Articles (2020)

Ryan Jordan

Visit Ryan’s Personal Website: RyanJordan.com

Dr. Ryan Jordan is the Publisher at Beartooth Media Group and co-founder of Backpacking Light.

Ryan has a B.S. in Civil Engineering and an M.S. in Environmental Engineering from Washington State University, and a Ph.D. in Biofilm Engineering from Montana State University’s Center for Biofilm Engineering (http://www.erc.montana.edu/). Ryan spent seven years at Montana State University as a Senior Research Engineer managing a research and industry testing program in biofilm science, focusing on backcountry water quality and treatment, moisture transport in next to skin performance textiles, and anti-infective medical device coating performance. Ryan is the co-founder of the Biofilm Institute (http://www.biofilm.org), where he was the founding Editor-in-Chief of Biofilms Online (http://www.biofilmsonline.com/), the Internet’s leading clearinghouse for information and research about biofilm science and engineering for medical and industrial communities. Ryan remains on Montana State University’s adjunct faculty and serves on the Management Team as a Senior Partner for Cytergy (http://www.cytergy.com), the largest U.S.-based provider of scientific e-learning programs in biofilm science and engineering to Fortune 500 corporations, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, federal agency, and higher education sectors. Ryan also remains active in corporate consulting and training in the area of biofilm science, and is a co-editor of Advances in Biofilm Science and Engineering.

Ryan’s wilderness travel background is rooted in his experience as both a Scout and Scouter in the Boy Scouts of America. Ryan is both an Eagle Scout (Troop 360, Burien, WA) and a Philmont graduate, and served seven years on the staff of the nation’s oldest continuously operating Scout camp, Camp Parsons (Chief Seattle Council), located on Washington’s Hood Canal at the base of the Olympic Mountains. While at Camp Parsons, Ryan was the director of the highly acclaimed Silver Marmot High Adventure Program, renowned worldwide for its rigor and challenge. As the High Adventure Program Director, Ryan began introducing ultralight backpacking techniques to the Scouting community, incorporating lightweight travel as an integral component of the Parsons’ high adventure experience. Ryan then became Camp Parsons’ Program Director, where he developed and taught the nation’s first formal adult leader program dedicated exclusively to empowering Scout leaders with the skills and gear for ultralight backpacking. More than 175 adults graduated from Ryan’s “Ultralight Backpacking Leadership” program in its inaugural year, 1992. It was at Camp Parsons where Ryan met his wife-to-be, Stephanie Krack, in 1987. Stephanie was also a member of the Camp Staff. They were married in September 1992. Today, Ryan and Stephanie are the co-owners of Backpacking Light and continue their Scouting involvement as Den Leaders for Pack 676 in Bozeman, Montana. Their son, Chase, is a Cub Scout in their Den.

Growing up in the Seattle area, Ryan’s home wilderness range spanned the Olympics and Cascades of Washington State. Now a resident of Bozeman, Montana, Ryan tramps around the Northern Rockies most often, including the Beartooth, Teton, and Wind River Ranges. An accomplished climber, Ryan has been an alpine mountaineering guide and glacier / ice climbing instructor, with several mountaineering achievements to his credit, including winter ascents and ski descents of Mts. Hood, Baker, Rainier, Adams, Glacier Peak, St. Helens, and Olympus. Ryan has also enchained the Grand Traverse (Tetons) and Ptarmigan Traverse (Cascades), as well as winter ski traverses of the Bailey Range (Olympics), Teton High Route, and Wind River Range from Togwotee Pass to South Pass. Between 1988 and 1991, Ryan completed trekking circumnavigations of Mts. Rainier (Wonderland Trail), Baker, Adams, St. Helens, and Olympus, all without resupply. In 2006, Ryan attempted the longest wilderness traverse in America (624 miles) without support, from the Chukchi Sea (west coast of Alaska) to the Alaskan Oil Pipeline Highway with Roman Dial and Jason Geck. More information about that trek can be found at Arctic1000.com.

ryan in action

Ryan and Stephanie Jordan founded Backpacking Light (http://www.BackpackingLight.com) in the fall of 2000. Since that time, Backpacking Light has been recognized as a leading authority in the area of ultralight backpacking and has been featured in the LA Times, New York Times, Associated Press, Travel Channel, and the Christian Science Monitor. Ryan is a co-author of both Lightweight Backpacking 101 and Clothing and Sleep Systems for Mountain Hiking, as well as several articles on the subject of lightweight backpacking that have appeared in various outdoor industry trade publications.

Ryan teaches ultralight mountain hiking seminars and guides clients into the field on a regular basis, with a focus on training Scout leaders, search and rescue personnel, land management agency staff, the media, outdoor program leaders, and adventure travelers. Seminars and field outings focus on self-sufficiency and solo travel, skills for managing ultralight gear in inclement conditions, increasing navigation and travel efficiency in complex terrain environments, and long-distance ultralight hiking with less than five pounds of equipment.

RSS: Subscribe to Ryan’s Journal via RSS or view the feed at BackpackingLight.com.

Carol Crooker

Carol Crooker, Backpacking Light Editor at Large

 

Carol served as an officer in the U.S. Navy from 1977 until her retirement in 1996. After earning a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy in 1981, she went on to hold various leadership positions in undersea surveillance.

In 1988, Carol received M.S. degrees in Electrical Engineering and Engineering Acoustics from the Naval Postgraduate School. She then served as a project engineer for the worldwide undersea surveillance system at Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command in Washington, D.C. where she managed eight contracts, valued at over $70 million, to develop, build and maintain undersea surveillance equipment. Carol next served as the Electronics Maintenance Officer for a year at an undersea surveillance facility in Norfolk, VA, followed by two years as Director of Operations at the same facility. As Director of Operations, Carol was responsible for the daily work performance, training, and professional development of 300 sailors, officers, and civil servants. Her command won the Operational Excellence Award as best of six undersea surveillance facilities while under her leadership.

Carol moved to California in 1994 to become Officer-in-Charge of the Navy Training Center at Treasure Island. She managed 150 people with a $2.2 million budget responsible for training 9000 sailor students each year in leadership and shipboard damage control, maintenance and repair. During her tenure she became certified as a Master Training Specialist. Upon her retirement from the Navy in 1996, Carol moved to Phoenix, Arizona.

From 1996 through 2003, Carol’s focus changed. She developed and taught a series of courses called the Life Success Group which used meditation as a tool to help hundreds of people bring order and joy to their lives through conscious choices and decision-making with integrity. Carol also taught one-day workshops and hosted a 13-week radio show devoted to the same subject.

During the same time period, Carol began her backpacking career in earnest. Carol grew up in upstate New York and spent her childhood summers roaming the countryside surrounding her family’s dairy farm. Always dreaming of a deeper wilderness experience, events, and eventually work commitments, conspired to keep her from living her dream. Retirement from the Navy opened the door to freedom for her. Soon after moving to Phoenix, Carol started exploring the backcountry areas of her adopted state in earnest. She took her first real backpacking trip, solo, in 1997 to test the new gear she’d acquired for an upcoming group trip into the Grand Canyon. A light load was essential since 24 pounds of water would be part of the pack weight for the initial trek to Horseshoe Mesa. Thus began the start of three traditions for Carol: solo backpacking, lightweight backpacking, and gear testing. Following a wonderful experience in the Grand Canyon, Carol was hooked on backpacking.

In July and August 1999, to celebrate turning 40, Carol embarked on the Boulder Outdoor Survival School (BOSS) 27-Day Field Course. Established in 1968, BOSS is the oldest and largest traditional living skills / survival school in the world. The Field Course put an emphasis on traditional techniques over modern technology. The course consisted of six phases. Instructors guided the trekkers during the first two phases, but students were on their own in small groups or solo, for the remainder of the course.

During the first five days of the course, called Impact, gear consisted of little more than a jacket, knife, compass, and cup. Days were spent hiking over the rugged terrain of the southern Utah desert and nights were spent huddled together buried under forest duff for warmth. There was no food, and no water carrying vessel, so travel was definitely lightweight. Water was found only from natural sources and the first five days of Carol’s course included one, day and a half stretch, without water.

After the Impact phase, participants were allowed minimal gear. Total pack weight was less than 25 pounds. Shelter and rain protection came from an Army poncho. A wool Army blanket formed the pack and sleeping bag. Participants were not encumbered by modern conveniences such as flashlights, matches, and lighters. Fires were started for cooking, light, and warmth with bow and drill constructed from native materials. Food consisted of staples such as brown rice, potatoes, onions, and oatmeal.

Carol and six adventurers survived all six phases of the course to emerge more comfortable and self-reliant in the natural world and weighing quite a bit less than at the start. The experience taught Carol how to be comfortable in the backcountry with less conveniences than she would have imagined possible, further enhancing her lightweight backpacking mindset.

Since her first solo overnighter in 1997, Carol has spent over 30 nights in the backcountry each year. She loves backpacking in the desert and forests near her home in Phoenix. Since discovering the joys of mountain travel in 2000, she has spread her backpacking range to include the Sierras in California, including summiting Mount Whitney, the Beartooths in Wyoming, and the Sawtooths in Idaho. She has also backpacked in Oregon’s Columbia Gorge on two occasions, successfully escaping an excess of dry, sunny, beautiful weather in her home state. In 2002 she tried snow camping for the first time. After an educational five-day solo snowshoe backpack trip to Mosquito Flats in the eastern Sierras, she was hooked and makes sure to get in a few snow camping trips each year.

