Articles (2020)

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.

Introduction

A good way to shed weight (and improve ventilation) for summertime backpacking is to go to a poncho/tarp plus rain chaps rainwear system. The combination doubles as both rainwear (including pack cover) and shelter. Oware rain chaps are available in Gore-Tex or silnylon versions. The Gore-Tex version reviewed here is well designed, strongly constructed, and really durable.

What’s Good

• Waterproof and breathable
• Adjustable length
• Can be pulled on over boots
• Cuff can function as a gaiter
• Very durable

What’s Not So Good

• Butt and crotch are exposed when worn with a rain jacket
• Cuff cordlocks on the inside rub against each other
• Heavy compared to alternative waterproof/breathable fabrics
• One size fits only taller hikers

Specifications

Year, Model	2005 Oware Gore-Tex Rain Chaps
Weight	One size, 5.9 oz (167 g) as measured; manufacturer’s specification 6 oz (170 g)
Shell Fabric	2.5-layer Gore-Tex PTFE laminate
Features	Tie cord attachment, elastic drawcord with cordlock in cuffs, tabs at cuff to make them function as gaiters using an instep cord (not included)
MSRP	$49

Performance

The Oware Gore-Tex Rain Chaps are made of 2.5-layer PTFE laminate and weigh 5.9 ounces (the silnylon version weighs 3 ounces). The obvious advantages are they are waterproof and breathable, and they are very durable for bushwhacking conditions. The chaps are nicely designed and strongly constructed. The vertical seam inside the chaps is flat-felled, and all stress points are solidly reinforced.

The top attachment is a shoelace that ties to a belt loop. The shoelace can be tied long to lengthen the chaps. If your hiking pants do not have belt loops a large safety pin will work.

The 11-inch wide cuffs provide ample room to don and doff the chaps over boots, even my 11.5 EEEE clunkers. The cuff hem has an elastic drawcord and small cordlock to snug them at the ankle. A really nice feature is two webbing loops on the cuffs for adding an instep cord (not included) to make the chaps function as gaiters.

Unfortunately, different sizes are not available, so these chaps fit only taller people. The inseam on the chaps is 30 inches. For me (6’ tall, 32-inch inseam), the chaps tied tight to a belt loop fully covered the tops of my boots.

I wore the Oware Gore-Tex Chaps in different rainwear systems, and found them to work best with a poncho/tarp. A rain jacket with extended tail covered the back of the chaps well when I was standing up, but I got a wet butt when sitting down or bending over. The front of most rain jackets is not long enough to cover the tops of the chaps, which leaves the crotch area exposed to rain.

Tramping down a wet trail in the rain or plowing through wet vegetation, the Oware Gore-Tex Chaps provided excellent rain protection for my legs. They were a bit clammy when worn over shorts, but provided quite a bit of warmth. The roomy leg openings created somewhat of a chimney effect, which was supplemented by some air pumping to provide decent ventilation inside the chaps. The breathability added from the Gore-Tex fabric was noticeable, but not dramatic. Overall, the Gore-Tex chaps functioned significantly better than conventional Gore-Tex rain pants because of the open crotch and air pumping effect. In variable weather, I found that I could leave the Gore-Tex rain chaps on longer than non-breathable silnylon chaps during in-between sunny periods. But the bottom line was – when the rain, overcast, and wind ended, the chaps got too warm to hike in and had to come off.

The Gore-Tex rain chaps weigh twice as much as silnylon rain chaps, and weigh about 1.5 ounces more than the GoLite Reed rain pants. There are several pros and cons to this. On the one hand they are more breathable and more durable for bushwhacking, but on the other hand they are heavier. Removing the elastic cords in the cuffs reduces the overall weight slightly. Most hikers who go to a poncho/tarp and rain chaps rainwear system want both lightweight and performance, so a good option would be to offer Gore-Tex Packlite, or eVENT rain chaps (hint-hint!).

What’s Unique

The Oware Gore-Tex Rain Chaps are very durable and well suited for bushwhacking or fieldwork that requires a more durable fabric.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Oware Gore-Tex Rain Chaps are well designed and strongly constructed. One nitpick would be to move the cordlocks on the cuffs to the outside so they don’t rub against each other. I suggest offering the chaps in a lighter Gore-Tex Packlite or eVENT fabric to save some weight and increase breathability.

