flame lift.” At full throttle the flames lift above the burner, making the stove very sensitive to wind, even with a windscreen. This situation results in less efficient combustion and heat transfer to a cookpot. The Kovea X2 shares the same burner design as the Kovea Camp 3 stove and its twin the Markill Peak Ignition, and all have the same problem.

Fortunately, for cooking control and fuel efficiency reasons, it is desirable to use a canister stove at less than full throttle. Using a low or moderate flame level, the X2 is a good cooker. With its precise flame control, the X2 easily cooked an omelet and fried pancakes in a fry pan, and sautéed onions and green peppers in a titanium cook pot. The stove’s smaller burner does create a hot spot in the center of a pot or pan (as is typical for most small burner canister stoves), so it’s important to use a low flame level to avoid burning.

The heating efficiency of the Kovea X2 is summarized in Table 1, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested to date. For more detailed information see Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Overall, the X2 is slower to boil water, is more sensitive to wind, and is slightly more fuel-efficient than average. Since the majority of these tests were performed using a full throttle setting, I believe the X2’s reduced performance is due to its “flame lift” issue, and average performance can be expected using a moderate flame level. These test results are quite similar to the Markill Peak Ignition and Kovea Camp 3, which have the same burner design.

What’s Unique

The X2 is solidly built, performs well at less than full throttle, and is inexpensive.

Recommendations for Improvement

Re-engineer the burner to eliminate the flame lift problem and make the stove less sensitive to wind.

Introduction

New for 2005, the Brunton Raptor incorporates some great features into a $40 canister stove. While other base level canister stoves don’t have any extras, the Raptor includes piezo-electric ignition, 6-inch wide pot supports, and stainless steel construction. This review details the results of my tests of the Raptor in the lab and in the field.

What’s Good

• Standard piezo-electric electric ignition
• Wide pot supports make it particularly suitable for large pots and group cooking
• Stainless steel construction
• Precise flame control
• A great value for $40

What’s Not So Good

• At 5.7 ounces the Raptor is heavy compared to mini-canister stoves
• Very sensitive to wind, needs wind protection
• Small burner creates a hot spot in the middle of a cookpot

Specifications

Manufacturer	Brunton
Stove	Raptor top-mount canister stove
Weight	5.7 oz (162 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 5 oz (142 g)
Size	Open 4.5 x 5.25 x 3.25 in (11 x 13 x 8 cm); packed size 1.75 x 1.5 x 2.5 in (4 x 4 x 6 cm)
Materials	Stainless steel
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, wide pot supports, nylon carry case
Heat Output	11,000 BTU/hr
MSRP	$40

Performance

At 5.7 ounces (without the 1.2 ounce carrying case), the Raptor is a heavyweight compared to many mini-canister stoves, which weigh around 3 ounces. However, compared to other stoves we reviewed, the Raptor gives you more features for your money.

The Raptor’s wide (6.25 inches) pot supports allow it to hold larger pots and pans. The pot supports also lay flat, giving it lots of contact. I had no problem cooking with an 8-inch fry pan. This feature makes the Raptor especially suitable for group cooking. Brunton offers a plastic stand for the canister to make the stove even more stable with larger pots (top mount canister stoves are known to be top-heavy).

Normally, stoves with wider pot supports also have a wide burner head to spread the flame across the bottom of a wider cookpot, but the Raptor has a small burner. I found the small burner works fine at a low flame level for fine simmering or a high flame level for boiling water, but it creates a hot spot when cooking with a moderate flame. Sautéing onions and green peppers in a titanium pot required a low flame and patience to avoid scorching. The same was true with cooking pancakes or an omelet. In this respect the Raptor performed similarly to many of the mini-canister (small burner) stoves.

The piezo-electric igniter on the Raptor works well at warm and cold temperatures. For best results, open the value until you can hear gas coming out then hit the igniter. Like most piezo-electric ignition systems, it does not ignite very well if you open the valve too far and release too much gas pressure.

The Raptor’s flame control is precise. It goes from a candle to a blow torch in less than one quarter turn. There is no rebound or flame creep that requires re-adjustment. I did find, however, that it is easy to unintentionally turn the stove off while trying to adjust for a low flame.

On one snowshoe outing I tested three canister stoves’ ability to melt a pot full of snow by melting 2 pounds of snow plus 1 pound of water in a 1.5-liter titanium pot and boiling the resulting 1.4 quarts of water. The results for the Brunton Raptor are shown in comparison to the other stoves in Table 1. First note that the boil times are huge – three times longer than optimal conditions. The Raptor used a little less fuel than the other stoves. More important, note that it requires twice as much fuel to melt snow and boil the water (1.0 ounce, or about a quarter of a small canister) than it does to boil water under optimal conditions. Furthermore, about the same amount of fuel is consumed to melt snow and boil the water as boiling the same amount of water unprotected in a direct wind.

The heating efficiency of the Brunton Raptor is summarized in Table 2, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested to date. For more detailed information see the Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Five More Canister Stoves.

The Raptor’s performance is a mixed bag. Under optimal conditions, its boil time is a little slower than average, taking almost a minute longer to boil a quart of water (no big deal). More important, its fuel efficiency ranks with the better performing stoves we have tested. Unfortunately its performance falls down under windy conditions; it was one of the more wind sensitive stoves we tested.

What’s Unique

The Brunton Raptor is targeted to provide a good value for a base level canister stove. It includes piezo-electric ignition, wide pot supports, and stainless steel construction for $40. The only other stove we have reviewed with similar features and price is the Primus TechnoTrail. The TechnoTrail at 6.4 ounces is a little heavier and its fuel efficiency is not as good as the Raptor. The Coleman Exponent F1 Ultralight and MSR PocketRocket also sell for $40. Both are much lighter than the Raptor and perform better, but lack the Raptor’s features. Overall, the Raptor is a good choice for a base level stove, especially for group cooking.

Recommendations for Improvement

Like many canister stoves, the Raptor loses a lot of efficiency in windy conditions. This has a lot to do with burner design. The Raptor’s burner is very similar to the Snow Peak GigaPower, which is also very wind sensitive. Some engineering improvements would be desirable to make the Raptor more wind resistant.