Carol began organizing backpacking trips in 2000 for new backpackers that, of course, included an emphasis on “lightening the load.” In 2004, she began teaching pack “weight loss” techniques to groups, with an emphasis on women new to backpacking. Her vision is to help women who might have been intimidated by heavy packs in the past to give lightweight backpacking a try.

Carol’s engineering background and problem solving nature lead her to lots of at-home and on-trail experimentation and testing of new gear, altered gear, and gear she creates. She is on a never-ending quest to find the perfect blend of gear so that she carries the lightest pack whose contents include adequate safety gear and essentials for just enough comfort in camp. Carol formalized her gear testing habit in 2002 when she began testing gear and writing reviews for BackpackGearTest.org (http://www.backpackgeartest.org/tester_reviews/cmcrooker).

Carol’s typical base pack weight for a three-season trip is under 10 pounds. She currently lives in Phoenix, Arizona.

Alan Dixon

Alan Dixon, Backpacking Light Editor at Large

Alan has a MS in Engineering from Swarthmore College. He worked seven years in aerospace engineering (yes, a rocket scientist) before going into the public sector. He currently does computer-based probabilistic risk modeling for the Environmental Protection Agency. Alan supported himself through college as a professional photographer. Environmentally concerned, in addition to his work at the EPA he does volunteer environmental fieldwork-water quality monitoring and bird surveys-and supports work on preserving the canyon lands of the southwest.

Alan grew up in northern California and at age five carried his own backpack into the Yosemite backcountry. In the ensuing 40 years he has been on a variety of trips in California including climbing walls in Yosemite, and many backcountry ascents in the Sierras including the Ritter range and the Palisades. Alan has also done a winter ascent of Mt. Rainier, Mt. Shasta, climbed in the Tetons, completed a winter traverse of the Franconia Ridge in the White Mountains, and winter climbed in the Presidential Range. He’s done sections of the PCT, CDT, and AT and been backpacking, climbing in the Rockies, Sierras, Cascades, and adventuring all across the US.

His most memorable climb was a 38-hour single-push attempt on the Middle Teton. He and Ryan Jordan, publisher of BackpackingLight.com, made it to within a few hundred feet from the summit before a storm forced them to abandon the climb with an ensuing hallucinatory nighttime decent in snow and ice with inadequate clothing, no food and water, little hardware, and a very short rope. Both are glad they are alive.

A jack-of-all-trades, Alan has been a winning category III bike racer, and an accomplished free diver and flyfisherman. In the past year he’s completed a multi-day paddling trip in the Florida Everglades, a winter backcountry ski tour in Yellowstone, a traverse of the Wind River range in winter conditions, climbed volcanoes in Indonesia, and bagged Munro’s (summits) in Scotland. The canyons of the Southwest are a new interest and Alan’s spent considerable time learning the ins and outs of technical canyoneering and desert travel.

Alan loves to share his knowledge of backcountry travel. He’s guided trips and organized seminars on lightweight backpacking, climbing and canyoneering. Some of his favorite topics are couples backpacking and backpacking with children. Alan’s a navigational geek and spends quality time with his multiple GPS units and custom maps. He prefers mountainous routes that get him into remote and inaccessible palaces in the Sierras, Rockies and canyons of the Southwest. For his kit gear Alan is down to less than 5 pounds of gear for solo long distance travel. His favorite trips are very light and very fast sometimes covering 20+ miles a day off-trail.

Alan co-founded Backpacking Light with Ryan in the spring of 2001. He’s the editor and a contributor to Backpacking Light 101 and co-authored Clothing and Sleep Systems for Mountain Hiking. Alan’s latest article, Waterproof Breathable Fabric Technologies: A Comprehensive Primer and State of the Market Technology Review is already heralded as a classic of scientific analysis in a little understood field. Alan works as a consultant to Bozeman Mountain Works, a design and manufacturing company dedicated to bringing the lightest high performance mountain gear available to the consumer.

Alan has two children age 19 and 22. He lives in Washington DC with his wife Alison, their tandem bicycle and a ton of gear.

Jay Ham

Jay Ham started backpacking in 1990 and went lightweight in 1995. Wanting his children to experience and share in his love of the outdoors, he became obsessed with reducing the family’s base weight to make backpacking with small children possible. He and his wife began designing and making much of their family’s gear (including kid-sized frameless packs and top bags), as lightweight gear was scarce at the time. With a Masters in Soil Science, Jay now manages a 2.5 million acre Soil Survey project in remote Northern Arizona, where he spends multi-day, “work related” time in the backcountry. He and his family continue to frequent the outdoors near their home in Flagstaff, Arizona.

Don Wilson

Don Wilson joined the Backpacking Light staff as Clothing Systems Section Editor in April 2004. While hiking the John Muir Trail in 1978 he got his initial taste of long distance hiking and rock climbing and has been as avid practitioner of both ever since. His many recent trips with his family are among his most memorable. He aspires to hike very long distances with a very light pack.

Andrew Skurka

7,800 miles of walking found Skurka in Bozeman, MT as part of the Backpacking Light team.

Andrew Skurka worked at Backpacking Light Magazine (http://www.backpackinglight.com/) in Bozeman, MT during the Fall of 2005, and is now a part of Backpacking Light’s Ambassador’s Corps, a group of adventure athletes educating the outdoor community about ultralight backpacking techniques. He’s now embarked on a 120-stop Sea-2-Sea slide show tour throughout the U.S.

Skurka recently completed a 7,800-mile 11-month transcontinental hike on the Sea-to-Sea Route in July 2005, the first person to traverse the entire distance in a single push. The 24 year-old graduate from Duke University has also hiked the 478-mile Colorado Trail (15.5 days in June 2004) and 2,168-mile Appalachian Trail (93 days in 2003), which he started with a 50-lb pack. “I have come a long way,” he remarked. Skurka’s efforts on the C2C were noted by Backpacker Magazine, which named him their 2005 “Person of the Year.”

Doug Johnson

Doug Johnson joined BackpackingLight.com in October 2003 and is both a reviewer and the Trekking Systems editor. He lives in Redmond, Washington, with his also-adventurous wife Amy. Doug is an outdoor fanatic and has loved the freedom of exploring ever since his folks taught him to ride a motorcycle at the age of TWO (his dad welded up the custom training wheels!) These days, Doug loves to mountain bike, whitewater canoe, snowshoe, trail run, and cross country ski…but he is especially passionate about backpacking and mountaineering.

His journey to ultralight began when he and a friend took off on a week of the PCT in high school – with behemoth packs of 70 pounds! From there he started cutting weight (and toothbrushes) until discovering Ray Jardine’s approaches to the sport 4 years ago. Since then, his packs have trimmed to less than 10 lbs. and he has enjoyed many ultralight trips- especially in Washington, Utah, and Montana.

Doug is also a gear freak (this comes from his dad) and has always loved researching, selecting, and fiddling with gear. When he found Backpackinglight.com he had a major life breakthrough- “There are other people out there that think like me!” This is his favorite site and he is totally stoked to be working with such great people who are as obsessive about gear and the outdoors as he is.

Steve Nelson

Steve Nelson, Winter Systems Editor, has been backpacking and playing in the snow since he was a kid growing up in upstate New York. Now living in California, he backpacks throughout the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, and has a special love for winter camping, snowshoeing and backcountry skiing. He travels fast and light, is always on the lookout for ways to safely shave ounces from gear, and never met a storm he didn’t enjoy.

Mike Martin

Longtime BPL Forum contributor Mike Martin joined the Backpacking Light staff in 2006 as Sleeping Systems Section Editor. Mike holds a Bachelors Degree in Engineering and currently teaches Engineering and Physics at North Idaho College. If pressed, he will confess to heavyweight backpacking “a long time ago” in the Sierras. But, inspired by Ray Jardine’s Beyond Backpacking, he started lightweight backpacking in 2000 and has been a lightweight proponent ever since. In the winter, he enjoys backcountry skiing and snowshoeing in the Inland Northwest. In the summer, he switches to backpacking and fly-fishing, often accompanied by his young son.

His passion for lightweight backpacking revolves around the gear as much as the trips. He is actively involved in homemade stove, sleep system and shelter design and is always looking for “optimal” gear – even if it means tearing apart and rebuilding perfectly good commercial products.

Photo Courtesy of James Hannibal

Rick Dreher

Rick Dreher is interviewed by Bruno the Dalmatian.

B. So, now that I’ve had my kibble (AGAIN with the kibble!) we can get down to business. Why backpacking?

R. At this point I’ve been doing it long enough that I can’t say, it’s simply something I like doing.

B. Lame answer.

R. I know.

B. How did you get started, and how did you finally learn to enjoy the outdoors as opposed to tolerating it?

R. Boy Scouts was where I learned camping, although we mostly day-hiked as a part of monthly camping trips. We’d go for long trail walks when we weren’t conquering the woods with out various shelter-fashioning and earthmoving projects. Then there was the annual summer big hike in the Olympics, with the canvas backpacks and pup tents, the kapok sleeping bags and the axes. We survived, but I can’t say the walk itself was all that fun. But in junior high I started going on overnight backpacks with friends, and that group lasted through high school and our summer breaks from college. The trips were fun and truly adventures for young pups away from home for the first time in our lives.