Introduction

If it rains where you live, the Outdoor Research Seattle Sombrero is a classic hat to shield your noggin from the weather. Its Taslan Gore-Tex shell is waterproof, breathable, and wrinkle-resistant. I stuffed it in my pack and put it on many times with minimum straightening.

What’s Good

• Waterproof and breathable
• Lightweight
• Adjustable
• Wrinkle-resistant
• Durable

What’s Not So Good

• Too hot to wear in sunny, warm weather

Specifications

Year Model	2005 Outdoor Research Seattle Sombrero
Weight	3.1 oz (88 g) as measured (size M); manufacturer’s specification 4 oz (113 g) size L;
Shell Fabric	Taslan Gore-Tex® crown, brushed tricot interior
Features	Foam-stiffened brim, hook and loop tabs on the brim and dome allow the sides to be flipped up, removable chin cord, internal hook and loop cinch-band adjustment
MSRP	$46

Performance

The question in my mind when I started testing the Outdoor Research Seattle Sombrero was “is it just a rain hat, or would it make a good all-around hiking hat.” The short answer is that it’s very functional and comfortable in cool, overcast, rainy, snowy, or windy weather, but (for me) it’s too hot to wear in sunny and warm weather.

The OR Seattle Sombrero is very well designed and constructed. The outer shell is a Taslan Gore-Tex waterproof/breathable fabric that has a soft feel on the outside, and is fully seam taped on the underside. The inside lining is brushed tricot, which feels like micro-fleece and provides some warmth while helping to wick away perspiration. Inside the back of the hat there is a hook and loop cinch-band to fine-tune the sizing. The chin cord is removable, but I found it indispensable in keeping the hat on in blustery weather.

As a cool and inclement weather hat, the OR Seattle Sombrero is really in its element. I wore it in mountain thunderstorms and even in an early September snow shower, and found it provided excellent protection from the elements. The foam-stiffened 3-inch brim (3.5 inches in the back) directed water away from my head, so it didn’t run down my neck or get my glasses wet. The chin strap was very effective to hold it on in wind gusts. The side Velcro tabs are very handy to hold the brim up when you want it out of the way.

I found the Seattle Sombrero to be very durable and built to last. I repeatedly stuffed it in my backpack, then pulled it out and put it on with a minimum of straightening. The Taslan Gore-Tex fabric is wrinkle-resistant and the foam brim does not develop permanent kinks.

Overall, the OR Seattle Sombrero is a great choice for an inclement weather hat. In areas where cool rainy weather is common, this is a great hiking hat to shed the rain and keep your head warm. It is well designed, made of very functional and durable fabrics, and very well constructed. OR packs a heck of a lot of functionality into this 3.1-ounce hat.

What’s Unique

The OR Seattle Sombrero is a classic. The design, choice of materials, and construction are highly refined.

Recommendations for Improvement

Consider making an eVENT version for greater breathability.

Overview

The Exped Wallcreeper is a comfortable three-season sleeping bag with a narrow-cut hood, zippered draft tube-protected armholes, full two-way front zip and a foot section that can be opened fully converting it into a hooded down vest. The Wallcreeper weighs 32.9 ounces (933 g), which is heavy for a lightweight down bag rated to freezing, but it recovers some of that weight through dual use as a vest.

In Brief

• Down bag with arm holes that can be used as an insulated vest
• Full-length front zipper
• Multi-adjustable jacket-like hood
• Lightweight and comfortable
• Foot section that can be opened fully
• Hand warmer pockets

Specifications:

Manufacturer	Exped
Model	Wallcreeper (Down)
Type	Wearable bag
Sizes	Medium (tested) fits to 5’11” (1.80 m); Large fits to 6’11” (2.15 m)
Girth	Shoulder/Hip/Foot 59/51/51 in (150/130/130 cm)
Weight	Backpacking Light measured 32.9 oz (933 g); Manufacturer specifies 31 oz (880 g)
Stuffed Size	Backpacking Light Measured for Medium bag 10.5″x7″x6″ (27x17x15 cm); Manufacturer specifies 9.5″ x 6.5″ diameter (24.1×16.5 cm diameter)
Fill Type	700 fill power goose down
Fill Weight	13 oz (360 g)
Loft	Backpacking Light measured single layer loft 1.5 in (3.8 cm)
Manufacturer’s Rating	Comfort Rating 32 °F (0 °C); Extreme Rating 23 °F (-5 °F)
Outer And Liner Material	Outer: Pertex Quantum Shield ripstop nylon. Liner: Texped PR 53 Microfibre ripstop polyester.
Hood	Yes
Zipper	Full-length front zip
Model Year	2004
MSRP	$219

Features

Exped’s selling point for the Wallcreeper is its versatility. It features draft tube insulated armholes, hand-warmer pockets, multi-adjustable hood, and a cinch cord on the foot section that allows you to open the foot of the sleeping bag.

Hood

The hood on the Exped Wallcreeper is similar to a well-fitting hood on an insulated jacket. Unlike hoods on most sleeping bags, it begins 8 inches in from the shoulders of the bag giving the hood a narrow fit. The hood can be easily adjusted using both the usual drawcords near the chin and a rear elastic cinch that brings in the sides of the hood for better peripheral vision and articulation. The hood folds back nicely when it is not needed. Surrounding the base of the hood is a relatively large draft tube/collar that can be kept shut to keep winds at bay using the parallel rows of Velcro on either side of the front zipper.

While the hood is more like those found on jackets it was in no way restrictive while sleeping. With its smaller size, the interior seemed to warm more quickly than conventional hoods. As a result, on warmer nights I often slept without using the hood to keep cooler. The smaller fit of the hood kept it in place on my head – and off my face – when turning over while sleeping.

Armholes

On either side of the bag there are 12.5 inch long armholes that can be zipped shut when the Wallcreeper is used as a sleeping bag or left open when the bag is used as a jacket or for lounging around camp. They can also be used for added ventilation on warm nights. The armholes have small interior draft tubes that are reinforced on the zipper side with more durable fabric.

The zippers themselves have pulls on both the interior and exterior of the bag, allowing the armholes to be opened from either inside or outside of the bag. Opening or closing the armholes from inside the bag was problematic. While the small draft tubes are reinforced near the zipper the fabric does not provide enough rigidity to keep them from getting stuck repeatedly in the zipper. Only by opening and closing the armholes from the outside, allowing the zipper to be pulled away from the draft tubes, could they be reliably closed.

Handwarmer Pockets

Reinforcing the image of the Exped Wallcreeper as a multipurpose insulation layer are the handwarmer pockets found on the front of the bag on either side of the center zipper. These insulated pockets measure approximately 8.5 inches by 6 inches and have a 6 inch angled opening at the top that can be kept shut by folding over an exterior draft tube. According to Exped these pockets can be used either to keep your hands warm when the bag is being used as a jacket or to keep small personal belongings close while sleeping.

While around camp the pockets were a nice addition at times. Because the Wallcreeper must be doubled-up to be used as a jacket, it was sometimes too bulky to comfortably use the pockets. When the bag isn’t folded, but left full-length, the pockets are much more accessible.

Zipper

Exped uses #5 YKK zippers throughout. The zipper on the Wallcreeper is a full-length front zipper that separates completely at the foot to allow the bag to be opened. The cord lock divides into two sections also. A small draft tube follows the zipper its full length with the end nearest the chin folded over the zipper to prevent pinching. The draft tube is reinforced with more durable fabric near the zipper. This reinforcement is necessary because of the ease at which the draft tube snags in the zipper. As with the armholes, the zipper has pulls on both the interior and exterior of the bag and it was easier to close the bag from the outside in order to avoid the draft tube. The top exterior pull has a glowing toggle attached.

Performance

I tested the Exped Wallcreeper in various conditions in the mountains and coastal areas of Oregon and Washington. It was comfortable in a wide range of temperatures and conditions.