Introduction

When I requested review samples of the Kovea Camp 3 and Markill Peak Ignition , I did not realize that they are identical stoves. Both are titanium mini-canister stoves with piezo-electric ignition and weigh only 3.3 ounces (94 grams). This review, and the review of the Markill Peak Ignition, will hopefully untangle any confusion that readers may have about these stoves. Note: The Camp 3 and Peak Ignition are very similar to the Vargo Jet-Ti stove (not reviewed, the Jet-Ti does not have piezo-electric ignition). Kovea of South Korea manufacturers all three stoves.

What’s Good

• Strong titanium construction
• Compact and lightweight
• Standard piezo-electric ignition
• Precise flame control

What’s Not so Good

• Very sensitive to wind
• Piezo-electric igniter works inconsistently in cold or wind
• “Flame lift-off” at full throttle reduces heating efficiency

Specifications

Manufacturer	Kovea (South Korea)
Stove	Camp 3 top-mount canister stove
Weight	3.3 oz (94 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 3.1 oz (88 g)
Size	Open 4 x 2.8 x 2.8 in (10 x 7 x 7 cm); closed 2.8 x 2.4 x 1.6 in (7 x 6 x 4 cm)
Materials	Titanium and brass
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, hard plastic carry case
Heat Output	8,800 BTU/hr
MSRP	48,000 South Korean Won (approximately $48 US)

Performance

Basically, if you purchase the Kovea Camp 3 or the Markill Peak Ignition, (Markill is a subsidiary of Vaude), you are getting the same stove. The only discernable difference between the two stoves is that one has “Kovea” stamped on the piezo-electric igniter and the other is stamped with “Markill”. As you will see from reading my lab test report (cited below), the performance of these two stoves is virtually identical.

Note: The Vargo Jet-Ti stove is very similar to the Kovea Camp 3 stove reviewed here. The Jet-Ti is made by Kovea, and is obviously patterned after the Camp 3. The differences are that the Jet-Ti has solid (not hinged) pot supports and manual ignition. These changes get the weight of the Vargo Jet-Ti down to 2.7 ounces. The burner head on the Vargo appears to be identical to the Kovea Camp 3.

The Camp 3’s pot supports are hinged so the ends flip out to provide a diameter of 4.75 inches. Contact with the bottom of a cook pot is mostly at the tips of the pot supports. I found this design to be stable for the pots I tested it with, but it depends on the bottom surface of your cookpot. Pots with a smooth bottom are stable if properly centered, while pots with indentations in the bottom can be tipsy. A fry pan had to be balanced off-center or hand held to stay in place.

I found the Camp 3’s piezo-electric igniter to be a bit variable. It worked fine in warmer temperatures, but was less consistent in cold temperatures and wind. At 50 °F I counted six tries with the piezo-electric to light the stove in one test run, and only one try on the second test run.

Flame control is precise with no re-adjustment required. The flame adjusts from a fine simmer to full throttle in a little over one-quarter turn of the controller.

At full flame, performance is impaired by a phenomenon called “flame lift-off,” which is explained in Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Basically, at full throttle the flames lift above the burner head, and some lift high enough that they actually blow out. The blow out occurs erratically above the burner head, and is accentuated by wind. This results in less efficient combustion and heat transfer to a cookpot. The Kovea Camp 3 shares the same burner design as its twin, the Markill Peak Ignition, and also with the Kovea X2, and all have the same problem.

Because of the “flame lift-off” problem, the Kovea Camp 3 performs more efficiently at less than full throttle and under non-windy conditions. Fortunately, for cooking control and fuel efficiency reasons, it is normal to use a canister stove at less than full throttle. Using a low or moderate flame level, the Camp 3 is a good cooker. With its precise flame control, it easily cooked an omelet and fried pancakes in a fry pan, and sautéed onions and green peppers in a titanium cookpot. With the smaller burner, it worked best to use a low flame and allow more cooking time to avoid burning in the middle of a pot or pan.

On one snowshoe outing I tested three canister stoves’ ability to melt snow by melting 2 pounds of snow plus 1 pound of water in a 1.5-liter titanium pot and boiling the resulting 1.4 quarts of water. The results for the Camp 3 are shown in comparison to the other stoves in Table 1. First note that the boil times are huge – three times longer than optimal conditions. The Camp 3 used a little more fuel than the other stoves. More important, note that it requires twice as much fuel to melt snow and boil the water than it does to boil water under optimal conditions. Furthermore, about the same amount of fuel is consumed to melt snow and boil the water as boiling the same amount of water unprotected in a direct wind.

The heating efficiency of the Kovea Camp 3 is summarized in Table 2, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested. For more detailed information see Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Overall, the Camp 3 is slower to boil water, is more sensitive to wind, and is less fuel-efficient than average. Since the majority of these tests were performed using a full throttle setting, I believe the Camp 3’s lower performance is due to its “flame lift-off” problem. These test results are nearly identical to the Markill Peak Ignition stove.

What’s Unique

The Camp 3 is nicely designed. The pot supports are hinged and slide to one side, making it one of the most compact canister stoves we have tested.

Recommendations for Improvement

If it were not for its problem with “flame lift-off,” the Kovea Camp 3 would be one of our favorite canister stoves. The Camp 3’s flame lift-off problem definitely requires some attention. Also the piezo-electric igniter could stand some improvement so it works more consistently.

Introduction

Weighing only 3.3 ounces (94 grams), the Markill Peak Ignition is a titanium mini-canister stove with piezo-electric ignition. Markill is a subsidiary of Vaude, a German outdoor equipment manufacturer. When I requested the Markill Peak Ignition for review, I didn’t realize that it is identical to the Kovea Camp 3. The Peak Ignition is, in fact, manufactured by Kovea of South Korea. This review (and the review of the identical Kovea Camp 3) will help untangle any confusion that readers may have about these stoves. Note: the Camp 3 and Peak Ignition are very similar to the Vargo Jet-Ti stove (not reviewed), which is made by Kovea of South Korea.

What’s Good

• Strong titanium construction
• Compact and lightweight
• Standard piezo-electric ignition
• Precise flame control

What’s Not So Good

• Very sensitive to wind
• Piezo-electric igniter does not work well in cold or wind
• “Flame lift-off” at full throttle reduces heating efficiency

Specifications

Manufacturer	Vaude (Markill is a subsidiary)
Stove	Markill Peak Ignition top-mount canister stove (Markill Hot Rod in the US)
Weight	3.4 oz (96 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 3.1 oz (88 g)
Size	Open 4 x 2.8 x 2.8 in (10 x 7 x 7 cm); closed 2.8 x 2.4 x 1.6 in (7 x 6 x 4 cm)
Materials	Titanium and brass
Features	Piezo-electric ignition, nylon carry case
Heat Output	8,800 BTU/hr
MSRP	EUR 50 (approximately $61 US)

Performance

Basically, if you purchase the Markill Peak Ignition (sold in the US as the Hot Rod) or the Kovea Camp 3, you are getting the same thing. The only discernable difference between the two stoves is that one has “Markill” stamped on the piezo-electric igniter and the other is stamped with “Kovea.” As you will see from reading Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves, the performance of these two stoves is virtually identical.

