Articles (2020)

Cloudveil Veiled Peak Jacket

Weight: 16.3 oz size M

The Veiled Peak is Cloudveil’s midweight softshell jacket for aerobic activities. Unlike their famed Serendipity Jacket, which uses a heavier Schoeller Dryskin Extreme, the Veiled Peak uses the lighter and more breathable Schoeller Dynamic fabric.

This is a basic no frills softshell. It uses standard Schoeller Dynamic (with its smooth, rather than napped inner surface), has two mesh lined hand warmer pockets, and a one hand operated waist draw cord. The only two “extras” are a zippered wallet/key stash pocket on the inside of one the mesh hand warmer pockets and a soft tricot lining on the collar.

The fit is trim and attractive (the jacket looks great hanging around town) with plenty of mobility and room for a couple of base layers. The Veiled Peak has a nice enough fit that it serves well as a minimalist stretchwoven shell for mild winter hiking, climbing, and backcountry skiing.

We would have liked at least one napoleon pocket on the jacket but it’s a minor gripe. We can probably figure out another place to stash the GPS, cell phone, or kisky flask. More disturbing is the jacket’s weight. At 16.3 oz, the Veiled Peak cannot compete with the lightest soft shell jackets on the market (including other stretchwovens) and it is only about 10% lighter than far more weather resistant jackets like Cloudveil’s own Serendipity.

Update July 2003: Cloudveil has decided to discontinue the Veiled Peak collection to pursue development on the Prospector clothing line.

Arc’Teryx Alpha Comp

Weight: 14.3 oz size M

The Alpha Comp softshell/hardshell hybrid is a solid performing alpine hiking/climbing jacket. If you don’t expect to be inundated with rain, this jacket can handle just about anything else the elements can dish out. It is tough, abrasion resistant, and highly wind resistant. The jacket is cut trim for climbing but great shoulder and arm articulation and fabric stretch give the wearer excellent freedom of movement. The jacket sports waterproof fabric in all the important areas without sacrificing the breathability of a softshell that is so important for aerobic endeavors.

Arc’Teryx’s Alpha Comp uses Schoeller Dynamic for the body of the jacket and a PTFE-laminated waterproof breathable fabric for the neck, shoulders, outside of the arms, and waist. This jacket has the same weight and durability of a stretchwoven shell but provides more overall water resistance with the addition of the hardshell yoke. Unless rain is coming horizontally at you (and we’ve been there!) you could stay quite dry in this jacket for a long time.

We did find the jacket’s limits, however. Whilst peak bagging in Northern Scotland, we experienced nonstop rain, hail, sleet, and snow, often blowing horizontally. The jacket shrugged off most of the drier stuff and light rain but during the periods of intense rain, the jacket (Scottish perception follows) “let in a little more water than we would have liked” (American translation: “we got soaked, dude”) as rain ran down and collected between the pack and our back. We did manage to burn much of this off while pushing hard uphill to bag that Munro.

The Alpha Comp also got its most serious aerobic test while on a 36 hour continuous push mixed rock and ice climb in the Tetons. We wore the jacket the entire time over a Patagonia R1 hoodie base layer. This combo kept us warm enough from an 11pm start on the approach, through a long ice climb in sub-freezing temps, and until 8 pm the following evening when darkness, an incoming storm, dropping temperatures, and high winds forced us to throw a belay parka over it. The jacket held up to abrasion of rock, ice, tool scraping and ice screw kisses. Best of all, it was a superb breather and we never got chilled or damp inside while on the climb (the night time descent we’ll save for another story).

This is a jacket designed for climbers and alpine scramblers. It has a trim cut to stay out of the way and not catch on things but has plenty of articulation for a full range of motion and enough room for a substantial baselayer. The dual napoleon pockets are great for stashing all sorts of gear as you climb (they hold an amazing amount of stuff and we were forever stuffing them with more gear). The hand warmer pockets are cut high enough to access above a hip belt. The waterproof PTFE fabric is in the strategic places likely to brush up against wet snow and ice as well as protecting the climber from precipitation.

One gripe about the jacket that we tested is that it has no hood. In Scotland we wore the jacket with a Seattle Sombrero rain hat to stay dry. We understand that in the near future, Arc’Teryx will have a hooded version of this jacket out. With a hood, the Alpha Comp increases its versatility significantly. We’ll be provide an updated review as the jacket becomes available.

At 14.5 oz, it’s a bit heavier than the lightest softshells on the market. If you expect to be wearing the jacket on most of your trip, and it won’t sit in the bottom of your pack as an “extra layer,” then we think it is well worth it: the additional weight does buy added performance.

It’s biggest disadvantage of course: the cost of owning a garment with the embroidered bird-o-saur. You’re going to have to mortgage the farm (it might be worth it) to afford it: $300. That’s a lot of money to shell out for a single piece of clothing. But it’s competitive with other high-end waterproof-breathable garments and will likely outperform them.

Cloudveil Prospector Jackets

Introduction

We like softshell garments. You know that. They are superbly breathable and offer a wider range of comfort than traditional hardshell clothing. Stretchwoven softshells, in particular, with their trim cut and freedom of movement, are some of the more comfortable pieces of clothing to wear while hiking, climbing, or skiing. Their ability to shed enough moisture to keep you dry in most conditions makes them very appealing for the backcountry traveler.

Our biggest complaint with stretchwovens, however, is the fabric weight. Few fabrics from Schoeller Textiles, the self-proclaimed knight of softshell fabrics, are less than 5 oz/sq. yd. Cloudveil addresses this concern with its new Inertia fabric used in its Prospector line of softshell garments. Herein we review the Prospector Pullover and Hooded Jacket.

Inertia Fabric

Cloudveil has developed some of the lightest and most versatile softshell garments available with their new Inertia fabric. The Prospector Hooded Jacket is a fully featured softshell for less than 15 oz, and the Prospector Pullover is a sub-9-oz wind shirt that earns title as the market’s featherweight stretchwoven. Compare this to other softshells that are typically over a pound and lack a hood and the other niceties of the Prospector and you readily see why these garments are worth a closer look.

Inertia does not depend on stretch fibers such as Lycra for its stretch – but is designed with “mechanical stretch” formed during the weaving process. In doing so Cloudveil reduces fabric weight while retaining much of the wind resistance, water resistance, and durability of a heavier nylon/Lycra stretchwoven fabrics. The thin, lightweight Inertia absorbs less water and dries faster than a nylon/Lycra fabric like Dynamic.

Our favorite feature about Inertia is its textured interior and smooth surface, which provides the necessary structure required to most effectively drive moisture through the garment via capillary action (wicking).

Hooded Jacket

At 14.5 oz, the Prospector offers a high feature-to-weight ratio that competes with any softshell on the market. This jacket is loaded with storage with three external pockets and two internal pockets. The jacket’s hand warmer pockets are generous, cut high enough to access above a hip belt, and are mesh lined for ventilation. The single napoleon pocket is also large and has a mesh backing. The jacket has two internal cargo pockets that are perfect for larger items. The jacket’s hood is cut almost large enough to fit over a climbing helmet and has two hem draw cords to seal out the elements and tailor the fit.

Open all of these mesh lined pockets and you get serious ventilation as we discovered when testing jacket ventilation features in one of our high speed wind testing laboratories (a windy bobsled run for suicidal skiers in Montana’s Bridger Mountains). Between the vented pockets and the breathable Inertia fabric, the Prospector Hooded Jacket does an excellent job venting excess moisture and keeping you dry during hard aerobic activity. The brushed wicking lining of the fabric also helps with moisture management and the comfort range of the jacket.

Pullover

At 8.6 oz, the Prospector Pullover is the king of lightweight stretchwovens. It features the cut of a wind shirt and is suitable for layering over a base layer. A single mesh-backed Napoleon pocket, tricot-lined collar, and hem drawcord round out its simple feature set. Cloudveil recognizes the need for ventilation, even on a superbly breathable garment, by adding a deep neck zipper.

A Little Light for Foul Conditions, No?

We first tested these garments on an October ascent of 14,414-foot Mt. Rainier, the Cascades’ iciest peak and Washington’s highly irritable queen of foul weather. She didn’t disappoint us on our first attempt, where we began the approach to Camp Muir in light rain that eventually degraded into driving sleet and snow in a double temperature inversion that draped trails, rocks, packs, and signs in rime ice as we climbed further up the mountain.

We wore our Prospector shells over 100-weight gridded fleece base layers. Moving rapidly, we generated enough body heat so that the garments handled all of this with aplomb and we never resorted to using a hardshell. Needless to say, the foul nature of Mt. Rainier chewed us up and spit us out, but certainly not as a result of the limitations in these remarkable shell layers.

On the summit day of our second attempt a few days later, we climbed most of the way to the summit, again wearing only the Prospectors over 100-weight gridded fleece. (we added additional layers above 14,000 feet). This combination kept us warm enough in high winds and sub-freezing temperatures with no clamminess or sweat-induced chilling. We added additional insulation layers near the summit when winds reached 60 mph and temperatures had dropped into the teens. We found the two internal cargo pockets of the Hooded Jacket ideal for storing half-liter Platypus bags of water to keep it handy and warm, essential for maintaining hydration on any mountain endeavor.

Warm Weather Use

Since their initiation on Rainer, the Prospectors have been abused in a variety of other conditions in all four seasons, including the Utah desert. In the desert, we found that the lighter Inertia fabric of the Cloudveil garments is great for warm as well as cold conditions. One of our reviewers discovered terrific comfort and utility of using the Pullover as a hiking shirt, finding that the napped inner surface provided great wickability and the shirt’s wind resistance allowed for a very high range of comfort. We think that for mild and warm conditions, most stretchwoven softshells are overkill. The Prospector Pullover, however, due to its minimal weight, makes a great companion for three season backpacking.

Price

It seems that those little Schoeller hang tags and ancient bird logos must cost a lot of money (special thread required to attach them to the clothing, maybe?). At any rate, we’re pleased that Cloudveil is offering high quality stretchwoven fabrics at reasonable prices. The Hoodie comes in at $150 and the Pullover is $115. These aren’t bargain basement prices, by any means, but they are at least within shootin’ range for the rest of us.

Soft Shells: The Real Story

Soft shells like the Cloudveil Rodeo Jacket (shown here) are becoming increasingly popular among backpackers and alpinists alike.

Introduction

Given only 60 seconds to choose our clothing for a hike or climb, we would likely choose a soft shell jacket and pants first, and build the rest of layering system around those core garments.

Combinations of soft shell garments, especially when layered over next-to-skin wicking garments, offer a wide enough comfort range to deal with most inclement environmental conditions we are likely to face, including sun, heat, cold, wind, light rain, sleet, snow, brush, sharp rocks, and mosquitoes. The breathability of soft shell fabrics means that we can remain comfortable under a wider variety of conditions than traditional coated or laminated “hard shell” fabrics.

We still find utility in waterproof-breathable (“hard shell”) garments for cold, heavy precipitation, as we find in the spring and early summer in the Rockies and Sierras (or year round in the Pacific Northwest). But for most conditions, we prefer to wear garments made with soft shell fabrics.

“A soft shell garment is a piece of clothing designed to be worn as an outer shell layer made with a breathable, but weather-resistant fabric, and designed to replace a ‘hard shell’ … for most conditions.”

What is a Soft Shell?

Patagonia and Cloudveil, the outdoor industry’s two most vocal proponents of soft shell technology, disagree on the definition of a soft shell. There is quite a lot of pride at stake in this somewhat ridiculous terminology war, simply because these two companies have advanced soft shell garment design more than anyone. However, to find some common ground, we’d rather not fuel the confusion and simply say this:

A soft shell garment is a piece of clothing designed to be worn as an outer shell layer made with a breathable, but weather-resistant fabric, and designed to replace a “hard shell” (e.g., a garment made with a waterproof-breathable or -nonbreathable fabric) for most conditions.

Based on this definition, one might find that an eight dollar polyester disco shirt from your local Target store suits your needs as well as a $300 stretch woven jacket. Hey, it’s not a pretty picture for the outdoor industry, but welcome to reality. But inherent in that reality is the realization that a disco shirt can only take you so far, and there are scores of other fabrics more suitable for high-performance clothing. We take a closer look at two families of those fabrics herein – silicone-encapsulated wovens, and stretch-wovens.

The breathability of a soft shell fabric will almost always surpass that of the best waterproof breathable garments (although as technology continues to advance, the gap is expected to be narrowed), so soft shells tend to be more comfortable over a broader range of temperature and exertion than hard shells. In addition, they typically compact better (this is not a hard and fast rule, as most stretchwovens are notoriously bulky), are quieter, and dry more rapidly than hard shells.

Staying Warm and Comfortable in a Soft Shell

In heavy rain, there are two keys to staying warm and comfortable in a soft shell. First, soft shell garments shed light precipitation, so even if some of the precipitation eventually does come through the garment, the vast majority of it should bead and run off the fabric (but be sure to keep the DWR finish on the soft shell refreshed in order to take advantage of this feature). Second, in conjunction with a good base layer, moisture that does migrate can often be evaporated if your activity level is high enough. And yes – you guessed it – soft shells (at least in inclement conditions) are targeted towards higher activity levels. If you are just ambling down an easy trail or drinking cowboy coffee around the campfire, you might do better with a hard shell. But for anyone who has drenched themselves with sweat in a hard shell while pushing hard in the backcountry, the breathability and temperature regulation of soft shells are a blessing.

Soft Shell Fabrics

We’ve divided soft shell fabrics into three categories: stretchwovens, silicone-encapsulated, and hybrids.

Stretchwovens. Stretchwoven fabrics include Schoeller Dynamic, Ibex Climawool Lite, and Cloudveil Inertia. Garments made with these fabrics tend to be the most breathable and durable of the soft shell families. Their key feature is the ability to stretch and accommodate the body movements of an airport runway flagger, or, say, a mountain climber. The important result from this is that the garment can be made a little trimmer than a non-stretch garment, which reduces bulk. Thus, the garment is less likely to snag on brush or flap in the wind, and it tends to be more effective at breathing moisture generated by activity (there is a downside to a trim fit – ventilation is compromised).

The stretch can originate from two sources: mechanical stretch or fiber stretch. Mechanical stretch is stretch that is built into the woven fiber structure, much like the stretch you find in fishnet underwear, even though the fibers themselves possess little or no stretch. Fiber stretch results from blending fibers like Lycra or Spandex into the material. Proponents of mechanical stretch fabrics claim that the removal of stretch fibers (1) reduces fabric weight for similar performance, (2) reduces water absorption by the fabric (stretch fibers tend to be more water absorbent due to their more porous fiber structure), and (3) increases durability over fabrics using stretch fibers. We’ve found the increased durability to be true on a 50,000-cycle tension machine in the lab, but even for heavy field use for several years, we’ve yet to see a stretchwoven fabric “sag” from overuse. So, be cautious of more marketing hype than you need.

Manufacturers of stretchwovens are quick to tell you that their fabrics possess a unique type of water resistance that is inherent in the fabric structure and is not dependent on a chemical fiber treatment for water resistance (which, they are quick to point out, can wash or wear out, despite the fact that nearly every stretchwoven fabric on the market in the U.S. has been DWR-treated). They go on to say that the surface of the fabric is woven in such a way that the hydrophobic face structure has a significant topography (peaks and valleys) rather than being completely flat like a typical rain shell. The net effect is that there is less surface area in contact with a water droplet that comes to rest on the fabric, which results in a lower surface tension force on the droplet, making it less likely that the droplet will collapse and wick into (i.e. wet out) the fabric. Then they take the garment to the store bathroom and show you all this neat stuff as they run it under water. Lo and behold, magic happens and not a single drop of water leaks through.

“…all of a sudden, you find yourself soaking wet in a light rain and those beads of water that were terrified of the fabric at the store are now ripping their way through the garment like an anopholene whore through open weave mesh. What the heck?”

What is reality like?

The actual field scenario goes something more like this. You bring your $250 stretchwoven jacket home, take it out on your first summertime weeklong backpacking trip, and exclaim that it’s the best thing since peanut butter. A few months of heavy use go by (a few years perhaps for those of you that are more accustomed to armchair adventure) and all of a sudden, you find yourself soaking wet in a light rain and those beads of water that were terrified of the fabric at the store are now ripping their way through the garment like an anopholene whore through open weave mesh. What the heck?

The DWR finish probably washed out when you did your laundry (the likely scenario). Or got mucked up with dirt, grime, and sweat. What can you do? Grab some Scotchguard, Rain-X, or Revivex and restore it. You’ll be back in the saddle before you know it.

So, remember these key principles: (1) DWR finishes on new products can be really good, (2) manufacturers, designers, marketers, and store employees are pretty suave about highlighting the in-store performance of a new garment, and (3) these fabrics aren’t magic. Spend the cash and time to keep the DWR fresh, and you’ll find the utility of a stretchwoven to be very appealing.

Many stretchwovens also provide some measure of insulation (during the summer, we often leave our long underwear bottoms at home when we take stretch-woven pants). This results from the fact that stretchwovens are thicker, have rougher surfaces and interstices, and are able to trap more insulating air. The downside to this type of construction, however, is that rain-soaked stretchwovens absorb more water than silicone encapsulated soft shells, and will require more time to dry out, whether you are hanging it under your tarp or drying with body heat while wearing it.

The biggest downside of stretchwovens for lightweight backpacking is that they are heavier than a similar garment made with other soft shell fabrics. The very lightest stretchwoven nylon zip-T shirts on the market currently remain over 8 ounces, with the lightest jackets weighing 14 oz or more. Thus, if the stretchwoven shell is going to remain in your pack for most of the trip, you might be better off with a garment made with a lighter, more compact soft shell fabric.

Silicone Encapsulated. Silicone encapsulated microfiber fabrics include Nextex EPIC, Cloudveil Cirrus, and Patagona Encapsil. Garments made with these fabrics tend to be lighter, more wind and water resistant, and less water-absorptive that stretchwovens, at the sacrifice of some breathability (and insulation). They are also more fragile than stretchwovens and may not be as appropriate for bushwacking or rock scrambling. Their biggest advantage is their potential to be very light and stuff to a very small size. For example, one manufacturer makes a full-length jacket using EPIC that includes a generous hood, full zip, mesh-backed torso pockets, and pit zips at a weight of only nine ounces. Silicone-encapsulated shirts can weight as little as four ounces.

