In this episode, Andrew chats with BPL staff writer Mark Wetherington about his favorite articles, backpacking in the south, and more.
Listen
Listen to the public version of this podcast episode on Itunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Summary
In this episode, Andrew chats with Backpacking Light Staff writer Mark Wetherington. Mark began backpacking in 2007 as a student at the University of Kentucky, and since then he’s been exploring the southeast and the west on foot, bicycle, and skis. Mark’s writing has appeared in Backpacker Magazine and Trail Groove Magazine in addition to Backpacking Light.
Andrew and Mark chat about backpacking in the southeast, Mark’s love of exploring the same place over and over again, Mark’s favorite pieces he’s written for Backpacking Light, and more.
Make sure you are logged in as a member to listen to or watch the full version of this podcast. Not a member? Click here!
Outline
0:01:16 – podcast opening and introduction
0:01:43 – Mark’s early days of backpacking
0:05:31 – the relationship between place, Mark, and writing
0:14:09 – developing the ideas behind Backpacking Tithe
— Members Only Begins here —
00:26:31 – the psychology behind bailing on trips & risk management
00:37:23 – using bikes to begin backpacking trips
00:48:55 – Why do you write for BPL?
00:54:22 – What is something you would like to write about?; Podcast Wrap-up
Resources
Check out the full catalog of articles from Mark Wetherington at his author page at Backpacking Light.
Executive Producer - Backpacking Light; Show Director and Host - Ryan Jordan; Producer - Chase Jordan; Theme music: Look for Me in the Mountains written by Chris Cunningham and Ryan Jordan, performed by Chris Cunningham (acoustic guitar, lead and harmony vocals, harmonica), Chad Langford (upright bass), and Tom Murphy (mandolin), produced by Basecamp Studios in Bozeman, Montana.
Sponsorship Policy: Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage, including any podcast episode content not excplicitly identified as sponsored content. Some (but not all) of the links in these show notes may be affiliate links. Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
The Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and 2 Li are rectangular DCF trekking pole tents with carbon end struts to boost interior volume and stability, and a four-stake footprint that eliminates the need for apex guyline tie-outs in mild weather.
The Tarptent Dipole 1 Li (22 to 23 ounces / 0.62 to 0.65 kg, MSRP: ~$699) and Tarptent Dipole 2 Li (26 to 27 ounces 0.74 to 0.77 kg, MSRP: ~$799) are both modified A-frame, double-trekking-pole, double-vestibule, double-door, side-entry, single-wall, Dyneema Composite Fabric (DCF) shelters.
The Tarptent Dipole 2 Li in the Tahoe Basin, CA. Photo: Andrew Marshall.
The Dipole line represents a continuation of Tarptent’s use of supplemental poles (i.e., extra poles in addition to the trekking poles) to add volume and support to trekking-pole shelters. Dipole tents have several features that make them unique among two-pole, double-door shelters:
they can maintain a stable structure with four stakes
they can maintain a stable structure while both vestibule doors are open and the shelter is in a four-stake configuration
they feature collapsible, removable, 21-inch (53 cm) carbon fiber struts at the head and foot that add a noticeable amount of interior livable volume while supporting the tent structure (and allowing the first two points above to be a reality)
Watch the Video
Watch Ryan Jordan’s video review and tour of the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li:
This is a first look at new gear that recently entered our review pipeline, and hasn't yet been subjected to rigorous field use. Learn more about the types of product reviews we publish.
Highlights
weight*: Tarptent Dipole 1 Li – 22.6 ounces / 0.64 kg (*pre-production prototype)
weight*: Tarptent Dipole 2 Li – 26.3 ounces / 0.75 kg (*pre-production prototype)
can maintain a stable structure in mild weather with four stakes
vestibule doors are not part of the structure (both doors can be open at the same time without losing tension/stability)
21-inch volumizing end struts (Easton 3.9 carbon fiber) create large amounts of interior livable volume
end struts are removable and collapsible to 13 inches (two-section, shock-cord connected)
vestibules are 17 inches (43 cm) deep, expandable with an optional line from lower zipper pull tab to apex guyline stake (Tarptent includes hardware and guyline to accomplish this)
Dipole 1 Li apex height: 43 inches (109 cm)
Dipole 2 Li apex height: 45 inches (114 cm)
Dipole 1 Li width x length: 36 x 84 inches (91 x 213 cm)
Dipole 2 Li width x length: 58 x 88 inches (147 x 224 cm)
mesh panel on either end, backed by a sil-poly panel that can be opened and closed from inside the tent for ventilation/weather protection
Dipole 1 Li fits one long/wide pads and users up to 6 feet 8 inches (203 cm)
Dipole 2 Li fits two long/wide pads and users up to 6 feet 10 inches (208 cm)
A Tarptent Dipole 1 Li in the Colorado Rockies. Photo: Ryan Jordan.
Testing context
We tested the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li on three below-the-treeline overnight treks in June of 2022 in the Sierra Nevada and Colorado Rockies. Both shelters were subjected to light wind (with gusts up to 10 to 20 mph) and moderate-to-heavy rain. We were interested in getting initial impressions on ease of setup, livability, structural integrity, condensation resistance, and weather protection.
Testing the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li in Colorado. Photo: Ryan Jordan.
Test samples vs. final product
The samples that we tested are late-stage prototypes. Tarptent is still making adjustments to the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li, and some of the features visible in the photos in this article will be changed by the time the product gets into consumers’ hands. Currently, changes will include:
very small pattern edits on the vestibules to tighten them up at the hem, especially on the Dipole 2 Li
larger apex pole cap reinforcements
top of the mesh reinforcement that is currently black ballistic nylon will also be changed to the lighter 210D w/Dyneema grid
wider interior stow pockets
the MSRPs listed above are estimates
Changes to the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li that will be incorporated into production models include a larger pole cap and wider interior pocket. Photo: Tarptent.
First impressions
Setup and structure
The Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li have a rectangular footprint, which makes site selection easy – certainly easier than site selection is for the Stratospire Li or ProTrail Li (non-rectangular shelters).
Setup is simple (for a trekking-pole supported shelter) but the order of operations is important – watch the video above for a setup demonstration.
Setup instructions:
Insert the end struts.
Stake the two corners of one end of the tent to bring tension to the fly edges between the top of the strut and the stakeout point.
Repeat for the other end, ensuring a rectangular configuration that brings tension to the vestibule door bottom edges.
Unzip one vestibule zipper from the top, insert a trekking pole (tip up) – 43 inches (109 cm) for the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and 45 inches (114 cm) for the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. Zip up the zipper.
Repeat – insert the second trekking pole into the opposite vestibule.
Reset corner tent stakes as needed so they are parallel with the corner seams (i.e., 45-degree angle off the parallel lines of the tent bottom edges).*
Make sure the bottoms of the end struts are inset slightly relative to the tops, to ensure that downward falling rain doesn’t enter the end vents.
Tighten the corner guylines.
Tighten the guylines at the tops of the struts – this step brings the entire tent into a final state of tension. At this point, minor adjustments to pole height and position, corner tension, and corner stake location may be necessary to bring the tent into a taut stake if camping on uneven ground with minor irregularities.
*Tarptent recommends a 45-degree angle for the corner stakes (i.e., the guylines should be parallel to the corner seams). We found that a slightly wider than 45-degree angle works best for creating tension along the edges at the ends of the shelter. The photo below illustrates a pitch on uneven ground that hews very closely to the 45-degree guyline recommendation.
Note just a slight amount of slack on one of the end edges – so slight that I (Andrew) didn’t notice it until I was reviewing my photos. Adjusting the angle of the corner stakes to be slightly wider solved this issue in Ryan’s pitches (as noted in the video above).
A slightly floppy end fly top edge (back left) was the result of experimenting with different setup techniques/processes. Like all trekking-pole-supported shelters, it takes a few setups to get the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li totally dialed in. See the text for our recommended setup step order. Photo: Andrew Marshall.
The tension created by the end struts and their triangular guyline system allows the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li to maintain a stable four-stake pitch that does not incorporate the doors as a load-bearing element. The upshot is that both vestibule doors can be open and rolled back without losing tension.
We experienced moderate rain and light wind below treeline in our testing, and are confident that the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li can handle those conditions without collapsing or letting in water. In heavy weather, four additional stakes and guylines can be deployed – two along the axis of the ridgeline and two running from the end struts. The symmetrical nature of the tension forces in the Dipole shelters is a real strength of the design (see our email interview with Henry Shires at the bottom of this article for more on this).
Livability and interior volume
There are several other features that we’ll explore more fully as we continue to review the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li:
vestibule size and depth
vent placement and design
condensation drain placement and design
end vent/window design and stormworthiness
packed size and packability
trekking-pole placement in terms of livability
performance and stability in high winds/heavy rain/under snow load
inner mesh door size and placement
Ryan touches on these performance issues in the video above.
But in this First Looks review, we are concentrating on the two features that stood out the most in our initial handling of the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li. The first was the four-stake design that allows both vestibule doors to be open without losing tension.
The second standout feature is the livable interior volume present in both shelters. The ends of the shelter are 21 inches (53 cm) tall – tall enough that feet will not rub against the shelter ceiling when sleeping pads inevitably slide down towards the end of the tent. The width and length are both designed to accommodate larger hikers. We are not tall (Andrew is five feet six inches and Ryan is five feet seven inches) but we are confident that Tarptent’s claim of comfort for backpackers six feet eight inches and over is not an exaggeration.
We believe that the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li are the roomiest trekking-pole-supported shelters for their weight that we’ve ever tested.
Comparisons
This is not a comprehensive comparison – that will have to wait until we can put the Tarptent Dipole series through long-term field testing. The purpose of this comparison is to help place the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li (specifically the Dipole 2 Li) within the category of two-pole, two-door, single-wall, Dyneema Composite Fabric shelters. No shelter in this comparison has the end struts and correspondingly totally vertical end panels of the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li, so we won’t waste time repeating that in every comparison.