I think, though, that the biggest breakthrough for me was taking a class called alpine travel through the U. of Washington while I was in high school. It was taught by the remarkable Ome Daiber, a noted Pacific Northwest climber (e.g., first ascent of Mt. Rainier’s Liberty Ridge), a mountain search-and-rescue founder and an arctic surveyor. Ome shared his considerable knowledge and more importantly, his infectious zeal for the mountains. I’ll bet the rent money that there are several thousand folks out there who can say the same thing about Ome’s positive influence. (He also invented the Penguin sleeping bag and Sno-Seal–his name probably still graces every can and tube of the stuff sold.) Anyway, from him I most importantly gained confidence that allowed me to relax and really take in my surroundings; In western Washington state that meant the beautiful Cascade and Olympic ranges.

B. Hey, you’ve never taken me to either of those places!

R. I know, we’ve lived in California your whole life. That’s why you’ve only been to the Sierra Nevada and the coastal mountains.

B. You just backpack in California now?

R. Pretty much. I try to get into the Sierra as often as I can, which isn’t often enough now that I think about it.

B. Where do you go?

R. Primarily the Tahoe Sierra, between Highways 20 and 88, but when I can carve out the time I like going farther south into places like the John Muir Wilderness.

B. What’s special about the southern Sierra?

R. The scale of the place–it’s shocking, awe-inspiring. There’s something special about those big, big peaks and the high, lake-strewn hanging valleys that makes the northern part of the range seem almost dainty by comparison.

B. Why the fuss over lightweight backpacking?

R. I never shied away from lugging lots of gear and food on my trips, and couldn’t help but notice that on day hikes I could cover nearly twice the ground as on my overnights, so I began eyeballing my gear and supplies to see where I could shed some pounds. I began doing this during the lightweight boomlet of the early ‘80s. My problem was a lot of my gains were offset by my growing camera kit—I’d replace two lost sleeping bag pounds with another lens. A more important influence on losing pack weight was having both my ankles surgically repaired due to repeated sprains. The underpinnings simply don’t allow me to carry the weight I once could, even if I wanted to (which I don’t).

B. Let me get this right, you have crappy ankles and you like to backpack? Helloooo!

R. I know, dee-you-em-bee. But with a lighter pack, trekking poles and, ironically, trail shoes I seem to be mostly getting away with it.

B. Mostly?

R. I still have bad-ankle days, but that’s why they invented drugs.

B. Just say no!

R. NSAIDs–you know the drill, what with your twice-a-day Rimadyl.

B. Oh, yeah. So what makes you think you can be the lighting and navigation systems editor, Einstein?

R. It’s all about the gear, fuzzbutt! I approach any new item as a gearhead who wants to decide whether or not it’s worthy of a place in my backpack (a most holy place) then I dig further, into the technology and performance.

B. Huh?

R. As a veteran consumer and longtime backpacker, I can quickly size up a piece of gear as to whether or not it’s even worth considering. I can be a stickler on this point because with my overstuffed gear vault, I don’t actually need anything. Any new item must also kick aside an existing piece of gear to make it into my pack, so it has to be superior in some way—performance, user interface, weight, hopefully all three. But, like every other consumer, I really can’t know after just a few minutes whether it works well over the long haul or, for that matter, whether it’s really the solid performer I believe it to be. Demo’ing a headlamp in a well-lighted store tells me bupkis. As a tester guy, I get to take the needed time to poke, probe and dismantle the item, then test it in controlled conditions using instrumentation. Oftentimes I can also compare test data against those for similar items. I can share the findings with our readers, doing my little part in spreading some needed knowledge.

B. You must be exciting company at dinner.

R. I’m absolutely riveting.

B. Speaking of the gear vault, doesn’t having all this extra camping stuff around the house get you into, well, trouble?

R. Not if I get home first after a box arrives.

B. And you are qualified to do this, how?

R. Primarily by being a gearhead. That, and working with a head-spinning array of topics and scientific disciplines as a technical editor and writer at an engineering firm. Keeps the brain somewhat elastic, plus I’m fairly accomplished at asking uncomfortable questions.

B. So you’re not some science degree guy?

R. Nope, I began college as a bio major but strayed into communications and business during my second year. I blame it on rock and roll and the pursuit of coeds. In any case, I did stay awake in the science classes I took. I’ve also been a working and amateur photographer, which means I know a lot about light and lighting, knowledge that lends itself handily to evaluating flashlights.

B. And GPSs?

R. My expertise there is strictly from having used and researched them for several years now, as well as mapping software. And GPS technology blends rather well with wrist-top computers, which will be another area of focus for BPL.

B. Hey, I just realized you haven’t taken me hiking in years!

R. Well bud, you’re fifteen. Remember the Rimadyl?

B. Oh, yeah, but you’re no spring lamb yourself.

R. No, and thanks for reminding me, I’m quite forgetful these days.

B. Don’t mention it.

Bruno the dog lives in Sacramento with Lighting and Navigation System Section Editor Rick Dreher, toddler Molly and the very tolerant Valerie (Rick’s wife). He does other stuff, including bicycling, when he’s not testing flashlights or at the office.

Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Overview

The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the floorless shelters for lightweight backpackers. Herein, we review products from GoLite, Integral Designs, TarpTent, Oware, Granite Gear, and Campmor (Equinox).

Included are several tarps, tarp-tents, and hybrid shelters that provide the essence of shelter for the lightweight hiker – overhead protection from the elements. In some cases, shelters provide ample wind protection, snow shedding capabilities, and insect protection. After this extensive review, which has encompassed nearly two years of product testing and design evaluation, we were both surprised and pleased to see remarkable innovation by both cottage and major manufacturers alike. Further, we believe that ultralight floorless shelter design using silicone-treated fabrics will continue to be an area of innovation for some time to come.

Most significant among emerging innovations are “pre-shaped” shelters (as opposed to flat sheets) that are designed to be pitched with their edges directly to the ground. The result is simplicity, speed of pitching, fewer guylines, and better storm resistance. Further, while catenary curvature is beginning to appear on ultralight tarp shelters, we expect this trend to continue, as ultralight hikers communicate to manufacturers their need for ultralight shelters for use in inclement conditions.

Review Summary

The following Adobe PDF file can be downloaded to view a detailed summary of the results of this review:

Floorless Shelter Review Summary

Tarp Technique

Previously, we published other articles related to tarp design and camping technique. You might find both these technique articles as well as the following reviews more valuable as a cohesive unit of information.

Shelters Reviewed

Clicking on a link opens up a new window:

M = Premium Membership (Subscription) Required

Rating Criteria Defined

Stability
Resistance to wind: shelters that can be pitched with a low profile (surface area exposed to the wind) and/or pitches that result in minimum flapping/maximum panel tension get the highest ratings. Shelters get points if they can be pitched to the ground surface. Shelters using poles for structural stability get points. This rating assumes that all available tie-outs are used to best advantage. Therefore, a large tarp that has a proportionally large number of tie-outs may still get a good rating. Best: Hex, Tarptents Worst: Some poncho/tarps

Storm Protection
Resistance to precipitation, including rain and snow: Shelters that can be pitched with full coverage, with the perimeter at the ground surface, and no leakage through vents, doors, windows, etc. will get the highest ratings. Shelters that can be pitched with steep walls for snow shedding will get the high ratings. Best: Alphamid and Hex Intermediate: Tarptent, Silshelter, Lair Worst: Small rectangular tarps and poncho/tarps

Ventilation / Condensation Resistance
Shelters that offer the greatest air circulation get the best ratings. Note: many of the variable pitch shelters have dramatically different ventilation / condensation resistance depending on how they are setup. Either the best value, or sometimes a range of values, is listed. Best: Rectangular tarps Worst: Hex, Alphamid, George Tarp, and Silshelter when pitched low to the ground and closed up for storm protection.

Pitch Flexibility
Points given to shelters that allow for multiple pitch variations to control the above three criteria (not necessarily all at the same time) get the highest ratings. This reflects a shelter’s ability to configure to multiple sets of environmental circumstances and shelter performance criteria. Example 1: to provide protection from gentle overhead rain in a humid environment while keeping condensation low and maximizing the sheltered area. Example 2: to provide a stable pitch for high winds and afford maximum protection from driving rain at the expense of sheltered area and condensation resistance. Best: Rectangular tarps and Silshelter Worst: Hex, Tarptents

Ease of Pitch
Shelters that can be pitched with the fewest number of stakes and guylines for full storm protection (see that criteria above) get the highest ratings. It takes little time to pitch these shelters and usually it’s obvious how to set them up. Best: Tarptents, Lair Worst: Silshelter, rectangular tarps

Insect Protection
Fully enclosed (floored) shelters get the highest ratings; floorless shelters that can be pitched with a completely enclosed perimeter get the next highest ratings Best: Tarptents with netting and floors. Intermediate: Hex, Alphamid, Silshelter Worst: Rectangular tarps

Weight
Weight, unless noted, does not include stakes, guylines, stuff sacks, and any support poles that could be replaced with a trekking pole or stick.

Surface Area
This is the ground area that a shelter covers/protects. For variable pitch shelters or shaped shelters, this is the area covered by the “fully enclosed” pitch. For tarps and poncho/tarps, this is the area covered by a standard A-frame pitch. It is approximated with a 30-degree pitch angle for the “roof.”

Sq ft/oz – Sq m/kg
This is a rough measure of how much sheltered area (as defined above) you get for the weight of the shelter. It does not take into account that shelters with additional weight may have highly desirable features such as support poles and increased stability and/or more ventilation and storm protection options.

Number of tie-outs
This is reported for tarps and poncho/tarps only. It gives some idea of the flexibility and stability of pitches available with the shelter. Look for more tie-outs as the size and/or complexity of the shelter increases.

