Articles (2020)

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.

The Original Ultralight Hikers: Seeking Wilderness Simplicity from Modern Day Nomads

The Original Ultralight Hikers: Seeking Wilderness Simplicity from Modern Day Nomads

Indian Sadhus

Three years ago in late June of 1999, I found myself trekking in the Himalayas with the Buddhist monk with whom I train. We began our trek in Rishikesh, after a long night drive from New Delhi. Our initial objective was to travel along the Ganges all the way up to its source, a glacier near Gangotri; and then on to a remarkable 13,500 foot plateau surrounded by several 20,000 plus foot peaks, Tapovan. This route, followed for several millennia by Hindu sadhus on their pilgrimages to visit sacred sites, is little known: that is to say, little known to Westerners, for we saw only three other Westerners on the trail –interestingly enough, all women.

The monk was carrying his traditional begging bowl, an L.L. Bean daypack, and his umbrella, the kind used by ascetic Thai forest monks. I, on the other hand, was carrying the conventional pack with 35 pounds of stuff, including a tent, a stove and cooking gear. Before this trek, my previous experience in the outdoors was 3 1/2 years as a paratroop officer in the U.S. Army in the mid-1960s. The intervening 30 years had been spent as a rootless cosmopolite. I assumed that I was in good shape for such a trek, because I was a trail runner and could easily do a 20 mile run in the mountains of Virginia.

Throughout the morning, Hindu sadhus (Indian holy men) in their 60s or older routinely passed us. Wearing lightweight robes, carrying only small blankets and little water buckets, and wearing sandals, they would slow down awhile to chat and then take off at a pace I could not begin to maintain. Some were barefoot, carrying only small water pots, without even a blanket. However, like us, they were going to be traveling through several climactic zones and moving up to high altitudes, where it was quite cold at night.

About noontime, suffering from heat, hiking, and jet lag, I needed to stop at a secluded Hindu ashram nestled between two rivers. The young woman in her early 30s who ran the place allowed us to rest in a cool room during the heat of the day. As we were leaving and I was struggling to put on my overloaded pack, she looked at me and said, “You’re too old and you have too much stuff.”

I started shedding the stove and various other items the next day, as men much older than I, carrying almost nothing, kept blowing past us. As we moved higher and higher, climbing toward the glacier where the Ganges River begins, I began to appreciate, while watching the sadhus hike in lightweight robes and sleep with just one blanket, that there was another approach to hiking.

Because this is a traditional pilgrimage route, there were shelters and small villages where one could obtain food and water every few kilometers. Thus, carrying a tent or stove was not necessary for the sadhus. However, they did not use rain gear, simply accepting the fact that they would get wet and then dry off when the sun came out.

I, of course, had rain gear. Thus, the first difference that I noticed between the sadhus and me was that I had brought my home with me on my back, whereas the sadhus had entered into homelessness. Entering into homelessness is a long tradition in Hindu religious practice, used to train the mind.

The other difference between the Indian sadhus and me was their lack of fear. The path that we were walking on was, in parts, not well maintained. It would occasionally narrow to less than the width of a hand, with a steep drop of several hundred feet. Other times we would suddenly be walking on shale, quite slippery: a misplaced step caused by a lapse in focus and over the edge you would go. My fear of falling was identical to the other fears I had, which had caused me to carry so much stuff. Essentially I was afraid of change; I sought security.

As we walked for several days, we spent a considerable amount of time talking to the sadhus. (Many of them spoke English; the Buddhist monk spoke some Hindi, so he could talk to those who did not speak English.) What I came to see was that these pilgrims were from a wide variety of backgrounds. Many of them had led what we in the West would see as normal lives: teachers or army officers or bankers. Upon retiring, they had abandoned, at least temporarily, their ties to that life and had taken up the life of a sadhu.

This change is part of their culture. While it would be incorrect to say that large numbers followed this path, it is regarded as something admirable. Thus, some, if not most, of the old men who were zipping past us had not been doing this their entire lives but had come to it recently.