Note: The Vargo Jet-Ti stove sold in the US is very similar to the Markill stove reviewed here and the Kovea Camp 3. The differences are that the Jet-Ti has solid (not hinged) pot supports and is manual ignition. These changes get the weight of the Vargo Jet-Ti down to 2.7 ounces. The burner head on the Vargo appears to be identical to the Peak Ignition.

The three pot supports are hinged so the ends flip out to provide a diameter of 4.75 inches. Contact with the bottom of a cookpot is mostly at the tips of the pot supports. I found this design to be stable for small to medium sized cookpots, but it depends on the bottom surface of your pot. Smooth pots are more stable, assuming they are centered properly, but indentations on the bottom of some pots may cause them to be tipsy. A fry pan had to be balanced off-center or hand held to stay in place.

The piezo-electric igniter on the Peak Ignition worked well at warm temperatures, but did not work well in cold temperatures or wind. At 50 °F I counted eleven tries with the piezo-electric igniter to light the stove. I tried different valve settings to no avail.

Flame control of the Peak Ignition is precise with no re-adjustment required. The flame adjusts from a fine simmer to full throttle in a little over one-fourth turn of the controller.

At full flame, performance is impaired by a phenomenon called “flame lift-off,” which is explained in my test report referenced below. Basically, at full throttle the flames lift above the burner, and some lift high enough that they actually blow out. The blowout occurs erratically above the burner head, and is accentuated by wind. This situation results in less efficient combustion and heat transfer to a cookpot. The Kovea Camp 3 and X2 stoves I reviewed had the same problem. I have no information on whether this problem exists in the Vargo Jet-Ti stove.

Because of the “flame lift-off” problem, the Peak Ignition performs better at less than full throttle and in calm conditions. Fortunately, for cooking control and fuel efficiency reasons, it is advisable to use a canister stove at less than full throttle. Using a low or moderate flame level, the Peak Ignition cooks well. With its precise flame control, the Peak Ignition easily cooked an omelet and fried pancakes in a fry pan, and sautéed onions and green peppers in a titanium cookpot. Because of the small burner, it works best to use a low flame and take more time for sautéing or frying. Using a moderate flame creates a hot spot (and burning) in the middle of a pot or pan.

On one snowshoe outing I tested three canister stoves’ ability to melt snow by melting 2 pounds of snow plus 1 pound of water in a 1.5-liter titanium pot and boiling the resulting 1.4 quarts of water. The results for the Peak Ignition are shown in comparison to the other stoves in Table 1. First note that the boil times are very long – three times longer than optimal conditions. Also note that it requires twice as much fuel to melt snow and boil the water than it does to boil water under optimal conditions. Furthermore, about the same amount of fuel is consumed to melt snow and boil the water as boiling the same amount of water unprotected in a direct wind. Finally, note that the data for the Peak Ignition and its twin the Camp 3 are very close but not identical; each stove was tested only once, and this is normal variation between test runs.

The heating efficiency of the Peak Ignition is summarized in Table 2, in comparison to the averaged performance of 13 canister stoves tested to date. For more detailed information see Performance Comparison Testing of Lightweight Canister Stoves Fall 2005: Controlled Data Evaluating Key Variables of Temperature, Wind, and Windscreen Use for Four More Canister Stoves. Overall, the Peak Ignition is slower to boil water, is more sensitive to wind, and is less fuel-efficient than average. Since the majority of these tests were performed using a full throttle setting, I believe the Peak Ignition’s lower performance is due to its “flame lift-off” problem. In my opinion the Peak Ignition should provide good performance at low to moderate flame settings.

What’s Unique

The Peak Ignition is nicely designed. The pot supports are hinged and slide to one side, making it one of the most compact canister stoves we have tested.

Recommendations for Improvement

If it were not for its problem with “flame lift-off,” the Peak Ignition would be one of our favorite canister stoves. The Peak Ignition’s flame lift-off problem definitely requires some attention. Also the piezo-electric igniter could stand some improvement to make it work better.

Overview

The Rab Quantum Top Bag is a 32 °F (0 °C) minimalist top bag weighing only 16.0 ounces (454 g, regular width). Its light weight is the result of a simplistic design: no zippers, draft baffles, hood, or bottom insulation. The Q-Top is a top bag, designed to be used in conjunction with a sleeping pad to provide insulation on the bottom. We found a lot to like about the Rab Quantum Q-Top, but we also found some major design problems that wrecked its ratings.

In Brief

• Minimalist 32 °F top bag with no zipper, draft baffles, or hood
• Weighs only 16.0 ounces (regular girth bag)
• Pertex Quantum outer shell (with DWR) and inner lining
• Insulated with 200 grams (7 oz) of 850+ goose down using narrow box-wall construction
• Bottom (uninsulated) panel is too wide for standard sleeping pads and doesn’t seal, resulting in serious heat loss
• Regular girth is too tight with pad inside, consider attaching pad to the bottom or getting the extra wide bag
• Long and short sizes are not available

Specifications

Manufacturer	Rab Carrington Ltd
Model	Quantum Top Bag
Type	Top bag
Size and Style Both sizes reviewed	Regular length and girth, regular length/extra wide girth, mummy style, hoodless, zipperless
Weight	Backpacking Light measurements oz (g) Manufacturer Specification oz (g) Regular length, Regular girth 16.0 (454) 15.2 (430) Regular length, Extra wide girth 17.4 (493) –
Stuff sack Dimensions and Weight	5 in x 9.5 in (13 x 24 cm), 187 ci (3.1 L)
Fill Type	Down, 750+ EU (850+ US)
Fill Weight	7 oz (200 g)
Loft	Backpacking Light measured single layer loft 2.5 in (6 cm)
Manufacturer’s Rating	32 °F (0 °C)
Fabrics	Outer shell is Pertex Quantum with DWR, 0.9 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2); lining is Pertex Quantum, 0.9 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2)
Hood	No
Features	Narrow box-wall construction with variable height baffles, elastic drawcord at neck
Model Year	2004
MSRP	£130 (approximately $250 US) for the regular girth bag; £136.50 (approximately $260 US) for the extra wide bag

Features

Reviewing the upgraded Rab top bag was a bit nostalgic for the Backpacking Light staff, because our very first review was of the original Rab top bag. At that time the bag had a Pertex Microlight shell (1.3 oz/yd²) and lightweight mesh bottom. Back then it was state-of-the-art and a trend setter. How does the current version of the classic Rab top bag shape up in today’s market? Just a hint – Rab fixed one problem, and we wish they had listened to our other suggestions.