Value
A highly subjective rating that takes into account all of the above criteria and the shelter’s price. Shelters with low cost, good performance and a high area to weight ratio get the best ratings. Some adjustment is made for the type of shelter. For example, the area to weight ratio of a flat tarp is not directly compared to the area to weight ratio of a structured shelter like a Tarptent. For poncho/tarps this considers their protection as a shelter and not their performance as rainwear. Best: Oware Cat Tarp, Tarptent Squall

GoLite Lair 1 Shelter REVIEW

The GoLite Lair 1 Shelter offers more weather protection than a tarp without a dramatic weight penalty. At less than 12 oz, the Lair 1 is ideally suited for solo travel in areas where ventilation is important but the chance for rain is very real.

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

GoLite Lair Overview

The unique feature of the GoLite Lair is its tapered design that terminates in a rear beak staked to the ground to block wind and rain from coming into the rear of the tarp.

With an open front and seven guyline tie-outs, the GoLite Lair can be pitched with the perimeter to the ground or via guylines as with conventional tarps.

As a result, the GoLite Lair is a flexible-pitching shelter that provides excellent storm protection with the rear end pitched into the wind,

Ease of Setup (4.5)

The GoLite Lair 1 deserves an honorable mention as one of the easiest tarp-shelters we’ve ever pitched when staking the perimeter directly to the ground. Yet it offers the flexibility of more versatile configurations as well. The easiest method of pitching the shelter follows:

  1. Stake the rear edge to the ground (two stakes required).
  2. Stake out the front corners (two stakes required).
  3. Stake out rear and front guylines via trekking poles, sticks, etc. (two stakes required)
  4. (Optional) For additional tension, stake out mid points on sides and rear (three stakes).

In total, the GoLite Lair requires only six stakes, one six-foot guyline, and one three-foot guyline. For additional flexibility, take three additional stakes and a few extra guylines.

Construction Quality (4.0)

The Lair is built to GoLite’s usual standard of quality, and we observed no major issues upon inspection or after field use that would indicate that the Lair is unable to withstand high winds or significant snow loading.

Weight

We weighed the Lair on our scales at 11.0 ounces (no stakes or guylines). Adding about 30 feet of light Spectra guylines and nine titanium stakes, a package weight of less than 14 ounces can easily be achieved.

Stability (3.0)

The GoLite Lair is able to shed wind well; however, it’s large side panels and presence of only one mid-perimeter guyline attachment point, it is difficult to distribute panel tension evenly over the entire panel. Consequently, the Lair 1 is not our first choice for tarp camping in very high winds.

Storm Protection (4.0)

The ability to pitch the Lair 1 with three sides down to the ground (with the rear into the wind) makes for a stormworthy shelter. Unfortunately, it’s short length exposes the front area to rain spray and blowing snow and therefore, for stormy conditions, we recommend using a breathable bivy sack in conjunction with the Lair. We would like to see the next generation of the GoLite Lair include front door(s), with the ability to zip the front shut or stake them out for added ventilation or room. Using some combination of design features from Oware’s Alphamid and Integral Designs’ Sil Shelter, the Lair could grow into a very stormworthy shelter entirely suitable for mountain camping.

Ventilation / Condensation Resistance (4.0)

Even when the GoLite Lair is pitched down to the ground, the large open front area provides ample ventilation. Even so, ventilation can be improved by staking the rear corners closer together and staking the mid-point rear guyline attachment, via a guyline, to an additional stake to lift the rear of the shelter and increase airflow. Of course, when pitched more like a flat tarp, the Lair offers excellent ventilation.

Flexibility of Pitching (4.0)

The Lair provides enough simplicity for a successful pitch by novice tarp campers, but the flexibility for pitching off the ground to improve ventilation and living space.

Insect Protection (1.0)

The Lair is an open design and thus inappropriate for buggy climates without additional protection.

GoLite Lair 1 Specifications

  • Weight: 11.0 ounces
  • Width: 8.0 feet (front) tapering to 4.0 feet (rear) while flat
  • Length: 8.0 feet
  • Height: typical, 3.5 feet (adjustable)
  • Surface Area: 50 sq. ft. (manufacturer’s claim)
  • Square Feet / Ounce: 4.5
  • Price: $99 (price includes tarp, cord, nine aluminum Y-stakes, and stow sack)

Value (4.5)

At $99, the Lair is a steal. It is one of the simplest and most effective tarp shelters on the market. It is ideal for the beginning lightweight backpacker wanting to learn how to tarp camp with a minimum of fuss, while providing the flexibility for more advanced configurations as the user’s skill grows.

 

Integral Designs Silshelter

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Overview

At only 12.9 ounces, the Integral Designs Sil Shelter provides the lightest fully-enclosable tarp on the market, making it a cult choice among lightweight backpackers that camp in inclement conditions. And, because of its flat sheet design and multitude of tie-out points, the Sil Shelter gets high marks for flexibility.

Ease of Setup (2.0)

It’s difficult to get a super taut, roomy, and storm resistant pitch on a Sil Shelter.

Setting up the shelter rapidly in a storm is a simple affair – stake out its four corners in a rectangle configuration, pop in a trekking pole to raise the apex, and stake out the doors (six total stakes required). All in all, it takes about a minute for a proficient user to have overhead protection – no guylines needed.

Pitched like this (with these six stakes), the Sil Shelter looks like a prop on the set of Sanford and Son. Its sagging panels and drooping ridgeline make this simple pitch inadequate for bearing high winds, pooling rain, or heavy snow.

The first problem to address is the drooping ridgeline, which severely reduces volume in the shelter and under a snow load, cuts it in half. There are two options for stabilizing the ridgeline. The first is to place a second, shorter pole (e.g., collapsed trekking pole) with its handle into the pole cap on the interior of the shelter near the end of the ridgeline. Unfortunately, this reduces interior living space, and even forces a single person far to one side where there is significant risk of having their sleeping bag contact the interior wall of the shelter. The second solution is to use the three guyline tie-out points present along the ridgeline (one at the front apex, one in the middle, and one near the rear). A guyline to a stake (stake no. 7) at the front of the shelter can be used to tension the front tie-out point. Two additional guylines (attached to the rear pole cup tie-out and the center-rear [elastic] tie-out) can be strung to a trekking pole in the rear, and staked out as a single point (stake no. 8). Adjusting the length of the two cords involves some experimentation (and changes depending on the height at which the shelter is pitched). This provides a solution that results in a tight ridgeline capable of shedding snow and significantly increasing interior volume.

The second problem to address is the sagging of the relatively large side panels. Use two guylines and stake out (stake nos. 9 and 10) the two side panel tie-out points on the Sil Shelter. You’ll need to be creative, since we assume that you’ve run out of trekking poles, to raise these guylines. You’ll have to find some sticks or employ your ice axes, skis, snowshoes, or the like for assistance.

The result of these additional efforts is dramatic. Interior living space improves tremendously – to the point that the fruit of your efforts is a shelter that can now truly – and comfortably – accommodate two people. However, we’re not quite ready to shed high winds, as the shelter is still a bit flappy. To solve this last problem, additional stakes should be added along the ground at the mid-points of each door (stakes no. 11 and 12), the mid-points of the sides (stake nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16), and a final stake along the midpoint of the rear (stake no. 17).

A final note that improves the Sil Shelter pitch is to bring the main apex support outside the shelter, using a guyline tied from the apex (via a clove hitch) to the trekking pole (and then staked out to the front of the shelter). The result is that the doors overlap a little better (despite the pole now sticking up through the “vestibule”). More importantly, it results in a tighter ridgeline and improved interior living space.

Now we’re ready for some serious storm and wind resistance. And it only took 17 stakes, five guylines, two trekking poles, and two sticks or other tools!

Construction Quality (4.0)

The Sil Shelter is built to Integral’s high standard of quality and offers a stormworthy package that should last awhile. We were very pleased with the design of the pole caps (for securing trekking pole handles and prevent them from slipping), but wished that more attention was paid both to the overlapping design of the doors (they do not overlap sufficiently at the apex to provide serious rain protection), and the ridgeline (we yearned for catenary lines to simplify the pitch!).

Weight

We weighed the Sil Shelter on our scales at 12.9 ounces (no stakes or guylines). Adding about 25 feet of light Spectra guylines and seventeen titanium stakes, a package weight of less than 18 ounces can be achieved.

Stability (4.0)

Properly pitched as described above, the Sil Shelter provides excellent wind stability and snow shedding. If you know you are going to be in areas of high wind, pitch the rear of the shelter into the wind. For snowy conditions, pitch the apex high to ensure steep walls and a steep ridgeline.

A lot of experimentation, skill in tarp pitching, and perseverance are required to successfully use the Sil Shelter in windy and snowy conditions, but the efforts may be worth it in the end.

Storm Protection (4.5)

The Sil Shelter can be pitched completely to the ground, offers enough stake out points to minimize spindrift blowing into the shelter, and allows for the doors to provide an almost full enclosure for the front (small gaps in the doors resulting from fabric tension are normal). Thus, the design provides a very storm-resistant refuge from the elements and is a viable option for mountain camping.

Ventilation / Condensation Resistance (4.0)

The Sil Shelter offers options for reducing condensation and allowing for cross-through air flow. Instead of staking down the rear mid-point to the ground, a guyline and stake can be used to provide a 3-8″ high triangular opening at the rear. In addition, the front doors can be left open, or the shelter can be pitched lower (causing the doors to be not fully close to create a gap or “open vestibule”). Finally, since the sheet is flat, any or all of the sides can be pitched using additional guylines in the manner of a traditional tarp.