The most common silicone encapsulated fabric is Nextec EPIC. EPIC depends on the silicone encapsulation of each fiber to repel water and to close spaces between fibers. Since the encapsulation does not completely close spaces between the fibers, the fabric still breathes. After encapsulation, EPIC is more water resistant but not as breathable as an untreated microfiber fabric or a stretch-woven fabric. According to unverified sources, EPIC is water and wind resistant to 4 lbs/sq. in. Again, manufacturers of silicone encapsulated fabrics like to tout the perception that water resistance is a permanent feature of the fabric and can’t be washed out like a DWR. However, if the fabric becomes soiled (from grease, dirt, and sweat), look out – silicone encapsulated fabrics let plenty of water wick through and it thus loses its water resistance. In addition, although silicone encapsulated fabric garments are good for light rain, sleet, and snow, they still are not going to protect you in sustained rain. Their real strength is the combination of light fabric fiber encapsulation – this means they absorb less water into the fabric structure and dry very quickly. This is a significant benefit in the backcountry when you are finally seeking shelter after a long day of rain. You can literally “shake out” a silicone encapsulated fabric garment, hang it in your tent or under your tarp, and it will probably be dry to the touch in less than a few hours.

Hybrids: Some garments are constructed with soft shell type fabrics (like Schoeller Dynamic) with the addition of hard shell (waterproof-breathable) fabric in key areas like the upper arms and hood – areas most likely to saturate and leak during a hard rain. Apparel falling into this new soft/hard-shell category has the most potential to replace fully waterproof-breathable raingear in your backpack. Could a hybrid provide the construction basis for the ideal soft shell? Consider a jacket that uses a waterproof-breathable yoke and hood with a silicone-encapsulated body, with both fabrics less than 2.0 oz/sq.yd. A full-featured jacket could be manufactured at a weight of less than nine ounces. We’re still waiting.

Summary

Soft shells are not the cure all for backcountry shell comfort. But the addition of a stretchwoven or silicone-encapsulated garment to your clothing ensemble has the ability to significantly increase the comfort range of your clothing system.

MSR, Snow Peak, and Backpacker’s Pantry 1-L + 1.5-L Backpacking Cooksets

Introduction

Most hardcore solo ultralight hikers choose miniscule, titanium “pots” that are more appropriately described as “cups”. However, this style remains on the fringe and the defacto standard for a lightweight hiker’s cook kit is a 1-L pot in either titanium or aluminum.

For hiking partners who share their cooking gear, the “fringe” seems to get by on a single 1.5-L pot, but many duos like the convenience of a two pot system so two courses can be prepared simultaneously (e.g., on two stoves) or in an efficient production line (where one pot is on the stove while the other is serving actively as an eating bowl for the food just cooked).

Herein we focus on two-pot cooksets that include nesting 1.0- and 1.5-liter pots:

  • Backpacker’s Pantry Evolution Soloist Cookset
  • MSR DuraLite Mini Cookset
  • MSR Titan Mini Cookset
  • Snow Peak Trek Combo, Combo Ti, and Combo NS

Review Criteria

Boil Time

We were amazed at how much emphasis people place on boil time and fuel efficiency in their cook systems. Both performance measures can differ significantly depending on fuel type, stove design, wind screen design, wind, air temperature, water temperature, etc. To try to predict the impact of these factors on boil time or fuel efficiency is absolutely futile. Further, we learned in testing boil times using this cookware in a 68*F kitchen that the data had zero impact on actual boil times in the field. Further, after analyzing the sensitivity of boil time and fuel efficiency to these factors, stove design and wind played a far more important role than pot design. Now, we are by no means advocating that you should ignore the pot design, but chances are, it’s really not going to matter in the field. You simply can’t save enough weight in fuel on a week-long hike by selecting one pot design over another to actually make a difference. So, we are going to focus on more practical aspects of cookset performance, including weight, packability, durability, and cost.

Having said that, we did decide to report the results of some kitchen counter boil tests. Just take them with a grain of salt. Here’s a summary:

  • 24 ounces of 50 degree water in a 1-L pot
  • 32 ounces of 50 degree water in a 1.5-L pot
  • 24 ounces of 32 degree water in a 1-L pot
  • 32 ounces of 32 degree water in a 1.5-L pot

We used a Snow Peak GigaPower Ti Auto canister stove with a full 220-g canister for each test with no windscreen and a lid on each pot. The time to boil was determined at when the temperature of the water reached 210*F as measured remotely by an insulated wire temperature sensor.

We did find that, all conditions being equal (e.g., in the kitchen) the MSR Duralite was the fastest cooker. We assigned it a score of 1.0 based on it having the fastest average time required to boil a given amount of water in various tests. Other cookware were compared by dividing their average times with the average time of the Duralite Cookware. The following table summarizes these results.

MSR Duralite Mini 1.00
Backpacker’s Pantry Evolution Soloist 1.04
MSR Titan Mini 1.08
Snow Peak Trek Combo Ti 1.31

Conclusion: There is little practical difference in boil time between the Duralite, Evolution, or Titan cooksets. The Trek Combo was a slow boiler, due primarily in part, we suspect, to its high height-to-diameter ratio, which negatively effects the amount of surface area allowed for heat transfer at the contact surface between pot and water. In general, the Snow Peak Trek Combo boiled slower in the field as well, while no meaningful differences were observed among the other three cooksets in field conditions.

Weight

We measured the weight of each cook set on a NIST-certified scale. The weight included only the cookware – pots, lids, and handles – and no stow bag.

MSR Titan Mini 9.6 oz
Snow Peak Trek Combo Ti 13.1 oz
Backpacker’s Pantry Evolution Soloist 16.2 oz
MSR Duralite Mini 17.1 oz
Snow Peak Trek Combo NS 17.9 oz
Snow Peak Trek Combo 19.9 oz

As expected, the titanium cooksets were the lightest, with the MSR Titan Mini blowing away the rest of the field. The Snow Peak Trek Combo Ti really wasn’t really light enough to justify its price premium over the Evolution, especially considering its slow boil time results described above.

Packability

The big advantage of the Snow Peak cooksets were their ability to pack well. They easily stuffed either vertically or on their side, giving us flexible options for location. The MSR and Backpacker’s Pantry cooksets, with their more traditional dimensions, required more attention in packing. This was most important when packing the cooksets in frameless pack, where a mispacked 1.5-L pot could easily wreak havoc on the ability of the pack to flex to your spine.

Durability

Coatings and Cleanability. The Trek Combo NS, Evolution Soloist, and Duralite Mini cooksets all had nonstick coatings. When new, they all performed similarly but were certainly not miracle workers. None of the coatings were really thick enough to prevent scorching (as per manufacturer claims), but we do think that the presence of these coatings minimized scorching. In comparative scorch-resistance tests, however, we did observe the least amount of scorching in the Evolution Soloist. The bottom line is, when you are cooking, you still need to pay attention to the process or your food will burn.

More important is the ability of the coatings to ease cleanup. We felt that for most meals (in the absence of scorching, of course), the nonstick cookware offered distinct advantages – food simply rinsed out. However, greasy foods could not be cleansed from the cookware in the absence of soap, where plain water rinsed out the uncoated pots just fine. So we ignored manufacturer recommendations and subjected all of our cooksets to continuous washing with sand, dirt, and gravel. Of the three cooksets with coatings, we found that the Evolution Soloist cookset was not only the easiest to clean, but was also the most scratch-resistant, showing little wear of the coating over six months of pretty hard abuse. In comparison, the coating on the Trek Combo NS cookset was nearly worn to the metal after subjecting it to similar abuse. The Duralite Mini showed visible scratching, but still remained reasonably functional for scorch-resistance.

Of the uncoated pots, the MSR Titan Mini was the easiest to clean – it offered a titanium surface texture that was far smoother than the Trek Combo Ti. As expected, the uncoated aluminum cookset, the Trek Combo, was the most difficult pot to clean.

Durability. The Duralite Mini cookset gets the nod for most durable cookset in this review. Because it’s hard anodized, it tends to be stronger than a comparable weight of aluminum. However, if we were to assign a durability:weight ratio for cookware, the Trek Combo Ti would win top honors. It withstood several our “let’s run over it with a snowmobile on concrete and see what happens” better than the others, due in part to the thicker titanium walls that make it heavier than the Titan mini cookset. For most experienced lightweight hikers, durability tends to be a is a less meaningful performance criterion.

Summary

The cheapest cookset in this review – the Evolution Soloist – was by no means the worst performer. In contrast, we thought this cookset defined a new sweet spot for cookware pricing. It was the lightest non-titanium cookset in the review, had the best nonstick coating in terms of both durability and its ability to resist scorching, and was the easiest to clean. And at the high end of the scale, the MSR Titan Mini offers the best overall performance-to-weight ratio, but you pay for it. Thus, we are pleased to award the Trail’s Best Award to these two products.

Trail’s Best Award Backpacker’s Pantry Evolution Soloist $34
  Snow Peak Trek Combo $45
  MSR Duralite Mini $50
  Snow Peak Trek Combo NS $80
Trail’s Best Award MSR Titan Mini $90
  Snow Peak Trek Combo Ti $90

Integral Designs George Tarp

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

Introduction

The Integral Designs George Tarp applies economies of scale to a silnylon shelter for shared camping. The George Tarp is a reincarnation of the Sil Shelter for 2 to 4 persons.

Features

The George Tarp is designed to provide stormworthy protection from the elements for two, three, or four hikers. It is made with 1.4 oz silicone coated nylon and has 11 perimeter tie-out points, with an additional two in the sides of the body for added stability. The tarp uses a pole (purchased separately) or two coupled trekking poles for support, and requires a minimum of six stakes for a reasonably taut pitch. The George reflects Integral Designs usual attention to detail and quality of craftsmanship. A noseeum mesh bugnet panel is available for complete side enclosure while maintaining ventilation.

Specifications

  • Weight: 21.6 oz (as measured by us)
  • Dimensions: Depends on height of support pole, but the shelter is luxuriously roomy for two, adequate for three, and tight for four.
  • Packed Size: 4″ x 14″, silnylon stuff sack provided

Performance Review

In addition to our normal reviewer backpacking field trips, we left the George set up for sixteen weeks straight during Montana’s foul-weather transition season between winter and spring, exposing it to high winds, snow, and rain.

Ease of Setup. The George is a trick to set up properly, and takes some practice. Part of the fault lies in the design. The George could benefit from some CAD work with the addition of catenary curve seamlines and edges to increase the tautness of the pitch. Consequently, we were constantly fiddling with pole height and side guy tensions to tweak the pitch. There does, however, seem to be a magic combination of pole height (somewhere between five and a half and six and a half feet) that seemed to provide and ideal balance between storm resistance, headroom, and interior living space.

Interior Living Space. The important thing to remember with the George tarp, is that the higher you pitch it, the less interior living space it provides, but the better you are able to seal off the door from rain spray. At a five foot pole height, the tarp was tight for four people, and the doors remained wide open. At a seven foot pole height, there was sufficient living space for two and the doors could be sealed. We liked a pole height of six feet, which provided roomy accomodations for three.

Performance with a Five Foot Pole. Again, storm resistance depends on the pole height. At a pole height of five feet, there was so much surface area of fabric that was nearly parallel to the ground that excess rain resulted in a lot of pooling. In addition, condensation was worst in this configuration, due to the limited headroom between the sleepers and the ceiling. In high winds the fabric flapped loudly and during big gusts, flattened all the way to our faces. In snowy conditions, the pitch was miserable. We constantly had to remove snow from the tarp to avoid its collapse.

Performance with a Seven Foot Pole. For seriously wet or snowy conditions, this was our favorite pitch. It allowed us to fully close the door and the walls were steep enough not to touch our sleeping bags when the tarp sagged in cool conditions. In addition, excess rain and snow shed easily with no pooling. However, in windy conditions, it is very important to properly tension the side guylines, due to the large wall surface area exposed to the direction of the wind.

Durability. Most silnylon is strong. The silnylon used by Integral Designs is no exception. We’ve always been impressed with its quality and cosmetic appearance. The fabric pole cup that holds the pole is sewn into the silnylon at a point that receives a lot of stress. Surprisingly, even after months of intensive use, we didn’t rip out the cup when cinching guylines. With a little attention and a firm but not neanderthalic tug on the main guyline, the cup and its stitching should last for a long time.

Summary

For two people, the George tarp provides stormworthy and roomy conditions for hardcare lightweights at a cost of less than 13 ounces per person (including stakes and guylines). For three people, it provides a tighter squeeze but allows each person to bear a burden of less than 9 ounces apiece. There may not be a lighter solution to foul-conditions camping than the George.

Our only improvements? Catenary cuts and a redesign to allow for a perfectly taut pitch at its most versatile height of six feet.

Final Grade: B+

Hennessy Hammock REVIEW

Introduction

We received two models of Hennessy Hammocks, the Ultralight Backpacker and the Extreme Light Racer. The only functional differences between the two lie in the material that is used for the hammock body (lighter obviously, in the Racer model), and the strength of the hammock cord used for tying the hammock to trees. We tested both models for several months during two seasons of wet spring and the intense insects of Yellowstone National Park.

Features

Materials and Construction. The Hennessey Hammocks are well-made products, featuring an attention to detail indicative of a well-managed production shop. The excellent quality is the most noticeable first impression we received. This becomes most apparent after the hammock is pitched – it pitches taut and is incredibly comfortable.

Ease of Setup. While the manufacturer states a setup time of 2 minutes, you will not achieve this right out of the box. Even after more than 60 nights of experience setting up the hammock, we still ended up fiddling with the setup to make sure the hammock was level and taut. Having said that, setup and adjustment is indeed rather easy. A very nice feature is the set of instructions provided on the imprinted stuff sack, which shows how to tie the right knots and find correct tree spacing.

Ease of Entry/Exit. This is where the Hennessy shines. The hammock has a self-closing slit in the bottom through which you crawl, sit in the hammock, swing your legs up, and lie down. Exit requires you to poke a leg through the slit and reverse the process. The slit can be completely closed with its Velcro overlap, which does usually require the use of your hands to get it all lined up.


Photo Copyright Hennessy Hammock

Gear Organization. Although there’s no practical means of bringing your pack into the hammock with you, it can lie in the protection of the canopy beneath you (a good place for your shoes as well – but watch those salt-loving critters). The hammock does include a mesh storage pocket that slides along a ridgeline and proved to be our favorite home for flashlights, watches, and a midnight snack (don’t tell the Yellowstone Rangers).

Specifications

  • Weight: 29.4 oz (as measured, includes hammock only, no stuff sack
  • Weight Limit: 200 lbs
  • Suspension: 1400+ lb test Spectra reinforced ropes with tightly braided polyester covering
  • Tree Protection: 42″ x 1″ webbing straps
  • Body Dimensions: 100″ x 48″
  • Body Fabric: 70D nylon taffeta
  • Canopy Dimensions: 121″ x 106″ (dimensions of new model, not the one we tested)
  • Canopy Fabric: Single piece 1.4-oz silicone-coated nylon
  • Body Mesh: 1-oz polyester noseeum mesh
  • Stuff Sack: Ripstop nylon bag with imprinted setup instructions
  • Packed Size: 5″ x 10″

Performance Review

Comfort. We had seven reviewers test the hammock. Six of the seven had tried other backpacking hammocks, including the Clark Jungle Hammock and models from Crazy Creek. All six of those reviewers commented noted that the Hennessy was so much more comfortable than the others that it wasn’t even a contest. The lone reviewer without hammock experience spent one night in the hammock and purchased three more the following day. She and her family have been Hennessy converts ever since. What makes comfort so good in a Hennessy Hammock? The ridgeline of the hammock extends across the roofline – consequently, load tension is distrubuted in the roofline rather than in the hammock body, as is conventional with other hammocks. Thus, there is no need for the body tension caused by your weight to fight the suspension forces distributed at the roofline, resulting in a much greater ability to lie level. This is the only hammock we’ve tested where one can actually be level. This, of course, requires that you sleep at a slight diagonal off the centerline, which is the norm with this hammock. Apparently, comfort has been improved even further with a new, asymmetrical design.

Insect Protection. The entry/exit design, bugproof body fabric, and noseeum mesh make this a paradise in insect-rich environs. We used the hammock in June and July in Yellowstone National Park, where bogs, marshes, and lingering snowmelt pools provided maddening quantities of mosquitoes. The Hennessy Hammock was a terrific retreat, and we only let in one or two mosquitoes inside during entry in conditions where our tent-bound comrades were battling dozens of intruders.

Cold. The biggest complaint with hammocks is that with no bottom insulation, you will get cold. In the cooler mountains of Yellowstone, we concur. We always required the use of a 3/8″, 3/4-length closed cell foam pad for nighttime temperatures less than 45 degrees. This is no particular limitation of the Hennessy Hammock.

Rain. The Hennessy’s canopy was large enough to keep out wind-driven rain experienced during late night thunderstorms in Yellowstone and the steady hard rains of June. Entry and exit in wet conditions is not bad – at least there is no risk of getting rain inside with the “door” open. However, our review corps unanimously agreed that a few more inches of canopy width to provide a little extra protection for changing clothes, cooking, and doing other chores outside the hammock would have been worth an extra ounce or two.

Wind. In the absence of wind, the hammock gently sways you to sleep. In windy conditions, the hammock moves very little – again, as a result of having the load-bearing forces for suspension distributed across the roofline and not through the body. More problematic is the flapping of the fly in the wind. The canopy is akin to a small tarp suspended at only four locations, and flappability can be a problem in winds greater than 20 mph.

Snow. Most shelters, including non-silnylon tents and tarps, accumulate snow during the commonly wet snow storms of spring, summer and fall in the Western U.S. mountains. The Hennessy, surprisingly, with its silicone-coated fly, was an outstanding snow shelter. We woke up on several occasions with 1-8 inches of snow on the ground, and there wasn’t a single flake on the hammock canopy. In one spring dump, when we took the hammock on a ski backpacking trip, it successfully weathered two consecutive nights of heavy snowfall that brought more than 40 inches of snow in the Montana Beartooths.

Condensation Resistance. The Hennessy Hammock is made with its entire upper body of mesh, and unlike double-walled tents that have all-mesh inner bodies, the significant amount of space between the canopy and the mesh body allowed for unrestricted airflow and virtually no condensation. On cold, still, and humid nights, there was less condensation on a Hennessy Hammock that on any tents in our party. Only tarp-campers that pitched their tarps high above their face were drier. One the one night when nearly everyone in our party was soaking up condensation with their PackTowls, a single paper shop towel wiped along the entire underside of both Hennessy Hammocks wrung out only a few drops absorbed moisture.

Durability Comments on the Light Racer Model. Caution is warranted by the manufacturer for the 21.4 oz (our verified weight) of the Light Racer Model, which uses lighter materials that are less durable (primarily, lighter ripstop nylon in the tent body and lighter suspension cord). However, we used the Light Racer under normal backpacking conditions and it showed no less signs of wear and tear after sixty nights than our Ultralight Backpacker model. Hennessy is making an even smaller, lighter model for the hardcore outdoor athlete – 15 oz! – the “Adventure Racer.”