Another noteworthy thing about the Tarptent Dipole 1 and 2 is that both shelters feature a slightly hourglass-shaped bathtub floor. In the specs above, we list the bathtub floor dimensions as follows:
Dipole 1 Li width x length: 36 x 84 inches (91 x 213 cm)
Dipole 2 Li width x length: 58 x 88 inches (147 x 224 cm)
But in fact, the Dipole 2 Li narrows slightly in the center to 50 inches (127 cm) and the Dipole 1 Li narrows in the center to 28 inches (71 cm).
Readers are encouraged to elaborate further on the differences and similarities between all four shelters in this comparison – and the pros and cons of each – in the comments section.
Tarptent Dipole 2 Li vs. Durston Gear X-Mid Pro 2
The Durston Gear X-Mid Pro 2 is the only other two-person, two-pole, double-pole, double-door, single-wall shelter currently on the market that is claimed to be pitched with a minimum of four stakes. (Another one is the Sierra Designs High Route 1 but that’s a one-person shelter.)
The Durston Gear X-Mid Pro 2’s floor footprint is slightly longer than the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li – 90 inches (229 cm) for the X-Mid Pro 2 vs. 88 inches (224 cm) for the Dipole 2 Li. But the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li is significantly wider at 58 inches (147 cm) at the ends and 50 inches (127 cm) at the middle vs. the X-Mid Pro 2’s 48 inches (122 cm). The final weight of the Dipole 2 Li is still pending, but the Durston X-Mid Pro 2 is likely to be ~5 ounces (142 g) lighter than the Dipole 2 Li. The Dipole 2 Li easily fits two long/wide (25 inches / 64 cm) sleeping pads – this is not possible in the X-Mid Pro 2 without deforming the shape of the inner tent.
The Durston Gear X-Mid Pro 2 is ~$100 cheaper than the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. There are differences in overall design between the two shelters. The biggest difference is that the X-Mid Pro 2 is based on an asymmetrical design (offset poles and an inner tent that is diagonally oriented relative to the canopy). The Tarptent Dipole 2 Li is symmetrical – poles are oriented opposite of each other and the inner tent is parallel to the canopy. These design characteristics have implications for pole placement, stability, and the wind and rain performance of both shelters in their four-stake configuration.
For more on this, see our interview with Henry Shires, below.
Tarptent Dipole 2 Li vs. Zpacks Duplex
The Zpacks Duplex is still one of the most ubiquitous double-pole, double-door, single-wall DCF shelters. A noteworthy difference between the Duplex and the Tarptent Dipole 2 is that the Duplex needs eight stakes minimum to be considered ready for mild wind and rain. The resulting forest of guylines can be a little overwhelming at a small campsite.
It is assumed in our community that the Zpacks Duplex does not fare well in high winds. However, we think it’s mostly attributable to user error – the Duplex is a difficult shelter to pitch properly and securely in stormy weather, but with up to 14 stake-out points, it can be done. We think the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li will fare better than the Duplex in this regard – it takes much less effort to achieve an extremely taut pitch with the Dipole than with the Duplex.
A properly-pitched ZPacks Duplex above treeline in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness in Montana. Up to 14 stakes can be used to secure the Duplex. The Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li can achieve a stormworthy pitch with only 8 stakes. Photo: Ryan Jordan.
The Duplex has large doors with the support poles taking up space right in the center of the doors. The Tarptent Dipole 2 Li also has centrally located poles, but smaller, offset doors so the pole is not in the way, particularly if the user angles the poles to one side. The Duplex is more than a foot (30 cm) narrower than the Dipole 2 and weighs ~8 ounces (227 g) less than the Dipole 2.
Gossamer Gear The DCF Two
The Gossamer Gear The DCF Two weighs ~6 ounces (170 g) less than the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. The DCF Two requires a minimum of six stakes for setup. Steeply sloping walls and a relatively small footprint make the DCF Two suitable only for hikers shorter than about 6 feet 1 inch (185 cm).
Like the Dipole 2 Li, the DCF Two has smaller doors to one side of the support pole (they are across from each other as opposed to offset from each other as with the Dipole 2 Li).
The DCF Two also stands out on this list for being tapered, with a head-end width of 48 inches (122 cm) and a foot-end width of 42 inches (107 cm) – so no room for two wide pads. It also has an apex height of 43 inches (109 cm) as compared to the Dipole 2 Li apex height of 45 inches (114 cm).
Final Thoughts
The Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li are not the lightest double-door, double-pole, single-wall Dyneema Composite Fabric shelters available. From conversations with Henry Shires (owner/founder) and Rob Dunne (design engineer) at Tarptent, that was clearly not the design goal. Tarptent’s primary goals were to create usable interior volume and a stable minimum four-stake setup, and at this, it succeeded.
The Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li are the roomiest shelters in their class – that class being single-wall, double-pole, double-door trekking pole-supported shelters in the 18 to 26 ounce (510 to 727 g) range. This liveable interior volume is a combination of apex height, floor width and length, and the unique end-strut design.
Four-stake setup is stable in rain and light winds and allows vestibule doors to be open without losing tension. Tarptent’s secondary goal was to maximize ventilation and minimize condensation buildup. We like the design features they’ve implemented with this in mind, but we will need further field days with these shelters to accurately judge condensation management.
Camped under an old-growth fir at a grassy and remote off-trail pass east of Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. Photo: Ryan Jordan
Photos
The Tarptent Dipole 2 being tested in the Sierra Nevada. Photo: Andrew MarshallApex guyline linelocs and peak vent at the ridgeline of a Tarptent Dipole Li. Photo: Ryan JordanEnd view of a Tarptent Dipole 2 Li showing the carbon fiber strut and vented window. Photo: Andrew MarshallApex guyline deployed on the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. Photo: Andrew MarshallUsing the apex guyline and vestibule clip to extend the vestibule on the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li. Photo: Ryan JordanFour-stake setup of the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li – no apex guylines needed in mild weather. Photo: Andrew MarshallThe Tarptent Dipole 1 Li with no apex guylines deployed, and all doors rolled back. You need the ventilation when camping with a dog! Photo: Ryan JordanYKK #3 AquaGuard zippers on the canopy/fly. Photo: Andrew MarshallA Tarptent Dipole 2 Li shelter with the ends set up, prior to inserting the trekking poles. Photo: Tarptent.The end strut and guyline system adds volume and creates tension. Also shown here are the ladderloc buckle-and-strap end strut guyline attachment. Photo: Ryan JordanMagnetic door retainers are a common feature on all Tarptent Li shelters. Photo: Andrew MarshallWithout the apex guylines deployed, and following the setup instructions published in this article, a taut ridgeline is achievable with only four stakes. Shown here: the Tarptent Dipole 1 Li. Photo: Ryan Jordan.Deploying the apex guylines creates additional ridgeline tension and panel stability, shown here on the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. Photo: Andrew MarshallSunset in the Tahoe Basin, Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. The apex guylines are not deployed. Note the slight sag in the ridgeline. This was my first pitch, and it was simply a result of not yet understanding how to perfect an effective 4-stake Dipole pitch – which didn’t take long. Photo: Andrew MarshallTarptent Dipole 1 Li in the mountains northwest of Rocky Mountain National Park. Apex and end guylines are deployed here for a storm pitch. Photo: Ryan JordanI (Andrew) am five feet six inches, so I almost always have headroom in tents. But the Tarptent Dipole 2 is roomy even by my short-man standards.The sil-poly panel on the inside of one of the end vents. Photo: Andrew MarshallOpening the end vent on one end of the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. In the production model, the cord that the vent cover slides up and down on will be made of Dyneema Composite Fabric so as not to absorb water. Photo: Andrew Marshall.End vent on a Tarptent Dipole 1 Li. Even with a wide pad, there’s room to the sides of the pad at the head and foot ends of the tent to stash gear inside. Photo: Ryan JordanThe spacious interior of the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li. This space in this photo is slightly exaggerated due to the use of a wide-angle lens, but only slightly. Photo: Andrew Marshall.The Tarptent Dipole 2 Li is spacious for two persons. For one person, it’s a palace that can easily hold all of one’s gear for a long expedition AND a large dog, if necessary! Photo: Andrew MarshallThe vestibules are 17 inches (43 cm) deep and can be expanded with included guyline and hardware if needed – plenty of space to hold a large pack plus plenty of other wet gear. Photo: Andrew MarshallThis wide-angle lens view from the interior of the Tarptent Dipole 2 Li shows the house-shaped mesh door flanked by two triangular silpoly end panels. Photo: Andrew MarshallThere’s a condensation drain at each of the four corners of the bathtub floor. Photo: Andrew Marshall
Tarptent Dipole 1 Li and Dipole 2 Li design notes: an interview with Henry Shires
Ryan Jordan:Using the four-stake setup without apex guylines, I’m able to achieve pretty good stability the tighter the guylines are tightened. In our forest soils here, the six-inch stakes are not holding this level of tension on the Dipole 2 Li, so I’ve been using eight-inch stakes.
That said, I’m pulling [up to] 15-20 pounds of tension on each stake – that’s a lot. I can pull significantly less by using apex guylines, which is to be expected. But I wanted to get a feel for your expectation of stability with and without apex guylines in terms of use cases for wind speeds.
Henry Shires: Yes, agreed that six-inch stakes are marginal in loose soil, especially for the Dipole 2 Li and that eight-inch [stakes] are the way to go. In my/our testing the 4-stake setup (assuming the stakes hold) is fine for low to moderate winds but, yes, the apex/vestibule lines are needed in higher winds if only to take some of the stress directed at the low corners by broadside winds.