I asked those who had come to such arduous trekking late in life how they were able to lead such simple lives with so little gear. The answer seemed to be a version of the chicken and egg question. The trek for them is a holy pilgrimage, part of their training to achieve release from the eternal wheel of life. A step on that path to freedom is learning to do with less. By accepting the requirements to lead a simple life, rigorous as they are, one is forced to deal with the issues of reducing one’s wants. (It is craving for and the attachment to physical sensations and mental concepts that, in their view, keep one bound to the endless cycle of birth and death.)

By reducing one’s possessions and comforts — leaving home and going into homelessness — one begins the process of observing the mind responding to external situations and wishing that things were other than they are. Thus if one is wet, one may wish to be dry. In their case they simply accept being wet. By setting out on such a journey with so little, either one learns to control the mental responses or one returns to home.

On this trip I myself returned early to home because I had not yet learned to control my mental responses. I had made a call to my wife a few days into the trip. The gist of what I learned in the call was that her father had had a heart attack, possibly had cancer; our soon-to-be two-year-old daughter had a fever of 103 degrees; and “You are in India, you so and so.” I used this as an excuse to return early. The real reason was that I was frequently afraid and extremely uncomfortable and wanted to go home.

Thai Forest Monks

I had mentioned earlier that the monk with whom I was traveling was carrying a Thai forest-monk umbrella. These monks, following the Buddha’s instructions to lead a simple life, call what they do “going into homelessness.”

Their concept of going into homelessness is once again the idea of accepting a rigorous requirement for simplicity. By deciding to go as simply as possible, they set up the situation where they will see how the mind creates its own needs. If this sounds similar to what the sadhus do, it is, because the Buddha just took over that practice when he saw how successful it had been to help free the mind of its many attachments.

These monks wander the forests and jungles of Thailand, wearing one set of robes, carrying a begging bowl, an extra set of robes, and maybe a toothbrush and a sewing kit, along with an umbrella with bug netting: definitely under the 10 to 12 pounds of gear which some people use as a definition of ultralight hiking.

They sleep out of doors using the umbrella, trees, or rocks as a shelter. They expose themselves to hardships and dangers, such as wild tigers, for one purpose: to train what we would call their minds, but what they call their heart/mind. They will go to areas where there are tigers to meditate at night in order to observe their fear arise as they hear tigers growling in the jungle. This is similar to seeking an area in the American West where there are grizzly bears in order to see how one responds to their presence.

Like the Hindu sadhus, these monks come from many backgrounds. They do not start as exceptional people. Again, we can see normal people training their minds/bodies to accept challenges as opposed to fleeing from them.

Grandma Gatewood

Then we have Grandma Gatewood, at first glance someone of our own culture, or at least closer to our own culture. Mrs. Gatewood, born in the 1880s, walked the AT twice in the 1950s wearing US Keds and carrying a blanket (not a sleeping bag), like the Hindu sadhus. Her gear weighed between 14 and 17 pounds. She used a shower curtain for shelter.

How is it that an old woman with minimal gear can walk the AT twice while of the over 2000 or so people who might start an AT thru-hike each year roughly 200 finish?

My guess is that we might learn part of the answer by looking at the culture in which she was raised.

While she seems, at first glance, someone of our own culture, she is not. Her culture, the American frontier, with its subsistence-farming world, has now vanished. While it was in existence, it bred, of necessity, hearty, self-reliant people who accepted reality as it was and endured.

While frontier self-reliance, created by necessity, differs from that of the sadhus and the monks who choose radical simplicity, the results are the same: steadiness in the face of reality, otherwise known as adversity. The sadhus, the monks, and Grandma Gatewood have all learned to control their responses to what they could not control.

Ourselves

While the culture that bred Grandma Gatewood has passed, there are still many normal people who can acquire the same toughness and resiliency.

As an American example of controlling mental responses, below is a part of an interesting and revealing post from one of the Backpacking Light discussion-group e-mails. The author is discussing the use of a SilPoncho as a ground cloth:

“I couldn’t figure out a way to make it work to my satisfaction and didn’t think anyone else would be able to, either. Then…I met a genuine ultra- ultra liter on a rain soaked trail who was using a pocket space blanket as his poncho. We camped together at 11,000 feet in a cold rain in some krumholtz that night and I couldn’t help but notice that his only space blanket was also his tarp AND his ground cloth! He seemed dry and was happy as a clam the next morning…”

This is a clear example of the mental attitude of largely accepting things the way they are, allowing one to take a minimal amount of stuff. It is also an example of how we can learn from the examples of others what we are capable of doing.