The current Rab Quantum Q-Top is a minimalist top bag in every way. It’s a uniformly tapered mummy-style bag with no zipper, hood, or draft baffles; just an elastic drawcord that snugs the bag around your neck. Insulation covers the top, sides, and underneath the feet. Most of the bag’s bottom is a single layer of fabric, so the bag must be used in conjunction with a sleeping pad to provide insulation on the bottom (more on that issue in the next section).

The bag’s outer shell and lining are Pertex Quantum, which is lightweight, soft, downproof, highly breathable, and durable. It’s the present state-of-the-art for lightweight performance sleeping bags and clothing. The outer shell has a durable water repellent (DWR) treatment to resist wetting from condensation. We found the Quantum fabric slides easily on most tent floors, particularly on silnylon floors.

The insulation is as good as it gets – 750+ EU/850+ US fill power goose down. With narrow box-wall construction and variable height baffles for efficient down distribution, the 200 grams of down in the Q-Top produce 2.5 inches of single-layer measured loft. Other than its superb shell and high lofting down insulation, the Q-Top is notable for its lack of extra features, bringing the weight down to 16.0 ounces (the extra wide version weighs 17.4 ounces) for a 32 °F rated bag.

The Quantum Q-Top is available in regular length/regular width and regular length/extra width only. Other bags in Rab’s Quantum series are available in regular length, extra long, extra short, and extra wide. The Q-Top comes with a water-resistant Pertex Quantum stuff sack that is properly sized for the bag, plus a cotton storage bag.

Rab’s Top Bag Design

If you haven’t used a top bag before, then getting the Rab Quantum Top Bag will cause some major puzzlement. There are no instructions on how to use it – especially whether the sleeping pad goes inside the bag or under it (we clarify all this in our Review Summary). According to Rab’s website, the Q-Top “is designed to be used on adventure races, mountain marathons and minimalist backpacking trips in conjunction with an insulating pad that is best cut to the shape of the bag (or for the hard core use bubble wrap!)”. If you interpret Rab’s “instructions” literally, it would mean that you would have to acquire a piece of wide closed-cell foam (not readily available) and cut it so it is a little wider than the bag’s 22-inch wide uninsulated bottom panel, so it makes a good seal on the sides. That’s okay, but nowadays most hikers use a sleeping pad that is a standard 20 inches wide.

Table 1: Comparative data for the Rab Quantum Top Bag regular girth bag and extra wide girth bag

	Regular Length/Girth Backpacking Light measurements in (cm)	Regular Length/Extra Wide Girth Backpacking Light measurements in (cm)
Shoulder Girth	62.1 (158)	70.0 (178)
Hip Girth	53.3 (135)	65.5 (161)
Foot Girth	36.5 (93)	50.5 (128)
Length	68.8 (175)	68.8 (175)
Sleeping Pad Panel	21.8 W x 58.5 L (55 x 149)	25.5 W x 58.5 L (65 x 149)
Insulation Width at Top	40.3 (102)	44.5 (113)

We found three major problems with the Q-Top: 1) with a thin sleeping pad inside, the regular girth bag is too tight (especially at the hips), resulting in compressed down and cold spots if you are wearing anything more than a base layer; 2) the uninsulated bottom panel is too wide, so there is serious heat loss around the perimeter of a standard width sleeping pad through the single layer fabric bottom; and 3) when using a pad outside and underneath the bag there is no means to seal the bag’s insulation to the sleeping pad to eliminate cold spots. The sides of the sleeping bag pull up from the pad exposing a perimeter of single-layer uninsulated fabric.

The anomaly is even greater for the “extra wide girth” version of the Q-Top, because the width of the bottom panel grows from 21.8 inches to 25.5 inches. This creates a large uninsulated gap around the sleeping pad, resulting in serious heat loss and cold spots.

The upshot of this is that a sleeping pad inside the regular Q-Top simply doesn’t work; it must be placed underneath, and there is no provision to attach it to the bottom and seal it to the insulated top. The bag lifts up from the pad, exposing the uninsulated bottom panel. A thin standard width sleeping pad can be used inside the extra girth Q-Top, but the extra wide bottom panel leaves 3 inches of uninsulated space on each side, and there is no easy way to seal it up. If you use the extra girth bag and custom cut your pad you can effectively seal the bottom, but the extra pad width adds unnecessary weight.

Another issue with the Rab Quantum Top Bag is its limited insulated shoulder and hip girth, measuring only 40.3 inches on the regular bag and 44.5 inches on the extra girth bag. In contrast, the Nunatak Arc Ghost top bag has an insulated shoulder girth of 46 inches (it also has two straps to snug the insulation against a sleeping pad).

The Rab top bag was the first one on the market, and the only change to the bottom panel that we know of since its inception is the switch from mesh to solid fabric. Apparently, the bottom panel design has not been updated. In our opinion, it is simply not an adequate design by today’s standards. In the next section, we discuss how the Q-Top can be modified to make it perform better.

Our Modifications to Improve Performance

We attempted to modify two Rab Q-top bags (one regular girth and one extra wide girth). On the regular girth bag we opened the seam between the uninsulated bottom and insulated top in several places and sewed grosgrain loops into the seam. We attempted to use these loops to more securely seal a pad to the edges of the insulated top. On the extra wide bag we sewed a fold into the bottom panel to reduce its width to 20 inches, and added pad straps to the bottom. Putting the sleeping pad under the bag resulted in increased inside girth and provided a slip-free contact with tent floors.

The modification did not work well for the regular girth bag. To seal the pad to the insulated panel, we effectively had to reduce the width of the uninsulated panel to the width of a sleeping pad. The 1.8 inches lost made for a very tight fit inside the bag (remember, no zipper!) and some down compression resulted. For a side sleeper, there were still cold spots at the edges of the pad. We had better luck modifying the extra girth bag; it provided (barely) enough shoulder and hip girth to wear extra clothing inside.