As with most/all tents, more stakes are better than fewer stakes, and, yes, for real weather in exposed places the Dipole will want six of them. However, for many/most cases, at least in sheltered areas, four will be fine and I personally really like not having to work around guylines getting in and out.
RJ: Can you give us some info on what is exactly being patented?
HS: We are moving to patent the combination of the ability to stand with four stakes – provided by the dual inset pole structure and relatively large (17-inch) displacement between the ground level corners and apex points – and the mid-end foldable struts which provide the large increase in both interior volume and structural support.
As you know we’ve done plenty of trekking pole tents with end strut designs including the long discontinued Saddle 2 but all had vestibules that required staking (or, if rolled back, apex guylines in lieu of) for lateral support.
The Aeon Li was the first one [that] allowed for full front rollback with no apex line needed (and we have a patent for that one) but to the best of our knowledge, the Dipole has never been done before. I know you’ve played around with the [Durston Gear] X-Mid and [Sierra Designs] High Route designs which, at first glance, appear to be a four-stake setup but the asymmetry proves otherwise and my goal with this one is a true 4-stake setup and practical use (in most cases).
[Here are a] couple of graphics (below) showing the tension lines on the Dipole and X-Mid/High Route designs, both with full rolled back doors. Note that for stability what matters are the relative forces applied to apex points where the underlying vertical poles meet the canopy.
Unequal forces will cause some form of pole rotation and corresponding loss of fabric tension. I did not include a graphic of a simple four-sided square pyramid but that one would have four tension lines coming off the center apex pole and each would be at 90 degrees. For two pole tents, each pole has tension lines and at least one connecting tension line between them.
A graphic of the tension line and forces on the Durston Gear X-Mid Pro 2. Graphic: Henry Shires, Tarptent.A graphic of the tension line and forces on the Tarptent Dipole 1 or 2. Graphic: Henry Shires, Tarptent.
The inherent asymmetry of the offset poles in the X-Mid/High Route means there is no way to adjust the four corner tension points such that the sum of all the tension lines equals zero with the doors open in any sort of stable equilibrium. Inthe X-Mid graphic, note that all tension lines are at different angles and that the T3 tension line that runs between the two apex points is not independently addressable.
RJ: T3 is not independently controllable without apex guylines – and that makes the X-Mid a six-stake tent in all but a mild breeze.
HS: It is also the case that the long seam line carrying the T2 tension is a shallow angle and any deviations in the pole apex position aren’t resisted by corresponding changes in tension because that edge doesn’t need to stretch to accommodate the change.
RJ: There is notably different behavior in apex stability between the X-Mid and Dipole. On the X-Mid, T2y is indeed a very shallow angle. So it would seem intuitive to crank that T2 corner stake down hard, to bring more tension to T2y. However, the asymmetry causes an additional imbalance in all of the other tension lines because there are no directly opposite forces to T2y. It’s tricky and time-consuming in the field to sort this all out. Of course, the problem is sort of solved by just adding the apex guylines to the X-Mid.
HS: Adding an additional tension line (in the direction of the Y-axis as shown in the diagram) does inhibit an inward rotation and is the reason why the X-Mid is always shown that way.
In the Dipole, there is an additional inward tension line (T5). That line is resisted by the corner tension lines (T1 and T2) but is also addressable through the tensioning system at each mid-end strut which creates T3 and T4. The inherent symmetry of the Dipole – tension lines are equalized and at comparable angles – means that no additional apex tension lines are needed for low to moderate winds and doors can be fully rolled back.
RJ: I had the tent in a heavy thunderstorm yesterday and it otherwise stayed remarkably dry – the end vent construction is unique and effective. I like it. I was admittedly a bit nervous about not having an awning over these vents, but the inward-sloping struts kept rain from entering the tent.
HS: Yes, I too was nervous about that. Earlier versions of that system weren’t reliable but [Tarptent Design Engineer] Rob [Dunne] – thanks Rob – made that work well.
RJ: What’s at the heart of your design process for the Dipole series? What did you set out to accomplish?
HS: The pack and pad market [has] evolved over the years and we acknowledge the trend toward wider, thicker pads and narrower packs. The way we achieve [usable interior volume] on many of our tents is to deploy the PitchLoc structure. They are strong and effective but only foldable/packable down to 16 inches on the Notch and StratoSpire series and that length makes it hard to fit horizontally into many ultralight (i.e., skinny) packs.
To retain/enhance usable volume on the Dipole we moved to a foldable single strut structure that folds to 13 inches (and [is] easily detachable), a length much more viable for horizontal packing. The other goal for these was to enhance usable length and width such that both models would easily fit long wide, and thick pads – one in the Dipole 1 and two in the Dipole 2 – while still sleeping people at six feet eight inches or even taller. The completely vertical and relatively tall (21-inch) ends walls make that possible.
The other goals were a true four-stake setup and greatly enhanced venting – ends, sides, and apex venting.
Check this space for more notes and observations on the Tarptent Dipole 1 and 2 as we continue to field test these shelters over the coming months.
Learn More
Browse our curated recommendations in the Backpacking Light Gear Shop – a product research & discovery tool where you can find Member gear reviews, Gear Swap (used gear) listings, and more info about specific products recommended by our staff and members.
check out what our community thinks of the Zpacks Duplex
see what our community has to say about tent shopping in forum threads here and here
DISCLOSURE (Updated April 9, 2024)
Product mentions in this article are made by the author with no compensation in return. In addition, Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage.
Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead.
Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
The Waymark Gear Lite 50L backpack features a unique shoulder-strap attachment system and several fit-related features that might appeal to larger users.
Andrew has a wide-ranging interview with gear designer Dan Durston about X-mids, shelter and pack design, and more.
Listen
Listen to the public version of this podcast episode on Itunes, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Summary
In this episode, Andrew chats with gear designer and biologist Dan Durston. Dan is an accomplished backpacker and longtime Backpacking Light member. He went from gear enthusiast to gear tester to successful gear designer and small-business owner in a remarkably short time. His most recent shelter, the X-Mid Pro 2 (see our Durston X-Mid Pro 2 Review), is one of the buzziest ultralight shelters to hit the market in quite a while. All this despite the fact that Dan doesn’t have a background in engineering or design.
In this wide-ranging interview, Andrew and Dan talk about design philosophy, the difference between designing for shelters and packs, his journey from tester to designer, upcoming projects from Durston Gear, and more.
Outline
0:00:34 – new public vs. members only podcast format
0:01:38 – introduction; Who is Dan Durston?
0:02:44 – the story behind Durston Gear, hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, and a minimalist philosophy to tent design
0:06:54 – the process of bringing the first X-mid from design to production
0:11:47 – What makes an X-mid an X-mid?
0:12:56 – first principles design philosophy
0:14:56 – using polyester in a shelter design
0:16:56 – Dan’s shelter hierarchy of needs
0:21:00 – weight savings vs. usability
0:22:42 – talking backpacks with Dan
0:27:38 – Ultra fabric
— Members Only Begins here —
0:30:18 – the X-Mid Pro Series
0:35:42 – What is coming soon for Dan and his designs?
0:41:42 – How do your personal philosophies inform your design philosophy?
0:44:44 – company values and vision
0:50:01 – wearing multiple hats in the field
0:51:50 – podcast wrap up
Resources
Check out the articles Dan Durston has written at BPL here.
Johnathan Davis interviews Dan Durston as part of the Faces series in 2015.
Mark Wetherington recently wrote an article analyzing the Supply Chain economics of being a cottage manufacturer which includes discussion with Dan.
Curious to learn more about Dan’s thoughts on design, standards, and testing? Check out Rex Sander’s Standards Watch article written after a chat with Dan!
To peruse Durston Gear’s tents, backpack’s and more, check out their website!
Executive Producer - Backpacking Light; Show Director and Host - Ryan Jordan; Producer - Chase Jordan; Theme music: Look for Me in the Mountains written by Chris Cunningham and Ryan Jordan, performed by Chris Cunningham (acoustic guitar, lead and harmony vocals, harmonica), Chad Langford (upright bass), and Tom Murphy (mandolin), produced by Basecamp Studios in Bozeman, Montana.
Sponsorship Policy: Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage, including any podcast episode content not excplicitly identified as sponsored content. Some (but not all) of the links in these show notes may be affiliate links. Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
In this video, I walk through how I use slope angle overlays and satellite imagery to plan off-trail mountaineering routes, focusing on Gaia GPS as the digital mapping software.
Introduction
In this video, I walk through how I use slope angle overlays and satellite imagery to plan off-trail mountaineering routes. For the purpose of this demonstration, I’m using Gaia GPS, but the technique can be used with any mapping software that includes both slope angle overlays and aerial imagery map layers.
This is a summary of my process for using slope angle overlays and satellite imagery to plan off-trail mountaineering routes:
Draw possible routes between Point A and Point B using “paths of least resistance” using slope angle layers. Pay attention to routes less than 25 degrees in steepness to minimize scrambling and excessive exposure.
Turn on the satellite map layer and change the route points you created in Step 1 to avoid cliff bands, rock scrambles, steep snow, and other terrain that you may not be comfortable with.
Compare your route options in terms of distance and elevation gain (use the elevation profile feature). Evaluate the crux (most difficult) sections of each route. Evaluate the terrain of each route (e.g., tundra, talus, scree, bushwhacking). Pick the route that best meets your objectives – scenery, path of least resistance, etc.
Or see our entire online course offering and learn more about trek planning, satellite communications, backcountry food planning, and more.
What’s Your Process?
I’m always curious about how other backcountry adventurers plan off-trail routes with digital mapping software. Please share your process with me in the forums below!
DISCLOSURE (Updated April 9, 2024)
Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage.
Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead.
Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
The Nitecore NB10000 is a simple portable battery charger built around a carbon-fiber platform for maximum weight savings.