There is a similar anecdote from one of the trekking guidebooks that deals with the Everest area. The author is the owner of a major trekking outfit in Nepal. He tells the story of going up a pass toward Tibet at about 18,000 feet. He has on full gear for cold conditions and is carrying a heavy pack that extends over his head. Coming from the other side is a Tibetan wearing substantially less and carrying essentially a daypack. The Tibetan has an extra pair of Chinese shoes (prone to falling apart) and a blanket or two and a few snacks to eat. The Westerner has all of the things that he has been trained to believe he needs to satisfy his cravings and attachments.

Ray Jardine, in his book on going light, discusses the phenomenon of craving and attachment, although he does not use those terms, and he provides a very simple way to deal with it. His suggestion, if I recall correctly, was to take the traditional piece of gear, for example a tent, and the new piece of gear, for example a tarp, at the same time. One would try to use the tarp, having the tent for security as a backup in case one needed to return to more accustomed patterns of behavior. The idea here is elegantly simple: you gradually see that you can let go of things or concepts that you have become attached to.

To the extent that I understand what I have done as I moved towards lightweight backpacking, it is as uncomplicated as that. You clearly look at each piece of gear that you use and ask, “Why am I attached to that?” The answer always has to do with a previous pattern of craving. One craves the seeming security of the tent because it reminds one of home, with walls and the floor. And so forth. Jardine even has an especially apt phrase: leave home at home. (Thai monks used umbrellas before Jardine was born and the sadhus practiced going into homelessness for millennia. There is nothing new under the sun.)

Henry David Thoreau, who wrote Walden, about living simply and close to nature, is typical of someone starting on this path. Those who read Walden get the impression of a man who spent the bulk of his time trying to simplify his life, little realizing that he would walk into town, give the females of his mother’s household his laundry, and then go off and eat lunch with friends. It has been well said that we should not look too closely at Thoreau: possibly we might recognize ourselves.

I tell the story to raise one issue: observe the range of ways you can react to reality. One way, different from Thoreau’s, is that of a song by Mary Chapin Carpenter with the lyrics:

“I’ll take my chances; I don’t mind working without a net.”

In another song her lyrics describe the challenge for any song or article such as this is:

“Tell me something I don’t know, instead of everything I do.”

Up to this point, this article, in one sense, is about what you already know, if only from reading previous issues of BackpackingLight.com. That is to say, it is possible to hike with very simple gear. Monks, sadhus, Grandma Gatewood, and plenty of others have done it. They can do it for one simple reason: they have the self-reliance to accept that life away from home is different.

To learn something you don’t know – to learn better how to leave home at home and accept change — try working without a net.

A Technique to Help you Adapt to Change

How is it that some people can get by with a blanket where others need a 20-degree F sleeping bag?

To start to answer that question, let us look at an example of adapting to cold in a traditional Zen monastery in Japan, with a winter climate similar to that of Northern Virginia: the average highs might be around 40-45 degrees F; lows, 25-30 degrees F, with the occasional spike 10 or so degrees lower. An acquaintance of mine, who finished his Ph.D. in 1972 at Berkeley, went to Japan to do further study. As things worked out, he then spent more than a decade in a Zen monastery that was unheated throughout the year. He, and the other monks, would meditate and sleep in a room where the temperatures were routinely at night around 30 degrees F during the winter. The monks wore only robes and slept in them. My understanding is that they had straw mats and simple blankets for sleeping and that the temperature on occasion dropped as low as 15 degrees F.

I tell the story solely to make the point that it is possible for some people to get used to colder temperatures.

What are the techniques used to adapt to such challenges? The primary one is called mindfulness meditation. It involves training yourself to observe the sensations you feel without moving on to your typical response. Normally, for example, as the nighttime temperatures drop and one becomes cold, one notes — I am cold — and then does something about it. In this customary way one fails to observe first just the sensation that the body is cooling. One moves directly to perceiving that one’s self is affected and must be protected from the change.