Opening the armholes and the foot of the bag allowed for excellent ventilation. I usually sleep quite warm and even when the temperatures dipped to freezing I never felt the need to add any insulating garments. The cut of the bag is generous enough to allow insulated clothing to be worn.

The bulk of the bag and its limited water repellency restrict its use as a jacket. The process for converting the bag to a jacket is awkward and having the drawcord tight around my waist or chest was a little uncomfortable. It was easier for me to bring a lightweight insulation layer to wear for moving around camp. Exped uses ripstop nylon with a DWR finish for the Wallcreeper, but even with a light mist, the fabric became damp. In the US Northwest this could be problematic. Exped does offer a synthetic version of the Wallcreeper to counter this problem.

The ability to open the foot box of the bag along with the two-way zipper made it easier to comfortably get out of the tent during the night or in the morning. I could lounge around camp a little in the morning with the bag in its full-length position.

Finally, I always carry a book on backpacking trips. It is my one allowance for luxury weight in my pack. Seemingly a small comfort, the armholes allowed for me to remain comfortably in my bag on cooler nights and still get in some good reading time.

For most three-season trips – even with the limited use of the jacket function – the versatility, ventilation, and comfort of the Wallcreeper have made it my first choice out the arsenal of sleeping bags that I own.

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

The shell fabric has proved adequate and the draft tube has no signs of zipper damage despite numerous snags.

After the first use, the seam along the side of the bag began to come loose, creating a one-inch hole where down was able to leak out. A small piece of duct tape fixed the problem and I have not had any further issues, though I have noticed some loosening of seams on other sections of the bag.

Value

The Exped Wallcreeper is a very comfortable down sleeping bag, but even with dual use capability as an in-camp vest, it is still heavy by lightweight standards. The zipper and shell fabric are quality, fabric durability is adequate, but seam quality is sub par making this bag only a fair value.

Recommendations for Improvement

The changes I would like to see in this bag are:

• Stiffening of the draft tubes to reduce snagging of material in the zippers.
• Improved durability of all seams.
• Increased water repellency.

Overview

Publisher’s Note: Variable girth bags have long been a part of BackpackingLight.com’s history. The variable girth concept was the subject of BPL’s very first editorial that was released prior to the launch of the site, way back in April 2001, before any variable girth bags were made available on the commercial market. We acknowledge BackpackingLight.com subscriber Don “Photon” Johnston, who was as instrumental as any individual in bringing the variable girth concept to market. Read more information about the history of the arc cross section variable girth design.

At just 14.9 ounces for a size long, the Nunatak Arc Ghost is among the lightest 32 °F (0 °C) rated bags on the market. It achieves this light weight through its simple, effective design: it features a closed foot box but an open, zipperless back. The back can be closed with two adjustable straps and a snap-closed neck with cinch cord, or it can be left open and used as a blanket. Not just lightweight, this “Variable Girth” design increases versatility, allowing the bag to be used within a wide temperature range by adjusting its circumference. A warm hat, hood, or balaclava is needed in colder temperatures as no hood is provided with the bag. The Arc Ghost is an innovative and well-constructed bag that is a good value, especially when considering its weight and versatility.

In Brief

• Extremely light at 14.9 ounces (423 g) for size large
• A lighter weight and narrower version of the Arc Alpinist
• Warm enough for cooler temperatures when using a warm hat and extra clothing
• Two body straps and a neck snap and cinch secure the bag to your body
• Variable girth, can be cinched tight or unclipped and used as a quilt
• Foot box is warm but a snug fit
• Open back takes some getting used to, but is effective when sleeping stretched out on your back or stomach

Specifications

Manufacturer	Nunatak
Model	Arc Ghost
Type	Top bag
Sizes Size large tested	Small fits up to 5’4″ (163 cm), Medium fits up to 5’10” (178 cm), and Large fits up to 6’4″ (193 cm)
Girth Size large tested	Backpacking Light measurement in (cm) Manufacturer specification in (cm) Shoulder girth variable 44–62 (112–157) 46 (117) Hip girth variable 42–52 (107–132) 43 (109) Foot girth 34 (86) 34 (86)
Weight	Backpacking Light measurement 14.9 oz (423 g) size large; Manufacturer specifies 16 oz (454 g)
Fill Type	800+ fill power goose down
Fill Weight	9 oz (255 g) size Large (tested), 8 oz (227 g) size Medium, 7 oz (198 g) size Small
Loft	Backpacking Light measured single layer loft 2.25 inches (5.7 cm)
Manufacturer’s Rating	32 °F (0 °C)
Outer And Liner Material	0.85 oz/yd2 nylon with Teflon DWR
Hood	No
Zipper	No (two adjustable straps and snap with cinch at neck)
Model Year	2005
MSRP	$278 (small), $307 (medium), $340 (large)