Summary

The Hennessy Hammock is well made, more comfortable than any other hammock we’ve tried, and hits the sub-two-pound sweet spot for a lightweight, fully-enclosed, solo shelter. Our only gripe: a slightly larger canopy and the flexibility to add more interior pocket storage (as an add-on option) for organizing smaller items.

Final Grade: A minus

Summer Alpine Ice Climbing in Montana’s Beartooth Mountains

This trip report describes a four day backpacking and alpine climbing trip to Whitetail Peak in Montana’s Beartooth Range, July 9-11, 2002.

See end of document for gear notes & gear lists

Overview

The following describes a three-day trip into the West Fork of Rock Creek, in the Beartooth Mountains near Red Lodge, MT, for an attempt of the longest alpine ice climb in the Beartooth range, “Whitetail Gully.”

Day 1 – Tuesday, July 9, 2002

We drove from Bozeman to Red Lodge, MT in the early afternoon and proceeded immediately to the West Fork Rock Creek trailhead (elev. 7,880 feet). After making a few final adjustments and lacing up our mountaineering boots, we started hiking at 2:30 pm.

The West Fork Rock Creek trail ascends a valley harboring a stream of the same name. It winds up a series of meadow benches and subalpine cascades, including Sentinel and Calamity falls. After about five miles, the trail breaks out into Quinnebaugh Meadows (8,800 feet) with our first views of 12,551-foot Whitetail Peak’s north face and its prominent couloir route, the Whitetail Gully.

Although we’d seen pictures of the peak, they didn’t capture the extent of its dominance along the Castle Peak-to-Silver Run Peak skyline. Whitetail was bigger, the north face was steeper, and the couloir was longer than we’d envisioned. The couloir and the lower snowfields adjoining it ascended more than 2,900 vertical feet up Whitetail’s north face, ending only 150 vertical feet short of the summit. This was a spectacular and elegant route, and we were excited to attempt it. There was not a cloud in the sky and temperatures were unseasonably warm. We only hoped that the weather would hold for a few more days.

Quinnebaugh Meadows, with Whitetail Peak as its backdrop, is a fairy tale backcountry camp with moose, mountain views, trout fishing in the creek, and soft grassy campsites. Unfortunately, we had to pass it up, as we wanted to set up a base camp closer to the peak. After leaving Quinnebaugh Meadows, the trail skirts the edge of Sundance Lake (at about mile 7; elev. 9,443 feet, see map below), which is not visible from the trail without a short side trip. This was intended to be our base camp for the next few days, but the lake was inaccessible from the west (trail) side due to some 100 foot high cliff formations rimrocking the lake’s west shore. So, after a brief stop here for some blood sugar replenishment (we were very hungry and had not taken any breaks on the trail for 3 hours), we trudged another half mile to a bridge crossing the creek above a small grassy island in the middle of Rock Creek. Arrriving in the waning evening, we made camp at 9,530 feet on the island. From here we would enjoy tremendous neck-aching views of Whitetail’s north face for the next few days.

USGS 7.5′ Quad Map (Silver Run Peak) showing the Whitetail Peak area with our approach, climbing, and descent routes. The West Fork Rock Creek trailhead is off the map to the NE. The lake basin to the NW of our basecamp was the location of our acclimatization activities on day 2. Contour interval is 40 feet. To give you an idea of the map scale, the segment between basecamp and the base of the climbing route (the section between the two red dots marked “APPROACH ROUTE”) is about one mile.

After dinner and some futile fishing for (reported) cutthroats in Sundance Lake and the lakelets and pools along the creek, we enjoyed coffee, cocoa, and bourbon while watching the alpenglow descend on the peak. We felt the clear mountain sky suck out the day’s accumulated heat. The temperature dropped more than 20 degrees in two hours to 34 deg F by 10:00 pm. We had a good frost overnight and there was ice in our water bladders the next morning. We were pleased to have pitched our silnyon tarps over our (non-waterproof) bivy sacks to keep the frost off – anything outside the tarps’ protection was covered in white.

Day 2 – Wednesday, July 10, 2002

It seems that we camped on a favorite nocturnal feeding ground of a local mountain goat. He visited us during a night of intermittent sleep. We would get to know this goat more intimately over the next 24 hours.

Today was a day for acclimatization, fishing, and climbing practice. After breakfast we ascended cross country to a 10,400+-foot lake basin west of camp. The basin houses some of Montana’s highest alpine lake fisheries, including Marker Lake (10,868 feet), which has the distinction of being the highest lake in Montana with fishable trout. Marker and other lakes in the area are also managed as trophy Yellowstone cutthroat fisheries (stocked on 8-year cycles). We spent the morning and early afternoon fishing Ship (10,462 feet) and Triangle (10,360+) Lakes without success. Unfortunately, 2002 would not be a good fishing year in this area, since it falls around the end of the 8-year stocking cycle for most of the lakes. At this time fish are either sparse (old and died off) or too small to be caught (i.e., just planted this year).

In the afternoon, we traversed to a 10,600-foot north facing snowfield for some alpine climbing practice. The snow was 35 degrees or so and made an adequate practice ground for crampon and ice axe technique. We belayed two short pitches up the slope, using an ice screw for intermediate protection. We made the first belay from two ice tools and the second belay in rock with a piton and a slung flake. Climbing here made our purpose on this trip much more real, although it seemed somewhat ludicrous that this 200-foot-high snowfield would prepare us adequately for the 2000-foot (and much steeper) couloir visible out of the corner of our left eye as we climbed this snowfield. Alan really appreciated the practice, as he hadn’t played around with crampons or ice tools in over 20 years. He wasn’t relishing the thought of climbing the couloir with his rusty climbing skills. We arrived back at camp in the early evening and enjoyed a wonderful sunset dinner, preparing our climbing gear in nervous apprehension of what the next day would bring, never letting both eyes stray from the Whitetail Couloir for an extended period of time.

Our friend the goat had visited our camp while we were away for the day and enjoyed chewing the rubber-and-cork grips off of Alan’s Leki titanium trekking poles. The goat arrived back on the island shortly after dinner and would remain with us the rest of the night until we left for our climb. In anticipation of a night troubled by goat tramping, we both piled some rocks near our tarps. My pile was gone by midnight. Tired of retrieving a pile of rocks from the creek every hour and having to reset the main tarp line that the goat kept upending with his horns (not to mention the fact that a fastball delivered into his ribs only caused him to scratch a few times), I finally reached an understanding with the goat. I would pee on some prime goat grass about 20 feet away and allow him to eat there during the night, and he would not mess with my guy lines. It worked and I finally managed a few hours of sleep.

The nighttime low temperature was even colder than last night – into the upper 20’s. Camped in a stream bottom with a clear night sky, we were bathed in crisp katabatic air that made for a great night’s sleep as we snuggled into our down bags. The nips of bourbon before bed didn’t hurt either.

Day 3 – Thursday, July 11, 2002

Wakeup

3:00 am. Alarm goes off. Goat grunts from 15 feet away, as if to say, “Hey buddy, can’t you hear your alarm? Get up!”

3:05 am. Lubricate contact lenses. Wriggle out of bivy sack. Pee. Get dressed. Go get bear bag.

3:15 am. Look up at Whitetail Peak. Note the dark, massive outline of the mountain against the dimly starlit and moonless sky. Also note that the couloir is the only apparent, but massive feature on the mountain visible in the middle of the night. I think it was then that I heard the mountain start to laugh.

3:25 am. Begin boiling water for a breakfast of hot cereal. Eagerly eat cereal and chase with a cup of very strong but outstanding coffee.

3:50 am. Make final packing preparations, mentally ticking climbing necessities off an unseen gear list.

4:25 am. Bid adieu to the goat. Warn him that if he messes with our stuff again, the size of the rocks will increase. Goat looks unimpressed and just huffs.

4:30 am. Begin the approach to the peak.

The Approach

The approach included about 200 feet of trail, a little frozen neve, and endless steps over talus that was reported in a climbing guide to be “small by Beartooth standards” (typically, about the size of truck engines). The approach allowed us some time to get focused for the actual climbing. I’ve learned to relish this time for mental preparation, using it to visualize what is going to happen on the climb. We climbed mostly talus (and a little snow) from our camp at to the upper fringes (10,200 feet) of the snowfield leading into the couloir, arriving there at about 5:30 am to begin the actual climbing.

Here, during sunrise (with the morning sun creeping up over the massive Castle Mountain, Montana’s third highest summit at 12,604 feet), we prepared our climbing gear – crampons, one axe and hammer each, one 60m twin rope, a handful of slings, a few pitons, one ice screw, a set of stoppers, and a few hexes. We put on our harnesses and crampons, adjusted helmets and ice tool leashes, compressed our packs, and refueled our bodies with Cytomax and carbo gel. Just before climbing, we stripped down to pants and a thin top layer in anticipation of the aerobic effort to come. We were climbing by 6:00 am.

The Climb

The climbing into and in the lower half of the couloir was spectacular – hard, frozen neve offered perfect purchase for crampon points and the spike of our ice axes. We climbed this 35-40 degree, 1000-foot long section with a single axe, un-roped.

Route Topo of the Whitetail Gully. Grade III, AI2+, Class 3 Rock

We moved quickly and efficiently, taking short breaks long enough only to suck a few ounces of water from our bladders and squeeze-eat a packet of Gu. The temperature was cool during the early part of the climb, but the humidity was low and we drank constantly just to keep our mouths from drying out. We reached 11,400 feet (the halfway point where the couloir begins to steepen) by 7:30 am. The sun had been in the upper couloir for more than two hours by now and we knew that we would have to boogie in order to reach the top before the ice conditions deteriorated into one big slushie. We kept moving, remaining unroped but using our second tools to maintain speed as the couloir steepened to 45 degrees and then to 50 degrees. The exposure was incredible but the climbing was secure. We maintained water and carbohydrate intake at regular intervals, and our climbing rate remained steady and swift. Best of all, we felt great. We noticed little if any impact of the 12,000 foot altitude on our aerobic performance. Months of intense pre-climb training and yesterday’s acclimatization day were paying off.

Alan in the Whitetail Couloir at about 11,700 feet, where slope steepness was about 50 degrees. At this point we are soloing but using two tools and the couloir surface was composed of “white” alpine ice and shallow neve, shaded and in excellent climbing condition.

Whitetail Couloir is huge – 2,000 vertical feet in elevation and nearly 3,000 feet of actual climbing distance covered. It is the longest alpine ice climb in the Beartooth Range. Like many gullies, conditions in Whitetail quickly deteriorate as the sun begins to bake it. Unstable snow, wet snow avalanches, and rockfall are a few of its hazards. All of these can be minimized by climbing the route in the pre-dawn and early morning hours. Even this early in the season, our route had sustained significant afternoon deterioration. A 3-4 foot deep and 4-12 foot wide “junk rut” (caused by early season wet snow avalanches) had formed down the middle of the couloir. These ruts are the garbage chutes of couloirs, and it’s not wise to climb in them. Everything that the melting suns loosens, e.g. wet snow and rocks, funnels down the junk rut. We avoided the rut for the first two thirds of the route, but found that as the sun softened the route, the only alpine ice that was solid enough for crampon and ice tool purchase was on the rut’s east wall, so we climbed in the rut for the remainder of the climb. This will be considered by armchair mountaineers to be an unnecessary gamble. We reasoned like this: the rut offered the fastest climbing to the top. Spend less time in the bowling alley and you reduce the odds of getting hit. Get out of the coulior faster and you climb on colder and more stable snow. Simple axioms and a foundation of fast and light alpinism.

With about 200 vertical feet remaining, the couloir steepened to 55 degrees. Deteriorating snow conditions demanded some interesting climbing technique. Ryan found himself using the adze of his ice axe (left hand) and the front points of his left crampon for good purchase in the rut’s east wall, while his right hand resorted to plunging the shaft of his alpine hammer to its head, with his right foot kicking steps into the slope. Alan’s technical ice hammer had a bit more bite and he sunk its pick deep on the rut’s east wall and made huge plunging swings with the adze of his axe into the softer west wall. Even so, he had to resort to occasionally plunging tool and axe handles into the softest sections.

Top of Couloir – 12,400 feet

Note the contribution of the black helmet and dark glacier glasses to Ryan’s “Beartooth Alpinist – MIB” look. On the final steps to the top we climbed up a slope of nearly 60 degrees. We topped out at exactly 9:00 am – a total of three hours in the couloir. This exceeded our wildest expectations, as we anticipated four to six hours of climbing with several belayed pitches. Such is the benefit of moving quick and solo, of being adequately acclimatized, maintaining hydration and nutrition during the effort, being in uncompromising aerobic condition, and of course, packing light. The weather cooperated as well, although we wished for some cooler temperatures. This was an exhilarating finish to a terrific climb and wonderful validation for the light and fast climbing philosophy we brought into this adventure.

The Summit

The summit block of Whitetail Peak is not a “gimme.” It took us about 10 minutes of climbing Class 3 rock to reach the 12,551-foot summit. The views from the top were amazing – sweeping expanses of glacial ice and Beartooth granite carved by lush valleys, and seemingly more alpine lakes than one can count.

Whitetail Peak Summit – 12,551′

Looking West-ish. Castle Mountain dominates the foreground skyline in the upper left. Ryan is sitting on a small talus block with a 2000-foot near-vertical drop down his backside.

Since Whitetail Peak is Montana’s fourth highest summit, one could see a LOT of the Beartooth Range from the top! In addition to the Beartooth mountainscape that dominates the western skyline, Whitetail’s summit offers views east into the plains of Montana, north to the Yellowstone River basin, and south to Yellowstone National Park. It also affords a very scary view – 2,000 very vertical feet DOWN Whitetail’s imposing North Face. This is no place for a misstep!

The Descent

After returning off the summit block to the top of couloir, we packed up our climbing gear and began the scramble down Whitetail’s East Ridge. The first part of the ridge was dominated by Class 2-3 downclimbing over intact rock and blocky talus, with the remaining 2/3 of the distance to Sundance Pass comprising a spectacular “Sound of Music” walk over alpine grass, wildflower, and scree fields.

The east ridge was longer than we expected. We spent more than four hours above 11,000 feet, most of it unprotected under a baking sun. Needless to say, the ridge proved to be the beginning of our eventual physiological and psychological deterioration! Fortunately, continued views, plenty of wildflowers, and the common sense to move slowly but deliberately kept our spirits up.

After climbing over Mt. Lockhart (11,647 feet), we arrived at Sundance Pass (11,037 feet) – and a trail – shortly after noon. From the pass, we could see our campsite – a mere 1,700 feet and some 40 switchbacks below. We knew now that we were “home free” – back on a trail with continued stable weather and nothing but time. So, we proceeded down the trail slowly, enjoying the descent back to camp as if we were enjoying a stroll down Smalltown, USA’s Main Street in our golden years, chatting here and there about the climb and other subjects, and enjoying a head-on view of our route on every northerly switchback.

We arrived back at camp before 2:00 pm, took inventory of our trekking pole grips (no new damage), soaked our very hot feet in the stream’s 38 deg F water, and began to rehydrate for the hike out.

Back to the Car

After a brief nap (mosquitoes and a baking sun prevented total rest), we packed up camp and were on the trail by 3:30 pm. The 7 1/2 miles back to the car were some of the longest miles I’d ever hiked. To describe them as anticlimatic would be a serious understatement. The fact that the balls of our feet were sore (owing to the pounding of Whitetail’s East Ridge and Sundance Pass descents) and that we were running very low on fuel and water (Alan ran out of food at noon somewhere between the summit and Sundance pass) didn’t help things much. We enjoyed each other’s company in near total silence, partaking in brief conversation only during the two rest breaks we took on the hike out:

“Want a cracker?” “Yeah. ‘Your feet hurt?” “Yeah.” “Mine too.” “We’ll be out soon.” “Yeah. Wanna get a motel?” “Yeah. One with a hot tub, OK?” “OK.”

We arrived back at the car by 7:00 pm. Our first order of business? We changed into sandals. Oh the joy! (Alan says he will never hike 17 miles in climbing boots again.)

We drove back to Red Lodge for dinner (crab cakes, bratwurst, and a glass of excellent porter at the local ale house), and then sought a motel. We bypassed the local “Yodeler’s Inn” in favor of something more recognizable, so we checked into a Super 8 and enjoyed the hot tub, finding that our capacity to converse had returned again. A full night’s sleep, uninterrupted by goats (dreamt or otherwise), was a luxury I had temporarily forgotten about.

I woke up the next morning and it hit me. We just climbed the longest alpine ice climb in the Beartooths to a 12,500 foot summit.

Fast. Light. Solo.

Cool.

What’s for breakfast?

– RJ, Bozeman MT; AD Alrlington VA July 16, 2002

GEAR NOTES

Following are some notes made on climbing-specific gear that we used during the actual climb of Whitetail Peak on the third day of this trip. When the term “approach” is used, it refers to the route between our basecamp and the bottom of the climb; “climb” refers to the actual time spent on snow and ice up to and in the couloir; “descent” refers to the route between the top of the couloir and Sundance Pass, and continuing via trail down to our base camp.

Note: Equipment is important but not the most important element of alpine climbing. Good physical conditioning, your climbing technique, and a good summit strategy are far more important. Alan and I spent months prior to this climbing season getting ourselves into excellent physical condition. We also got up at 3 am and left camp under headlamps at 4:30 am to give ourselves the best chance to summit early on cold, stable ice.

This paid off when we climbed the couloir in just three hours, reaching the top by 9:00 am. Had we started at dawn, been in worse shape and taken the usual four-six hours to climb the coulior, we would still have been on the route well past noon. By that time, the route might have been a horror show of soft, unstable snow and falling rock. The weather for the climb was near perfect which helped a lot. Nobody goes up a mountain if nature decides otherwise. That being said, good ice climbing equipment, and especially light climbing hardware and packs also contributed to the speed and success of our ascent.

Boots. We both used La Sportiva Trango S boots. Ryan’s boots (size 42) weighed 52 oz (3 lb 4 oz) for the pair with aftermarket insoles (Superfeet), making them the lightest boot on the market suitable for alpine ice climbing. They offer the excellent Vibram Dru mountaineering sole, lateral and torsional rigidity with a full-length nylon plate and 1/2-length steel shank, a completely synthetic upper, and a reinforced crampon groove in the heel for using semi-automatic crampons.