In mindfulness meditation one simply notes — the body is cooling. After awhile, one notes resistance to that change. One will see the concept arising — I am getting cold. The arising of the self-concept (the “I” who is getting cold) is the first part of the resistance to the change in body temperature. The “I am getting cold” thought has in it the seed for the next thought — I am uncomfortable and must do something about it. Try to let those thoughts go and simply observe the body getting cold.

From time to time, to take the mind off the cooling of the body, you can simply follow your breath as it goes in and out of the nostrils. As you follow your breath, you will not be thinking about the cooling of the body. (The mind can focus on only one thought at a time.) One technique for beginners is simply to count each exhalation from 1 to 10 and then start again at 1. Quite some time can elapse before you might again notice that you sense the cooling.

Experienced meditators will recognize this approach as just a variant on the instructions for observing and dealing with the pain you have in your knees when you first start seated meditation. Others will note that this is a technique used in cognitive therapy. That cognitive therapy technique is to put a gap between the stimulus and the response and then alter the habitual response.

The last point in applying the technique of putting a gap between stimulus and response is to compare yourself only with yourself. Do not concern yourself with the fact that you cannot achieve some extreme feat. All that matters after applying the technique for a while is whether you are capable of extending the temperature range in which you are comfortable. As in any learning of a new technique, expect to make incremental changes over time. (In some cases, like mine, it might take years.)

As a personal note, I hate cold weather. I am strictly a 3-season backpacker. For me snow, hot chocolate, and a fireplace near a window where I can look out at the lovely snow are synonymous. However, I have been able over many years to lower the temperature at which I can sit comfortably in meditation to around 45 degrees F from about 65. I know from my own experience and from that of others whom I have observed, you can, through such a technique, widen the temperature range in which you are comfortable. (My son did start playing hockey five years ago and I have spent many hours in cold hockey rinks, which might account for some or all of that increased tolerance to cold.) As Woody Allen says: 90 percent of success in life comes from just showing up. Simply being in a colder than usual environment and just relaxing and accepting it will go a long way towards success.

Those seeking more information on aspects of this approach might read Eight Mindful Steps to Happiness, by Bhante Gunaratana, Wisdom Publications, 2001. (In the interests of full disclosure, I helped with that book and receive a portion of the royalties.)

However, no book is going to teach you the technique of mindfulness meditation. You need to work with an experienced instructor for some time to get it. For those seriously interested in learning this technique, the monastery where Bhante Gunaratana teaches has this web page:

http://www.bhavanasociety.org/

Also on that page is a brief description of the book about the full journey in the Indian Himalaya taken by the monk with whom I train, Bhante Rahula. Two of the routes taken are spectacularly beautiful and very little followed by Westerners. You can trek on these routes for weeks, without having to carry food and fuel, and spend only $3-5 a day.

Disclaimer: Nothing in this article should be considered an endorsement of any technique, trip, or person. Trying anything new involves risk (and maybe reward). Such loss or gain is solely the responsibility of those readers who want to take the risks.

Integral Designs Andromeda Strain

Integral Designs Andromeda Strain


Manufacturer’s Website: www.integraldesigns.com

Specifications

Size: Standard – Regular

  • Temperature Rating: +40 deg F
  • Total Weight: 30 oz (29.2 oz – BPL.com measured)
  • Fill Material: 4 oz/sq yd Primaloft Sport
  • Shell Material: Pertex Microlight (1.4 oz/sq yd) ripstop
  • Lining Material: Pertex Microlight (1.4 oz/sq yd) taffeta
  • Length: Fits up to 5′ 11″
  • Chest Girth: 62″
  • Hip Girth: 56″
  • Foot Girth: 38″
  • Colors: Black, Crimson, Electric Blue, & Spruce
  • MSRP: $170

General Description

The Integral Designs Andromeda Strain sleeping bag is a synthetic-fill, mummy-style bag with a +40 deg F temperature rating. It stands out from other synthetic fill bags on the market by virtue of its use of Primaloft, a highly compressible insulation that retains much of its insulating value when wet.