Features

The Nunatak Arc Ghost is a simple, effective, and extremely lightweight (14.9 ounces for size long) solution to sleeping in temperatures above freezing. It is a zipperless bag that has a closed foot box and an open body that insulates on the top and sides. During warm temperatures, the bag can be draped over you like a quilt. When the temperature gets colder the sides of the bag tuck underneath your body and two body straps cinch to secure the bag beneath you. This “Variable Girth” system allows you to adjust the circumference of the bag based on temperature or the amount of clothing worn inside the bag. The neck of the Arc Ghost closes with a snap and has an elastic drawstring at the center. It does not have a hood so a warm hat or balaclava is necessary in colder temperatures (Nunatak also has a separate Down Balaclava available for full head and neck coverage).

The Arc Ghost is sufficiently sized to fully wrap over my broad shoulders and the bag comes together at the back with about a 6 inch uninsulated gap with the straps fully tightened. It is designed to be used on top of a sleeping pad, unlike the Western Mountaineering Pod bags, which attach to the pad with straps, allowing the Nunatak bag to be closed almost completely. (While it is possible to attach the straps beneath a pad, this option is not as warm.)

Sleeping in the Nunatak Arc Ghost takes some getting used to. Rolling over as you might in a traditional bag exposes your back to the cold air. However, I quickly learned to hold the bag in place when rolling over to keep the bag from shifting with my body and it soon became second nature. While the bag works best for back sleepers, I am typically a stomach sleeper and the bag worked fine in this position as well. When sleeping on your side, it’s difficult to keep the sides of the bag properly tucked under your body.

I never missed not having a zipper on the Arc Ghost; the strap system was easy to adjust and I had no problem getting into and out of the bag. If things got warm or I needed to get up quickly, releasing one snap and two small quick release buckles were all it took to open the bag completely. The two straps and top snap do a good job of keeping the bag evenly pulled under your body. However, there were times that gaps formed, especially when curled up. The main problem area was in the upper back between the top strap and the neck snap (a 29″ space in size L). A third cinch strap would add a little weight but would help to avoid gaps for active sleepers like myself – especially in this larger size.

The bag is cut trim for a high degree of heating efficiency per ounce but there is sufficient room for me to wear insulated clothing inside and still have full coverage over my sides and shoulders.

Performance

In the field, the Nunatak Arc Ghost provides a similar level of comfort to other bags with a comparable manufacturer’s temperature rating. However, it is difficult to fully turn over inside the bag without letting some cold air in. This bag is much better for back or stomach sleepers; those that sleep curled up on their sides may have a difficult time avoiding gaps under the body.

Without a hood, the Arc Ghost relies heavily on choice of headwear for warmth in colder weather. On one night when temperatures approached freezing (the bag’s temperature rating), I slept cold because I only had a thin fleece cap. On later trips, using a warmer hat in similar conditions made the bag much more comfortable to use; a warm down or synthetic hat that fastens underneath the chin or a balaclava are essential when pushing this bag to its limit. A lightweight bivy also helps control drafts, increasing the bag’s versatility. When the weather is warm, however, the hat and bivy can be left at home and you can sleep comfortably with the bag simply draped over your body. With the right combination of accessories for the conditions, I found the Nunatak Arc Ghost to be quite comfortable in a wide range of weather conditions. It is also among the lightest bags available at this temperature range.

The Nunatak Arc Ghost is constructed with rectangular baffles that are well-filled with 800+ fill power goose down and provide 2.25 inches of loft on the top. I experienced no problems with down shifting in the baffles during testing.