Introduction
This Nitecore NB10000 review (5.3 oz / 150 g, MSRP $59.95) covers a lightweight entry into a crowded portable battery charger market. The Nitecore NB10000 features 10,000 mAh of nominal capacity at full charge, carbon fiber frame and panels, USB-A and USB-C outputs, a single multi-functional button, blue and white LED indicators, and pass-through charging capability.
The outstanding feature of this power bank is its high capacity-to-weight ratio. For a weight that is little more than that of a typical 5,000 mAh battery pack, you get twice the power. That’s an attractive proposition for any backpacker who carries electronics on multiday trips. I put the NB10000 through its paces at home and in the field to see if it delivers on its promise.
The Nitecore NB10000. Photo: Nitecore
This is a first look at new gear that recently entered our review pipeline, and hasn't yet been subjected to rigorous field use. Learn more about the types of product reviews we publish.
• 10,000 mAh at 3.85 V (38.5 Wh) nominal capacity
• 5.3 oz / 150 g
• 4.8 x 2.3 x 0.4 inches (12 x 5.8 x 1.0 cm)
• input: USB-C – 5 V @ 2.4 A (12 W) / 9 V @ 2 A (18W)
• output 1: USB-C – 5V @ 3 A (15 W) / 9 V @ 2 A (18 W) / 12 V @ 1.5 A (18 W)
• output 2: USB-A – 5 V @ 3 A (15 W ) / 9 V @ 2 A (18 W) / 12 V @ 1.5 A (18 W)
• carbon fiber frame and panels
• 3-level LED indicator for remaining power and charging status
• one-touch low current mode
• USB-A to USB-C cable included
• IPX5 rated (water resistant against sustained, low pressure water spray, dust protection not rated)
• operating temperature: 14 to 104 °F (-10 to 40 °C)
• storage temperature: -4 to 140 °F (-20 to 60 °C)
Testing context
I ordered the Nitecore NB10000 from Nitecore through Garage Grown Gear in February 2022. I performed quantitative testing at my home under typical indoor ambient conditions unless otherwise specified. I mostly followed the testing rubric described by Rex Sanders in BatteryBench: A Protocol for Testing Portable Battery Chargers and Electronic Devices for Backpacking. Rex’s fine article defines all the terms used here; if any are unfamiliar, please follow the link above.
I ran tests using the MakerHawk model QC2.0/3.0/4.0 MTK USB multimeter. For a load tester, I used the UCTRONICS Electronic USB Load Tester. The multimeter looks much the same as the one Rex used, but I found that I could not power the meter independently of the current being tested. My measurements, therefore, include some loss due to the power needed to operate the meter. The LED screen shuts off after 30 seconds, so I expect the power loss at the meter is only a few percent. The result is that my measurements of power delivered are low by a few percent.
I drew heavily on the work of Rex Sanders to test the Nitecore NB10000.
For the energy loss measurements, I measured the power needed to fully recharge the phone, rather than the power remaining in the phone, as Rex did. My rationale is that when little power is lost, comparing small differences between large numbers is unreliable.
I also skipped the drop test, as I bought this item with my own money and didn’t want to risk breaking it, even in the name of science.
Editor’s Note: It’s worth mentioning that in yet-to-be-published research conducted by Rex Sanders, this product performed poorly in the drop test. Rex’s thoughts – “Good battery. Just don’t drop it.”
Field testing was performed on a week-long section hike of the Desert Trail between Halloran Summit on I-15 and Badwater in Death Valley, in March and April, 2022. Conditions were generally dry and windy, with temperatures of 35 to 100 °F (2 to 38 °C).
First impressions
Physical attributes and feature set
The Nitecore NB10000 is light. And small. Smaller than a typical phone. The measured size and weight agree with the manufacturer’s specs.
The Nitecore NB10000 is pretty much a small brick. Or maybe more a tile.
The design is minimalist. There are just the two ports and a level indicator panel that also serves as an on-off/change-mode switch. There is no flashlight or any other functionality. All corners are squared, not rounded or otherwise streamlined.
The power switch with 3 LEDs, and the USB-C and -A ports are all on one end of the Nitecore NB10000.
Construction and quality
The carbon-fiber panels are pressed onto the carbon-fiber frame, aligned and held in place by four tabs on each edge. The fit of the panels is tight and even, but not invisible. The ports feel stable and solid when plugging and unplugging cables. The power button feels solid when pressing it. I own one other Nitecore product, a USB-rechargeable headlamp, and it has functioned flawlessly for several years now. This battery pack appears to be made to the same level of quality.
In the Forums: See what the Backpacking Light community has to say about batteries and electronics.
getting the most delivered energy for the least weight,
and recharge time.
Delivered Energy– This is the amount of power that a battery pack can actually deliver to your small devices. I measured the output of the Nitecore at 29.6 Wh (@ 5 V x 3 A) or 5920 mAh. You’ll note that this is about 60% of the capacity specification. Capacity is how much energy is in the battery. Delivered energy is how much energy actually is available to the device being charged.
The difference between capacity and delivered energy is the amount of energy lost as heat due to resistance in the battery pack, the charging cables, and the battery of the small device being charged.
As with all thermodynamic processes, speed is the enemy of efficiency. When I turned down the load to 2A, the delivered energy increased to 32.9 Wh, or 6600 mAh, an 11% increase.
So how many phone charges will the Nitecore deliver? Most modern phones have battery capacities of 10 – 15 Wh. You can therefore expect 2 – 3 phone charges from the Nitecore NB10000.
Between navigation, photos, journaling, and reading, I typically use 30-40% of a charge on my iPhone 12 (11 Wh capacity, so 3-4 Wh/day) per trail day. Starting with a fully-charged phone, I should be able to go 12 days with the Nitecore NB10000. Throw in charging of other electronics (headlamp, earphones, camera, Garmin inReach Mini, portable vaporizer), and 9 to 10 days between charges is a reasonable expectation. Your mileage will vary.
Recharge Time – The other key battery pack metric for hikers is how long it takes for a recharge. Nobody wants to hang around a campground bathroom for hours while charging a battery. Starting with the Nitecore completely depleted, I found it took 3 hours to fully recharge via USB-C (using a USB-C to USB-C cord) and 4 hours, 10 minutes to recharge via the supplied USB-A to USB-C cord (the Nitecore can only recharge via its USB-C port). Given that charging slows down as the battery nears capacity, you can expect an 80-90% charge in 2+ hours. That’s a reasonable time for a midday nap or for nursing a beer at a trail town bar.
The peripherals
Other factors beyond delivered energy and recharge time are worth considering.
Cold Delivered Energy – Electrons are harder to knock loose at cold temperatures, thus increasing resistance and reducing battery efficiency. I let the Nitecore cool down in my beer cooler (48 °F / 7 °C, don’t judge me) for an hour, then discharged it at 5 V x 3 A. The battery delivered 28.2 Wh in the cold, about 95% of the power delivered at room temperature.
Cold Storage Loss – I charged the battery and held it in the beer cooler for 4 days. I then measured the power needed to bring it back to a full charge. The power needed was 0.28 Wh, about 1% of total capacity.
Low-power Overnight – This test measures how much energy you waste leaving your low-capacity device (Bluetooth earbuds in this case) plugged in and charging overnight. I fully charged the battery and the earbuds, connected the earbuds to the charger via USB-A and left them connected for about 9 hours. In the morning, I measured how much power was needed to recharge the battery fully. The amount was nominal, 0.16 Wh, about 0.5% of the battery’s charge. Very little energy was lost by leaving the earbuds connected overnight.
Smartphone Overnight – Same thing as the low-power overnight, except with my iPhone 12 connected via the USB-C port, rather than USB-A as with the earbuds.
To my great surprise, I needed 6.6 Wh to recharge the battery, about 22% of the total deliverable energy. I was pretty sure I had done something wrong and repeated the test. This time I needed 7.0 Wh to recharge.
I repeated the test again, now connecting the NB10000 to the phone via the USB-A port. I got the same result: 7 Wh were needed to recharge. I conclude that the vampire energy loss is not a port issue.
It could be an iPhone issue. I don’t have any non-Apple phones around the house, so I repeated the overnight test with the Nitecore connected to a fully-charged Anker E1 5200 battery. The result was somewhat intermediate: 1.5Wh (about 5% of total deliverable energy) was lost.
The conclusion here is that you cannot count on the Nitecore to shut itself off when the device it is charging is fully charged. Plugging in your phone at bedtime and leaving it charging all night could end up wasting considerable battery power.
The vampire energy loss described here matches Rex Sanders’ results in his work studying portable battery chargers. Rex and the Backpacking Light team discuss this at length in this podcast episode.
USB-A Power – Maximum power was 18.1 W (5.10 V x 3.55A) when the load tester was connected directly to the battery. When connected through USB-A, it yielded 17.3 W (4.75 V x 3.64 A). The minimum power level was 0.13W @ 5V. This value was the same in both normal-power and low-power modes.
USB-C Power – Maximum power was 21 W (8.5 V x 2.5 A). The minimum power level was 0.13W @ 5V. This value was the same in both normal-power and low-power modes.
Low-power mode – The NB10000 has a low-power mode for charging small items like smartwatches and earbuds. This mode is activated by pressing and holding the power/indicator button for 5 seconds. When I connected it to my earbuds, it charged them at 5 V x 0.6 A (3 W). But when I returned the battery to normal power mode, it charged at exactly the same voltage and current. It is not clear to me what low-power mode actually does, if anything.
Capacity – This is the amount of energy needed to fully charge the battery: 44.5 Wh (@ 5 V x 2.65 A).
Field Testing
I took the Nitecore NB10000 on an 8-day, roughly 100-mile cross-country hike through the Mojave Desert. There were the usual extremes of cold and heat and of course, lots of wind. I had to slide my pack (Seek Outside Divide 4500, reviewed here) down several canyon dryfalls, and it took a few lumps doing so.