Bottom line, the user should not be expected to modify a product, or adapt to its shortcomings, to make it work. Rab needs to increase the girth of the insulated top and redesign the bottom panel so it seals a sleeping bag to the top without leaving uninsulated gaps.

Performance

Will (6′, 170 pounds) slept in the Q-Top regular girth bag using three different sleeping systems (double wall tent, single wall tent, and bivy) on several backpacking trips in the Southern Rockies. Nighttime temperatures consistently dropped into the 28-35 °F range. On those trips a Therm-a-Rest Prolite 3/4-length sleeping pad (1-inch thick) was used inside the bag, and clothing worn consisted of microfleece long johns, windstopper fleece hat, and fleece socks. With this pad/clothing combination, the regular girth bag was way too tight in the hip area (see photo above), compressing the down at the hips and widening the gap between the pad and the uninsulated bottom panel of the bag, resulting in cold spots. The bag was warmer in the double wall tent or bivy, because of the extra shelter. The single-wall Tarptent was coldest on 30 °F nights because of nighttime breezes circulating through. Conclusion: placing a sleeping pad inside the regular girth Rab Q-Top does not work – it’s way too tight.

Placing the sleeping pad under the Q-Top in the same sleeping systems significantly increased shoulder and hip girth inside the bag, which eliminated the problem of down compression and cold spots in those areas. However, wearing an insulated jacket inside the bag to extend its warmth resulted in a tighter fit and cold spots. Conclusion: this works better, but is still not good.

The unmodified wide-girth sleeping bag with pad underneath was warmer, despite an even wider uninsulated panel, because the extra width of the down top allowed the insulation to drape more like a quilt, sealing the edges somewhat. This worked fine on warmer nights, but the insulated top was not wide enough to tuck under the pad to seal the edges, creating cold spots on colder nights. Side sleeping while wearing an insulated jacket inside opened a gap next to the sleeping pad, creating some serious cold spots in the hip area. Wearing an insulated jacket plus insulated pants inside the bag helped to reduce the effect of the cold spots. Conclusion: this arrangement works on warmer nights, but it’s hard to eliminate cold spots on a cooler night.

The modified wide girth bag with sleeping pad attached to the bottom was distinctly warmer than the above two options. The seal between the insulated sides of the bag and sleeping pad was much better, and the pad stayed in place quite well, even with frequent rollovers during the night. This configuration provided adequate hip space for side sleeping and room to wear extra clothing inside the bag. With the sleeping pad attached to the bottom, and wearing a down jacket and down pants inside, Will was able to stay warm in the Q-Top down to 23 °F while sleeping in a bivy. Conclusion: attaching the pad to the bottom of the modified wide-girth sleeping bag frees up some room inside, allowing one to wear insulated clothing inside the bag. The insulated clothing and attachment of pad to bag reduces the effects of cold spots along the sides of the pad.

Jay continued the review of Rab’s regular girth Q-Top under the stars, under a tarp, and inside his homemade sil-pyramid tent (built with mesh sides like a Tarptent), in temperatures ranging from 45 °F to 28 °F. The unmodified regular girth Q-Top with a thin closed-cell foam pad (RidgeRest) inside worked marginally for Jay (5′ 7″, 155 pounds) on warmer nights, but only with minimal clothing and sleeping on his back or belly. Wearing heavier clothing or using a thicker pad caused down compression at the hips and accentuated the gaps next to the sleeping pad – the bag was simply too tight. Wearing a Western Mountaineering Flight Jacket inside the bag on colder nights gave minimal relief. Although cold spots were kept at bay, there was enough down compression in the jacket and bag to offset the expected improvement in warmth. In contrast, Jay has used the Flight Jacket under a quilt with equivalent loft into the low 20’s with much better results.

Placing the pad under the bag mostly solves the girth problem. Jay was able to wear a synthetic fill jacket with minimal loft compression. However, lying inside the bag with the pad underneath allows the bag to lift up from the pad, exposing more of the uninsulated panel. Jay was able to sleep warm in lower temperatures with this configuration, but not at the temperature rating Rab assigns to this bag.

The modified regular girth bag, with sleeping pad attached to the underside of the bag at the insulated panel seam, sounds like the obvious solution, right? Well, not exactly. The uninsulated bottom panel is 21.8 inches wide. Attaching a 20-inch pad effectively reduces the total girth by 1.8 inches. While this may seem trivial, consider that the bag becomes more D-shaped (with the flat part of the D on the ground) rather than circular. The effect is compressed down at the top of the bag, made worse by side sleepers.

Conclusion: the regular girth Rab Q-Top is too tight, and it’s hard to avoid cold spots. Either the insulation is compressed or cold air slips in along the edges of the uninsulated panel. Sleeping on your back or belly helps, but the bag needs more girth in the insulated top and some means to seal the top to a sleeping pad.

Our conclusion is validated by the ideal modification of the Rab Top Bag done by Alan Dixon, Backpacking Light’s Product Review Director. Alan had the side seams along the bottom panel opened and extra insulated panels sewn in, increasing the bag’s insulated girth. With this modification and a sleeping pad under the bag, he has eliminated cold spots and down compression issues and the bag now has sufficient girth to wear extra clothing inside.

With Rab’s use of top-of-the-line materials and long-term experience with top bags, we expected better performance from the Rab Quantum Top Bag. No instructions were provided on how Rab expected us to use the bag. The problems lie with the design of the uninsulated bottom panel. Although it’s obvious the bag is designed to put a sleeping pad inside the bag, there is simply not enough room inside for a sleeping pad and person. And there is no provision for sealing the insulated top to a sleeping pad underneath.

The Rab Q-Top top bag apparently retains an early design that is not adequate by today’s standards, resulting in mediocre performance compared to other top bags on the market. Our modifications were enough to obtain acceptable performance and illustrate how the Q-top’s performance can be improved by modifying the design. The Rab Quantum Top Bag clearly needs a re-design to efficiently and effectively utilize a sleeping pad for bottom insulation, and it can be done with minimal added weight.

Missing from this review (and for all sleeping bag reviews published here, for that matter) will be an assessment of whether or not the sleeping bag performs adequately at temperatures near its manufacturer-reported temperature rating. Click here for the complete Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings.