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

The Arc Ghost is a custom bag that is available in three different fabrics, a variety of colors, with overfill, or any other modifications you like (for an additional expense, of course.) The bag I tested used the 0.85 oz/yd² nylon with Teflon DWR coating, which is the lightest fabric option available. Despite its weight, the fabric showed no wear during testing and only passed a couple of feathers. The DWR coating shed water easily and wasn’t affected by many nights on the trail. Craftsmanship on the bag is excellent with seams folded in along the exterior edges for extra durability. The thin strap buckles did not break when stepping on them and with no zipper to jam, this bag should prove to be very reliable.

Value

This is an extremely light bag that is well constructed and has good loft. At $259, $283, and $307 for size small, medium, and long, respectively, the Nunatak bag is not cheap but is competitive with other manufacturers. When you consider the versatility of the bag, it is a solid value.

Recommendations for Improvement

The changes I would like to see in the bag are:

• A third strap added to the bag, at least in the size long (this is available as a custom option)
• A lighter weight and less expensive hat/hood option for three-season use (the Nunatak Down Balaclava weighs 3 ounces and costs $99)

Overview

Hammocks can be a wonderfully comfortable way to sleep while backpacking. When sleeping on the ground, a pad provides cushioning from the ground and also insulation under the sleeper. Cushioning is not required in a hammock for comfort, but some type of insulation is, in all but the very warmest conditions. In fact, more insulation is required under a sleeper in a hammock than on the ground largely because of convective heat loss from the exposed hammock bottom.

The Speer PeaPod is an innovative way to provide insulation under a hammock sleeper. It is large enough to completely surround the hammock and, with the aid of attached Velcro strips that run the length of the PeaPod, it can be completely closed over the top of the hammock and sleeper (but leave an opening above your face). Both ends have a drawcord and toggle so they can be cinched closed once the PeaPod is in place around the hammock. Since insulation is under the hammock, it is not compressed by the weight of the sleeper. The PeaPod is very comfortable to sleep in as opposed to sleeping on a foam pad inside the hammock (which can be hard to adjust underneath you). The PeaPod is a dual use item – it can also be worn for in-camp insulation.

I tested the Speer PeaPod along with a companion piece, the Speer Top Blanket, with the Speer 8.0 A Hammock in Washington, Arizona, and Utah. Conditions included rain and wind, as well as cold, clear nights. Sleeping temperatures ranged from 65 to 20 °F. The Hammock, PeaPod, and Top Blanket are sold separately but are designed as a system. The hammock is used by itself in very warm weather. The PeaPod is added as the weather cools. As it gets even cooler, the Top Blanket is added as a quilt inside the hammock. When more insulation is needed, the Top Blanket can be used under the hammock and inside the PeaPod either in a single layer or doubled for more loft. Another Top Blanket, quilt, or sleeping bag of the appropriate rating is used on top of the sleeper.

The Top Blanket is a simple, 1-pound (0.45 kg), very reasonably priced down blanket. Velcro strips at the end of the Top Blanket can be closed to create a generous sized foot box when the Top Blanket is used as a quilt.

In Brief

• The PeaPod fits over a hammock leaving an uncluttered and comfortable sleeping surface (the hammock itself).
• The PeaPod is relatively easy to add to the hammock after it has been set up.
• The PeaPod insulation is not compressed under a sleeper since it is beneath the hammock.
• The PeaPod can be worn in camp for warmth.
• Extra insulation can be added under the sleeper by simply sliding it into the PeaPod.
• The Top Blanket can be used over the sleeper as a quilt or beneath the hammock and inside the PeaPod as under insulation.
• The Top Blanket is a warm, weight saver in a hammock, at just the right width for hammock use.