But I keep my electronics, including the Nitecore NB10000 (but excluding my phone, camera, and InReach Mini), in a Dyneema Composite Fabric zip bag. The bag is in my pack while I am walking and only comes out while I’m in camp. So while the environmental conditions of this hike were pretty harsh on me, they were fairly gentle on the NB10000.
I recharged my phone every night to 80-90% capacity, and the InReach Mini and my camera once. I zeroed in Shoshone on day 5, where I recharged everything at the RV park (which I highly recommend if you are hiking the Desert Trail), so I didn’t really put the battery’s capacity to the test.
In short, the NB10000 performed as expected in the field. I didn’t test it in environmental extremes involving extreme cold or moisture.
Final thoughts
The Nitecore NB10000 is a step ahead of the competition when it comes to providing maximum power for minimum weight: 30 Wh/5.3 oz = 5.8 Wh/oz (0.2 Wh/g). It replaces an Anker E1 5200 in my kit. The Anker (now about 7 years old) provides 15.2 Wh of delivered energy and weighs 4.3 oz (122 g). That works out to 3.5 Wh/oz (0.12 Wh/g), about 60% of power per unit weight. A current comparison would be the Anker PowerCore 10000, which has the same nominal capacity specs and weighs 6.3 oz (180 g). It costs half of what the Nitecore does.
In addition to being lightweight, the Nitecore NB10000 seems solidly built with a simple design for operation. In my field tests, it stood up perfectly well to higher-than-average jostling within my pack, but did not perform well in a drop test Rex Sanders conducted on an identical unit.
When left plugged in after it has finished charging a device, it will continue to bleed power, and the amount of power loss can be substantial. This is an issue with all the portable battery chargers we’ve tested at Backpacking Light, particularly when charging phones.
In summary, the Nitecore NB10000 is a solid choice for powering your small devices in the backcountry at a minimum weight penalty – even if that minimum weight penalty comes at an increased cost.
Learn More
Browse our curated recommendations in the Backpacking Light Gear Shop – a product research & discovery tool where you can find Member gear reviews, Gear Swap (used gear) listings, and more info about specific products recommended by our staff and members.
Product mentions in this article are made by the author with no compensation in return. In addition, Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage.
Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead.
Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
Further reflections on short trips vs. thru-hiking.
I spend a lot of time thinking about my relationship with the outdoors. And a significant chunk of that thinking is about backpacking as it relates to, well, time. Setting aside the time to backpack, recognizing that there is a finite lifetime in which to backpack and that obligations and unforeseen circumstances will inevitably limit that time even further.
National Scenic Trails are outstanding ways to traverse public lands and experience breathtaking landscapes. But they can also contribute to tunnel vision and a more linear and less exploratory hiking experience.
As I described in my essay The Backpacking Tithe Project, I’ve spent well over a year of my life on backpacking trips. But the time has all come piecemeal. I’ve yet to undertake any trips longer than six days. I have never intentionally done any section hiking on long-distance trails. Yes, I’ve been on parts of the Pacific Crest Trail, the Pacific Northwest Trail, the Continental Divide Trail, and the Appalachian Trail. But only because they were overlaid on other routes I was exploring.
I stepped on these famous paths without any intentionality applied to the experience of being on a long-distance trail.
I took pride in knowing that I was traveling near and deep, rather than far and wide. I was piecing together an understanding of how best to travel in and experience the public lands whose peaks I could see from my yard. I felt a bit of insider satisfaction at knowing where the best campsites were, which lakes had the best fishing, and which couloirs weren’t as sketchy as they looked. Intimate knowledge of my immediate landscape allowed me to piece together safe trips that looked unreasonably difficult on paper. This focus on exploration over mile-making has served me well and enriched my experience immeasurably.
Article Library Resources – Read more Backpacking Light articles by Mark Wetherington:
For instance, I timed my trips for peak wildflowers, foliage, or other conditions. I became intimately acquainted with the landscape near my home. Once a year, I also tried to get to some bigger-name destinations – like Glacier or Yellowstone National Parks. And I had some absolutely exceptional trips with friends that we could only pull off because of the location scouting I’d done on prior solo trips.
There is so much to see just a half-mile or so off any trail. I know I’d have difficulty staying focused on a long-distance trail when I’ve seen how many amazing places are just a few steps from the dotted line.
This incredible waterfall is barely more than a mile or so from the Pacific Northwest Trail, but unless you were detouring to stay at the nearby campsite, it probably wouldn’t make it on any PNT thru-hikers itinerary.
But I did have a bit of anxiety about whether I was missing out by not prioritizing a multi-week thru-hike. There is a level of immersion that comes with long periods in the woods.
On the other hand, I noticed that some of my friends who’d completed long-distance trails were less-than-excited about overnights or short multi-night trips.
This lovely basin isn’t on a National Scenic Trail, or any trail at all for that matter, but being able to visit it at its aesthetic peak is something I’ve made a priority the last few years. And discovering other off-trail places of exquisite beauty has been an exciting way to spend the off-season.
Some of my thru-hiking friends hadn’t undertaken an overnight trip in years. It seems like long-distance hiking had merely been a post-college phase. For others, it was an all-or-nothing attitude where if it wasn’t some big adventure, they had little interest in pursuing it.
These anecdotes seemed to indicate that some people have chosen an all-encompassing, identity-heavy, short-term approach to backpacking. In contrast, I seemed to have gone with the small-scale but consistent option.
A short, steep trail climbs to the Columbia Mountain Lookout from the Pacific Northwest Trail in eastern Washington’s Kettle Mountains. This historic lookout was a unique place to spend the night, but I doubt I would’ve gone out of my way to hike up to it if I was hiking the PNT. Photo credit: Mark WetheringtonAccessed by a short spur trail from the Appalachian Trail, the Mt. Cammerer Lookout provides a terrific vista of the southern Appalachian Mountains and Great Smoky Mountains National Park. If set on making miles for the day, it would be easy to convince yourself to skip this delightful detour.
In the Forums: browse these Backpacking Light forum posts about thru-hiking
I certainly don’t intend to advocate one option as better or worse. Still, there are differences and distinctions between the two approaches worth considering. The reasons for choosing one or the other – if it is even a choice, as financial and familial pressure can narrow options to nearly nothing – vary greatly from hiker to hiker. But reconsidering one’s patterns and habits, whether regarding gear, diet, route planning, or anything else, can be useful even if you come full circle.
While I don’t think I’ll be quitting my job and becoming full-on hiker trash any time soon, I had an interesting conversation last summer with a Backpacking Light member who’d read my backpacking tithe essay. He stopped by my house while on a road trip, and we enjoyed wide-ranging conversations about backpacking, Gary Snyder, fly fishing, Honda Elements, and life in general. He’d hiked the John Muir Trail through the Sierra decades ago. While he appreciated my perspective regarding the backpacking tithe, he urged me to try and prioritize experiencing a weeks-long trek for myself.
He described the experience in a way that really clicked for me as being a different experience than my usual backpacking. Not just a longer experience, but a fundamentally unique one that isn’t comparable to the pattern I’d adopted. I found the idea of getting all 37 nights of my backpacking tithe accomplished in one fell swoop to be more compelling than I’d anticipated.
After some self-reflection and conversations with other hikers, I’m exploring the idea of committing to a Colorado Trail thru-hike next year. Or the year after. Or maybe the year after that.
I keep thinking about his advice – to embark on a weeks-long hike at least once in my life – and am seriously considering making it happen sooner rather than later. There’s a Colorado Trail guidebook within arm’s reach as I type this. In terms of length and logistics – not to mention scenery – it seems like a good fit for me. I’m thinking about committing to planning and perhaps even hiking it next summer.
In the meantime, I’ll keep making the most of the public lands in my backyard, secure in the knowledge that however one enjoys the outdoors, the rewards are always worth it.
Do you prefer fewer – but longer and more immerseive – wilderness expereinces? Or do you lean in the direction of frequency over distance? Share your experiences in the comments!
Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage.
Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead.
Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
Learning how to use the Garmin inReach Mini (or Mini 2) satellite communicator without a smartphone opens up opportunities for overall battery management and more efficient messaging, navigation, and tracking.
Learning how to use the Garmin inReach Mini without a smartphone is an essential skill to learn for device owners.
A smartphone paired to a Garmin inReach Mini satellite communicator certainly enhances the experience of using the device. It’s easier to type a message on a smartphone keyboard than on the Mini “keyboard” (sic). In addition, using a smartphone paired to the inReach Mini provides a more robust mapping-navigation experience, since the inReach Mini is not a mapping GPS unit.
However, as I wrote in this week’s Founder’s Journal:
“My phone generally stays off throughout the day unless I need to send a message (which I rarely do while hiking) or I need to consult digital maps on the Gaia GPS app on off-trail routes. I still like a small paper map and a real camera. There’s tactile satisfaction at using a paper map and a camera for photography rather than using a smartphone.
And this brings me to the main point of today’s letter – why I choose to use a Garmin inReach Mini 2 vs. a sat-connected brick like the Zoleo or BivyStick.”
from the May 19, 2022 issue of the Founder’s Journal, an email newsletter written by Backpacking Light owner/founder Ryan Jordan sent 1-2x per month to Backpacking Light email newsletter subscribers.
In the video below, I highlight some of the ways I use the Garmin inReach Mini 2 as a standalone device during the day if and when I’m not using my smartphone (e.g., while hiking on trails where I don’t need to refer to my mapping app very often).
These are the features I regularly use when my smartphone is off and packed away and not paired with my Garmin inReach Mini 2:
marking waypoints
sending preset messages
monitoring and reading incoming messages
using the digital compass
requesting and reviewing incoming weather updates
determining location coordinates (I pair this info with my paper map)
Do you keep your smartphone on during the day while hiking? Why or why not?
For Garmin inReach Mini or Mini 2 users: are there other functions you use in addition to the ones outlined above that you use regularly when your inReach is not paired to your smartphone?