We gave the Sil Shelter high marks for ventilation because of the ease in which a single door can be restaked to open the front of the shelter.

Flexibility of Pitching (5.0)

For those that have mastered the art of the Sil Shelter Pitch, more challenges await! Simply add some extra guylines and enjoy experimenting with various pitches. The multitude of tie-out points and the Sil Shelter’s flat design provides the user with seemingly infinite options for creating unique, if not effective pitches.

Insect Protection (3.0)

Because the Sil Shelter is floorless, it’s going to let a few bugs in. However, the ability to stake the perimeter at the ground surface with a lot of tie-out points, and the ability to (almost) close the doors means that the swarms of mosquitoes you’re likely to face will be kept at bay for a little longer.

Specifications

  • Weight: 12.9 ounces
  • Height: typical, 3.5 feet (adjustable)
  • Surface Area: 40 sq. ft.
  • Square Feet / Ounce: 3.1
  • Price: $150 (price includes tarp, cord, nine aluminum Y-stakes, and stow sack)

Value (3.0)

At $150, the Sil Shelter is not cheap – after all, it’s simply a flat sheet of silicone-impregnated nylon. However, it’s certainly unique – because of its performance to weight ratio (where we define performance as storm resistance) – and thus, occupies an important niche in lightweight backpacking gear.

 

Integral Designs Sil Poncho

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Overview

Are you looking for a truly ultralight, minimalist solution for shelter and raingear? If so, eventually your research will point you in the direction of a poncho-tarp.

The Integral Designs Sil Poncho represents the gold standard for high-quality poncho-tarps and, unlike other brands, offers enough width (five feet) and length (eight feet) to pitch as an A-frame without severely cramping your space.

Ease of Setup (3.5)

The only feature that distinguishes the setup of a poncho-tarp from a standard flat tarp is the extra step required to properly secure the hood and prevent it from becoming a failure point during a hard rain. Thus, one must twist the hood into a twinkie shape (cylindrical tube) and wrap the hood’s drawcord several times around its base, finishing off with a half hitch.

Construction Quality (4.0)

The Sil Poncho is built to Integral Designs’ usual high standard of quality, and we’ve been using them for hundreds of miles with no apparent problems whatsoever, without paying a lot of attention to special care.

Weight

We weighed the Sil Poncho on our scales at 8.95 ounces (no stakes or guylines). Adding about 25 feet of light Spectra guylines and eight titanium stakes, a package weight of less than 11 ounces can easily be achieved.

Stability (3.5)

The Sil Poncho, in the hands of someone who knows how to properly pitch a flat tarp, offers no unusual problems. The hood does tend to flap around in high winds, but it doesn’t make as much noise as a fabric panel that is not properly tensioned.

The small size of the Sil Poncho allows the user to pitch it with a lot of tension, and low to the ground. Because of this, a tarp of this size does a creditable job of shedding wind and snow.

Storm Protection (3.0)

The Sil Poncho requires that it be part of a larger equipment “system” before you can consider it for seriously inclement conditions. Foremost is the use of some type of sleeping bag cover or bivy sack to protect your sleeping bag from rain spray, spindrift, and chilling from high winds.

Ventilation / Condensation Resistance (5.0)

As with any small, flat tarp, ventilation is not usually the problem. Your major concern is retaining warmth!

Flexibility of Pitching (3.5)

The small size of the Sil Poncho limits its ability to be pitched in unique configurations. Consequently, you are primarily limited to A-frames, lean-tos, and modified Baker pitches forgoing some of the more photogenic pitches offered by larger tarps.

Insect Protection (1.0)

If you are seriously evaluating a small tarp such as this for providing any protection from biting insects, you need your head examined.

Specifications

  • Weight: 9.0 ounces
  • Width: 5.0 feet
  • Length: 8.0 feet
  • Height: typical, 3.0 feet (adjustable)
  • Surface Area: 35 sq. ft.
  • Square Feet / Ounce: 4.2
  • Price: $70

Value (4.5)

At $70, you’d be hard-pressed to find a cheaper solution to both rain gear and shelter without making it yourself. Considering that a poncho-tarp is essential equipment for the ultralight backpacker wanting to reduce their pack weight to less than five pounds, $70 is a paltry price for minimalist rain protection.

 

Merino Wool Shirts

A review of lightweight long sleeve merino wool shirts from Smartwool, Ibex, Icebreaker, Merino Skins, and WhisperWarm.

Overview

In the past year, merino wool shirts are capturing an increasing market share, primarily in response to customer desires for less stink, less itch, less clamminess, and more utility over a wider temperature range. These latter advantages of merino wool over polyester and polypropylene synthetics add up to merino wool’s greatest advantage: better comfort when worn next to skin.

We’ve addressed the utility, performance, and technical advantages of merino wool in great detail elsewhere (see [page 00069]Clothing and Sleep Systems for Mountain Hiking[/page]). In the original version of that discussion, which appeared here in 2001, we noted that the customer had few options from which to choose when shopping for merino wool base layers. In fact, the U.S. market was limited to only one serious player: a midweight merino wool shirt from Smartwool.

At that time, we made an aggressive call to manufacturers to develop ultra-thin merino wool garments made with superfine fibers (i.e., fibers less than 18 microns in diameter) that dried faster, offered a wider temperature range, and weighed less than their midweight counterparts. This review highlights some of the fruits of this “merino wool diet” over the past few years. Keep in mind, our review doesn’t compile every long sleeve lightweight merino base layer on the market. We’ve tried to give you a cross-market snapshot of a variety of garments with particular strengths that would appeal to a wide audience.

Garments Reviewed

Long Sleeve Zip-T Shirts

  • Smartwool Trad
  • Icebreaker Ryder
  • WhisperWarm Zip-T

Long Sleeve Crew Shirts

  • Smartwool Aero
  • Merino Skins Crew
  • Icebreaker Skin
  • Ibex Outback
  • WhisperWarm Crew

Review Criteria

Weight. Weight of each crew in a size men’s or unisex medium was measured on a NIST-certified and calibrated scale and reported to the nearest 0.1 ounce (3 g).

Price. Price is reported as currently available average market prices from online retailers. Where appropriate, prices were converted from international currencies to USD using the currrency calculator at XE.com.

Fabric Weight. Fabric weights, with the exception of the Smartwool Trad (which we consider to be a “midweight” fabric), are all in the range of 6 oz/sq.yd. (200 g/sq.m.). Fiber diameter was verified to be less than 20 microns for all garments, thus meeting the specification for “Superfine” merino wool. Thus, we classify all of the other garments as “lightweight” using the conventional scale of baselayer fabric weighting of “light-mid-expedition” weight.

Sizing. Sizing is identified as “true” for garments that meet U.S. sizing conventions; sizing is indicated as “1/2 size small” when the specified size is one half size smaller than U.S. sizing conventions, and as “full size small” when the specified size is a full size smaller than U.S. sizing conventions. These sizing grades were based on user perception of fit as well as measurements taken of arm length, neck hole diameter, torso diameter, and hem length.

Fit. Fit grades are assigned on a sliding scale, starting with the tightest fits: tight, snug, trim, loose, or baggy, with “trim” identifying our perceived ideal for base layer garments, providing a good balance of mobility, volume, breathability, and ventilation.

Comfort of Fit. The comfort of fit grade (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 = worst and 5 = best) is not based on the sizing grade assigned above. Rather, the criteria considers the freedom of mobility, a balance of trim vs. baggy fit, length of hem, and comfort of wrist and neck closures. This is a subjective rating based on user perception.

Warmth. Scale of 1 = coldest and 5 = warmest. This criteria is evaluated on a combination of fabric thickness and construction combined with tightness of fit. Thicker fabrics get “warmer” grades, as do “more trim” fitting garments.

Ventilation. 1 = poor ventilation and 5 = excellent ventilation. Ventilation is based on the availability of a neck zipper, fit (see fit criteria above), and size of neck, hem, and cuff openings.

Breathability. 1 = poor breathability and 5 = excellent breathability. This criteria is based on fabric thickness and knit construction. Fabrics with more porous and thinner structures are assigned higher breathability grades. Typically, but not absolutely, breathability and warmth are inversely related.

Value. 1 = high cost/performance ratio, 5 = low cost/performance ratio. Value is based on cost in combination with features, fit, and versatility of the garment.

Note: Zip-T and crewneck shirts were graded in separate groups, and numerical ratings should not be compared between the two styles.

Review Summary

The following table provides a summary of the review.

Brand Style Model Weight (oz) Weight (g) Price Fabric Weight Fit Sizing Comfort of Fit Warmth Ventilation Breathability Value
Smartwool long sleeve zip-t Trad 9.5 269 $75 Mid loose true 3.5 4.5 5.0 3.0 3.0
Icebreaker long sleeve zip-t Superfine (Ryder) 8.1 230 $95 Light trim 1/2 size small 4.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 2.0
WhisperWarm long sleeve zip-t n/a 5.8 164 $66 Light snug full size small 3.5 2.5 3.5 5.0 4.0
Merino Skins long sleeve crew n/a 5.8 164 $32 Light snug 1/2 size small 3.5 2.5 3.0 5.0 5.0
Smartwool long sleeve crew Aero 7.2 204 $60 Light trim true 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0
Icebreaker long sleeve crew Skin 5.9 167 $51 Light tight 1/2 size small 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 3.5
Ibex long sleeve crew Outback 7.2 204 $78 Light trim true 5.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 2.0
WhisperWarm long sleeve crew n/a 4.6 130 $50 Light snug full size small 3.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 3.5

Review Summary

All of the shirts reviewed herein are well-constructed and durable with high quality merino wool fabrics. Differences in shirts are seen primarily in garment fit, fabric thickness, and fabric porosity. These three features in turn affect garment warmth, ventilation, breathability, and comfort.