Specifications

Manufacturer	Speer Hammocks
Model	PeaPod for Speer 8.0 hammock and Top Bag, both with 700+ fill power down
Type	PeaPod: oversize rectangular blanket with full length Velcro side closure and foot and head drawstrings; Top Blanket: rectangular blanket with Velcro closed foot box
Dimensions	PeaPod Top Blanket Backpacking Light measured 9′ x 5’6.5″ (274 x169 cm) 6’8″ x 3’6″ (203 x 107 cm) Manufacturer claim 9′ x 6′ (274 x 183 cm) 6′ x 3’6″ (183 x 107 cm) Note: The ends of the PeaPod taper to 3′ 10″ (117 cm) wide
Weight	PeaPod Top Blanket Backpacking Light scale 1 lb 13.2 oz  (828 g) 14.5 oz (411 g) Manufacturer claim 1 lb 12 oz (794 g) 16 oz (454 g)
Fill Type	700+ fill power goose down, sewn through box construction
Loft	PeaPod Top Blanket Backpacking Light measured 1.3 (3.3) top 2.0 (5.1) bottom 1.9 (4.8) Manufacturer claim 1 (2.5) top 1.5 (3.8) bottom 1.5 (3.8) Note: Baffles are sewn through; loft measurement is for the center of the baffle. The Top Blanket baffles are 8 inches by 13.5 inches. PeaPod baffle length is 10 inches and width is 9, 7.5, or 6 inches to match the taper of the PeaPod towards its ends.
Manufacturer’s Rating	45 °F (7 °C) rating for both PeaPod and Top Blanket
Fabric	1.1 oz/yd2 (37 g/m2) ripstop nylon with DWR
Options	Also available to fit the longer Speer 8.5 hammock. Down overstuffing is available, as well as 900 fill power down with baffles.
Model Year	2004
MSRP	700 fill power down $ 900 fill power down, baffles $ PeaPod For Speer 8.0 hammock 235 315 For Speer 8.5 hammock 250 335 Top Blanket 109 199

Features

The PeaPod design is well thought out and functional. It is relatively easy to install once the hammock is strung, although more care is required when the ground is wet or snow covered so that the PeaPod doesn’t drag on the ground. Both edges of the Speer hammock have Velcro “loop” strips while the PeaPod has a loop strip on one side and a hook strip on the other so the two sides can be attached to each other. The side of the PeaPod with hook Velcro can be temporarily “tacked” to the loop Velcro strip of the Speer hammock to hold it in place while arranging the PeaPod over the hammock. But the other side of the PeaPod hangs free. It would aid setup over wet ground if some method of temporarily fastening the loop Velcro side of the PeaPod to the hammock were available. A small loop of cord sewn to the center edge of each side of the hammock and corresponding buttons or hooks on the PeaPod edges would do the trick, or a patch of hook Velcro could be sewn to each side of the hammock.

The hammock is easy to enter and exit with the PeaPod installed. Simply separate a section of Velcro and either sit down into the hammock to enter or swing your legs out to exit.

The PeaPod hangs below the hammock bottom so the hammock must be hung high enough that the bottom of the PeaPod doesn’t drag on the ground. With extra insulation in the PeaPod, it hangs a little lower and hammock height must be adjusted accordingly. When I camped at 8000 feet on snow at Doyle Saddle in the Flagstaff Peaks of Arizona, I had two layers of insulation in the PeaPod – the Top Blanket and a down sleeping bag liner. The button and loop idea from above would have come in handy to quickly secure the sides of the PeaPod to the hammock sides to keep the loaded PeaPod from dragging on the snow upon entry and exit.

The PeaPod can easily be used on the ground as a sleeping bag. It is long enough that the top can be pulled over the user’s head to form a hood. The Velcro can be left open to form a face hole – but watch out for the scratchy Velcro. I wore the PeaPod around camp in various configurations. My favorite was with one end cinched under my armpits with the drawcord tied to hold it in place, and the other end turned inside out and brought up to my neck and secured. Almost full body coverage with two layers of material, some neck warmth, yet I was still able to use my hands through the front opening.

Performance

The PeaPod and Top Blanket I tested both have 700 fill power down in a sewn through box construction. I measured the loft of both items at the highest point in the center of several baffles and averaged the results. In each case (Top Blanket, bottom of PeaPod, top of PeaPod), I measured a higher loft than Speer claims. Since the baffles are sewn through and not overstuffed, Speer’s claims of 1.5 inch loft for the Top Blanket and bottom of the PeaPod, and 1.0 inch loft for the top of the PeaPod provide more conservative estimates for comparing these items to other sleeping quilts and bags. The Top Blanket I tested weighed 14.5 ounces, 1.5 ounces less than claimed. I would have liked to see that extra ounce and a half as fill, since some baffles appeared to have slightly less down than other baffles. Speer offers overfill to prevent down shifting and also the option of 900 fill power down with baffles for more loft.