For hiking comfort, the boots are heavily rockered. This, combined with only a 1/2-length steel shank, make these some of the more comfortable hikers in the mountaineering boot genre. Other features of particular interest include a roomy toe box that provides great protection for downhill hiking. The only hiking downside is that the boots have little shock absorption through the ball and arch of the foot. This boosts rock and ice climbing performance but certainly reduces hiking comfort. This was noticeable on long mileage days. Ryan was pretty happy to be out of the boots after 17 hours in them on our last day. Alan, although he had no blisters, had very sore large toes and foot bottoms the last day. If he had to do it again, he would pack a pair of trail runners in his summit pack and use them for the decent to base camp and the hike out. He did think the boots had excellent performance climbing and negotiating over talus and that they were comfortable enough for the eight mile hike to base camp.

The Trango S boots accept semi-auto crampons easily. I do not know how they would fare with rigid crampons, but I suspect that between the flexible forefoot and the pronounced rocker, this marriage would not be a particularly good one. The Trango S climbs extremely well on moderate grade ice.

Very flexible uppers offer great latitude in French (flat-footed) climbing technique, while the midsole rigidity was adequate for sustained frontpointing. I would suspect that the rigidity would be inappropriate for sustained, steep ice climbing, and would result in some serious calf burn.

A testament to the boot’s design is the fact that Ryan had spent only 1/2 an hour breaking them in on a flat treadmill (wearing no pack) prior to bringing them on this hike and climb. Out of the box, so to speak, the boots gave him no significant problems in fit. Alan hiked about 24 miles in his pair prior to the trip. Neither of us suffered blisters or much foot pain.

Crampons. Our mutual crampon choice was the Kong Grand Course (semi-auto version with heel level and strap-on toe). These aluminum crampons weigh only 22 oz. Because aluminum doesn’t remain as sharp as steel and sharpening their points may deteriorate the temper, they are best suited for hard snow, neve, and not-too-hard (white or blue) alpine ice. We found that the Grand Course mated well with the Trango S boots and climb alpine ice extremely well, although we did not experience conditions harder than frozen neve or white ice. The crampons’ front points penetrated white ice easily. As we encountered some softening neve due to sun-aging in the couloir, we had no problems with balling snow, which factored significantly in our decision to continue climbing solo.

Having used the Grand Course on both black and water ice, I prefer steel points for the latter.

Ice Tools. We both used a 58 cm Grivel Air Tech Racing ice axe (14 oz) as our primary tool. The Air Tech has a steel head/pick/adze, aluminum shaft, and aluminum “tube” type spike. We found the length to be long enough for comfortable single piolet techniques on snow slopes greater than 35 degrees (I’m 5’7″ and Alan is 5’8″), but short enough to allow for standard use in piolet traction. For self-belay, we employed the axe in all modes: spike-sticking (hard neve) and shaft-plunging (sunaged neve), pick-sticking (steep hard ice), and adze-sticking (steep soft ice). The Air Tech swings effortlessly and in this short length, may be the epitome of a lightweight alpine ice climbing tool. Our only complaint was the shallow curvature of the pick, which made removal from deep placements in ice a little problematic. Quite often we had to slide our hands up the shaft to free the head. The light swing weight posed no problems for our harder ice placements in white ice.

Ryan’s second tool was a 43cm Grivel Compact Black 3 hammer (16 oz). Our hammers were used primarily in the upper, steeper half of the couloir. The Black 3 was used in both pick-sticking and shaft-plunging mode, with the latter mode dominating as the morning sun aged the couloir surface.

As such, the 43 cm length was long enough to provide a secure self-belay while short enough to minimize plunging depth.

Alan’s second tool was a DMM Fly Hammer (22 oz), a technical ice tool with a curved shaft and reverse curve pick. Alan accepted the extra weight and was thrilled at the increased performance of using a technical tool on this route. The head weight provided effortless placements in hard ice and the reverse curve pick made removal from deep placements a simple “flick of the wrist” affair.

Surprisingly, the curved shaft (with the curve near the head of the tool) plunged beautifully while providing hand clearance and bash protection when swinging the tool into the ice. DMM seems to have found a versatile shaft geometry ideally suited for alpine ice climbing. I’m considering a pair of Fly tools for myself if I can part with my Black Diamond carbon fiber Black Prophet tools, but don’t hold your breath. The straight-shaft CFBP’s with Alaska picks are hard to beat for steep alpine ice climbing.

Helmet. Ryan’s helmet is an HB Dyneema / Carbon (12.5 oz). His choice was motivated by one thing and one thing only: superior protection from falling rock. The HB can handle multiple sharp object impacts and thus, is one of the most durable helmets on the market. And, it is also one of the lightest alpine helmets on the market. Ryan won’t consider the new wave of “bike”-style helmets for alpine climbing, where rockfall is the most significant objective hazard (not fall impact, for which the “bike” helmets are adequate).

Alan’s helmet was a Petzl Elios Class (12.0 oz). It is a hard shell helmet with polypropylene foam liner in the top. I may be the lightest hard shell helmet on the market. Although not as durable for multiple rock impacts as the HB, the foam provides better impact (fall) protection (“concussionresistance?!”).

The Elios has Petzl’s excellent harness – comfortable, easily adjustable and with no fabric to saturate and get smelly with sweat. The white shell might keep your head cooler in the intense alpine sun (but Ryan noticed no adverse affects from his black HB). Alan’s daughter thinks her dad looks like a dork in the white Petzl but thinks Ryan looks cool in the black HB Dyneema – the MIB of Beartooth Alpinism). For vanity alone, Alan may buy a HB helmet for the next trip.

Protection. We completed the climb solo. It improved our speed and kept the climbing simple. We did bring a rope and climbing protection since we had never done the climb before and did not know in advance what the ice conditions on the route would be like. Most climbers do at least the upper third of the route belayed, so we decided that (1) we should bring protection, but (2) we should keep it minimal to keep our packs light and maximize our climbing speed. Our rope choice was a single twin rope: a 60m Sterling 7.6mm Ice Thong. We chose the long length to reduce the number of belays (saving time) and we accepted the thin diameter as sufficient protection for falls with expected low fall factors from the 45 to 60 degree angle of the climb. The remainder of our equipment included: Cassin Eolo harnesses, Black Diamond ATC’s (belay devices), Black Diamond Neutrino wiregate carabiners (20), Black Diamond Enduro locking carabiners (2 each), DMM 12mm Dyneema slings (four 48″, eight 24″), five wired nuts, three Dyneema-slung hexes, two pitons (one angle, one knifeblade), one 17 cm Black Diamond steel ice screw, and a single titanium nut tool (Ushba) for the follower. Our shared climbing equipment amounted to less than 11 pounds, a remarkable accomplishment for any technical alpine route. The light climbing gear contributed to the speed of our ascent, especially since we ended up carrying it in our packs the whole time.

Pack. Both of our packs were custom-made by Dan McHale in Seattle. Alan carried a 3500-ci Speed Bump and Ryan carried a 2800-ci Sub Pop. We used the same packs on both the approach and the climb. Both of our approach packs weighed less than 3.4 pounds (our total pack weights sans water were 26-27 pounds at the trailhead), and Ryan chose to “strip” his pack into a 28-oz summit pack for the climb (compressed packbag only with a webbing belt, no pockets, and no frame) to accommodate the 19 pounds of gear on the approach (including 4L of water) and the 5-8 pounds of gear on the climb. Ryan’s appreciation of the pack increases after each use. This is unlike Gregory, Dana, North Face, and other packs he’s owned where with each use they seem more uncomfortable and ill suited to hiking or climbing. It becomes increasingly clear that our McHale packs were borne out of long pack making experience, especially for mountaineers. They are built with an attention to detail, simplicity, and fit that can be found nowhere else.

Clothing. We both wore pants made of Schoeller Dynamic fabric: Alan, a pair of Ibex Alp pants, and Ryan, a pair Arc’Teryx Gamma LT pants. The Schoeller Dynamic fabric is durable enough for alpine ice and works over a broad range of temperatures and conditions. These pants were the only bottoms we brought (no raingear, no long underwear) and they worked well in both 80 degree hiking weather and on sub freezing mornings. We waded though creeks in them, bushwhacked through pine and willows and thrashed them ice and rock climbing. Both pants looked new when we came back. Patagonia R0.5 zip-T’s (and for Alan a Rail Riders Eccomesh shirt as a shell) completed our climbing clothing. Conditions were calm, clear, and warm, with temperatures ranging from 30 to 45 degrees on the approach, 45 to 55 degrees on the climb, and 55 to 75 degrees on the descent. We made no clothing adjustments except to wear a wind shell at the breezy summit. The clothing was perfect for these conditions. Our climbing packs including the following extra clothing: Ryan (12 oz PHD Mimimus down jacket, 9 oz Feathered Friends Jackorack EPIC jacket, 1.6 oz powerstretch balaclava (worn only on the approach)), Alan (14 oz GoLite Chill Polarguard 3D vest, 9 oz Feathered Friends Jackorack EPIC jacket and a 2.7 oz 200 weight fleece balaclava). Ryan’s gloves (we wore gloves on the entire climb of the couloir) were Tempest SL’s from Mountain Hardwear (2.8 oz, waterproof breathable shell with a tricot lining), which proved to be adequate for snow climbing but probably couldn’t withstand repeated use on rock or ice routes and provide very little hand protection from the snow surface while swinging ice tools. Alan’s choice was the Schoeller Extreme gloves from Black Diamond (Dry Tool, 3.6 oz), which provided durability, warmth, and some knuckle protection from the snow surface while swinging tools. Neither one of us brought waterproof raingear (except the ponchos that we left in camp while climbing) or other emergency shelter (except our packs? Ziploc baggies?!). This was a roll of the dice in a volatile mountain range like the Beartooths, but with a very stable system of extreme high pressure sitting over us (as promised by NOAA before we hit the trail), we figured it was worth the gamble. It turned out to be a good bet.

Hydration and Food. While climbing, we like to keep both hydration and food simple. Simple access and fast access time means that you’ll actually eat and drink, which is vital to maintaining good speed on a route. We both used 3L hydration bladders (Platypus Big Zips) as our main hydration source. We started the approach with 1L of Cytomax (in a Powerade bottle) to bring our glycogen levels up before the start of the climb, and maintained those glycogen levels with carbohydrate gel (Clif Shot) during the climb at a rate of about 150-200 calories per hour. Keep in mind that we consumed more than 1000 calories in a morning breakfast at 3:30 am that consisted mostly of fats and complex carbs, and climbed below our anaerobic threshold the entire climb.

Neither of us had water when we returned to camp – we consumed all 4L during the 7 or so hours between the time we left camp and shortly after reaching Sundance Pass on the descent. We both brought a half pound or so of lunch food (gorp, meat sticks, cheese, crackers, and dried fruit) that we consumed after reaching the top of the couloir and along the descent route.

Light. We only used a light for 45 minutes (we started our approach at 4:30 am). Ryan’s choice was a Black Diamond Gemini headlamp (6 oz) in 1-LED mode and Alan’s was a Photon Fusion LED headlamp (5 oz) in its lowest illumination setting. We used them to light our path over large, blocky talus, and the only ambient light was starlight (no moon) and the coming dawn. A light was necessary for this early start but both lamps were overkill for the conditions, and Ryan was yearning for his 1.1- oz Black Diamond Ion headlamp (2-LED’s) back in the car at the trailhead. Alan thought he could have done nearly as well with his ½ oz Pocket Brite.

Hiking & Camping Gear

Hiking and camping gear was essentially the same as for a companion 3-day backpacking and fishing trip that we took following the Whitetail climb, and is described in another trip report.

Bourbon

An essential piece of pre-climb equipment. Alan picked up a bottle of Knob Hill single batch bourbon which he decanted into an 8 oz Platy for the trip. A nip of this stuff in the evening made the mosquitoes more tolerable and helped us get to sleep. Alan was surprised to get 5 hours of decent sleep before awakening at 3 am to prepare for the climb. He contributes much of this to the bourbon and some to Ryan who was busy playing with the goat while Alan slept.

Gear Lists

RYAN’S GEAR LIST

ITEM WT (OZ)
  • down top bag (Nunatak Arc Alpinist) in 1000 ci silnylon stuff sack 22.0
  • 18″ x 36″ closed cell foam sleeping pad (Paramount Outfitters’ Mt. Washington) 4.0
  • bivy sack with EPIC top and silnylon bottom (Oware) 11.0
  • silnylon poncho-tarp (Integral Designs) 9.0
  • titanium stakes (14) and mason twine guylines (50 ft) in small ballistics nylon stuff sack 4.0
  • 210d Spectra ripstop pack 2800 ci (McHale) with top pocket/fanny pack, two side pockets, and frame 52.0
  • clothing worn (Supplex shirt, Schoeller Dynamic pants, merino trail socks, mountain boots, Supplex hat, bandana) n/a
  • EPIC shell jacket (Feathered Friends Jackorak) 9.0
  • down jacket (PhD Minimus) 12.0
  • other clothing (1 pr extra socks, Powerstretch balaclava, climbing gloves) 6.0
  • personal cookware (Snowpeak 21 oz ti mug, lid, ti spork) 4.2
  • 1/2 of group cook kit (Snowpeak GigaPower canister stove, lighter, and empty wt of MSR IsoPro fuel canister) 6.0
  • bear bag (Ursack) 5.0
  • hydration (3L bladder, 1L sports bottle, Aqua Mira Kit) 8.0
  • emergency kit (blister kit, meds, whistle, pocket LED light, cell phone) 7.0
  • toilet kit (toothbrush, Dr. Bronner’s, Dermatone, headnet, DEET, TP, Purell, contact lens solution) 7.0
  • navigation (map, headlamp, climbing notes, Suunto Vector worn) 7.0
  • camera (Contax T3, case, extra battery, 4 rolls film) 16.0
  • fishing (5-piece fly rod, vinyl rod tube, reel, 1 box of flies, tippet, split shot, strike indicator, nippers, floatant, lanyard) 16.0

TOTAL PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 12.8 lbs
  • personal climbing gear (helmet, crampons, ice tools, harness, ATC, two locking carabiners) 78.0
  • group climbing gear (half of the total that included the rope + rack) 72.0

TOTAL PERSONAL + CLIMBING EQUIPMENT 22.2 lbs
  • breakfasts (2 x 6 oz ea) 12.0
  • lunches (2 x 12 oz ea) 24.0
  • dinners (2 x 6 oz ea) 12.0
  • coffees (4 x 1 oz ea) 4.0
  • Cytomax (4 oz) 4.0
  • carbo gel (8 oz) 8.0
  • 1/2 of fuel (net wt) 4.0

TOTAL PACK WEIGHT INCLUDING CONSUMABLE (WATER WEIGHT NOT INCLUDED) 26.5 lbs

ALAN’S GEAR LIST

ITEM WT (OZ)
  • down bag (Rab Top bag – modified) in silnylon stuff sack 20.0
  • 3/4 length closed cell foam sleeping pad (Paramount Outfitters’ Mt. Washington) 7.0
  • bivy sack with EPIC top and silnylon bottom (Oware) 9.5
  • silnylon poncho-tarp (Integral Designs) 8.5
  • titanium stakes (9) and Triptease guylines in ziploc bag 3.0
  • 210d Spectra ripstop pack 3500 ci (McHale) with top pocket/fanny pack, two side pockets, and frame 54.0
  • clothing worn (Supplex shirt, Ibex Schoeller Dynamic pants, merino trail socks, mountain boots, Supplex hat, bandana) n/a
  • EPIC shell jacket (Feathered Friends Jackorak) 9.0
  • Polarguard 3D vest (GoLite Chill) lots of loft! 14.5
  • other clothing (1 pr extra socks, 200 wt balaclava, climbing gloves, light poly gloves) 10.0
  • personal cook kit (Snowpeak 21 oz ti mug, plastic spoon) 3.0
  • 1/2 group cookwear (Snowpeak GigaPower canister stove, 1.3 L ti
  • pot, lighter, empty wt of 8 oz fuel canister) 6.0
  • bear bag (Ursack TKO) and mylar liner 5.0
  • hydration (3L bladder, 1L sports bottle, Aqua Mira Kit) 8.0
  • emergency kit (blister kit, meds, whistle, pocket LED light) 3.0
  • toilet kit (toothbrush & paste, headnet, DEET, TP, Purell) 5.0
  • navigation (map, headlamp, Suunto Vector worn) 6.0
  • camera (Olympus digital w. Li batts & 128 Mb card) 15.0
  • fishing (4-pc fly rod, cloth cover, reel, 2 box of flies, tippet, split shot, strike indicator, nippers, hemostats, floatant, lanyard) 18.0

TOTAL PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 12.8 lbs
  • personal climbing gear (helmet, crampons, ice tools, harness, ATC, two locking carabiners) 84.0
  • group climbing gear (half of the total that included the rope + rack) 72.0

TOTAL PERSONAL + CLIMBING EQUIPMENT 22.5 lbs
  • breakfasts (2 x 6 oz ea) 12.0
  • lunches (2 x 12 oz ea) 24.0
  • dinners (2 x 6 oz ea) 12.0
  • coffees (2 x 1 oz ea) 2.0
  • Cytomax (4 oz) 4.0
  • carbo gel (6 oz) 6.0
  • 1/2 fuel (net wt) 4.0

TOTAL PACK WEIGHT INCLUDING CONSUMABLES (WATER WEIGHT NOT INCLUDED) 26.5 lbs

GoLite Vapor Ultra-Lite Local Barrier Vest

The GoLite Vapor Vest capitalizes on vapor barrier principles to keep your insulation dry while wearing a backpack and hiking (or skiing, or climbing) in very cold conditions.

Introduction

The GoLite Vapor is a very thin, full zip vest with a breathable, wind-resistant front and a non-breathable, vapor-barrier back. The principal for which it is designed is this: under very cold conditions, when you are hiking or climbing while wearing insulating clothing (e.g., fleece or high loft insulation), the vapor barrier back prevents the migration of sweat through your base layer, thus preserving the integrity of your insulation by keeping it dry.

Features

Until we received our Vapor samples, our primary experience with zone vapor barrier vests was one with a neoprene back and fleece front. It’s weight was 10 oz, but it has gained a cult following in the climbing community for its utility during cold conditions. Thus, when we found out that GoLite was making a 2 oz zone VB vest, we jumped at the opportunity to save up to half a pound, or at least, increase the flexibility of our insulation choices (by not being locked into the insulation provided by the neoprene and fleece on the other model.

The Vapor is made with 1.4-oz silicone-coated nylon for its impermeable back and 1.1-oz uncoated ripstop nylon for its breathable front. The vest has a full zip, no collar, and is about as simple as they come. It weighs a paltry 2.1 oz, which is very near the manufacturer claim.