With this in mind, we did feel that three garments in particular stood out from the rest. The first was the Ibex Outback shirt, which gets style points for its exceptional fit and deserves an honorable mention.

We also found somewhat of a sleeper in the long sleeve crew from Merino Skins. At $32, it provides the best performance-to-value ratio of any shirt in the review, and it used the most porous fabric of the lot. Its only caveat was that sizing ran small and the fit was a little snug (with short arms and a short hem), so be sure to size up one full size from your normal size. Merino Skins products are available from Wool-Underwear.com.

Finally, we felt that the Smartwool Aero crew earned top honors as the best all-around merino wool base layer shirt in terms of fit, weight, and overall performance. An excellent fit that wasn’t too baggy or snug, combined with a lightweight fabric that made the shirt suitable for year-round conditions (this was the most comfortable shirt tested in temperatures exceeding 80 degrees in the dry climate of the Northern Rockies), and a sticker price that was almost $20 less than the Ibex product made it a clear favorite among our reviewers.

What’s Coming?

Merino wool fabrics are continuing to evolve. From here, we encourage manufacturers to pursue the development of merino wool-synthetic blends (the addition of synthetic fibers can increase durability and improve water absorption, as well as maximizing fabric memory, or its resistance to permanent, or “plastic” stretching). In addition, we’d like to see some of the international garment manufacturers (especially those from New Zealand and Australia) recognize sizing conventions that better reflect a need for outdoor performance – including longer sleeves and hems.

Around the Corner: We are currently reviewing a new shirt, the Ibex Pacifica. At the same 7.2 oz (204 g) weight as the Outback, the Pacifica has a deep (10 in, 25 cm) neck zipper, hand warmer cuffs and trim fit. First looks indicate that this full-featured wool top offers a lot of bang for the buck, and initial field reports indicate that it offers excellent fit and comfort.

Campmor (Equinox) Silnylon Poncho-Tarp

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Campmor’s “Ultralite Poncho/Tarps” and Equinox’s “Ultralite Poncho” are one in the same. Order an “Ultralite Poncho/Shelter” from Campmor and you’ll get an Equinox “Regular Ultralite Poncho” with a small Campmor barcode stuck to the Equinox label.

Campmor/Equinox Ultralite Poncho/Tarps make fine ponchos and are a good value in an ultralight rainwear. Unfortunately, their lack of ridgeline tie-outs compromises their shelter performance. Our review reflects this deficiency. (Note: It is not difficult for the purchaser to sew a couple of ridgeline tie-out loops to a Campmor/Equinox Ultralite Poncho/Tarp. This modification solves the problem and significantly increases the performance of the shelter.)

These poncho/tarps use 1.3 oz/sq yd (36.9 g/sq m) silnylon ripstop fabric [most likely the same 1.4 oz/sq yd (47.5 g/ sq m) that other manufacturers use]. Edge seams are rolled and sewn. The center seam is rolled and sewn with a double top stitch (similar to a flat felled seam). Perimeter tie-outs are webbing loops are single bar tacked into the rolled edge seam.

Campmor/Equinox Poncho Tarps have some nice features. The extension version includes an excellent 28 inch (71 cm) rear flap to protect your pack. It neatly snaps and Velcos out of the way if you don’t need the additional length. The extension also gives you additional coverage and precipitation protection when under the shelter. At 8.8 ft (2.7 m), it is the longest of the poncho/tarps reviewed. We also applaud the webbing tie-out loops. They are an improvement over the brass grommets used on their tarps

Campmor and Equinox cut a few corners to reduce cost and their construction/design is not at the same level as the higher priced Integral Design Sil Poncho. The Campmor/Equinox poncho’s hood uses a simple, non-elastic drawcord, and no cord ties. The non-elastic cord makes it harder to close off the hood in “shelter” mode. (The ID poncho has an elastic drawcord with cord ties.) The Campmor/Equinox poncho has only 6 tie-outs and no ridgeline tie-outs. Tie-out are attached with a single bar tack. The limited tie-outs significantly reduce shelter performance and pitching options. (The ID poncho has 10 tie-outs, two of which are critical ridgeline tie-outs. Tie-outs are attached with a double bar tack.)

We are at a bit of a loss as to why Campmor/Equinox poncho/tarps do not have ridgeline tie-outs. Especially, since they already have 6 nice tie-out loops along the perimeter. It would add an insignificant amount of cost to include these critical ridgeline tie-outs without which it’s difficult to get a decent pitch. The shelter bunches up between the downward curved ridgeline cord spilling a lot of tension. This causes a baggy, floppy and unstable pitch.

Photo: Problems with the Campmor/Equinox Poncho/Shelter in “shelter” mode: Without ridgeline tie-outs at each end of the shelter it’s difficult to get a decent pitch. As you can see in the photo, the shelter bunches up between the downward curved ridgeline cord spilling a lot of tension. The end result -a baggy, floppy and unstable pitch.

There is another problem with missing ridgeline tie-outs. When you use free standing supports, trekking poles or sticks (i.e. not using a fixed support like a tree or bush), there is nothing to hold the supports in place horizontally. Therefore, the ridgeline cord, which is in no way anchored to the poncho/tarp, slips sideways against the slick silnylon of the shelter. Eventually, the support poles fall sideways and the whole shelter collapses.

One could put two cords in a Y off of each support pole/stick to keep them from falling sideways. This is a time consuming endeavor and it would still not solve the pitch tension problems. The best solution, if you have the skill, is to sew your own ridgeline tie-outs loops at each end of the shelter. With this modification the Poncho/Tarp becomes a reasonable shelter.

Campmor/Equinox tarps offer a good value for rainwear and their construction and design flaws are minor when used in “poncho” mode. As shipped (without ridgeline tie-outs), we find it difficult to recommend them as a shelter. Fortunately, this is easily correctable by the purchaser sewing in two ridgeline tie-outs. With the ridgeline tie-outs added, they work well in “shelter” mode. We particularly like the additional length and precipitation protection of the extension model. When used with a light bivy it would make an excellent ultralight shelter system. If you want to see if poncho/tarping might be your thing, and you are willing to do a little sewing, a Campmor/Equinox tarp is a great and inexpensive way to get started.

Photo: An example of a poncho pitch with ridgeline tie-outs: In this case Integral Design’s Sil Poncho. The ridgeline tie-outs make all the difference and allow for taut and stable, “hummer” of a pitch.

Oware Tapered Catenary Tarp (6×8)

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Photo: Oware’s 6×8 Cat Tarp: The trim size and catenary cut ridgeline make for a super taut pitch with only 6 tie-outs. Stake out the middle-side tie-outs (not used in the photo), and this is one of the most stable tarps on the market.

Oware is one of a few companies to manufacture tarps with catenary cut ridgelines. In this review we’ll cover their very light one-person tarp (6×8 ft nominal size). It is a superb shelter for stability in high winds and above tree line. With an ultralight bivy and some basic tarping skills, it is enough shelter for 3 seasons (potentially 4 seasons for a hardy camper with experience weathering snow in a tarp). Not bad for only 7 ounces (198 grams)!

The 3-inch (7.6-cm) catenary cut ridgeline on the Oware tarp gives you a tauter pitch with less ridgeline tension (i.e. the tarp is easier to pitch). The reduced ridgeline tension means less guyline tension and therefore, less force on your ridgeline stakes. This leaves more of your ridgeline stake’s holding power available to hold your tarp in place in high winds. Say goodbye to flapping tarps and stakes popping out in big wind gusts. For more information about catenary curvature, read [page 00149]Catenary Curvature as an Element of Ultralight Tarp Design[/page].

The Oware Cat Tarp is a low profile, tapered design-perfect for shedding high altitude winds. It is 7.8 ft long and 5.5 ft wide at the head tapering to 4.5 ft at the foot (2.4 m long, 1.7 m wide tapering to 1.4 m). Pitch it with the low and narrow foot into the wind, and the tarp will shed strong gusts with ease.

The Cat Tarp has high quality construction. It uses 1.4 oz/sq yd (47.5 g/ sq m) silnylon ripstop fabric. Edge seams are rolled and sewn. The center seam is rolled and sewn with a top stitch (similar to a flat felled seam). Since the center seam runs the long direction on the tarp it also forms a very strong ridgeline. Combine this with the catenary cut and you can get some serious tension (super taught pitch) along the ridge of the tarp. All tie-outs are 1 in (2.5 cm) grosgrain webbing loops and tie-out attachment points are reinforced with patches of 200 denier nylon fabric. This allows you to crank down on the tie-outs with little fear of ripping the tarp. There are 6 side tie-outs and two ridgeline tie-outs. These are more than adequate given the small size of the tarp, the strong catenary ridgeline, and its wind shedding profile.

In the field, the Cat Tarp is one of the most stable tarps we’ve used. In tests on a ridge known for its exceptionally high winds it had some of the lowest deflections we’ve ever observed in a tarp. In addition, it is easy to pitch and is one of a few tarps that you can get by with a 6-stake pitch in moderate conditions. An 8-stake pitch is always a great option when you’re high up and exposed and the wind starts gusting.