Executive Producer - Backpacking Light; Show Director and Host - Ryan Jordan; Producer - Chase Jordan; Theme music: Look for Me in the Mountains written by Chris Cunningham and Ryan Jordan, performed by Chris Cunningham (acoustic guitar, lead and harmony vocals, harmonica), Chad Langford (upright bass), and Tom Murphy (mandolin), produced by Basecamp Studios in Bozeman, Montana.
Sponsorship Policy: Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage, including any podcast episode content not excplicitly identified as sponsored content. Some (but not all) of the links in these show notes may be affiliate links. Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
Cottage backpacking gear makers face supply chain and logistical challenges but find fulfillment in other aspects of their operations.
Introduction
The ripple effects of the pandemic made everything from toilet paper to bicycles hard to find. Consumers quickly gained a cursory understanding of the entangled and interdependent factors that get materials from Point A to Point B. After two years, many of the day-to-day inconveniences connected with the pandemic disruption related to the supply chain have faded or reduced in frequency, at least on a superficial level. But smaller manufacturers in the backpacking industry are still feeling the disruptions in ways both subtle and severe, and more challenges are on the horizon.
Ultralight backpackers have long accepted a delay of several weeks to months between ordering and shipping as standard practice in the cottage industry. But the price of Dyneema Composite Fabric (DCF) tents and shelters rose sharply as the fabric itself became more expensive and difficult for cottage manufacturers to obtain. Even backpackers who didn’t need to purchase any new gear encountered issues with purchasing some consumables, like the typical gas canisters used with lightweight backpacking stoves. Some stores – even major chains like REI Co-op – were out entirely or only offered limited options.
Stove fuel is one of the items that became hard to find during the height of the pandemic – even at large stores like REI Co-op. Photo: Ryan Jordan
The pandemic also impacted warranty services, as replacement parts were subject to supply chain issues. On top of that, some warranty shops faced staffing issues as people were either sick or had decamped for greener pastures. Items I sent to Arc’teryx and Cascade Designs for warranty claims in 2020 and 2021 took several weeks longer to be processed than I had previously experienced. I had casual phone conversations with two warranty employees during the return process. Both described challenging conditions at their respective facilities regarding having staff on hand to open, evaluate, and ultimately resolve the warranty claims.
Posts across social media over the last two years, including the BPL forums, frequently discussed longer lead times for custom or limited-run pieces of gear. Posters also noted backorder and out-of-stock notices becoming increasingly common even among mainstream brands and at stores with significant market share and purchasing power.
These complaints come on top of concerns and discussions that predated the pandemic but have increased considerably since March 2020. Most of these discussions revolve around the increasing popularity of backpacking and hiking. Our sport’s pandemic-driven newfound popularity has resulted in new challenges. There are overuse impacts on trails and dispersed camping areas, permit and quota implementation difficulties in wilderness areas, and higher trail-use densities on public lands. All these issues can result in a degraded user experience.
But the ability to adapt to changing conditions is a crucial skill for backpacking. In many ways, it has proven crucial to the success of the smaller companies that are making backpacking gear.
This article is based on interviews with makers from several corners of the backpacking world. It will examine the highs, lows, current concerns, and unique challenges of the ultralight gear cottage industry.
From Our Archives: Listen to our ongoing podcast series where we interview cottage industry makers.
Most backpackers have a practical appreciation for the quality of the high-tech fabrics used in ultralight backpacks and shelters. Such fabrics protect us from the elements and haul our gear around. And they do so for hundreds of days and thousands of miles without meaningful decreases in their performance. But most of us fail to fully consider the international production and distribution process, with many literal moving parts and production timelines involved. The changes to Dyneema Composite Fabric (DCF) pricing and production have been the most noticeable.
The price of this DCF shelter, the Zpacks Free Duo, rose by about $100 in the months between field testing and when we published our review. Photo: Ben Kilbourne
DSM, the company that makes Dyneema Composite Fabric, is still only one of a few companies working with ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE). The way DCF is constructed – by arranging fibers between two laminate sheets of polyester rather than weaving – necessitates large batches and specialized equipment.
DCF production is limited – the fiber is made in Greenville, NC, and the fabric comes out of a single factory in Mesa, AZ. Ordering from these factories isn’t something that happens on short notice with a few emails. Production is scheduled months in advance. But delays with sourcing the appropriate fabrics, shipping logistics, or other issues can impact production schedules. Customers ordering larger volumes have priority. That affects scheduling and the quantity of material available for smaller companies. Outfits without an existing business relationship might be unable to get taken on as customers.
“Let’s not sit here and pretend like DSM will even acknowledge our existence. If you’re smaller than Zpacks or Hyperlight Mountain Gear, they won’t even return an email, let alone take our order,” said Chris Millard of Light AF, a cottage company specializing in ultralight backpacks.
A custom LiteAF DCF dye-sublimated pack being worn by Jeff Garmire. Photo: Maggie Slepian.
“[Even] prior to Covid, it was difficult to compete with the larger brands for materials and production sourcing if you want[ed] great suppliers. All the top suppliers don’t want to bother with you if you don’t have sufficient volume and reputation, so you can be left working with tier two suppliers that are often cheaper but don’t have the same quality, nor opportunities for innovation (e.g., new materials, new methods),” explained Dan Durston of Durston Gear.
Light AF was, until recently, one of few cottage companies using a dye-sublimation process on DCF. The result was unique and colorful packs that went beyond the neutral blues, greens, grays, and whites for which the fabric is known. Now Millard has announced the company will be moving exclusively to Challenge Sailcloth’s Ultra fabric. Other brands, such as Nashville Pack and Equipment Company and Pa’lante Packs are also switching.
Like DCF, Ultra is an UHMWPE. But it features a woven face fabric with a laminate backing instead of the “arranged and sandwiched” approach taken by DSM for Dyneema Composite Fabric. Like DCF, it has a high strength-to-weight ratio and is waterproof. But the best part – from a maker standpoint – is its availability.
As Dan Durston said, “everything about it is way easier, from smaller quantities to way better lead times. You can get it in weeks or a few months, whereas DCF is about a year right now.”
Ultra is a woven UHWMD fabric with a laminate backing. It is much more readily available than Dyneema Composite Fabric. Photo: Ripstop by the Roll
The advent of Ultra could go a long way towards solving the premium technical fabric supply issues that cottage manufacturers are currently facing. That could make for cheaper – but still high-performing – gear on shorter turnaround times, though the long-term durability of Ultra in ultralight gear applications is still unknown.
But there’s still the issue of factories.
“For tents, there are really only two factories in the world that build almost all of the premium tents, and we were fortunate to start with one of them…but if we were trying to start smaller, it probably would have been a no,” said Durston. “For many companies, making that jump from small-scale production to…top factories would be a hard one because you can’t get there gradually – you have to commit to a large production run.”
Finding factories that match the exacting standards of cottage gear makers while remaining in their price range is tough. Many cottage companies start with one person, a sewing machine, and a basement, and makers are able to ensure every piece matches their quality control standards. Once scaling begins, things get more complicated.
Dan Durston of Durston Gear considers himself lucky to be working with high-end factories to produce his shelters – like this Durston X-Mid Pro 2 – but still faces issues related to material sourcing, capital, and scaling. Photo: Ryan Jordan
Matt Evans of Red Paw Packs has been a solo operation until just recently. Expansion has been rocky for him.
“The first factory I worked with a few months ago [created a batch of 50 fanny packs] and most of them were unacceptable for sale (and [are] now wasting space in my studio),” said Evans. “I want any item sold through my shop to match or exceed the quality that I produce myself.”
Even medium-sized (by market share) companies struggle with it.
“When you’re a small and growing business, you must be creative in your solutions to almost everything. Scaling means you might be working out of a renovated basement turned into a drying room. Direct-to-consumer can be challenging for many cottage businesses, because while you’re busy making your product, you also have the added duties of marketing, accounting, shipping, etc. There are only so many hours in the day,” said Jennifer Scism, chef and co-founder at Good To-Go.
The ability to be involved in every aspect of the company and envision the use of a product comes more easily at smaller outdoor companies. Many of those interviewed focused on their appreciation of the creativity that they can exercise. Direct-to-consumer business models mean they get to genuinely engage with customers and backpacking communities online.
Good To-Go has successfully scaled its small operation to the point where its products appear in major outdoor stores. Photo: Andrew Marshall
“The thought of a bunch of people eating meals we cooked ourselves all over the country, especially in some awesome areas is super cool,” said John Ritner of Pinnacle Foods, which he founded with his brother Ben. “It’s been a rewarding process to be covering every aspect of the process, from sourcing ingredients and packaging, to prepping, cooking, freeze-drying, packaging, shipping, marketing, sales, social media, etc.; our small team of three literally does everything, so it’s been fun getting our hands in everything, and being able to control the quality at every step.”
“A business model that I’m passionate about is direct to the customer,” said Dan Durston. “I think a gear company can better educate people about their gear than a retail store since we can develop in-depth product videos, be available online, provide detailed product pages, etc., whereas a retailer is handling numerous product lines and can’t provide the same depth.”
“Of course, a retailer can allow customers to touch and try the gear, so having both would be nice, but selling direct saves substantial retailer markup, which we can put to better use. Instead of an 80-100% retailer markup, we can put more money into making an even better product and still sell it for substantially less…overall, I think our direct-to-customer model is better for backpackers because it’s more efficient, allows us to build a higher-end product, and to innovate faster, so we think this strategy makes the most sense. With that said, maybe there [are] some benefits to being in a few retailers, so people have somewhere to touch and try the gear.”
Henry Shires of Tarptent had similar feelings about the benefits of the direct-to-consumer business model.
“I/we decided long ago to stay direct-to-consumer and not go retail. In the retail model, your customer is the store, not the end-user,” said Shires. “I much prefer selling direct to the person using the product. It leads to direct feedback and ultimately better products.”