Performance

We used the Vapor in Montana and Alberta’s subfreezing winter backcountry while skiing and ice climbing. Below zero degrees, we found the vest to work very well, since we were wearing fleece jackets for insulation and after a long hard day, they pretty much stayed dry. However, there is no question that the vest resulted in the accumulation of moisture in the back of our base layer (resulting from sweating while wearing a backpack), so our base layer never dried out until we returned to camp and removed the vest. This caused a bit of discomfort, but never threatened to chill us to the point of hypothermia.

Therefore, we must ask the question: is it worth the discomfort of having moisture against your skin vs. in your insulating garment? For thin fleece (which breathes very well) as your insulation, the answer is probably no. However, if you are on a multi-day subzero trip where your insulation is a high-loft synthetic or down, we found the answer to be a resounding “yes!”

On a five day winter ski tour of the Canadian Rockies, where our primary insulation consisted of Polarguard-insulated parkas, which we actually wore skiing in the biting subzero winds of the Wapta Icefields, we found that using the Vapor kept our jackets puffy and warm, even though we never had the chance at night to dry out our gear (we were sleeping in snow caves rather than huts).

Summary

This is a specialized piece of equipment. It has little utility for three-season backpacking. But if you commonly venture out where the mercury drops, and you want to protect your insulating clothing on a multi-day trip, you should probably consider what this extra 2 oz can do for you. You’ll be surprised.

Final Grade: A

Six Moon Designs Europa Tent (2003)

Introduction

The Europa Tent (now in Version “II”) by Six Moon Designs is a single-wall, silnylon tent with a hooped rear pole and a single pole (e.g., trekking pole) front support. The result is a 1-2 person tent that sets up in a snap and offers complete protection from the elements with its built-in floor.

Features and Specifications

Fabric and Materials. The Europa is made with a body of 1.4-oz silicone coated ripstop nylon. The floor is a more durable 1.9-oz silicone coated ripstop nylon. The rear hoop is a 7000-series aluminum sectioned pole. Noseeum mesh is used on the rear window and front door.

Weight. The manufacturer claims a weight of 33 ounces not including stakes or guylines. Our model weighed 35.8 ounces in its silnylon stuff sack. The tent requires a minimum of four stakes, but we recommend carrying six so the sides can be staked out for additional interior space and increased stability. Thus, with 6 ultralight titanium stakes and only a few guylines, the packed weight of the tent (including the silnylon stuff sack in which it is shipped) easily weigh less than 36 ounces.

Performance Review

Setup. This is an incredibly simple tent to set up. Two stakes in the front corners, one in the back, and a fourth for the front pole (a trekking pole make the setup nearly idiot-proof. Two additional stakes can be used for side guylines to increase interior volume, but it’s nearly impossible to fiddle around with the stake configuration enough to get the entire tent walls taut – one limitation of the design of the side panels. These limitations, we are told, have been addressed in the upgraded Europa II, which was redesigned using CAD technology to increase tautness when pitched.

Entry and Exit. The front door consists of both a noseeum mesh door (which comprises nearly the entire front panel of the tent for great ventilation) which is backed by a silnylon door for storm resistance. Entry and exit is very easy through the large, zippered door, and the cantilevered front beak allows one to enter, exit, or even leave the doors open during hard rain without the risk of exposing the inside of the tent to rain.

Stability in Wind. Due to the inability to tension the side panels, the Europa suffered in windy conditions. At 15-20 mph, flapping increased in intensity from mildly annoying to disturbing. However, the tent held up fine up to 40 mph, when our occupants thought the world was coming to an end. Between 50 and 60 mph, the tent did not remain standing. After analyzing videos of the tent in these conditions, we determined that the lack of side panel tension was the primary contributor. Forces appeared to be transferred from the side panels to the cantilevered front pole, which was the point of failure in all wind-topples. While inside the tent, the large surface area of the walls contributed to serious interior volume reduction! While laying down during 40-50 mph gusts, the fabric of the side walls would actually touch our faces. Again, it appears that a lot of these problems have been solved in the new design, so we hope that the Europa II fares better.

Rain Performance. The Europa had no difficulty fending off the hardest rain. The cantilevered top and bathtub floor kept the splash out, even when the rear window vent and front door were left open to the elements.

Condensation Resistance. The Europa has a small rear mesh vent and a large front mesh door. Condensation was never a problem as long as the tail end of the tent was pitched into the prevailing breeze. Even the slightest breeze kept the walls dry at night. However, on still nights where the air was saturated with moisture (forming dew in the morning), the tent suffered from mild to moderate condensation. It was not excessive by any means, and we were easily able to wipe it up with an absorbent cloth in the morning. The most condensation we were able to wipe up was 3-4 ounces, which is far less than other single wall tents we’ve tested under similar conditions.

Interior Living – Solo. Plenty of room. This is a soloists’ luxury home with room to spare for laying out and organizing gear.

Interior Living – Two Persons. With two persons, and a footprint of about 35 sq. ft., you better hope you both are small and don’t plan on storing a lot of gear in the tent. We would rather rate this tent as a 1+ person shelter. The primary disadvantage of having two persons in the tent is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to prevent sleepings bags from coming into contact with tent walls and causing significant condensation to accumulate on your sleeping bag shells. This is primarily a problem at the foot end of the bags, where the tent width narrows.

Manufacturing Quality. The Europa is constructed well but not exceptional – minor cosmetic imperfections typical of small cottage shops can be found with a detailed eye. Under close scrutiny, however, we found no problems with the construction or materials that would affect the performance of the tent, and despite having exposed the tent to winds of up to 60 mph, we were unable to let mother nature break the poles or rip out the seams.

Summary

The Europa provides us with a great alternative to the original solo silnylon tent – Wanderlust’s Nomad Lite. It is larger than the Nomad Lite and about the same weight. Stormworthiness in high winds remains a problem for the Europa but continued improvements should alleviate this issue on the Europa II. For the hiker that needs a lightweight shelter in more protected climes (a summer hike on the southern AT comes to mind), the Europa is an excellent choice.

Final Grade: B

Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) P-1 Pack

Introduction

ULA Equipment of Logan, Utah makes lightweight packs and shelters. This review focuses on their P-1, their mainstream frameless pack designed for carrying loads of up to 25 pounds.

About the Pack

The P-1 is a frameless, backpack with a single top-loading main compartment that uses a rolled or folded sleeping pad for load support. The pack features two side mesh pockets, a padded hip belt, and a roll-top dry-bag style closure. Our review version also had a large front mesh pocket, hip belt pockets, sternum straps, and shock cord water bottle holders on the shoulder straps, which are optional extras.

Performance Review

Weight. In this configuration, the pack (sized by the manufacturer to an 18.5″ torso length) weighed 20.0 oz. The manufacturer claim for our option set was 21.9 oz, so we were pleased that the pack’s weight easily came in under the manufacturer’s spec.

Construction and Materials. In contrast to some cottage-industry products, the immediately recognizable feature of this pack is the quality of its construction. In approximately 400 miles of hiking with seam-bursting loads, we noticed no durability problems whatsoever. In addition, the aesthetics of construction are excellent. Internal seams are grosgrain-taped and the materials and hardware used are first-quality. The P-1 saves weight by using 2.2 oz (approx) ripstop nylon in the body and extension collar, with 5 oz (approx) 210d Spectra ripstop nylon where durability is important – including the lower body, bottom, and hip belt. An all-Spectra <u>ripstop</u> version is available for a little extra cash and weight, but we don’t think that most people will need it.

Features. External bellows pockets use a durable non-stretch mesh with drawcord closures at the top of the pockets to contain items. Hip belt pockets are zippered, and the top closure is a drawcord, combined with a roll-top extension collar and vertical compression strap. While one of reviewers commented that the roll-top added unnecessary weight and complexity, the rest of us appreciated the extra water protection when hiking in an all-day rain. The P-1’s roll top effectively kept the upper contents of the pack dry in wet conditions. Fully extended, the vertical compression strap was absolutely necessary to stabilize the load. The lack of side compression straps made this pack unsuitable for stabilizing smaller loads and shrinking the big puffy ones a bit, but ULA offers them as an option.

Suspension. The P-1 suspension consists of two padded shoulder straps and a removable padded hip belt. Padding is light – approximately 3/8″ closed cell foam. Shoulder straps are attached at a single point to the back, with no load lifters or adjustment mechanisms. We specified our pack for a hiker with an 18.5″ torso, and we thought the P-1 that was provided to us was more appropriate for smaller torsos. When the pack was loaded, the shoulder straps curled around the shoulders and attached to the back of the pack at a point that was lower than the shoulder crest. The result of this type of fit is that, without the use of load lifters, the load is not transferred effectively enough to the shoulders and a torque results, causing back and shoulder strain. While this was not noticeable at lighter loads, all but one of our reviewers felt it was a problem at loads greater than 25 pounds. The distance between the hip belt midline and the shoulder strap attachment point on our P-1 was 16.5 inches. We thought this was too short for an 18.5 inch torso.

We believe that a good-fitting frameless pack should have the distance between the midline of the hip belt and the attachment point of the shoulder strap be equal to the torso length plus about 2.0 inches. This provides enough distance to minimize torque and allow for adequate load transfer. The reason for the 2.0 inch margin is to allow for the collapse of the pack’s effective back length in response to carrying heavier loads without stabilization from an internal frame. We do not believe that this is an inherent problem with the P-1, but if we were ordering a P-1, we would specify a hip belt midline-to-shoulder strap attachment point distance that was about four inches longer than the pack we received for review.

To test this hypothesis, we gave the pack to a woman with a 15.0″ torso length. She hiked with the P-1 for on several trips and found its comfort to be excellent. Our longer-torsoed reviewers (17.0, 17.5, and 18.5 inche torso lengths) found the comfort of the pack to be either “fair” or “poor” on long hikes and all of those reviewers attribute that to an improperly sized torso.

The hip belt and shoulder straps provide sufficient surface area coverage and padding and were appropriate designs for a light pack such as the P-1.

Back Padding. The P-1 requires the use of a rolled or folded foam pad placed inside the pack for both load support and backpadding. However, the P-1 also includes external foam padding covered with a wicking material, in both the lumbar regin and the shoulder blade region. While this appeared to be a nice feature when we received the pack, we felt that it was unnecessary and added little to the pack’s performance, in terms of comfort, sweat distribution, or aesthetics (these are the first areas of the pack that are showing some wear, and we suspect, will be the first areas of the pack to wear out).

Packbag Design.

The P-1 can hold quite a lot of gear, with a main packbag of approximately 4,025 cubic inches (which we verified to be accurate within 5% of the manufacturer’s spec). However, with a packbag height of only 19″ (unextended) and a width of 7″, the pack resembles a ball-shaped tumorous growth when stuffed. This contributes to load-carrying problems at heavier weights, because the center of gravity remains too far from the back. We’d like to see the P-1 gain some height and lose some width to achieve a trimmer profile more suitable for scrambling, bushwacking, and more comfortable load carrying.

We did discover significant advantages to the tumor build, however, that are available to the user who keeps his load down. The low height never interfered with our head, making the pack entirely suitable even for near-vertical alpine climbing with two ice tools. In addition, when we ditched the hip belt for ultra-light loads, the pack carried very well using the shoulder straps alone. Taller packs make hip-belt-free hiking somewhat impractical because the packbag continuously and rhythmically butt-bounces as you walk.

Summary

Despite the torso sizing theories of ULA (which you can get around by specifying a larger pack size than what they recommend), we found the P-1 to be an outstanding piece of lightweight backpacking equipment. It is well-made, uses top-quality materials, and with the available options, is as feature-rich as they come.

Final Grade: A minus

MSR Overland Carbon Trekking Poles

Introduction

The Overland Carbon trekking pole from MSR is an all-carbon, non-spring-loaded, 3-section trekking pole designed for backpacking and marketed in particular to ultralight hikers. This review focuses on the performance of the poles over a two-year period and approximately 1,500 miles of hiking.

About the Poles

The Overland Carbon trekking poles are made with full-carbon, 3-piece shafts adjustable between 25 and 55 inches in length. There are no anti-shock springs to add weight or complexity, although MSR claims that there is some “anti-shock” built into the wrist strap. More on that later. The poles have a slightly angled grip (7 degrees) and a claimed weight of 8.5 oz each.

Performance Review

Claims. We evaluated each claim by MSR over a period of two years and 1,500 trail miles. We’d like to take the opportunity to address each one in turn here:

  • Ideal for fast-and-light trips where weight is of paramount importance. We like this claim, and we think it’s valid. Compared to conventional models that weigh in excess of 20 ounces a pair, the Overland Carbons came in with an accurate weight (16.4 ounces for the pair) and justified the claim with ease.
  • Full carbon-fiber construction reduces weight and dampens impact forces each time the pole strikes the trail. This is where things start to get a little sketchy. To say that carbon fiber dampens impact forces enough to be meaningful is a pretty bold assumption. I mean, really, even a rebar-reinforced concrete pole six inches in diameter would dampen impact forces. The more important questions are: (1) to what extent does the Overland Carbon pole dampen impact forces? (2) How does this relate to aluminum used in competitors poles? (3) And, finally, does it dampen impact forces enough to really even make a difference? We tossed this claim out. It’s one that is simply based on theory and MSR doesn’t back it up with publically-available data collected in field-simulated conditions.
  • Anti-shock wrist straps absorb shock for a soft ride. Hmm. There’s a little stretch in this one, we suspect, as well. Granted, the wrist straps do have a little give in them, but we didn’t notice it to be appreciably more or less than any other designs on the market. Not a selling point on our end.
  • 7-degree natural angle grip provides the ultimate in comfort. Ultimate? We’re not really sure what this means but it did sound good. However, we did compare the angle used on the Overland Carbon’s to poles that were not angled and the difference is noticeable. Nobody should be making poles any more without some angle to the grip.

Grip & wrist strap comfort. After sampling all of the offerings from Leki, MSR, REI, and Komperdell, we found the MSR Overland Carbon to be tops in the area of grip design. A comfortable foam grip and lightly padded wrist strap served to both reduce weight and add to the comfort of all-day hikes. Kudos to MSR on a near-perfect design. The only drawback: this grip is not for hikers with little hands. Small-handed women, in particular, may feel arthritic by the end of a 20-mile day.

Shaft diameter. With Black Diamond and Life-Link both distributing carbon ski-pole shafts that are among the skinniest on the market, we wonder why MSR chose such a pig-thick shaft for the Overland Carbon poles. While it probably makes little difference, we did think the pole was unwieldy when compared to a skinny Life-Link or the Leki Ultralight Ti, which has skinnier aluminum shafts.

Utility for pitching tarps & packability. We found the Overland Carbon a great pole for tarp campers, with plenty of length to pitch a 2- or 3-man tarp shelter high enough for plenty of headroom. We’re pleased that MSR was able to offer poles for about a pound that did not sacrifice extendable length. Of course, you do sacrifice some packability. The Overland Carbons don’t pack down as short as the Leki Ultralight Ti, so there is a tradeoff.

Durability. Our biggest concern with carbon poles is their durability. Will they hold up to abuse season after season? We were especially concerned when we heard “cracking” sounds after putting a great deal of weight on the pole or a lot of torque on it when the pole was stuck in between rocks. However, they haven’t cracked or broken yet despite a tremendous amount of abuse, and our research indicates that cracking is pretty normal in carbon fiber construction. In fact, the beauty of carbon fiber construction is that if a few fibers crack, the structure still maintains most of its strength, in contrast to metals, in which a miniscule crack can propogate throughout the structure and result in stress failure later.

Summary

The Overland Carbons should be at the top of the list if you hike with trekking poles and want to minimize weight. They have the best grips on the market, comfortable wrist straps, and at about a pound, are the lightest poles we’ve weighed.

GVP Gear G4 Pack

Utility for PDA-Wielding Executives

“This pack multitasks like a PDA-wielding executive,” notes one ridiculous review of this pack published in another backpacking magazine. We all scratched are heads and asked ourselves, “What exactly does this mean? Is it useful information? What kind of PDA are they talking about? Where did this writer go to college? So, we promise that this review will provide accurate, up-to-date information about the G4 based on an honest evaluation.

Introduction

We have been reviewing the G4 pack for two years, with a suite of six reviewers from all parts of the world. This report represents a culmination of that field testing period and a summary of our review findings.

About the Pack

The G4 is a large frameless rucksack. It has one top-loading main packbag compartment, three external mesh pockets, and a hip belt. It is designed primarily for light loads of less than 25 pounds.

Specifications

Weight. Glen Van Peski, the manufacturer, claims an average weight of a standard (no custom options) G4 is 13 oz. We weighed a total eight standard packs – two size larges, four mediums, and two smalls. The range was from 12.7 oz to 13.2 oz, with an average weight of 12.8 oz. It is refreshing to know that a manufacturer’s claim is accurate. Kudos to GVP Gear.

Volume. The main packbag is a voluminous 3,100 cubic inches with a 600 cubic inch capacity extension collar. We found this claim to be accurate if not slightly understated upon verifying the volume with packing peanuts. Two mesh side pockets are approximately 300 cubic inches each, and one external front mesh pocket is approximately 300 cubic inches, bringing the pack’s maximum capacity to 4,600 cubic inches.

Pockets. All pockets are non-stretch mesh, which makes for a little bagginess in the pockets unless they are stuffed. We prefer a stretchier mesh (like PowerMesh) that is less likely to snag on brush, and lies flat against the pack when the pockets are empty.

Extension Collar. The extension collar is shockcorded, which makes for easy opening and closing, but the cleaner-looking configuration is to use the roll-top closure, which works well until the pack and extension collar is overstuffed.

Volume:Weight Ratio. You’ve gotta do the math here. The volume-to-weight ratio of this pack is phenomenal – approximately 354 cubic inches per ounce. Consider that the average internal frame pack of similar volume available in your local outfitters shop is 50-65 cubic inches per ounce, you can begin to appreciate the volume that this pack can carry for its weight. Although we didn’t initially feel that volume was terribly important, we slowly began to appreciate the benefits, especially when packing light but very puffy gear like sleeping bags, down parkas, and 2L titanium pots on winter outings.

Suspension. The G4 is a frameless pack. however, it contains a mesh pad sleeve on the back designed to accomodate one of a variety of folded sleeping pads, with a 6- or 8-section Cascade Designs Z-Rest being the primary recommendation. The shoulder straps and hip belt contain pockets to insert foam padding (included) or small pieces of clothing (like extra socks).

Carrying Capacity. GVP Gear claims that this pack is designed to carry 25 pound loads, and they offer some tips at their Web site for properly packing the pack. Overall, we found this to be a reasonable claim, and we go into more detail about its carrying capacity in the “performance” section below.