TarpTent Virga, TarpTent Squall, and TarpTent Cloudburst

Henry Shires’ TarpTents, including the solo Virga, the dual-person Squall, and the dual-person Cloudburst, offer simple setup and excellent stability in a package suitable for those who just aren’t quite ready to migrate to an open tarp yet.

Left to right: Cloudburst, Squall and Virga Tarptents

 

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Introduction

As the Tarptent name implies, these shelters have a blend of some of the best features of a tarp and a tent. Like tarps, they are light, have good ventilation and give you a great view of your surroundings. Like tents, they provide rain protection and a bug free haven.

There are three versions of the Tarptent, the Virga, Squall, and Cloudburst. All are catenary cut silnylon tarps with integrated support poles that shape the shelter. All use a hooped rear pole. The Virga (one-person) and Squall (two-person) are identical except for size. Both use a single pole front support (provided, or you can use a trekking pole). The Cloudburst uses a hooped front pole. On all shelters, noseeum mesh is suspended from the perimeter of the tarp edges for complete bug protection. The front of this mesh has a floor to ridgeline zippered door opening. All Tarptents have front and rear beaks to keep most (but not all) precipitation from getting into the shelter. The Cloudburst has additional flaps that roll down over the side mesh panels and a larger front beak for more rain protection. Tarptents come standard without a floor. For a nominal fee you can order a sewn-in ripstop nylon floor on any of the Tarptents listed.

Features and Specifications

Fabric and Materials. All Tarptents use 1.4-oz silicone coated ripstop nylon. The optional sewn-in floor (untested) also uses 1.4-oz silicone coated ripstop nylon. The rear hoop poles, front poles (Virga and Squall) and front hoop (Cloudburst) are 7075 aluminum sections. All shelters use noseeum mesh for front, rear, and side panels. The Cloudburst’s additional side flaps are also made from 1.4-oz silicone coated ripstop nylon. Guylines are 2-mm reflective cord with a kevlar core, Kelty Triptease Lightline™. Stakes are 7″ long titanium and weigh 0.4 ounces/stake. Henry Shire’s also sells Tyvek groundsheets custom sized for each of the shelters.

Weight. We found all Tarptents weighed within an ounce of the manufacturer’s claims. The weight includes absolutely everything required to pitch the shelter. This includes shock corded rear hoop and front poles, four (titanium!) stakes, pre- tied and attached Triptease guylines and a silnylon stuff sack. These packages easily represent the nicest setups we’ve seen for a shelter.

Virga claimed 20.5 oz – measured 20.4 oz

Squall claimed 24.5 oz – measured 24.0 oz

Cloudburst claimed 32.0 oz – measured 32.9 oz

All Tarptents require a minimum of four stakes. We recommend carrying an additional two stakes to stake out the sides for additional interior space and to increase stability in high winds. Two 6 in, lightweight, titanium stakes and additional guylines only weigh 0.5 oz. If you want to shave a bit of weight you can replace the four 0.4 oz titanium stakes provided with the shelter with 0.25 oz titanium stakes. We found the manufacturer’s included Tyvek floor for the Tarptents to be overkill (heavy). We used a 5.5 oz groundsheet for our testing.

Performance Review

Squall Tarptent at 11,000 feet in the Sierras. The benefits of a catenary cut ridgeline: an almost perfect pitch with minimal fuss. Great for weathering those high altitude winds.

 

Setup and Pitch: Tarptents have some of the fastest and easiest setups of any shelter we’ve tested (Well, maybe not as easy as a bivy sack!). It takes only four stakes and as little as 1½ to 2 minutes to pitch a Tarptent. Put the rear hoop into its sleeve, put a single stake in for the rear of the shelter, put the front pole in its grommet, stake out the ridge line, and finally stake out the two front sides. We recommend using two additional stakes for the center-side tie-outs to increase interior volume, and improve stability in high winds.

Note: Pay special attention and stake out the rear of the shelter per the diagram in Shire’s instructions. Put the rear stake only through the ridgeline (center) of the three rear cords. Also, the bottom of the rear hoop has a tendency to scoot forward and loose a bit of side tension for the shelter. A suggestion for Shires: Attaching the side rear guylines nearer to the hoop bottom or possibly adding an option to stake out the hoop bottoms would improve the pitch of the Tarptent. Also the rear hoop sleeve was a bit tight. Getting the hoop in is a bit of a trick. Getting it out is a bit more difficult. A more generous sleeve would make things easier.

We encountered some difficulty in getting a taut pitch on the Cloudburst. Tensioning the ridgeline was fine but we had problems with the lower edges. The front configuration of three guylines coming straightforward and anchored well above the bottom of the front hoop made it more difficult to get tension along the bottom sides of the shelter. The front hoop of the Cloudburst suffered some of the same hoop bottom creep of the rear hoop on all the Tarptents. Even if bottom edge of the pitch was not quite as taut as the Virga or Squall, the Cloudburst with its front and rear hoops, is defiantly the strongest and most rigid of the Tarptents.

We also had some difficulty securing the side flaps on the Cloudburst. The front shock cord tie-downs were short and hard to secure under the front hoop. Also the knots on the shock cord kept slipping out. Eventually we managed to make the cords as long as possible and tie a secure knot. Even so the front flap took a lot of force to secure. A slightly longer shock cord and a more secure knot would be a great idea.

Due to their fairly defined structure, Tarptents are a little less flexible when pitched on uneven ground than a standard tarp. This is especially true if the front and back is rotated at different angles from each other. We found a little pitching creativity usually fixed most of the problem. The Cloudburst had the most difficulty with this (but so would a conventional tent).

Entry and Exit: The entire front of the Tarptent is noseeum mesh. Entry and exit is easy through the large, floor to ridgeline, zipper. The mesh front rolls up and neatly stows out of the way with attached Velcro straps. A large beak provides rain protection for the front of the shelter and, like the front mesh, rolls up and neatly stows out of the way. With both the mesh and beak rolled up it’s a bit like using a barn door to get in and out of the shelter.

Stability in Wind: In the field the Tarptents proved stable in 40 mph winds-even when the rear of the shelter was not exactly pointed in the prevailing wind direction (many times the case when you try and guess the wind direction or the wind is swirling). The rear hoop and catenary cut ridgeline substantially improve the shelter’s stability over a standard tarp and more than a few light tents. Flapping was at a minimum in high winds. Using the four stakes provided and an additional two stakes for the center side tie-outs, the Tarptents suffered some deflection in 40+ mph wind gusts. Not enough to blow the shelter into your face or cause any problems with sleeping. No, they don’t have the resistance to deflection of a dome tent, but they come close to something like a Clip Flashlight. As you might expect, the Cloudburst with its front and rear hoops has the least deflection of the shelters although it was harder to tension its lower side edges and keep them from flapping. Shire’s claims that the Cloudburst is rigid enough to resist some snow loading. We’ll need to test this out as the weather cools.

Because portions of the Tarptent’s front, rear and sides are mesh, Tarptents are draftier than a conventional tent. (Not necessarily bad-in warm weather and high condensation conditions this is good!). The beaks and the noseeum netting do slow the wind down some. We found that making our best effort to pitch the rear of the shelter into the wind and then putting our packs against the noseeum netting on the windward’ish side of the shelter made for an acceptable nights sleep even in high winds. If you are willing to forgo the ventilation, you can roll down the side flaps on the windward edge of the Cloudburst and significantly reduce drafts. As with a tarp (or even a tent), finding a sheltered area (if possible) is always a good idea for windy weather.

Rain Performance Squall and Virga: Neither the Virga and Squall are 100% rainproof-nor were they intended to be. Like a tarp, for light to moderate rain that isn’t too windblown, you’ll stay dry and comfy. The rear beak of the shelter is fairly rainproof but if you get a torrential downpour the rain will spatter in along the sides and through the front mesh. For windblown rain you’ll get even more precipitation in the shelter. The noseeum netting does slow the rain down some and the Virga and Squall will keep you a lot drier than most tarps. Like tarps, these shelters are good for light rain and occasional/intermittent thunderstorms. In this case the core center of the shelter stays relatively precipitation free. For more substantial and sustained precipitation, less hardy hikers may prefer a full tent or possibly the Cloudburst Tarptent.

Rain Performance Cloudburst: Like its name implies, the Cloudburst is the most rain resistant of the Tarptents. It is still not as waterproof as a well-designed tent but it’s fairly close. The Cloudburst has side panels that roll all the way to the ground to cover the noseeum mesh sides. It also has a more substantial front beak that is similar to the rear beak on all the Tarptents. Both the side panels and larger front beak on the Cloudburst provide more rain and wind protection. The result is a much larger percentage of the shelter’s floor area stays dry in driving rain-i.e. more usable living space in a storm. This is at the expense of decreased ventilation and increased condensation (see more below). The front hoop of the Cloudburst creates more vertical walls, more useable interior space, and less roof deflection and wet walls sagging down. All this makes it a lot easier in wet weather to keep your sleeping bag away from condensing shelter sides. An additional benefit is that when shelter bound there’s a lot more space. Two people can sit upright in the front of the shelter.

Cloudburst Tarptent in storm mode, side view: This shows the substantial front beak and roll-down flaps that cover the noseeum netting.