Durability

Pertex Quantum does not rank high as a durable fabric, but is more than adequate for this lightweight application. We observed very little down penetration through the shell fabric, and its DWR treatment kept condensation away from the down. Rab’s narrow box wall construction works well to hold down in place; we did not notice any down shifting at all. Used in combination with a groundsheet or tent floor, the bag held up without incident through months of testing. With proper care, the Rab Quantum Top Bag should provide many years of ultralight warmth without failure.

Value

The Rab Quantum Top Bag is a “mixed bag,” so to speak. We love it for its Pertex Quantum shell, high loft down insulation, baffle construction, light weight, and excellent seam work. If we consider materials and construction alone, and compare it to other similar bags from makers like Western Mountaineering and Nunatak, the Q-Top is an exceptional value. However, placing a sleeping pad inside the bag simply does not work, and the oversized bottom (uninsulated) panel creates unacceptable cold spots. Despite the agreeable price (approximately $250 USD) for an 850 fill down bag with a Pertex Quantum shell, the Rab Q-top barely rates an average value due to disappointing design flaws.

Tips and Tricks

Since this bag has no hood, it is important to wear a warm hat or balaclava to keep your head warm. If a buyer were willing to purchase the extra wide bag and modify it to fit a standard sleeping pad attached to the bottom, then the Q-Top would be a functional bag.

Recommendations for Improvement

With top of the line materials and a very competitive price, the Rab Q-Top would be an outstanding bag with a few modifications to the design:

• Size the uninsulated bottom panel to snugly fit a standard 20-inch wide sleeping pad.
• Devise a simple arrangement (such as two to three grosgrain straps) to attach a sleeping pad to the bottom of the bag. Anchoring these straps in the seam between the insulated and uninsulated panels will ensure a better seal against cold spots.
• Increase the insulated girth of the regular cut bag to properly fit an average sized person (assuming bottom attachment of a sleeping pad). This would mean a shoulder girth of around 60 inches. The extra girth bag may need to be increased likewise.
• Offer the Quantum Top Bag in extra long and extra short sizes in addition to extra wide sizes.

Introduction

At 12.7 ounces, the Montane Air Jacket provides the outstanding breathability of eVENT fabric at about the same weight as a conventional polyurethane laminate jacket. It has all the right features, fits very well, and has excellent articulation.

What’s Good

• eVENT fabric
• Lightweight
• Fully seam-taped
• Helmet-compatible hood
• Water-resistant zippers
• Dropped tail

What’s Not So Good

• Heavier than manufacturer specification
• Wire brim on hood

Specifications

Year, Model	2005 Montane Air
Style	Full zip hooded rain jacket
Weight	Size L tested. 12.8 oz (362 g) measured weight, manufacturer’s specification 10 oz (300 g) size L
Shell Fabric	Main shell is three-layer eVENT, consisting of a 20d nylon mini-ripstop face fabric with DWR, the eVENT membrane, and nylon tricot inner fabric, 2.5 oz/yd2 (85 g/m2); side and underarm panels are Freeflow Stretch Lite, consisting of a polyester/lycra face fabric with DWR on the outside and Gelanots GXPR polyurethane laminate on the inside, 4.8 oz/yd2 (163 g/m2)
Features	Taped seams, elastic drawcord hem with 2 adjustors, stow-away hood with dual elastic drawcord front adjustment and Velcro rear adjustment, zippered chest pocket with water-resistant zipper, full height front water-resistant zipper, adjustable elastic/Velcro cuffs, fleece lined collar, dropped tail, reflective dots on cuff and hem
MSRP	$325

Performance

If you haven’t tried an eVENT jacket yet, you don’t know what you’re missing! This jacket breathes so well I can feel a breeze inside. Sometimes it breathes a little too much, but I will get to that later.

Two years ago, eVENT jackets were heavy, weighing over a pound, so breathability came with a weight penalty. Not so today. The Montane Air Jacket is a full-featured rain shell that provides the outstanding breathability of eVENT at about the same weight as a conventional polyurethane laminate rain jacket. That said, I would like to note that the Air Jacket at 12.8 ounces is 2.8 ounces (28 %) higher than Montane’s claimed weight, and 3.1 ounces heavier than the Integral Designs eVENT Rain Jacket in the same size. (For more information on eVENT and other fabric technologies, see the related article in the sidebar on “Waterproof Breathable Fabric Technologies” by Alan Dixon.)

Usable features include: elastic drawcord hem with two adjustors, stow-away hood with dual elastic drawcord front adjustment and Velcro rear adjustment, zippered chest pocket with water-resistant zipper, full height front water-resistant zipper, adjustable elastic/Velcro cuffs, fleece lined collar, and dropped tail. The front zipper is a little stiff, but operates smoothly in a channel provided by an inside storm flap. The large chest pocket has an 8-inch opening.

The Air Jacket’s hood is helmet-compatible. The front has a wire brim that extends out like a ball cap. I found it an annoyance to straighten out the wire brim every time I pulled the jacket out of a pack, but it can be folded under to eliminate the hood extension. There is an elastic drawcord on the front of the hood with two cordlock adjustors. Once the hood is properly adjusted, it can be kept that way, so it doesn’t have to be adjusted every time. There is a Velcro tab on the back of the hood to adjust hood volume. When the hood is not needed or desired, the jacket has a Velcro-secured pocket in the collar for stowing it. Tip: when packing the jacket, it works well to roll it up into its hood.

I especially like the Air Jacket’s fit. In size large (42-inch chest), the jacket is trim, with enough room to layer over a thin insulating jacket. For layering over a puffy down jacket, I recommend going up one size. The sleeves are extra long, so I can easily retract my hands. The tail is dropped 5 inches, giving plenty of coverage for the butt.

Articulation is excellent. The raglan sleeves don’t pull up at all with arms over head or arms crossed. This is credited to side and underarm stretch panels that improve articulation and keep the fit trim so the eVENT fabric can perform to the best of its ability. The panels (made of a less breathable polyurethane-laminate stretch fabric) have most of their stretch on the diagonal, which accommodates movements like bending the elbows, twisting the torso, or leaning to the side.

I wore the Air Jacket while snowshoeing in spring snow showers and backpacking in monsoon-like mountain rains. It is unquestionably waterproof, wind-resistant, and highly breathable. The jacket is fully seam taped, and maintained its waterproofness through a couple of washings. It should be noted that eVENT requires similar maintenance to Gore-Tex, that means keeping it clean and occasionally restoring the surface DWR coating.