Options. The standard G4 comes in Forest Green and Black, has an ice axe loop, and is available in Small (16-19″), Medium (18-22″), and Large (20-24″) torso sizes, and are usually in stock. Custom-built packs offer a variety of options, including different colors, different packbag and pocket fabric specifications, inside pockets, and additional ice axe loops.

Performance

Durability. Our GVP packs have hiked more than 1,500 miles during two summer seasons among six reviewers carrying loads up to 35 pounds. They are still like new and we had no seam failures. Four of our packs showed noticeable abrasion marks and two of those were littered with holes on the outside of the pack caused from (1) sliding butt-first down a granite scree slope, and (2) sitting on the pack repeatedly at rest breaks. Two packs have large tears in the side mesh pockets resulting from (1) intense bushwacking through slide alder hillsides in the Washington Cascades (2) a determined packrat on the Georgia section of the Appalachian Trail. Compared to off-the-shelf packs available at your outfitter, we’d give the G4 a “C” for durability as a result of using light fabric. However, this is not your normal pack. It’s for people who want to go ridiculously light and have the skill to be able to take extra care of their gear. So, to be fair, we have to assign a grade that more accurately reflects the durability of this pack: a durability-to-weight grade, for which we give the G4 a resounding “A”. Since it’s inception, the G4 has undergone a variety of design and manufacturing changes, and it shows. It is a well made pack.

Load Carrying Comfort. We tested the G4 carrying a lot of loads that exceeded 25 pounds. We really wanted to push the pack to its limits to evaluate its comfort on those long desert crossings where one might be carrying 10, 20, or more pounds in water weight. Even following the manufacturer’s instructions, we were unable to remain very happy for very long (some reviewers made plots of perceived happiness vs. miles hiked while carrying 35 pounds in the G4 and they were not pretty). Thus, it appears, like most frameless packs, the G4’s lack of frame limits its load carrying capacity. In addition, the use of ultralight fabric for the packbag (1.9 oz ripstop nylon), which has little mechanical resiliency, results in a lack of load stabilization at higher loads that further contributes to discomfort.

Keep in mind that comments above are based on experiences that are clearly outside the norm of manufacturer recommendations, so we will not downgrade our assessment of the pack’s performance due to these limitations. Having said that, all of our reviewers believed that the G4 would be tolerable for short distances with heavy loads if necessary. We do wish the pack had compression straps (at least as a standard option), because small loads slumped to the bottom of the pack and caused it to ride a little low on the butt.

We evaluated several different types of pads to use as the frame, including folded Z-Rest and Therma-Rest Ultralight 3/4 pads in the pad sleeve, a 3/8″ foam pad rolled as a cylinder inside the pack, and a Therma-Rest Ultralight 3/4 pad rolled as a cylinder inside the pack. We found that the folded Z-Rest configuration was comfortable for loads of up to 20 pounds, and we appreciated the accessibility of the pad for rest breaks. A Therma-Rest folded in the same configuration and slightly inflated worked fair, but the mesh pad sleeve was too stretch to contain the pad and help maintain the pack’s shape at heavier loads. The use of a 3/8″ foam pad rolled as a cylinder inside the pack worked extremely well, but at heavier, tighter loads, it did not bend as well to the shape of the spine as did the pads that were in the sleeve. Finally, for those that need more serious weight-bearing capacity, the use of a Therma-Rest Ultralight 3/4 rolled in the pack as a cylinder before packing, and then inflated to its max after packing, proved to be a terrific way to stretch the G4’s load carrying capacity. However, it suffered a similar fate as the cylinder foam pad, and makes the G4 akin to a barrel on your back. Despite that limitation, it was our tester’s unanimous choice for comfort.

Summary

In summary, we liked the G4, but it took a lot of time to grow on us, as we learned how to use the pack to its maximum benefit. At first, our reviewers balked at the massive volume, but eventually came to crave it for stuffing the puffies when the temperature dropped.

The G4 is not for everyone. It is not a performance pack for load carrying, nor is it made to withstand the rigors of mountaineering or snow-backpacking through thick evergreen forests. However, it is a trail hiker’s nirvana, and is entirely appropriate for open cross country travel in the mountains. Its remarkable weight means that it contributes little to your load, and if your average pack weight remains under 20 pounds (or even better, under 15), the G4 just might be the pack for you.

Final Grade: A-minus

Suggested Improvements: Stretch mesh material on the pockets, better security for the rolltop (replace Velcro with side-release buckles for better compression).

Contact:

Glen Van Peski
http://www.gvpgear.com

Hilleberg Bivanorak

Hilleberg Bivanorak

Introduction

Finally! A manufacturer has produced a dual use item that serves as both raingear and shelter and is made with waterproof-breathable fabric. The Hilleberg Bivanorak weighs 23.6 oz and serves as both a cagoule and a bivy sack. The purpose of this review is to assess how well it performs both of those functions, and to see if its weight is competitive with other shelter-raingear combinations.

Product Description

The Bivanorak is a seam-taped cagoule manufactured with waterproof-breathable fabric. Drawcords at the hood, hem, and cuffs provide flexibility when worn as raingear or the necessary closures to seal it up as a bivy sack.

Specs

  • Length: 94 1/2 inches
  • Weight: 23.6 oz

Overview of Field Testing

We have been waiting for a waterproof-breathable bivy-cum-poncho for a long time. We were pretty excited when Hilleberg finally decided to make one. We put it through the ringer in Washington’s rainy Northwest Cascades and Montana’s spring snowstorms.

The Bivanorak as a Raingear

The Bivanorak is very long, even for a bivy sack (94.5 inches). Thus, in order to wear this as raingear, the hem must be secured with the drawcord around the waist in order to prevent the garment from dragging on the ground. Worn in this configuration, all ventilation is effectively sealed off at the hem, and you quickly notice – the interior becomes a sauna rapidly! This can be alleviated somewhat by loosening the cuffs and unzipping the very deep neck zipper, but we felt that for a waterproof-breathable garment, it accumulated more moisture than it should have.

In addition, the voluminous nature of the garment (required in order for it to function appropriately as a bivy sack), was not suitable for scrambling, bushwacking, or other situations where you might like to see your feet. Wearing the Bivanorak with a pack was a trick in adjustment, in order to tuck the hem under the bottom of the pack so it could be securely drawn around the waist.

So How Does it Compare to a Regular Cagoule or a Poncho?

The Bivanorak has to have three times the interior volume of a regular cagoule. It offers far less ventilation than a poncho, and we found that under most conditions, the Bivanorak accumulated more moisture while hiking than a poncho, which affords the hiker with excellent ventilation from below. To its credit, the Bivanorak is superior to a poncho in the wind. Despite the extra volume, the garment did not flap excessively and kept us significantly drier than a poncho in wind-driven rain.

The Bivanorak as a Bivy

The Bivanorak makes a suitable fair-weather bivy sack. Its drawstring foot end (the hem) and its very deep neck zipper offered terrific ventilation and this was one of the most condensation-resistant waterproof-breathable bivies we’ve tested.

However, beware when the night time rains let loose. You have to turn over to prevent rain from entering the hood end, and there is some risk of leakage through the drawstring closure of the foot end (albeit, we experienced only minor amounts here if care was taken to cinch the foot drawstring tightly). When sealed up in such a configuration, the bivy breathed as badly as the rest of the waterproof-breathable offerings on the market, so we encountered no particular surprises there.

Final Analysis

At 24 ounces, the Bivanorak is suitable light to be considered as a serious shelter/raingear option – but only if you consider rain to be a minor threat. It takes a bit of practice to use the garment properly in a steady rain, but the persistent die hard will find the knack in due time. One of the more miserable experiences we encountered in using the Bivanorak – and one that was repeated often by both of our field testers – was the inability to transition from "oh crap it’s raining and cold and I really want to go to bed" to "oh crap now I’m in bed and everything inside this bloody bivy is soaking wet." You can just imagine the scenes that occured between those two states of being that involved the switching of the sleeping bag from the pack to the bivy…

OK, it sounds cool enough, should I go for it?

Before you shell out your hard earned cash on another piece of gear that has a high likelihood of collecting dust in your closet a year down the road, please compare this system to the gold standard of lightweight shelter-raingear combinations. The Bivanorak can’t touch a silnylon poncho-tarp (about 10 oz) for weight but it does offer better storm protection in both cagoule and bivy modes (at the expense of some ventilation).

 

Even a solid performing, lightweight waterproof-breathable rain jacket (like the 12.5 oz Marmot Precip) coupled with a lightweight waterproof bivy (as in one of the Outdoor Research basic models for 16.0 oz), is a lot more functional and only 4.5 oz heavier than the Bivanorak. But then again, the Bivanorak offers a sense of simplicity and elegance that might be enjoyed by the lightweight backpacker.

 

The Bottom Line

Final Grade: B

It’s a cool piece of gear – very innovative, and there is nothing else quite like it. However, the fabric needs to be a tad lighter in order for us to bite the bullet. We all agreed that a Bivanorak style garment that weighed less than 18 ounces would hit the sweet spot that would motivate us to pull the trigger with our pocketbooks. And we thought we struck gold – Hilleberg claims a weight of 18 oz on their Web site. We should have known better, we suppose…

Kiva Jazz Adventure Racing Pack

Kiva Jazz Adventure Racing Pack

Introduction

Kiva designed the Jazz pack for adventure racer Cathy Sassin for use in expedition class races like the Eco-Challenge and Raid Gouloises. Since we’re always on the lookout for great fastpacking packs, we thought we’d give the Jazz a spin and see what came out of it.

Features

The Jazz is a feature-rich, functional pack. A 30L volume with extra storage space in the top lid, three outside mesh pockets, and hip belt pockets meant that we could load it up with lightweight summer backpacking gear and head out for long weekends. We tested the pack on several 2- to 4- day fastpacks of 40-135 miles.

There is nothing special about the design of the Jazz. It’s not functionally different than the classic Salomon Raid 30L, but it’s quite a lot more durable. Side by side with the Raid 30L on all of our field tests, the Kiva model stood up to a lot more abuse, as a result of using 1000D cordura where it counts. We had only one small abrasion hole in our Jazz at the end of the testing period, while the once-new Salomon pack had four abrasion holes and two tears.

A rep tried to sell us on some fancy new wicking mesh back panel, claiming that it’ll keep us dry and comfortable. It was a yawner – not particularly better – or worse – than other meshes on the market, so we didn’t really consider this a selling point.

The pack’s real utility lies in its organization. There was a perfect spot for everything – lunch, raingear, trekking poles, sleeping bag, wet tarp, flashlight, and more. Our only gripe was the integrated hydration pocket. Like most packs with internal bladders, the pocket was a pain to access when the pack was full.

Kiva claims in their marketing literature that the Jazz is a “…super lightweight technical pack.” The pack came in at 2 lbs 0.4 oz on our scales. I’m not going to waste much ink in this forum telling you about the discrepancy between their marketing hype and the real weight. In fact, the Kiva Jazz has one of the worst weight:volume ratios of the adventure racing and fastpacking packs in its size class. Further, we’re not sure where the 30L volume claim came from. We measured the Salomon Raid 30L main compartment at an even 29.4L, while the Kiva Jazz came in at 21.8L.

Specifications

  • Actual Measured Volume: 21.8L
  • Actual Measured Weight: 2 lb 0.4 oz
  • Pockets: main packbag, internal bladder (100 oz), front mesh, two side mesh, top lid main, top lid mesh, two hip belt
  • Other Features: sternum strap, two side compression straps, front “X” type bungee cord for lashing, ice axe loop, hydration hose holes in packbag, padded back with removable closed cell foam sit pad, haul loop large enough for a mittened hand

Fit and Load Carrying

We loaded the Kiva with up to 20 pounds, including food and 100 oz of water. This load crippled the pack’s design and made for a carry that had us screaming uncle after only a few miles. The disaster lies in its too-short torso. Our 5’1″ woman tester loved it, of course, but anybody on our crew able to reach at least the middle shelf of the kitchen pantry had other things to say about the fit. To be fair, this is not unique to Kiva – a lot of packs in this size class suffer a similar fate. Increasing the torso length of these packs by a few inches and making them thinner (when these packs are stuffed they look – and feel – like a medicine ball attached to your upper back) they would ride so much better, especially with larger loads. We rated the Jazz’ load carrying capacity at 10 lbs – for short-torsoed folks.

Summary

Final Grade: C+

The Kiva Jazz is a good-looking pack on the shelf. And, for the typical day-hiker-wanna-be-adventure-racer-but-knows-that-hell-will-freeze-over-first type of guy, it does what it’s supposed to do. It is constructed well and has a great feature set but doesn’t handle the volume or load distribution well, and thus, we can’t recommend it for anything but day hiking across campus. As an adventure racing pack, it rides well with small loads for biking, but it’s definitely not going to be the hiker’s first choice. More than anything, in a market saturated with “…superlightweight technical packs,” the Kiva Jazz is a ho-hum contender.

Contact: http://www.kivadesigns.com/

 

Closed Cell Foam Sleeping Pads

Closed Cell Foam Sleeping Pads

Introduction

Despite advances in insulation technology and RF welding (the process by which self-inflating foam pads are manufactured), closed cell foam sleeping pads still remain the lightest way to go, in terms of both weight and their warmth:weight ratio. This review provides a summary of some of the better choices on the market.

Cascade Designs is Still King

You can’t argue with the fact that Cascade Designs probably makes the best foam pads around. Their best feature lies in the qaulity of their foam – it absorbs nearly zero water weight, unlike most of the other pads on the market.

Ridge Rest

TRAIL’S BEST 2003 AWARD

The Ridge Rest earns our Trail’s Best Award, but only by default. We would have liked to give the award to the Mt. Washington pad (see below) but it is no longer on the market and thus, nearly impossible to procure. In addition, the Mt. Washington absorbs significant moisture and thus should be used only in the hands of more skilled hikers that can keep their equipment dry.

However, the Ridge Rest does have the second highest warmth:weight ratio of any foam pad we’ve tried. The Ridge Rest is durable, resists compression, and is pretty comfortable. It weighs 9 oz in its 3/4-length configuration and 14 oz in full length. It absorbs less than 0.1% of its weight in water when submerged in a bathtub for 179 hours (don’t ask), earning top honors among all pads in that test. But don’t worry, we’re not going to say something stupid like "This pad makes rocks feel like marshmallows" (actual quote from a national outdoor magazine). Rocks are rocks. This pad is no miracle worker. But it’s dang good. And a Trail’s Best winner for 2003.

Stats:

  • Weight: 9 oz / 14 oz
  • Size: 54" / 72" x 20"
  • Thickness: 5/8"
  • R-Factor: 2.6

Deluxe Ridge Rest

Our Winter Pick is two standard Ridge Rests (best warmth to weight ratio) but if you’re into simplicity, the Deluxe Ridge Rest will suit you fine sleeping on snow. Trimmed to torso size, it provides a very warm and comfy pad for mountain hiking in the other three seasons.

Stats:

  • Weight: 18 oz
  • Size: 72" x 20"
  • Thickness: 3/4"
  • R-Factor: 3.1

Z-Rest

The Z-Rest underwent a major change last year to improve foam quality and comfort, but we have to say, we don’t notice huge differences, especially in terms of durability. The pad still pooped out after a few weeks of sleeping on it, so it doesn’t seem like the best investment if you like to play in foam futures…so, watch out for the marketing hype from the manufacturer – especially when considering the 2003 price tag for the pad – $30 in 3/4 length – ouch! But we suppose that $2 a day is worth the comfort for some (?). One huge bennie: the accordian-style folding and compact storage make it a cult favorite among ultralight backpackers – folded in increments of two panels it makes a great pack frame. Our biggest beef – not the price – but the warmth:weight ratio. This is one of the coldest pads we’ve ever slept on.

Stats:

  • Weight: 11 / 15 oz
  • Size: 51" / 72" x 20"
  • Thickness: 3/4"
  • R-Factor: 2.2

Link Rest

The Link Rest is the cheapest and simplest pad – no convoluted ridges and valleys – but the crazy puzzle edges make it better suited for an interlocking tent floor than a conventional ultralight soloists’ foam pad. However, the generous size of the Linkster can be hacked at to create a warm, cheap, comfortable, non-absorbent, sleek, and very very light solution for those with a knack at shaping their own beds. Its extra width (the Ridge Rest Deluxe also comes in a wide width) is also probably nice for some of you fat guys. The downside: not much thickness here: 7/16 of an inch – which albeit is better than the 3/8" pads of old but still, that’s not a lot of sixteenths between you and the rocks. However, despite the lower R-factor than the Z-Rest, we consistently found this to be a warmer pad.

Stats:

  • Weight: 8 / 13 oz
  • Size: 46" / 70" x 24"
  • Thickness: 7/16"
  • R-Factor: 1.9

Strata Rest

When we were asked to review the Strata Rest, we almost couldn’t contain our laughter – it was nearly uncontrollable. It was clear that somebody, somewhere, in CD’s marketing department was working a few elements on the wrong side of titanium the day the pad shipment went out. However, review it we did, and we all came to the same conclusion: This is a KILLER snow-caving pad when you’re close to the car. To CD’s credit, they don’t market it for lightweight backpacking.

Stats:

  • Weight: 59 oz
  • Size: 72" x 25"
  • Thickness: 2"
  • R-Factor: 6.8

Mt. Washington

Our favorite foamie for a long time was a Mt. Washington pad from Paramount Outfitters (and its self-branded distributor of the pads, High Country Outdoor Products). It was the undisputed KING of weight (5 oz or so if trimmed to a decent torso size) and warmth:weight ratio (3/4" thick in the thickest part of its egg-crate pattern). The biggest complaint with the pad is that the foam surface wasn’t cured like the foams from CD, so it absorbed a fair bit of water – best not to get it wet if hiking in the rain and planning on sleeping in a down bag at night. We read one review on the Internet that rated this pad’s safety as an "8" (out of 10). To the contrary, we’d have to say that if you’re going to take this one in rainy climes, you better know what you’re doing. When this pad gets wet, and you find yourself in a position where you need to conserve body heat, you could be in for a long night. Even having recognized that, it’s still the pad some us of grab most often.