The drawcord ends and Velcro along the top of the PeaPod effectively seal in warmth. Since the PeaPod closes above the hammock sides, there is an air gap between the sleeper and the PeaPod. I felt cozier with that gap filled by something such as the Top Blanket. As advised by Speer, I left an opening in the Velcro along the top of the PeaPod for my face. I normally sleep with a sleeping bag hood snugged around my face, so this open gap took some getting used to. However, I found I was comfortably warm with the PeaPod/Top Blanket combination wearing the same headgear I would have worn in a hooded sleeping bag.

The Top Blanket is a wonderful quilt for hammock use. It doesn’t waste weight with unneeded width, and it is nice and puffy. The foot pocket keeps my feet covered all night, and the blanket is wide enough to tuck in along my sides and stay there even with frequent turning from side to side. Speer says that the Top Blanket is not intended for on-the-ground sleeping, but I tried it anyway as a lightweight option. The Top Blanket is quite narrow and must be adjusted throughout the night to keep it tucked in at the sides. Still, it made a nice 60 °F quilt under a tarp.

The PeaPod and Top Blanket have ripstop 1.1 oz/yd² nylon shells with DWR treatment. Additionally, the PeaPod can be closed along its entire length with Velcro and both ends can be closed snuggly with drawcord and cord lock. The shell material is highly wind resistant and water resistant. I never felt a draft inside the PeaPod even in winds gusting to 25 mph. Water left in a puddle on the shell did not wet out the fabric or soak into it after an hour. After a very still, 20 °F night in the PeaPod, frost covered the shell, but the loft was unaffected. I stuffed the frost covered PeaPod, Top Blanket and hammock into my pack while I went day hiking and later drove home. I was surprised to find the PeaPod limp but still retaining about half its loft when I removed it from the pack a day and a half later – I’d expected it to lose all its loft. Speer Hammocks believes in the use of substantial tarps with their hammocks. The 8′ by 10′ tarp provided with the Speer hammocks does a good job of protecting the down of the PeaPod from rain.

I used the Top Blanket over me inside the PeaPod in moderate temperatures and under me (between the hammock bottom and the PeaPod) in colder weather. The 17-inch deep Velcro foot pocket kept my feet securely contained when I used the Top Blanket over me. I also wore the Top Blanket around my torso, underneath a rain jacket for in camp warmth.

The Top Blanket slides into the PeaPod easily and stays in place overnight lengthwise, but the sides fold during the night to form a double layer of bottom insulation. Speer recommends four safety pins to hold the Top Blanket in place if only one under layer is desired, and folding the Top Blanket in half for a double layer of insulation.

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

Both the PeaPod and Top Blanket are well made with appropriate materials. With a bit of care, both should last a long time.

Value

At $109, the Top Blanket is a good deal for a hammock top quilt. The PeaPod retails for $235, which is a fair value because the long length of the PeaPod requires much more down than a typical sleeping bag.

Tips

Speer recommends four safety pins to keep the Top Blanket as a single layer underneath the hammock. Extra line tied to both corners on each end and secured to the D-rings on the hammock straps also works if one has forgotten the safety pins.

Tie the drawcord at each PeaPod end to the D-ring on the Speer Hammock strap to keep the PeaPod in place.

To help keep the PeaPod off the ground when first installing it, temporarily tack one side of the PeaPod in place using the compatible Velcro strip on the side of the Speer Hammock.

Recommendations for Improvement

Larger stuff sacks or pull-tabs on the ends of the stuff sacks would aid in removing the Top Blanket and PeaPod from their stuff sacks.

A small loop on the center edge of both sides of the hammock and corresponding buttons on the edges of the PeaPod would make it easier to keep the PeaPod from dragging on the ground or snow when initially putting it on the hammock in camp.