When you carry an eVENT jacket, there is no need to also carry a windshirt. The Montane Air Jacket works better in the wind than many windshirts on the market. In fact, sometimes it’s too breathable. Under overcast, cool, breezy conditions I often found it necessary to add a layer under the Air Jacket because it was a little too breezy inside. For me, that was good, because I would rather be too cool than too warm. In variable weather conditions, I found that I could comfortably leave the Air Jacket on much longer than other jackets, but when the sun comes out and it gets decidedly warm and calm, the jacket needs to come off (which you would do anyway). It sure beats the jacket on, jacket off, jacket on routine I’ve found necessary with other rain jackets.

I found the Air Jacket to be the most versatile jacket I have used. It’s much more than a rain jacket. It also doubles as a windshirt and an outer shell layer over an insulating jacket in camp. I have even slept in it to extend the warmth of a 40 °F sleeping bag when the temperature dropped down to freezing.

What’s Unique

Montane really gets it right with the Air Jacket. For a lightweight shell jacket, it has the features I want, is sized perfectly, and is very versatile.

Recommendations for Improvement

I would prefer a foam-stiffened brim instead of a wire brim. The current generation of eVENT fabrics is certainly lighter than the original fabric, but I am looking forward to eVENT shells getting even lighter, and more affordable.

Introduction

The Fire-fly is manufactured by Mo-go-gear and sold exclusively by Gossamer Gear. It comes as a cooking system including a burner, pot stand, heat reflector, windscreen, and fuel measuring cup. Weighing a scant 1.56 ounces for the whole kit, the Fire-fly is one of the lightest cooking systems we have reviewed.

Four of our editors tested the Fire-fly in different regions of the county. Although it’s primarily a solo stove suitable for cooking simple meals, we found that it is fully capable of cooking for two. Except for a few reservations about the pot stand, we found the Fire-fly to be one of the best performing and lightest alcohol stoves we have tested to date.

What’s Good

• Complete cooking system (sans pot)
• Windscreen is adjustable for pot diameter
• Soft temper aluminum windscreen is easy to shape and roll up
• Cooks for 1 or 2 people

What’s Not So Good

• Pot stand is a bit heavy
• Heat reflector is too small for the pot stand
• Pot stand can be tippy

Specifications

Manufacturer	Mo-go-gear
Retailer	Gossamer Gear
Stove	2005 Mo-go-gear Fire-fly Alcohol Stove Kit
Burner	Open jet, aluminum, 2-inches in diameter and 1-inch high
Features	Adjustable windscreen, sturdy 3-inch diameter pot stand, soft temper aluminum windscreen and heat reflector
Weight	1.56 oz measured weight
MSRP	$23

Performance

The Fire-fly uses a mini alcohol burner (2-inches in diameter) with a capacity of 1.25 ounces. The heat reflector and 3-inch x 24-inch windscreen are made of soft temper 36 gauge aluminum, which is the same material that MSR uses for their windscreens, only thinner.

The windscreen is easily adjusted to pot size by expanding it to the desired diameter, then securing it with a paper clip. We tested a variety of pot shapes and sizes (MSR Titan Kettle, Evernew 0.9 liter titanium pot, Snow Peak titanium bowl, and Heinekin and Foster’s 24 ounce beer cans with top removed), and found that it readily accommodates cups and pots up to about 1.5 liters.

The pot stand opens to a 3-inch triangle. All of the testers commented that the pot stand (made of steel rod and brass) is on the heavy side. At 0.7 ounce, it accounts for half the weight of the cooking system.

The Fire-fly’s open jet burner has 8 large jets, each producing a flame about 1.5 inches long. The resulting 5-inch flame pattern is just right for a MSR Titan pot (shown), but a little too wide for a 3.5- inch wide beer can pot. One oddity is the Fire-fly tends to flicker some (individual jets going out, then re-igniting), especially in the wind. This makes me wonder if 12 smaller jets would be better than 8 larger ones, but some experimenting would be needed to find the optimal design.

All of the testers found that the pot stand was basically sturdy, but it required careful placement of a cooking pot on the stand to find the “sweet spot” where it was stable. The tippy pot problems were caused by indentations in the bottom of pots and how the pot was centered on the stand. We had this problem with both narrow and wide pots.

The Fire-fly is targeted as a solo stove, and indeed most of our testers used it for solo-cooking. On several outings with my spouse I cooked for two using the Fire-fly and a MSR 1.5 liter titanium pot, and found that the Fire-fly easily cooks for two.

The Fire-fly does not have any simmering capability, so it is best suited for simple meals using the “boil and set” method where you boil water, add your food, bring it back to boiling, let it stand 10 minutes, and eat.

The Fire-fly scored well in our traditional stove performance tests (see table below). Its boil time under optimal conditions (1 pint of 70 °F water) was 7:54, almost dead on with the manufacturer’s claim of 8 minutes. Fuel consumption to boil 1 pint of water was 0.38 ounce (10.9 grams), which ranked third out of 22 alcohol stoves tested to date. Only the Ion Stove at 10.4 grams and the Advanced Mountain Products Alumilite stove at 10.8 grams had lower fuel consumption. This is essentially a three-way tie for first place. The average fuel consumption of all stoves tested is 15.2 grams. Note that fuel consumption is increased about 20% in cold conditions and about 200%(doubled) in windy conditions.

Stove Performance Test Results (Optimal Conditions)

	Boil Time min:sec	Fuel Consumption oz (g)
Fire-fly	7:54	0.38 (10.9)
Average of all Stoves Tested	6:38	0.54 (15.2)

What’s Unique

The Fire-fly stove gets it mostly right. Most of the other alcohol stoves we reviewed are too heavy, too big, not adjustable for pot size, not a complete cooking system, or have extended boil times or low fuel efficiency. The Fire-fly is lightweight at 1.56 ounces, is a complete cooking system (sans pot), has a great windscreen that’s adjustable for pot size, has a reasonable boil time, and has excellent fuel efficiency.

Recommendations for Improvement

One reservation about this stove is the weighty and tippy pot stand. Indeed, it is a clever design and sturdy, but at 0.7 ounce it accounts for half the weight of the stove. Perhaps a thinner gauge titanium rod could be substituted for the steel rod. It would also be nice if the heat reflector were round instead of rectangular, and a little larger in diameter. Finally, the burner’s tendency to flicker might be corrected by experimenting with jet size and number.