Its other nemesis? Bulk. With the pad roll strapped to the back of your pack, this baby could act as a sail in breezy air. Despite these limitations, it achieved a cult following from Net-savvy ultralighters and it is still an often sought after pad on the black market. You can still find a few out there…

Stats:

  • Weight: 7 oz
  • Size: 60" x 20"
  • Thickness: 3/4"
  • R-Factor: 3.2

Soft Shell Pants

Ibex Alp and Ibex Guide Lite Pants; Arc’Teryx Gamma LT Pant; Sierra Designs Ultra Pants; Cloudveil Rodeo Pants

Table of Contents

  • Info & Stats on Pants
  • Overview of Softshell Pants
  • Dynamic Soft Shell Fabrics
  • Other Soft Shell Fabrics
  • General Performance
  • Climbing Performance
  • Comparison
  • Summary
  • Introducing the Mountain’s Best Award
  • Awards
  • Manufacturer Contact Information

Info and Stats on Pants

Sierra Designs Ultra Pants
Fabric Terrastretch
Weight 11.3 oz Bpl.com measured Men’s M
Features Trim fit, two zippered upper-thigh cargo pockets, two rear Velcro-closure pockets, zippered ankles, elastic waist with flat web belt
MSRP $110
Available in both men’s and women’s styles
 
Cloudveil Rodeo Pants
Fabric Inertia™ (with napped synthetic inner surface)
Weight 10.3 oz; Bpl.com measured Men’s 34-in (waist)
Features Trim fit, zippered front pockets, Velcro stash pocket on right thigh, no rear pockets, Velcro and zippered front closure, non-elastic, mesh-lined waist with minimal built-in webbing belt
MSRP $145
Available in both men’s and women’s styles
 
Ibex Alp Pants
Fabric Schoeller Dynamic (with napped synthetic inner surface)
Weight 13.7 oz; Bpl.com measured Men’s M
Features Trim fit, zippered front pockets, single zippered rear pocket, adjustable Velcro ankles, snap and zippered front closure, non-elastic waist, belt loops
MSRP $155
Available in both men’s and women’s styles
 
Ibex Guide Lite Pants
Fabric Climawool™ Lite (stretch-woven Nylon and Lycra with napped merino wool inner surface)
Weight 14.0 oz; Bpl.com measured Men’s M
Features Trim fit, zippered front pockets, single zippered rear pocket, elastic waist with minimal built-in webbing belt (comfortable under a hipbelt or harness), hipbelt- and harness-friendly zipper that opens from the bottom up, zipper/gusseted ankle cuffs
MSRP $185
Available in both men’s and women’s styles
 
Arc’Teryx Gamma LT Pants
Fabric Schoeller Dynamic
Weight 17 oz; size Men’s M (13.7 oz as measured)
Features Zippered front pockets, single zippered rear pocket, zippered thigh pocket, elastic waist hem with webbing belt
MSRP $170
Available in both men’s and women’s styles

Overview of Soft shell Pants

We’ve been wearing and testing pants and jackets made with stretch-woven soft shell fabrics for a few years now. In fact, a couple of our reviewers are so sold on the fabric that they now use stretch-woven pants for all of their climbing and most of their backpacking trips and day hikes, even while hiking in temperatures that exceed 80 deg F or drop well below freezing. (Note: stretch-wovens are only one type of soft shell fabric but for simplicity we will use stretch-woven and soft shell interchangeably in this review.)

Most stretch-woven pants are in the range of 12 to 15 oz (in Men’s size M) and so are about two ounces heavier than Supplex nylon trail pants with the same fit and features. However, those extra ounces buy you a fabric offering a much broader range of comfortable temperatures, better water resistance, and a less binding fit (due to trimmer cuts and the stretch fabric); thus they serve better for activities like climbing and cross-country travel. Further, when damp or wet, stretch-woven fabrics are far more comfortable next to skin than Supplex.

Dynamic Soft Shell Fabrics

Stretch-woven fabrics are nothing new, but only in the past few years have outdoor apparel manufacturers recognized their salability in the U.S. market. Schoeller Textiles of Switzerland has led the charge with its families of Dryskin and Dynamic fabrics. Although Dynamic is often assumed to be “Schoeller Dryskin on a Diet” (Dryskin Extreme came to the fore with the introduction of Cloudveil’s Serendipity jacket), there are important differences between Dynamic and the Dryskin Extreme fabric used in heavier clothing. First, Dynamic is simply a woven mixture of Nylon and Lycra, while Dryskin adds Cordura for added durability. Dryskin Extreme further adds a Coolmax interior nap to promote wicking.

The Dryskin and Dynamic families do have a few things in common. First, they stretch more and breathe better than most non-woven shell fabrics like GoreTex and polyurethane coated nylons. In addition, stretch-wovens possess a unique type of water resistance that is inherent in the fabric structure and is not dependent on a chemical treatment that can wear or wash out. The surface of the fabric is woven in such a way that the hydrophobic face structure has a significant topography (peaks and valleys) rather than being completely flat like a typical rain shell. The net effect is that there is less surface area in contact with a water droplet that comes to rest on the fabric, which results in a lower surface tension force on the droplet, making it less likely that the droplet will collapse and wick into (i.e. wet out) the fabric. However, the fabric is still not immune to failure caused by dirt and grime.

Like other shell fabrics, stretch-wovens are usually treated with a DWR (durable water resistant) finish . And, as with other shell fabrics treated this way, that water resistance wears out over time and must be restored or the garment will “wet out.” However, unlike conventional non-woven shell fabrics, the Dynamic/Dryskin fabrics breathe well enough to drive moisture outward (this in response to the temperature gradients induced by exercise), so these “soft shell” fabrics may provide for a drier microclimate near the skin, even in wet conditions. The downside, however, is that the Schoeller stretch-wovens absorb significantly more water when saturated than non-woven shell fabrics due to increased porosity (i.e., “water holding space”) within the fabric structure.

Other Soft Shell Fabrics

Ibex’s Climawool™ Lite is similar to Dynamic fabric. It has a woven shell of Nylon and Lycra but has a napped merino wool interior as opposed to the napped synthetic interior of the Alp Pants. Climawool™ Lite is an upgrade to Schoeller’s Skifans fabric (Ibex had Schoeller modify Skifans to be more resistant to pilling).

With its Inertia™ fabric, Cloudveil does away with Lycra and depends on the weave of the fabric for what it calls a “mechanical stretch.” In doing so Cloudveil reduces fabric weight while retaining the wind resistance, water resistance, and durability of a heavier nylon/Lycra fabric. Inertia™ absorbs less water and dries faster than a nylon/Lycra fabric like Dynamic. This is because a lighter fabric absorbs less water but also because Lycra absorbs a considerable amount of water and is slow to dry. The mechanical stretch of Inertia™ is not as dramatic as a nylon/Lycra fabric but does the job with a well-fitted pant. Finally, like the Alp and Guidelite pants, the Rodeo pants have a napped inner surface which Cloudveil claims will “improve breathability, comfort and performance.

Sierra Designs takes a different approach to handling water resistance with its Terrastretch fabric (a blend of Cordura and Lycra). Sierra treats the fabric with a hydrophilic finish to promote wicking rather than a hydrophobic DWR to promote water resistance. This allows for the movement of moisture away from the skin to create a more comfortable next-to-skin climate.

General Performance

In our field tests, both the Arc’Teryx Gamma LT pants and the Ibex Alp pants were comfortable in temperatures ranging from the high 20’s (deg F) to the low 80’s when worn next to skin. This surprising performance has resulted in some changes to our clothing for the legs. Typically, when a summer hike warrants a wicking base layer in addition to Supplex pants, we now replace the combination with a single pair of Dynamic pants. Supplex simply isn’t as warm in colder temperatures and it isn’t as water resistant (thus the need for a base layer in cold and wet conditions).

In one memorable side-by-side test in light rain, a pair of Supplex pants completely wetted out while a pair of Dynamic pants continued to shed water with only a few patches beginning to soak through. In another example of stretch-woven performance, this time on a 90-mile and very rainy trip to Colorado’s San Juan Mountains, the Dynamic pants allowed one of our reviewers to be warm and comfortable through sputtering weather fronts that seemed to come hourly. His hiking partner who wore Supplex pants was forever changing in and out of his rain pants. The rain usually ended soon after he put the rain pants on. He then stewed in the rain pants until he couldn’t stand it any longer and took them off. This constant adjustment of the shell layer wasted time, resulted in near-continuous discomfort, and caused a lot of frustration. By the end of the trip both hikers were wishing they had light stretch-woven shirts as well.

This does not mean that you can wear Dynamic pants forever in the rain! If you get hard rain the pants will wet out, but if the precipitation is only light or intermittent you may get by without additional protection. Recall that one downside of Dynamic is that if it gets wet it will absorb more water and take longer to dry than a fabric like Supplex. Our reviewer carried a pair of 4 oz rain pants which he only used during a couple periods of heavy and prolonged rain.

The Sierra Designs’ Ultra pants are more comfortable at warmer temperatures than pants made with Dynamic. The fabric is thinner, lighter, and more breathable, and with a cottony-feel and wicking finish, and our reviewers found theme quite comfortable at temperatures typically encountered during the peak of summer. Expectedly, they also found that the pants’ performance in windier and wetter conditions was compromised, due primarily to the fact that the Terrastretch fabric isn’t as wind-resistant as Dynamic, and it has little inherent water resistance. However, the pants were much quicker than Dynamic to dry, and this proved to be a valuable feature for intermittently rainy conditions. Paired with a waterproof-breathable shell pant, t the Ultras proved a terrific pant for hiking in wet and cold conditions. The wicking action of the Terrastretch kept our testers comfortably dry under the normally clammy conditions imposed by a waterproof-breathable shell.

The lighter Inertia™ fabric of the Cloudveil Rodeo pants is also more comfortable in warmer temperatures than either the Dynamic, Climawool™ Lite or Skifans type fabrics. But unlike the Ultra pants it yields little to these fabrics in windy, wet conditions. Like the Alp and Guidelite pants the napped inner surface increases the performance and comfort range of the pants.

Climbing Performance

Climbers and other outdoor gymnasts will appreciate the stretch of these fabrics. Worn over a base layer, the fabrics provide excellent shell protection for backcountry skiing, winter ice climbing, and snowshoeing, cutting cold winter winds while shedding snowfall and spindrift easily. The stretch fabric allows a climber or skier to wear a trimmer-fitting pant with uninhibited mobility, a dream come true for both. But even hikers will benefit from the stretch, especially on steep stretches of trail, which they would negotiate far less well with the current breed of Supplex pants, or worse, Supplex under unyielding rain pants.

Note: While writing this review we’ve found out that Ibex has discontinued the Alp pant although you may be able to buy it from its outlet. The Alp pants have been replaced by the Alpstar pant and Ibex also offers a similar Guide Lite pant. Both the Guide Lite and Alpstar pants use Ibex’s Climawool™ Lite fabric.

We quickly obtained a pair of Ibex pants with Climawool™ Lite fabric and we’ll summarize and rate these Guide Lite pants at the end of this review.

Comparison

Fit. The Ibex Alp and Cloudveil Rodeo offer a trimmer fit than the Gamma LT, and the Sierra Designs Ultra pants are the trimmest of the bunch. Theoretically, a trim fit should result in a slightly warmer pant (due to less ventilation), but we felt that with these fabrics, trimmer fit did not make a noticeable difference. We did like the trimmer fit better simply because the fabric was less likely to get in the way in bushwhacking or climbing. We felt that the fit of the Gamma LT was slightly too baggy and yet that the fit of the Ultra was slightly too trim (we had difficulty pulling a men’s medium pant over a 32-inch waist). The Rodeo pants, while comparable in fit to the Alp and Guide Lite pants, lacked the low- profile ankle that a zip or Velcro closure provides.

Fit Edge: Ibex Alp — Cloudveil Rodeo close second

Features. The Alps and Gamma LTs have similar pocket configurations. Pockets on both pants include two front zippered pockets and one rear zippered pocket. In addition, the Gamma LTs offer a zippered cargo pocket that is trim and attractive but is bellowed and thus roomy enough for a map, pocket camera, and a snack. Unfortunately, the vertical pocket zipper resulted in more than a few lost items during the testing period when one hiker forgot to zip up. One can argue that this is the fault of the hiker, but there is no question that an angled or horizontal zipper would provide better functionality. Further, the Gamma LT’s pocket zippers are sewn inside out, undoubtedly for visual appeal. Unfortunately, this configuration leaves the zipper difficult to access and far from smooth in its operation.

The Alps have a button and zippered pant closure (with belt loops), while the Gamma LTs sport an elastic waistband with built-in belt and no fly. The Gamma LT’s waist and belt are a pain to use (especially when one is well-hydrated) because the trim buckle is easily lost in the waist loops after unbuckling (necessary even for male hikers to relieve themselves because of the relatively trim waistband); one needs the finesse of a surgeon to extract it and re-clip it. Overall, we prefer the conventional zippered fly opening of the Alps, because it just makes life simpler.

The Ultras feature two perfectly positioned front cargo pockets with zippers, located on the upper thigh. Two rear pockets with Velcro tab closures round out the storage ensemble. Our testers found the waist belt (thin nylon webbing with a Ladderloc buckle) somewhat ill-designed, with its front constantly creeping up above the pants’ waistline.

The Rodeos have an excellent waist with an integrated, low-profile webbing belt and soft mesh lining — especially comfortable under a hipbelt. They have front pockets with horizontal zippers. This unusual zipper configuration is great for keeping objects in your pockets but a bit awkward for casually shoving your hands in. Also the pockets are a bit on the smallish side. The pants have no rear pocket but do have a nice Velcro closure stash pocket good for a compass, GPS, cell phone or small camera.

The most practical feature difference between the pants is in the cuff design. The Gamma LTs and Rodeos have open cuffs while the Alp cuffs offer a Velcro tab that allows the opening to be adjusted (open for ventilation, closed for warmth and for use as a gaiter over boots). The Gamma LT cuffs are so wide that they tend to snag a bit on trailside vegetation and other debris, and they are not the most attractive around-town wear due to the sloppier look. While trimmer than the Gamma LTs, the Rodeos’ cuffs are wider than either a Velcro or a zipper-closure ankle and you can’t put them on over a pair of running shoes. The Ultras have zip cuffs which offer some ventilation possibilities, but the trim fit of the pants still prevented them from being pulled on and off over shoes.

Feature Edge: Ibex Alp

Fabric. Dynamic is a family of fabrics all of which have about the same properties but vary in their finish, feel, and Lycra content. While Arc’Teryx uses a conventional (and very popular) version of Dynamic, Ibex uses a variation of Dynamic in the Alp pants that has a brushed inner surface: this supposedly promotes bidirectional wicking (capillary action from a region of low fiber density or large pore diameter to a region of high fiber density or small pore diameter), and our testing revealed that the effect is noticeable. Under similar damp conditions, the Alps feel drier than the Gamma LTs. The more practical observation is that the Ibex pants feel warmer at cooler temperatures than the Gamma LTs. Conversely, the Gamma LTs feel cooler at warmer temperatures than the Alps, as expected. However, we do not feel that the brushed inner surface significantly reduces the high-temperature comfort range of the Alps. The Ultra uses Terrastretch, which emphasizes wicking over water resistance. This makes it more comfortable than Dynamic in hot conditions but severely compromises its performance as an outer shell in wet conditions. However, Ultra is the fastest drying of all the fabrics and remains most comfortable next to skin when wet. Cloudveil’s Rodeo pants also have a brushed inner surface but their fabric is lighter overall than nylon/Lycra ones such as Dynamic. This means that the Rodeos perform similarly to Dyamic in having a brushed inner surface, yet it is more appropriate for warmer-weather wear.

Fabric Edge: Ibex Alp for most conditions (Gamma LT and Rodeos for warmer climates)

Cost. Like most products using Schoeller fabrics, the Dynamic pants are ridiculously expensive. The Ibex Alps retail for $155 while the Gamma LTs retail for $170, and the Ibex Guide Lites top the list at $185. When you can purchase a premium pair of Supplex pants for fifty bucks, you may have trouble justifying the expense, even though the increase in performance over Supplex is significant. We feel that the cost is justified in terms of comfort alone. The Ultras are cheaper but by no means “budget” at $110.

Cost Edge: Sierra Designs Ultra.

Summary

In general, we give the nod to Ibex for developing a solid product in the Alp and Guide Lite pants. Good fit, smart design, and a bidirectional wicking version of Dynamic and Climawool™ allow us to award these pants the edge on performance and style. Minor improvements to the Alp would include replacing the belt loops with an elastic waistband that would interfere less with hipbelt or climbing harness and result in a simpler look.

Introducing the Mountain’s Best Award

This series of reviews introduces a new award from BackpackingLight.com, Mountain’s Best. In the past year we’ve focused a bit more on clothing and equipment useful to alpine mountaineers geared towards fast and light summits. Mountain’s Best products are those items that clearly surpass others in performance, features and durability to give the lightweight alpinist every advantage. While these products may not always be as light as the very lightest trail gear that some of our readers are familiar with, they have an exceptional ratio of performance to weight. Even our trail-only users might seriously consider using some of these products. Finally Mountain’s Best and Trail’s Best products are not mutually exclusive. In fact, our inaugural Mountain’s Best product is a co-winner of our Trail’s Best award.

Awards

Mountain’s Best

The Ibex Guide Lite pants improve upon the Alp pants. The have the same trim fit but have an elastic waist with a minimal built-in webbing belt that is comfortable under a pack hipbelt or climbing harness. They have a hipbelt/harness-friendly zipper that opens from the bottom up. Any man who has tried to find a zipper buried underneath a hipbelt or harness, especially with a gloved hand, will realize how much easier it is to find and operate a fly from the lower position. The Guide Lites have zippered, gusseted ankle cuffs which make for a trim closure. After using them for several years, we are familiar with Skifans fabrics like Climawool™ Lite. The stretch-woven shell of Nylon and Lycra and napped merino wool interior of the Guide Lite’s Climawool™ Lite fabric should provide an excellent combination of weather resistance, breathability, bidirectional wicking, and comfort in a broad range of temperatures.

Trail’s Best

Clouveil’s Rodeo pants at 10 oz are almost a third lighter than pants with similar wind and water resistance. In addition they absorb less water and dry faster than the nylon/Lycra pants in this group. They are also just a tad cooler than the heavier fabric pants — a good thing in warmer weather. For one reviewer they make Supplex pants obsolete and would be his first choice for desert travel and high-summer alpine wear. They do work well in cooler climates with a base layer as they have the wind and water resistance to do the job. As with the Alp and Guide Lite, the napped inner surface on Inertia™ fabric provides bidirectional wicking for moisture management, and comfort at a variety of temperatures. The only improvements we’d like to see on the Rodeos would be a trimmer ankle with a zip or Velcro closure and a bit more room in the front pockets. Oh, and since we’ve seen it in the Guide Lite pants, a reverse-direction zipper on the fly, at least on the men’s model.

Other Pants

Arc’Teryx offers a well-performing product with the Gamma LTs, but at $170, we expected a little more design detail from the company whose marketing materials trumpet its on “meticulous precision.” Our recommendations include: reducing the leg volume, adding a cuff closure, reversing the zippers back to their normal configuration, changing the orientation of the cargo pocket zipper, and using a fabric with a napped inner surface.