Henry Shires of Tarptent long-ago decided that his products – like this Tarptent Notch Li – would always be direct-to-consumer. Photo: Ryan Jordan
Offering custom-made pieces of gear for a user’s specific preferences or dimensions is a crucial part of the business of many cottage industry manufacturers. However, long wait times for custom gear – a factor even before the pandemic – do impact the overall business. Customization can be hard to sustain, and some small companies that start out offering it don’t do so for long.
“Our business model centers around quick fulfillment. This is so that people who want to be outfitted for a last-minute weekend getaway can make it happen while also experiencing the freedom of ultralight gear,” said Sarah del Puerto at Gossamer Gear. “For this reason, we do not make custom gear as that usually entails a multi-month waiting period.”
Finding capital
Access to the capital needed to start a business and expand it once it begins to grow is a challenge in any industry. It is one that several cottage manufacturers noted.
“My thinking about the biggest difference between cottage and larger/retail brands is that it all comes down to capital investment. We have been forced into a heavy capital investment model due to our growing line of Dyneema [Composite Fabric] tents,” said Henry Shires of Tarptent. “All product businesses go through managing supply and demand, and it’s really just a matter of scaling to meet your expected demand while managing risk with available capital.”
John Ritner of Pinnacle Foods noted that managing capital resources and preparing for demand was a challenge and required careful strategizing.
“Since the beginning, we have been trying to scale up as we grow, which is hard because we didn’t want to get ahead of ourselves with a ton of debt before the demand was there. When we launched, we were doing everything in a shared-use commercial kitchen in the early mornings before we headed off to our day jobs. We produced 40 meals per week and got things going with just some of our savings,” he said. “Without access to a ton of capital, we have been trying to grow as demand grows, which is a hard guessing game. We recently moved into an awesome 3,200 square foot kitchen…and are feeling really ready for our next big push.”
This meal was made in a shared-use commercial kitchen early in the morning before Ben and John Ritner of Pinnacle Foods headed off to their day jobs. Photo: Andrew Marshall
Sometimes a product might sell out even before an unforeseeable increase in interest due to internet hype. That can be rough for smaller companies with less capital on hand.
Dan Durston noted that when supply chain issues occur, “That’s hard for everyone, but especially hard for us newer and fast-growing companies because now we can’t respond as quickly to rising interest. We wind up out of stock on popular tents and with long waits to get more. The only solution is to estimate demand much further out (e.g., two years instead of six months) and act on that, which is harder/risky, and it ties up a lot more money in order deposits and materials.”
The unique challenges of packaged food
Makers of cottage industry packaged meals are also affected by the recent world events and economy.
Pinnacle Foods launched only a few months before the pandemic began, so they don’t have a baseline to compare with what business was like in the pre-pandemic years. Despite that lack of comparison, they have noticed issues directly related to the supply chain.
“We did have some issues with packaging because the company making our bags was working at 50% due to Covid precautions, so we did have to use some really large bags for a few months, which was a bummer,” said John Ritner of Pinnacle Foods. “We have also seen food costs go up pretty significantly over the past year, which is always tough to manage.”
Good To-Go saw a sharp increase in demand – with an over 300% increase in revenue in March 2020 – at the pandemic’s beginning. They aren’t the only ones – many of the food brands we reached out to for testing samples in 2020 and 2021 were completely overwhelmed by the demand of panic buying. The situation has generally leveled out since then, with a few occasional spikes in demand.
“As far as ingredients, yes, there have been struggles, but our in-house purchasing manager is a rock star. Over the past two years, we’ve only had to cancel one day of production due to ingredients,” said Jennifer Scism. “Throughout this unprecedented time, we feel very fortunate to have had great relationships with our suppliers – that has helped us stay on track and overcome obstacles as they arise.”
Because the internet
According to our interviewees, social media is “a wild rollercoaster” or “very much a bull in a china shop.” But they also identified it as a way to foster authentic connections with the folks who use their gear and monitor trends that could help prioritize product development or scheduling.
When asked about the challenges of being a smaller company in the outdoor market, Jennifer Scism at Good To-Go notes marketing as her second-most pressing challenge behind scaling.
“We don’t have the budgets the larger brands do. We’re a small brand that does everything in-house, from production of the meals to communicating with our customers,” she said.
While marketing and managing social media can be time-consuming, it also has benefits.
“Being a smaller brand allows us to connect more intimately with our customers. They can reach out with questions and ideas and know someone on our team is going to respond. We’re also more nimble than the larger brands. For example, we can see in real-time if a particular meal seems to be increasing in popularity and can switch production to address demand more quickly.”
Dan Durston agrees.
“The two most enjoyable parts for me are being able to design exactly what I want and being able to engage with the community along the way for ideas, stories, and shared enthusiasm. As a small company, it’s really neat to undertake the full process of having an idea (which typically occurs while I’m out hiking), putting it down on paper, prototyping it to perfection, and then getting it out to customers,” said Durston when asked about the rewards of running a cottage industry backpacking business.
Many cottage industry makers find internet marketing a double-edged sword. It is fulfilling to interact directly with customers but also requires time and energy. Screenshot: Durston Gear Instagram page.
“In a larger company, you’d be part of a larger team designing something where any one person’s ideas are likely a much smaller piece of that process, and they wouldn’t have the same personal investment in the finished product. Seeing ideas come to life is incredibly rewarding, and so is seeing people loving the gear and using it on their adventures,” he continued. “Through the Durston Gearheads group on Facebook and other outlets like Instagram, it’s a joy to people out using the gear. Neatest of all is hiking into a campground here in the Rockies and actually meeting someone in the wild that is using my gear.”
Looking forward
The supply chain has stabilized somewhat, but it seems likely that cottage industry manufacturers will continue facing inflation, staffing challenges, increased transportation costs, material backlogs, and logistical issues. If you’re planning on purchasing from a cottage industry manufacturer, it seems prudent to submit your order as soon as you’ve decided on a product – wait too long, and the product could be out of stock for weeks or months, see a price increase, or see its production indefinitely postponed.
When this happens, it seems best to remember that the person on the other end of the internet is a real human, and forces beyond their control might be impacting your order.
Conclusion
Despite the sheen of romance that surrounds it, there’s nothing particularly fascinating or intriguing about the cottage industry in a purely economic sense. Makers face all the same difficulties – albeit on a different scale – as any business endeavor does.
But the dedication, innovative designs, and often superior quality of many products made by cottage industry manufacturers are remarkable. Cottage makers engage in customer correspondence about customization options, design choices, or deep dives into material selection. The result is a business relationship that both the consumer and producer seem to find deeply rewarding – a feedback loop of innovation and design ethos with a purpose firmly rooted in enjoying the natural world.
The people behind the sewing machines – their goals and dreams, their challenges and triumphs, their philosophies and ideas – are well worth reflecting on as you pack up for your next trip.
Andrew Marshall also contributed reporting to this piece.
Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage.
Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead.
Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
This First Looks review of the Atom Packs Nanu X25 examines the standout features and multi-use potential of a durable and aesthetically-pleasing daypack.
Introduction
This review of the Atom Packs Nanu X25 (21 oz / 600 g, MSRP: $269) examines a multi-use daypack with the potential to function as a one-night overnighter. The Nanu X25 is constructed with X10 Cotton Duck Fabric, 500 denier nylon, Dyneema Composite Fabric-reinforced stretch material, and triple stitched and bound seams.
Ryan Jordan talks about minimalist backpacking concepts and Atom Packs Nanu X25 features and specifications in the following video:
The X25 won’t replace anybody’s multi-night pack, and I don’t see it excelling in fastpacking applications (the relatively heavy material choice and shoulder-strap designs preclude it from that). But with a blend of bike, commuting, and backpacking specific features, it could replace two or three packs on the low-volume end of a backpack quiver.
This is a first look at new gear that recently entered our review pipeline, and hasn't yet been subjected to rigorous field use. Learn more about the types of product reviews we publish.
Atom Packs Nanu X25. Photo: Atom Packs
Highlights
clean, minimal aesthetics
body fabric: X10 Cotton Duck
back panel and shoulder strap fabric: 500d nylon
pocket fabric – Dyneema Composite Fabric stretch
classic overnight pack design – roll-top closure, three pockets
shoulder-strap pocket
padded laptop sleeve
removable sternum strap
triple stitched and bound seams
zip upper pocket with internal key clip
shock cord compression tensioners
shock cord trekking pole attachments
bike light loop
Testing Context
I tested the Atom Packs Nanu X25 on a couple of day hikes in the Tahoe Basin Land Management Unit (the traditional land of the Wašišiw people). Leaning into the Nanu X25’s intended use, I also ran some bike errands with it – to the grocery store, to the coffee shop to do some work, and to the post office. I didn’t push the Nanu X25 to its limits as a one-night overnight pack, but Backpacking Light founder/owner Ryan Jordan did, and I tap into his experience in this review as well.
Testing the Atom Packs Nanu X25 on a day hike in the Tahoe Basin. Photo: Andrew Marshall
This is a first look at new gear that recently entered our review pipeline, and hasn't yet been subjected to rigorous field use. Learn more about the types of product reviews we publish.
First Impressions
Fabric and Aesthetics
Atom Packs deviated from typical ultralight fabrics with the Atom Packs Nanu X25, choosing the relatively heavy X10 Cotton Duck by Dimension Polyant (DM) for the main body and 500 denier nylon for the back panel and shoulder straps.
DM’s X10 Cotton Duck is interesting. It’s a 100% cotton fabric with polyester X-PLY yarn reinforcements at 22 degrees off the warp and a polyester film laminated to one side. The upshot is a fabric that looks and feels traditional (think Carhartt jackets) but performs at a high technical level (extremely durable and waterproof, if not the lightest thing around).