Introduction

Montane calls the 180 “the world’s lightest weight fully waterproof and breathable outdoor shirt.” Well, almost, and it’s a pullover by our terminology. It’s very light, but not spartan, and perhaps it has a few too many weighty features for a minimalist pullover. I found it to be waterproof, and surprisingly breathable and dry inside for a polyurethane laminate shell.

What’s Good

• Very lightweight
• Fully seam-taped
• Good fitting hood
• Half-height front opening
• Water-resistant zippers
• Dropped tail

What’s Not So Good

• Heavier than manufacturer specification
• Wire brim on hood
• Too many weighty features for a minimalist pullover

Specifications

Year, Model	2005 Montane 180
Style	Half-zip pullover rain shell
Weight	Size L tested. 7.1 oz (201 g) measured weight, manufacturer’s specification 6 oz (180 g) size L
Shell Fabric	Freeflow Lite, consisting of a 20d nylon ripstop face fabric with Teflon DWR on the outside and Gelanots GXPR polyurethane laminate on the inside, 1.7 oz/yd2 (57 g/m2)
Features	Taped seams, elastic drawcord hem with 1 adjustor, stow-away hood with dual elastic drawcord front adjustment and Velcro rear adjustment, zippered chest pocket with water-resistant zipper, half height front opening with water-resistant zipper, elastic cuffs, fleece-lined collar, dropped tail, reflective dots on cuffs
MSRP	$166.50

Performance

Montane calls the 180 a “waterproof/breathable outdoor shirt.” By our terminology, it’s a pullover. At 7.1 ounces in size large, the Montane 180 is very lightweight, but it’s not spartan. Features include a stow-away hood with two drawcord adjustors and wire brim, fleece collar, elastic drawcord hem, a chest pocket, water-resistant zippers, and a dropped tail.

In the world of minimum weight rainwear, there are marketing advantages to holding the title for the lightest rain shell available. Montane lists the weight of the 180 as 6 ounces in size large, but its actual weight is 7.1 ounces (18% above the specification). So, who holds the lightweight crown for the lightest woven nylon waterproof/breathable rain shell available? The 180’s closest competition, the Patagonia Specter Pullover, weighs 6.9 ounces. Patagonia wins by a fraction of an ounce.

It’s essentially a tie for all practical purposes, and Montane could have won if they held back a little on extra features (read on below). The honor will be short-lived because Sierra Designs will be introducing shells made of their new Nanolite super lightweight fabric in 2006. Their Isotope Jacket reportedly will weigh 4.3 ounces in size large (see related Outdoor Retailer dispatch in the sidebar).

The 180 is a bit of a contradiction. On the one hand Montane pushes the lightweight threshold with the pullover, but on the other hand they load it with weight-adding features. A pullover is normally a minimalist rain shell. From our perspective, the market for this shell is pragmatic outdoor enthusiasts who prefer to keep it simple, functional, and light. That would mean a pullover with the basic “essentials” like a hood, chest pocket, and water-resistant zippers. The extra features, like the dual drawcord adjustors and wire brim on the hood, stow-away hood flap, and fleece collar could all be eliminated to reduce weight, or traded for a full-height zipper.

One feature I can easily live without is the hood’s wire brim. It was an annoyance to straighten it every time I pulled the shell out of a pack. The hood drawcord adjustors could be replaced by a simple elasticized hem. The Velcro tab on the back of the hood is very light and effective for adjusting hood volume.

Montane Freeflow Lite fabric is a 20-denier nylon face fabric with Teflon DWR on the outside and a Gelanots GXPR polyurethane laminate on the inside. The laminate has a thin silk protein coating which is hydrophilic, and claimed to absorb excess condensation during strenuous activity, making the jacket effectively dryer inside. Gelanots GXPR is one of the latest iterations of polyurethane-only technology. It is waterproof, but breathability is limited by the fabric technology (see Alan Dixon’s technical article in the sidebar on “Waterproof Breathable Fabric Technologies”).

The only ventilation options on the 180 are the half-height front opening and bottom hem. The latter is sealed off by a pack hipbelt, so ventilation is limited to the front opening and the fabric itself. There are no pit zips or core vents to provide supplementary ventilation.

I wore the Montane 180 while backpacking in numerous mountain showers, and found it surprisingly comfortable to wear under moderate exertion levels in rainy, overcast, windy, or cool conditions. The hydrophilic silk protein coating on the laminate really works to absorb moisture inside the shell, up to a point. On one occasion I wore the 180 on an 800-foot climb up a mountainside in rainy 50 °F conditions, leaving the front unzipped for maximum ventilation. It stayed dry and comfortable for most of the ascent, but my shirt was damp at the top.

The 180 also works well as a windshirt. In the wind, I can actually feel some air circulation inside the shell. However, in variable weather when the sun comes out or the wind stops, the jacket has to come off. The 180 works well for its intended purpose (rain, wind), but it is still polyurethane laminate technology with limited breathability, and the pullover has minimal ventilation options. It does not have the breathability and extended comfort range of an eVENT jacket.

For a size large (42 inch chest), the 180 fits trim. The raglan sleeves are long enough for my 34-inch arms, but don’t allow me to completely withdraw my hands. Articulation is good, with only a small amount of sleeve pull with crossed arms or arms over the head. The 5-inch dropped tail provides good coverage for my butt, and the hem drawcord actually lets it wrap around my butt. Its 14-inch front opening is half-height, making it easy to put on. The hood is roomy and covers the head and sides of the face well.

I found that the Montane 180 will layer over a thin synthetic insulating jacket without being too tight, but it is snug over a puffy down jacket. For layering over heavier insulation, it would be better to go up one size.

Because of its 5-inch dropped tail, the Montane 180 rain shell can be used with weight saving rain chaps rather than rain pants. The shell covers the tops of the chaps in back, and although it does not quite cover them in front, it does a good job of deflecting most of the water away.

The 180’s water-resistant zippers glide easily, but the unstiffened storm flap behind the front zipper frequently gets caught in the zipper. It helps a lot to hold the zipper straight with one hand and pull the slider with the other. The chest pocket has a 6-inch zipper, and is big enough to hold a folded topo map and more.

What’s Unique

The Montane 180 extends the limits of polyurethane-laminate rainwear, both in light weight and functionality.

Recommendations for Improvement

Make the 180 a truly lightweight minimalist shell, by eliminating “nice to have” features like the stow-away hood feature, wire brim, and front drawcord adjustors.