 

Condensation Resistance: Tarptents have good ventilation since the entire perimeter of the shelter is noseeum mesh. Even so the tarp portion of shelter is non-breathable and Tarptents can suffer from condensation in the right (wrong?) circumstances. The front and rear beaks inhibit airflow. The noseeum mesh also restricts airflow (obviously not as much as a solid wall). To reduce condensation, the setup instructions for the Tarptent suggest leaving the front beak and mosquito netting both rolled up unless you need them. This is good advice. We camped one night in a damp and windless valley with the front beak rolled up but the mosquito netting battened down since the bugs were swarming. We did get significant condensation although it did not drip onto our bag. We also got blessed mosquito free sleep! On another night we were camped on a gravel bed next to a tarn at 11,700 feet. The early night was windy so we kept the noseeum netting down to slow the wind a bit. The wind died down overnight and we woke to condensation on the roof of our Tarp Tent. We were a bit surprised since we were fairly sure we were camped where we expected very low humidity.

In both instances, the condensation did not drip on us. We neatly pulled our bag straight out the front door in the morning and kept it free of contact with the condensation. Shires suggest that to reduce condensation you can use a trekking pole for the front of the shelter set at 47 in (42 is standard) to raise the sides another 5 in. This gives you more ventilation, more headroom, and less chance of wet shelter sides touching your bag.

The Cloudburst’s has narrower side panels (the tarp portion comes closer to the ground, at least on our shelter) and a more substantial front beak. Both reduce airflow. With the front hoop, raising the pitch with a trekking pole for better ventilation is not an option. Because of this the Cloudburst is more prone to condensation than the Virga or Squall. Rolling down the silnylon side flaps increases condensation more. Then again, if you are in a raging storm you probably aren’t too concerned with some condensation in the shelter. As with all the Tarptents, rolling up flaps, beaks, and mesh when not needed will eliminate or substantially reduce condensation.

Living Area

Cross sections of the three Tarptents

Interior Living – Virga (1 person): At 31 sq ft we found the Virga has enough of room for one and some, maybe not all, their gear. It’s not the Ritz but it’s adequate. Even going solo, for another 3.5 oz we’d be sorely tempted to move up to a Squall and get an additional 11 sq ft. This extra living area would be especially desirable in the rain or in high condensation conditions.

Interior of the Squall Tarptent

Interior Living – Squall (2 person): At 42 ft sq the Squall has enough room for two people under a single quilt-style bag and plenty of room for gear. There’s enough room that you can stay away from condensing shelter surfaces. For two single sleeping bags there was less room for gear in the shelter and more potential to bush up against wet surfaces. With its relatively low walls you aren’t going to do a lot of sitting up or moving around in the Squall. We didn’t find this to be much of a problem as we only stayed in the shelter to sleep or weather a short thunderstorm.

Interior Living – Cloudburst (2 person): At 39 ft sq the Squall has enough room for two people and some, possibly not all, of their gear. It’s not luxurious but manageable. The front hoop adds a lot more headroom (see “Cross sections of the three Tarptents”). Two people can sit side-by-side in the front of the Cloudburst. Since our testers mostly slept in the shelter and didn’t do a lot of sitting or hanging out, we didn’t see much benefit from the increased headroom. We could see its plusses if you were stormbound. The more rigid and vertical walls on the Cloudburst did make it easier to keep your sleeping bag away from condensing shelter walls-especially true for two single bags in the shelter. Most importantly, the side flaps keep rain from coming in the sides of the shelter. This does create a lot more dry/livable area when the shelter is bombarded with windblown rain.

Summary

Like tarping, the Tarptenting depends somewhat on your skill at pitching and weathering storm in a shelter that is not 100% waterproof. Unlike straight tarping, pitching a Tarptent and staying dry under it are lot easier for the novice or casual user than a conventional tarp. You pay little in shelter weight or cost for these significant benefits (e.g. a high quality 2-person tarp with 6 titanium stakes and guylines weighs approx 16 to 18 oz and costs around $150. This does not include the weight and price of trekking/tarp support poles and some form of mosquito netting.).

Our first choice for summer weather in the western mountains (Rockies and Sierras) would be either the Virga or the Squall for their simplicity, ventilation and light weight. We give the nudge to the Squall (possibly even for solo use) for its additional living space. In windy and stormy weather, the Cloudburst will certainly keep you the driest of the three Tarptents. It is also the heaviest and most condensation prone for all other climatic conditions. We recommend using it when you’re fairly sure that you’ll get the weather to justify its additional 9 oz.

Oware Flat Tarps (6×8, 8×10, 10×10)

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Photo: An Oware 10×10 ft tarp setup for an incoming mountain thunderstorm: Pitch is low to shed wind and increase stability. Windward edge (left side in photo) is staked to the ground at 5 points and an additional 2 mid-side tieouts are used. Leeward edge (right side in photo) is slightly raised to improve ventilation and increase interior room.

Oware produces some of the best-designed and fully featured flat tarps on the market. Oware tarps also have the highest quality construction of the tarps we reviewed. They use 1.4 oz/sq yd (47.5 g/ sq m) silnylon ripstop fabric. Edge seams are rolled and sewn. Center seams are rolled and sewn with a double top stitch (similar to a flat felled seam). All tieouts are 1 inch (2.5 cm) grosgrain webbing loops and the tieout attachment points are reinforced with patches of 200 denier nylon fabric. This allows you to crank down on the tieouts with little fear of ripping the tarp.

Another feature that sets Oware tarps apart from many other flat tarps is the number of tieout loops. Oware tarps have a lot. Their 8×10 tarp has 16 tieouts, and their 10×10 has a whopping 20 tieouts. Multiple tieouts boost tarp stability, and increase interior room. In the hands of a skilled tarper, multiple tieouts allow for a myriad of pitches from a hunkered down, almost tent-like, storm pitch to a wide-open gazebo-like pitch for fairer weather.

We’ve used Oware tarps in all manner of weather-from gusty summer thunderstorms in the Sierras, to mild (but dewy) evenings in the Northeast, to brutal snow camping in the Rockies. In the hands of a skilled tarper, these light and simple shelters can do it all. Their excellent design and quality construction make for stable pitches that distribute stresses evenly across the tarp.

Photo: Pitch possibilities with multiple tieouts: The Oware 10×10 tarp in a low and flat storm pitch. The center-tarp tieouts are used to increase room on the foot of the tarp. The foot end of the tarp faces into the wind.

The only improvement we could recommend for Oware tarps is to add a catenary-cut ridgeline. Oware has already started to do this and offers catenary cuts on a few of their tarp sizes, one of which is reviewed in this roundup. Please see Catenary Curvature as an Element of Ultralight Tarp Design.

Campmor (Equinox) Silnylon Tarps

See how this shelter rates with others in our Comparison Review of Tarps and Other Floorless Shelters

Configurations Reviewed: 6′ x 8′, 8′ x 10′

Photo Caption: Campmor/Equinox’s Ultralight Backpacking Tarp: In addition to a number of perimeter tie-out grommets, the tarp has three center-tarp tie-out points (white nylon straps). One of these tie-outs is shown in use to decrease side deflection and increase interior room. Campmor’s “Ultralight Backpacking Tarp” and Equinox’s “Tarp Ultra Light” are one in the same. Order a tarp from Campmor and you’ll get an Equinox tarp with a small Campmor barcode stuck to the Equinox label.

Campmor/Equinox tarps offer good performance and an excellent value. They use 1.3 oz/sq yd (36.9 g/sq m) silnylon ripstop fabric [most likely the same 1.4 oz/sq yd (47.5 g/ sq m) that other manufacturers use]. Edge seams are rolled and sewn. Center seams are rolled and sewn with a double top stitch (similar to a flat felled seam). Perimeter tie-out are brass grommets inserted into the reinforced edge seams. Both tarps use 5/8 in (1.6 cm) white webbing for and additional 3 tie-outs in the center of the tarp.

The Campmor/Equinox tarps have a good number of tie-outs – more than enough to make a variety of pitches, including a stable storm pitch. The 6×8 tarp has 15 tie-outs (12 grommets along the perimeter, and 3 webbing tie-outs in the center of the tarp parallel to the short dimension.). The 8×10 tarp has 21 tie-outs (18 grommets along the perimeter, and 3 webbing tie-outs in the center of the tarp parallel to the short dimension.).

Campmor/Equinox tarps offer a great value but to do so they cut a few corners. Their construction/design is not at the same level as higher priced tarps like Oware’s or Integral Design’s. While they may be less expensive, we’re not so keen on grommets for tie-out points. Grosgrain webbing bar tacked to a nylon reinforcement patch is stronger, will last longer, and more evenly distributes stresses in the tarp making for a better pitch than plain grommits. Webbing loops are also easier to use. For instance, webbing tie-outs make it a breeze to pitch a tarp edge to the ground. And yes, you can tie small loops of cord to the grommets and have essentially the same thing.

Also, we’d like to see a few more center tie-outs on the 8×10 tarp. Four center tie-outs, two on each side would add more stability to the larger tarp in strong winds. These tie-outs would also allow for a particularly useful storm pitch. In this pitch, three sides of the tarp are staked to the ground and the two center tie-outs on the rear of the tarp are lifted to raise the foot section. (You end up with the flat-tarp equivalent of something like a GoLite Lair shelter – e.g., see photos in the Oware Flat Tarp Review). Finally, we’re not fans of the two un-looped webbing tie-outs on the tarp. We’d much rather see a single webbing loop sewn to a nylon reinforced patch.

We’ve used the Equinox/Campmor tarps in many types of weather-steady spring rains, strong summer thunderstorms, and dewy meadow campsites. In the hands of a skilled tarper, these light and simple shelters are excellent performers. Their few flaws are minor and they are one of the best ultralight shelter values out there. If you want to see if tarping might be your thing, a Campmor/Equinox tarp is a great and inexpensive way to get started.