The Atom Packs Nanu X25 is made of durable materials. Photo: Andrew Marshall
X10 Cotton Duck started showing up in bikepacking bags because – I imagine – it’s not going to tear the first time it rubs up against a thorn bush at 20 MPH. So it makes sense that Atom Packs would choose it for a pack they assume you’ll be biking around with (more on that later). Based on my experience with and knowledge of fabrics, I have to assume the Atom Pack Nanu X25 is going to age beautifully in a way that synthetic fabrics don’t. And from a purely aesthetic standpoint, the pack succeeds right out of the box. X10 Cotton Duck seems to come in the kind of pleasing, toned-down natural colors I’d prefer to see more of in technical gear (please spare me more neon shades of green, blue, and pink).
I should note that DM has discontinued X10 Cotton Duck. I reached out to Atom Packs to see what they’d make the next run of Nanus out of (currently slated for sometime this summer). The answer is – they aren’t sure. It will be interesting to see if they stick with a natural fiber + laminate model (X-Pac has a variation called X11) or move towards something a little more traditional. The fabric choice adds a lot of character to the Nanu, so personally speaking, I’d think of it as a loss if Atom Packs went with something purely synthetic like ECOPAK.
The Atom Packs Nanu X25 is essentially a miniature version of a classic three-pocket ultralight backpacking pack. Photo: Andrew Marshall
As a final nod towards durability, Atom Packs opts for a Dyneema Composite Fabric-reinforced stretch material that is likely to hold up well against rips and tears. This fabric choice seems a good compromise between the utility of traditional nylon stretch pockets and the durability of open-weave mesh.
Multi-use feature set
The Atom Packs Nanu X25 is essentially a miniaturized version of a three-pocket ultralight pack. It has a roll-top closure with a g-hook tensioner and a single over-the-top webbing strap. There’s a stretchy shoulder-strap pocket on the left-hand shoulder strap that’s big enough to accommodate my iPhone 12 Pro Max or my 650 ml water bottle.
The Nanu X25 also has a shock-cord trekking pole attachment system and two shock-cord compression tensioners on either side of the upper pack. This classic ultralight backpacking feature set gives the Nanu X25 the chops for all-day excursions and quick one-night overnights – provided you have a low-volume kit. A stiff foam back panel lends just a touch of structure, while a line of daisy chain webbing running down each shoulder strap provides attachment points for other incidental gear.
The Atom Pack Nanu X25 on a day hike in Colorado. Photo: Ryan Jordan
The side pockets are cut at an angle. Usually, this design choice denotes a nod towards on-the-go accessibly. I almost never find such pockets practically accessible, and the pockets on the Nanu X25 are no different. It’s possible to fish a water bottle out of them with some contorting, but why bother when you’ve got a shoulder strap pocket right there?
Additional features expand the Nanu 25 capabilities beyond backpacking and hiking. There’s a zip pouch right above the shoulder straps that includes an integrated key clip, a laptop sleeve padded out by the foam back panel, and an internal pocket with a snap closure. A webbing loop sewn into the fabric below the rear pocket provides a handy bike light attachment point. These features make the Atom Packs Nanu X25 an attractive option for the user wanting a day pack that performs at a technical level while also doubling as a commuter or travel pack.
Construction and finish quality
The Atom Pack Nanu X25 features seams that are triple stitched and bound. The hardware and webbing loops are bar-tacked into place. Between these construction choices and the material choices discussed above, I’d classify the Nanu X25 as overbuilt, and I mean that in a good way.
In his Performance Review of the Atom, Dan Durston gave Atom Packs high marks on some, but not all, of his finish quality metrics. Looking over his observations and comparing them to this pack, I’d say Atom Packs has upped its game. There’s one line of stitching with a little wiggle – nothing the average user would be likely to notice.
Final Thoughts
There’s a lot to love about the Atom Packs Nanu X25. It’s a technical pack that doesn’t look or feel like a technical pack. It’s got just enough volume to make a low-volume overnight trip possible but maintains a sleek design that rides comfortably while hiking or biking. The aesthetics are enhanced by attractive material choices that also happen to be durable and waterproof. The overall construction is well-realized.
If you are wondering where the hair that covers the pack in the rest of the photos came from, your answer is in this picture. Photo: Stephanie Jordan.
It is, unfortunately, pretty expensive for a day pack, coming in at ~$269 at the exchange rate as of this writing. That kind of price tag is likely to be offputting to anyone with a daypack that is still doing the trick. But if you happen to be in the market for a new daypack and you’d like it to be one that can replace a few of your other bags as well, you could do worse than considering the Atom Packs Nanu X25.
Atom Packs is out of stock at the moment, so you’ll have to look around on the second-hand market to purchase one. Atom Packs tells me they’ll be tackling another run of this pack sometime in the summer of 2022.
Photos
Dyneema Composite Fabric reinforced stretch pockets are a good middle ground between the stretchy functionality of normal nylon mesh pockets and the durability of open-weave net-style pockets. Photo: Andrew MarshallA line of daisy chain webbing runs down the center of both shoulder straps. Photo: Andrew MarshallX10 Cotton Duck is a hard-wearing, waterproof fabric with a very traditional look and hand-feel. It is certainly heavier than the sorts of ultralight fabrics commonly used in packs at the moment. Photo: Andrew Marshall.The Atom Pack Nanu X25 features a zippered pocket directly above the shoulder straps with an integrated key clip. Photo: Andrew MarshallFeatures include: roll-top closure, adjustable shock cord compression on either side of the pack, and a trekking pole attachment system. Photo: Andrew MarshallThis webbing loop, which is more on the side of the pack than the bottom when the pack is full, is designed to clip a bike light to. Photo: Andrew MarshallThe side pockets are pretty small but large enough to accommodate water bottles of the tall and skinny variety. Photo: Andrew MarshallThe shoulder strap pocket is a much better location for water bottles than the side pocket.
Learn More
Browse our curated recommendations in the Backpacking Light Gear Shop – a product research & discovery tool where you can find Member gear reviews, Gear Swap (used gear) listings, and more info about specific products recommended by our staff and members.
Product mentions in this article are made by the author with no compensation in return. In addition, Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage.
Some (but not all) of the links in this review may be affiliate links. If you click on one of these links and visit one of our affiliate partners (usually a retailer site), and subsequently place an order with that retailer, we receive a commission on your entire order, which varies between 3% and 15% of the purchase price. Affiliate commissions represent less than 15% of Backpacking Light's gross revenue. More than 70% of our revenue comes from Membership Fees. So if you'd really like to support our work, don't buy gear you don't need - support our consumer advocacy work and become a Member instead.
Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
Ryan chats with Willow Belden from Out There. Also in this episode: updates on some new packs and the How to Use Gaia GPS masterclass.
Stream
Summary
In this episode, Ryan chats with Willow Belden of Out There. Out There is a podcast that tackles big questions through intimate storytelling and is committed to elevating the voices of those traditionally left out of the conversation when it comes to the outdoors.
Also in this episode: a conversation about a new outdoor fabric, updates on some packs we’ve been testing, and the launch of a new Backpacking Light online course – the How to Use Gaia GPS masterclass.
Â
Outline
00:00:30 – introduction
00:01:20 – Ultra – a pack material that is showing up in cottage brands
Executive Producer - Backpacking Light; Show Director and Host - Ryan Jordan; Producer - Chase Jordan; Theme music: Look for Me in the Mountains written by Chris Cunningham and Ryan Jordan, performed by Chris Cunningham (acoustic guitar, lead and harmony vocals, harmonica), Chad Langford (upright bass), and Tom Murphy (mandolin), produced by Basecamp Studios in Bozeman, Montana.
Sponsorship Policy: Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage, including any podcast episode content not excplicitly identified as sponsored content. Some (but not all) of the links in these show notes may be affiliate links. Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
In this Zpacks Free Duo Tent review, we dive into its pros (freestanding, Dyneema Composite Fabric) and its cons (low livability, poor storm performance).
Ben Kilbourne reads his essay on the balance between caring about gear and being present on adventures.
Stream
Summary
We talk a lot about gear on this podcast. Gear is fun, and if you are a fan of this pod, you probably have an interest not only in if something works, but why it works. Still, it’s easy to begin to fetishize gear, to turn it almost into the point of having adventures rather than a tool to facilitate them. Don’t believe us? Just search “gear layout” hashtags on Instagram.
That’s why we’ve always loved the essay “Good Gear Lets you be Present” by Ben Kilbourne. In his classic style, Ben struggles to balance his technical and professional interest in gear with his desire to be more fully present on outdoor adventures, something that many of us also struggle with. We think you’ll enjoy his perspective.
Executive Producer - Backpacking Light; Show Director and Host - Ryan Jordan; Producer - Chase Jordan; Theme music: Look for Me in the Mountains written by Chris Cunningham and Ryan Jordan, performed by Chris Cunningham (acoustic guitar, lead and harmony vocals, harmonica), Chad Langford (upright bass), and Tom Murphy (mandolin), produced by Basecamp Studios in Bozeman, Montana.
Sponsorship Policy: Backpacking Light does not accept compensation or donated/discounted products in exchange for product mentions or placements in editorial coverage, including any podcast episode content not excplicitly identified as sponsored content. Some (but not all) of the links in these show notes may be affiliate links. Learn more about affiliate commissions, influencer marketing, and our consumer advocacy work by reading our article Stop wasting money on gear.
Drew Smith makes the case for backpacking ponchos. They provide more ventilation vs. rain jackets and can also function as ultralight tarps.
You don’t have access to view this content.
Membership Required
This feature requires an active Backpacking Light Membership.
Premium Articles
You're currently viewing a free preview of a member exclusive premium article. Our premium articles include in depth journalism and insights from the Backpacking Light editorial team.
Get full article access by subscribing to a Premium or Unlimited Backpacking Light membership!