Sierra Designs offers a different approach to stretch woven pants, emphasizing wickability over water resistance in the Ultra pant, which makes the fabric more comfortable when skies are clear. The Ultras have the best cargo pockets of the bunch and offer a nice trim fit (but too trim in the waist and hips). Overall, the Ultras fill a unique market niche and provide great improvements over Supplex nylon for warm conditions.

Note: All of these pants are available in both men’s and women’s styles.

Final Grades

Sierra Designs Ultra B+
Cloudveil Rodeo A- Trail’s Best
Ibex Guide Lite A Mountain’s Best
Ibex Alp A-
Arc’Teryx Gamma LT B

Manufacturer Contact Information

Ibex Oudoor Clothing Inc.
PO Box 297
2800 Westerdale Cut-Off Road
Woodstock, VT 05091
Phone: 1.800.773.9647
WWW: www.ibexwear.com/
Email: info@ibexwear.com

Arc’Teryx Equipment Inc.
2770 Bentall Street
Vancouver, BC
Canada V5M 4H4
Phone: 1.800.985.6681
WWW: www.arcteryx.com
Email: bird@arcteryx.com<

Sierra Designs
1255 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Phone: 1.800.635.0461
WWW: www.sierradesigns.com/

Cloudveil
PO Box 11810
Jackson WY 83002
Phone: 1.888.763.5969
WWW: www.cloudveil.com/
Email: cloud@cloudveil.com

GoLite Hex 3 Shelter REVIEW

The GoLite Hex 3 Shelter is a winter traveler’s dream: a floorless shelter that provides bombproof wind and storm protection. For 3-season use, the Hex 3 is a roomy refuge from fringe season storms.

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

Table of Contents

  • Specifications
  • Overview
  • Details
  • Product Performance
  • Final Grade

Manufacturer’s Website: www.golite.com

Specifications

  • Capacity: three people – spacious for two with gear – lots of head room
  • Area: 58.5 sq ft (max length, 8 ft 10 in, max width, 7 ft 8 in, max height 5 ft 6 in)
  • Weight (as tested)*: 32.4 oz
  • Body weight: 28 oz (28.4 oz – BPL.com measured)
  • Center pole weight: 11 oz (12.4 oz – BPL.com)
  • Stake weight: 5 oz (9 GoLite aluminum stakes)
  • Body material: SilLite™ (1.76 oz/sq yd silnylon)
  • Stuffed size: 16 x 6 in
  • Colors: Forest (green), and Sun (yellow)
  • MSRP: $249

Optional features

  • Bathtub Floor: 22 oz (20.0 oz – BPL.com) urethane coated nylon
  • Bug Netting (Nest): Not submitted for review

*Minimum configuration tested by BPL.com:
Hex shelter body, (6) .4 oz titanium stakes and (5) .25 oz titanium stakes (non-GoLite);
linked trekking poles are used for shelter support and their weight is not included.

Overview

GoLite’s Hex shelter is a two- to three-person floorless silnylon shelter. The 32 oz Hex withstood a night of rain, sleet, hail and 40-50 mph wind gusts, completely exposed on a ridge at over 12,000 feet. Our reviewers woke up in the morning warm and completely dry. They then cooked breakfast*, dressed, and packed up their gear, all inside the shelter of the Hex, before taking it down last thing before they left camp. We can’t think of another shelter as versatile, roomy, light, and weather-resistant as the Hex. It may be the ultimate three- or even four-season shelter for minimalist backpackers or climbers.

At $249 for the basic configuration, the Hex is similar in price to most two- and three-person tents and costs much less than most if not all of the fancier freestanding three- and four-season tents.

*Note: Silnylon is extremely flammable. Cooking took place in the shelter at our reviewer’s discretion. GoLite and BackpackingLight.com do not recommend or endorse cooking inside a silnylon shelter.

Details

Weight and Interior Room

The Hex, at 2 lb in its minimum configurations, is about four to six times lighter than a conventional double-wall tent with a similar floor area. (A three-person conventional tent with approximately 50 sq ft of area usually weighs around 9-12 lb).

At 58 sq ft, the Hex is huge inside. It accommodates two backpackers and all their gear with plenty of room to spare. With its 5 ½ft ceiling you can, with a only a slight stoop, put your pants on standing up. Three people can fit inside the Hex comfortably but some gear may need to go outside.

Construction

The Hex uses GoLite’s 1.76 oz/sq yd (finished weight) SilLite™ silicone-impregnated ripstop nylon. This fabric is a bit heavier than the usual 1.1 to 1.3 oz/sq yd silnylon used in many ultralight shelters. GoLite claims that the1.76 oz fabric has considerably more tear strength than the lighter silnylon and almost double the tear strength of a high-quality polyurethane-coated rainfly. It also has greater water resistance (3500 mm of hydrostatic head). We found the SilLite fabric to pitch a bit tauter and to be less prone to stretching and flapping than lighter silnylon. Since the tent has a higher profile and therefore a bit more surface area exposed to the wind, the stronger fabric is probably a good idea.

GoLite claims that there is no reason to seal seams on the Hex. The thread on the Hex swells when wet and self-seals. Our field tests corroborate this. In six days of rain, the shelter never leaked.

The webbing tie-out straps on the Hex are excellent. We found them easy to adjust from both inside and outside the tent. When pitching the tent, we were enabled by the variable- length tie-out straps to move a stake around a rock or root. At night in the rain, if the tent started to lose tension we easily reached under the edge of the tent and tightened the tie-out straps. Because you can tension all six tent vertices and the center pole from inside the tent, you can keep a taught pitch in an all-night rain without getting wet. The tie-out straps have reflective tape on them which makes it a lot easier to avoid stepping on them in the dark.

The Hex comes with an adjustable 12 oz, four-section aluminum center pole. The pole works fine but we opted to use the tent with a linked pair of Leki Ultralight Ti trekking poles. Since we would have brought the poles anyway we saved 12 oz on the tent’s weight. The linked poles supported the Hex firmly in 40-50 mph wind gusts. Others have used a short length of aluminum tubing attached to end of a single trekking pole, a ski, or a canoe paddle, or they have just tied the top of the Hex to an overhanging branch.

GoLite ships the Hex with nine aluminum “Y” stakes. These are great when you use a rock to pound them into recalcitrant soil. They are certainly solid and do an excellent job of anchoring the shelter. We found the stakes to be a bit on the heavy side and sturdier than necessary for most soil types we’ve encountered. Also, the tops of the stakes are small and sharp so they aren’t very palm-friendly if you are pushing the stakes in by hand. We opted to use six 0.4 oz titanium stakes for the tent vertices and five 0.25 oz stakes for the additional tie-out loops between the vertices.

Our Hex also came with a 20 oz urethane coated nylon floor. The floor is waterproof and cleverly links to loops on the shelter’s walls to support the sides of the bathtub. GoLite intends the floor for use in very wet environments where you may not find any dry ground to camp on. For most North American hiking, we feel the floor is overkill. Usually you can find a reasonably drained campsite. We would recommend using a lighter ground sheet, cutting some Tyvek to shape, or using a light bivy sack instead.

The Hex has two self-opening top vents. These combined with a slight gap between the bottom of the shelter and the ground create a chimney effect for ventilation. GoLite provides two tie-out cords with plastic adjusters. These are for pitching the lee side of the shelter higher and further improve ventilation.

Another option for the Hex is an inner tent of bug netting. GoLite was out of stock on the bug netting so we did not test this option.

Product Performance

General Performance

We tested the Hex on a 90-mile section of the Continental Divide Trail in Southwestern Colorado. The weather was a tent tester’s (if not a hiker’s) dream. It rained, sleeted and hailed every day and every night but one. Most times we camped in high winds above treeline and above 12,000 feet. The Hex provided excellent wind and precipitation protection in a fairly hostile environment. At no time did we have a problem with the tent leaking or precipitation blowing in under the sides of the shelter.

In most ways, the floorless Hex works better in the rain than a conventional tent. Because of its simplicity, we found that we could easily pitch a Hex in less than two minutes. The fast setup time of the shelter allowed us hike until the last minute before a thunderstorm rolled in. A couple of times this gave us critical extra minutes to carry on over a 12,000+ foot pass before a storm hit and then find a lower, safer, more protected place to pitch the shelter.

We usually ended up pitching the Hex just as a storm started to let loose on us (don’t we all?). In this situation we kept our gear dry under the shelter of the body fabric, while we pitched the Hex. When pitching a conventional tent in the rain, your gear and the whole tent body are exposed to the rain while you stake the body out, put in the poles and then finally cover the whole thing with a rainfly. Both tent and gear can get pretty wet in the process.

Also since the Hex has no floor, lots of room, and is over 5 ft high in the middle, even if it’s pouring rain in the morning, you can get dressed, put on your shoes and pack up all your gear under the protection of the shelter. The last thing you do is walk out of the Hex, pull up the stakes, fold the shelter up, and put it in the mesh back pocket of your pack. Try that with a conventional tent.

Ventilation and Condensation

We only had one night of serious condensation inside the Hex. It was a night of almost constant rain. We were camped in a deep lake basin. The cool and extremely humid microclimate of the basin made for some very damp conditions. Absolutely everything in the basin was dripping when we woke up. Small droplets of condensation covered the walls of the Hex but we were completely dry. Not a single drop fell onto our bivy sacks during the night. We believe this is for four reasons. First, the walls or the Hex are steep enough that condensation slides down the walls instead of falling off and hitting the occupants. Second, because the Hex is palatial inside there was plenty of room to sleep and move about without risk of hitting the walls. In our experience, inadvertent brushes with shelter walls are a great way to get wet. Third, the relatively large volume inside the Hex helps keep inside humidity lower. Fourth, the chimney ventilation created by the gap between the bottom of the Hex and the ground and then the two top vents provide enough air movement to reduce humidity inside the shelter.

Pitching the Hex

Once we figured out the trick, we found the Hex easy to pitch in less than two minutes. The first thing to do is to put the center pole aside and forget about it for a while. Zip the door shut and stake out the six vertices into a regular hexagon. Just eyeball it and get it as close as you can. Make sure there is some tension between the vertices. Now you can get the pole, unzip the door and insert it into the cup in the top of the shelter. We adjusted our linked trekking poles to eye level. At this point, you may need to adjust a few of the tie-outs. (Note: After one try we found that we could stake out the Hex body by eye and didn’t have to do any subsequent adjustment*.)Finally, stake out all five additional tie-out loops. This step is optional but we recommend it.

GoLite gives you nine stakes. After you use six for the vertices, they recommend that you use the three extra ones to secure the windward side of the tent. They also suggest that you use the tie-out cord to raise the leeward side of the tent for better ventilation. In our field testing, the wind swirled and changed direction quite a bit. We could never decide which side was windward and which was leeward so we staked out all five additional tie-out loops. This made for a quieter and more stable pitch. (The first night we were lazy and staked out only the six vertices. When the wind picked up at night and the shelter started to flap, we regretted not having taken the extra thirty seconds to secure the secondary tie-outs.) Except for one night, staking out all nine tie-out points close to the ground didn’t impair tent ventilation.

*If you are still having problems staking out the tent, GoLite suggests using a cord the right length to inscribe on the ground a circle that has the same diameter as the vertices.

Detail of linked trekking poles use as a center pole for the hex.
Bottom L to R: .25 oz ti stake, .40 oz ti stake, GoLite Y stake

Closeup of pole link, showing cord and Velcro attachment.

GoLite states that the Hex is for “three- or four- season backpacking, winter camping, and mountaineering. ” In our field testing we experienced all but the winter camping. Yet we’re pretty sure that dug into the snow and well staked out the Hex would make an excellent winter shelter. In the future, look for an update on using the Hex in winter. Just because the Hex works well in difficult conditions does not mean that is it not well suited to more ordinary backpacking situations. The Hex is a palatial shelter and would give luxurious comfort to two backpackers doing the normal trail thing.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Hex is nearly perfect. We wish that GoLite would ship it with a set of titanium stakes of a more conventional shape, though the user can fix this for about $30. It would also be desirable if GoLite offered a lighter floor for the Hex for those of us who frequent better drained campsites. Again this can be remedied with a few dollars’ worth of Tyvek. The instructions for the Hex could use some improvement as well. We pretty much had to learn how to pitch it ourselves. Although we didn’t test the Hex’s bug-netting enclosure, the Nest, the weight as listed on GoLite’s website is quite heavy. If you need mosquito protection in your shelter there may be lighter choices than this. (Our reviewers used 2 oz mosquito head nets while they slept). If you have a low insect tolerance, and camp in very humid climates with heavy bug pressure, a tarp with some sort of light mosquito netting (e.g. a Shires Tarptent) may be a better choice.

Sometimes when its not too wet and windy we like to sleep with a shelter door open. It keeps condensation low and we can look at the stars. The Hex loses some tautness of pitch with the front door open and flaps much more in the wind. Another manifestation of this is that it is hard to zip the last 6inches of the door shut if the Hex is properly tensioned. GoLite might want to investigate some way to hold tension on the shelter body when the door is open.

Final Grade

Final Grade; Basic Shelter A

The basic Hex is an excellent shelter with few flaws. It might be the only 2 lb, three-person shelter in production that is suitable for the rigors of light mountaineering and winter camping. The Hex is by no means only for hardcores. We believe that casual backpackers will love this shelter too. It is an ideal shelter for two to share. The Hex is as almost as warm and weather- resistant as a conventional tent, but it is a lot roomier, easier to pitch, and pleasanter to live in. The final A grade is for the shelter as we tested it.

As we noted in our recommendations for improvement, the accessories for the Hex, the center pole, stakes, optional floor, and bug netting are not quite up to the standard of the basic design. The grade for the accessories is a B.

GoLite
5785 Arapahoe
Boulder, Colorado 80303
Phone: 1-888-546-5483 (5-GOLITE)
Email: info@golite.com
Manufacturer’s Website: www.golite.com

The hex on an exposed bench at 12,100 feet with incoming weather.

Clothing and Sleep Systems for Mountain Hiking, 1st Edition (August 2002)

Clothing and Sleep Systems for Mountain Hiking, 1st Edition (August 2002)

You don’t have access to view this content.

Big Agnes Zirkel

Big Agnes Zirkel


Manufacturer’s Website: www.bigagnes.com

Specifications

Regular Size

  • Temperature Rating: +20 deg F
  • Red Shell / Gray Lining
  • Fill Weight: 14 oz. 775 down
  • Total Bag Weight: 34 oz ( 37.5 oz as tested)
  • Shoulder Girth: 67.5″
  • Hip Girth: 64″
  • Stuffed: 7.75″ x 16″
  • Compressed: 7.75″ x 6″
  • MSRP: $279

Recommended 20″ x 72″ x 2.5″ Air Core Pad

  • Weight 20 oz (20.6 oz – BPL.com measured)
  • MSRP: $54

General Description

The Big Agnes Zirkel is a mummy-shaped down sleeping bag with three distinctive features: no down under the sleeper, a sleeve on the bottom to hold a ground pad, and a built-in stow sack to create a fixed pillow by inserting clothing. Big Agnes intends the Zirkel for use in temperatures from 20 deg F to 60 deg F for a moderate sleeper; from 15 deg F to 55 deg F for a warm sleeper; and from 30 deg F to 65 deg F for a cold sleeper. Priced at $279 for the bag and $54 for the Air Core ground pad, it is aimed at the high-end market. It will appeal to anyone who has ever rolled off a pad at night and awakened because it was too cold. The Zirkel has a feature usually found only in more expensive and warmer bags — a “no-draft” yoke. This is a down-filled collar that drapes down from the top of the bag and seals around the neck to prevent warm air from escaping and cold air from sneaking in.

Big Agnes’ 2.5″-thick Air Core mummy pad is innovative for its lack of foam. The Air Core mummy pad weighs about one-half to one-third the weight of a similar thickness foam-filled, self-inflating mattress. The pad is contoured to fit exactly into the pad pocket on the Zirkel.

Construction

The exterior shell is 30-denier Pertex nylon microfiber ripstop with a fluorocarbon DWR treatment for a windproof and water-resistant shell. The interior lining is a soft and breathable 30-denier Pertex nylon microfiber. The bag bottom is a durable 210T DWR-treated ripstop nylon. The insulation is 775 fill-power down — the highest quality available. The bag is well sewn and the workmanship is fine with no obvious gaps. Given the high quality of materials and construction, we expect that the Zirkel will give years of service.

Function

Our review staff made preliminary loft measurements of the Zirkel and compared them with bags of known field performance. Based on this comparison, we anticipate that the Zirkel should work down to the rated +20deg F (we will report more in future issues on the field performance of this sleeping bag).

The pillow stuff sack is a nice idea. It solves the problem of chasing your slippery nylon “pillow” that has a life of its own as it pops out from underneath your head and scoots away during the night.

The Zirkel’s cut is roomy for a light mummy: a 67.5″ girth compared to a Western Mountaineering Apache, at 61″, and a Western Mountaineering UltraLite, at 59″. Our larger and more restless sleepers liked the roomy cut — our medium-build and quiet sleepers felt that it might be drafty and a bit more bag than they needed. The larger girth offers the option of wearing a jacket inside the bag to extend its range in cold weather.

Note: When you place the Air Core mummy pad in the pad pocket, the Zirkel loses some of its roominess. The rigid pad flattens out the bottom of the bag, reducing volume and making it feel tighter than its 67.5″ girth. For this reason, some of our reviewers preferred sleeping with the pad outside of the pad pocket. Others did not have a problem with this.

The Zirkel and Air Core pad combination weighs about a half-pound less than many light down bags in this temperature range paired with a light, full-length, self-inflating pads (e.g. Marmot Pinnacle and Thermarest Ultralight). However, the Zirkel alone weighs a bit more than narrow-cut mummy bags like the Western Mountaineering Apache. The combination of the Zirkel and Air Core mummy pad weighs about pound more than a narrow cut mummy bag paired with closed-cell foam pad (e.g. Mt Washington), although the Big Agnes combo has more features and comfort.

Overall Impression

The Big Agnes Zirkel is worth a hard look if you are in the market for a new +20 deg F bag. The Zirkel’s strengths lie in its design for comfort: a full-length pad you cannot roll off, a bit more room than most mummy bags, and a built-in pillow sleeve. It is reasonably priced in comparison with other quality light down bags. One of our reviewers appreciated the room and comfort of the Zirkel. He found it a special pleasure to sleep on a full-length pad after using a 48″ one. (The reviewer had been using a Western Mountaineering Apache and a 48″ Thermarest Ultralite pad.)