At $170, the Andromeda Strain is similar in price to other high-performance synthetic-fill bags. It is a feasible purchase for the mainstream backpacker looking for a sleeping bag for warm, damp conditions.

Fit, Styling, Aesthetics

Weight and Fit

The actual weight of the bag we reviewed (in regular length and standard girth) was 29.2 oz. The bag provides an average amount of wiggle room with interior girth for testers in the range of 5’6″ to 5’9″ and 110 to 175 pounds, even while wearing long underwear and fleece clothing. Our testers found these dimensions to be large enough for layering a lightweight down jacket as well without inhibiting the jacket’s loft.

Integral Designs offers the Andromeda Strain in short (fits to 5’5″), regular (5’11”) and long (6’4″) lengths, as well as standard girth (62″ chest, 56″ hip, and 38″ foot), broad (67-68″ x 56-60″ x 38-45″), and overbag (72″ x 66″ x 48″) styles. These options are available in all of Integral Designs’ down and synthetic-fill bags. We found this array of fit options the best on the market for fine tuning a sleeping bag for a particular body type.

Insulation

The insulation used in the Andromeda Strain is 4 oz/yd2 Primaloft Sport (with a specification of approximately 1″ of loft). The bag has one layer of Primaloft in the top and one layer in the bottom of the bag. This 50-50 distribution of insulation between top and bottom does not maximize warmth. In this arrangement, half of the bag’s insulation is compressed under the sleeper, wasting half of the bag’s loft. A better loft distribution for a warm-weather bag would have been 1.2 to 1.5 inches of loft in the top layer and 0.8 to 0.5 inches on the bottom layer. However, there is one advantage of even loft distribution: the sleeper who rolls around at night won’t chill himself when the bottom of the bag suddenly becomes the top!

The actual loft in the new bag as we received it was only 1.7″ (the average loft measured at eight locations throughout the bag, but far from quilting seams). This is less than the claimed 2.0″. After three months of moderate use, the bag’s total loft decreased to about 1.3″, where it has remained ever since, even after several more months of use. It is interesting to note that both upper and lower layer loft loss was equal. We guess that the loss of loft is from compression in a stuff sack during our trips (we packed the sleeping bag into the stock silnylon stuff sack and stored it uncompressed between trips).

Insulation shift is controlled by a very few quilting seams. We found the quilting pattern to be sufficient to control insulation shift while sparse enough to eliminate significant cold spots.

Other Features

The shell and lining are both made with Pertex Microlight (1.4 oz/yd2), with a ripstop shell and taffeta lining. The lining, in particular, was noted to be “silk-like” by the testers and one of the most comfortable next-to-skin materials we’ve ever tried. The lining seemed to “wick” moisture well and keep the skin dry and comfortable. We found the shell material to be highly breathable. We found the bag retained little moisture (perspiration) even in cold conditions.

The bag has a full-length zipper that is easy to use. We encountered no problems with zipper snagging or zipper failure.

The bag’s simple hood is easily operated with an elastic drawcord from within the bag. Our testers found that its simple design was insufficient to provide a snug and warm fit around their heads when cinched shut.

Product Performance

We tested the Andromeda Strain over a period of 9 months and 40 nights, in temperatures ranging from 26 degrees to 55 degrees, and with a variety of clothing combinations. Here is a summary of our results:

  1. Wearing only long underwear, our testers found that the approximate temperature at which the bag was comfortable was closer to 50 deg F than the claimed 40 deg F. This corresponds to the actual loft measured in our bag (1.7″ to 1.3″ during the testing period), and it agrees well with currently accepted formulas for predicting temperature ratings based on loft of the upper layer.
  2. Wearing warmer clothing typical of three-season backpacking, such as long underwear, shell clothing (jacket and pants), a lightweight insulating jacket (synthetic or down fill), and warm socks/hat/gloves, the bag could be used comfortably down into the upper 30s. All testers agreed that at these temperatures, long underwear bottoms and shell pants were not enough to keep legs warm. Thus, near- and sub-freezing conditions typically required, in addition to the 3-season clothing ensemble described above, a lightweight (100 or 200 weight) fleece pullover or jacket and 200-weight fleece or lightweight synthetic-fill pants.
  3. The shell material does not resist external moisture. This is especially true after a few nights of previous exposure to large amounts of water (during a spray test with a sprinkler). However, Pertex Microlight is one of the most breathable shell materials on the market, and our testing crew agreed that it is an appropriate material for a synthetic bag, because it allows the sleeper to “dry out” wet clothing (worn) or a damp sleeping bag through the night simply by evaporating moisture. All of our testers noted that the Andromeda Strain was tops in drying damp clothing. They tested this by wearing damp or wet clothing to bed and weighing the clothing and sleeping bag in both the evening and morning. In these tests, it was very rare for the bag to retain more than 10% of its own weight in moisture by morning, even when clothing worn to bed was very damp. Exceptions occurred when the bag was used in conjunction with a Gore-Tex bivy sack or in conditions where humidity was 90% or greater while inside a closed tent.

Intended Use

We believe the Andromeda Strain is a good choice for backpacking in temperate, damp environments. Summer in the western Olympic Mountains of Washington State or in the Western Cascades of British Columbia, or late Spring on the Southern Appalachian Trail are all ideal times and places to use such a bag.

Some of our testers also used the bag for early Summer and early Fall alpine snow and ice climbing in combination with (usually damp) clothing. We also found this an appropriate use of the bag.

In comparing the Andromeda Strain to other synthetic bags on the market with a similar weight, we found that most bags in this weight range had similar amounts of loft. There are a few exceptions (most notably, those made with Polarguard 3D and Polarguard Delta). These bags had 25% or more loft for the same weight. However, these bags were not nearly as compressible as the Andromeda Strain, and most used heavier shell materials.

Recommendations for Improvement

Our testers would have liked to see the Andromeda Strain offered in hoodless versions and with the option of either no zipper or a half-length zipper. Such options would save several ounces for the minimalist hiker who wanted the advantages of a synthetic bag without the frills.

In addition, we think that a bag with more overall loft, especially more loft in the top section, and less (or possibly none) in the bottom section would be a much warmer bag. And, after all, this would not significantly increase the bag’s weight — indeed it might reduce it.

Summary

The Andromeda Strain was a solid performer in our field testing. It is a great choice if you think either you or your bag are going to get wet. It was tops for drying out wet hikers and their clothes overnight and retained only minimal moisture in the process.

However, the bag’s specifications (loft and temperature rating) were not quite up to the manufacturer’s claims. Sadly, the same can be said of many other synthetic and down sleeping bags on the market. Please see “Sleeping By Faith: Bag Temperature Ratings,” also in this issue.

If Integral Designs made a bag with 2″ of actual total loft, and the loft distribution was altered to provide more on top, we think the bag would be a winner in the synthetic category. Because the bag is designed for moderate temperatures and by its nature should be lightweight, we appreciated the use of Pertex Microlight in the shell and lining, but we would have liked to see a lighter, half-length zipper as the standard option.

Final Grade B

A good design and quality materials and workmanship are the Andromeda Strain’s strong points. The bag excels in wet conditions and weather that is not too cold. We think the Andromeda Strain could be an even better and warmer bag with a bit more loft, better distribution of loft, and a better fitting hood.

Integral Designs
5516 – 3rd Street S.E.
Calgary, Alberta
T2H 1J9 Canada
Phone: (403) 640-1445
Email: info@integraldesigns.com
Manufacturer’s Website: www.integraldesigns.com

Adventure Medical Kits Thermo-Lite Bivy Sack

Adventure Medical Kits Thermo-Lite Bivy Sack


Manufacturer’s Website:
www.adventuremedicalkits.com

Specifications

One Size

  • Four-ply, waterproof, windproof Thermo-Lite® fabric
  • Total Bag Weight: 6.5 oz.
  • Shoulder Girth: 72″
  • Length: 84″
  • Stuffed: 3.75″ x 6″
  • MSRP: $22.50

General Description

The Emergency Bivy Sack is a simple rectangular bag sewn along the bottom and one side. It is touted as a survival bag for safety on the unexpected night out. The Thermo-Lite material is waterproof but not breathable. For access it has 3″-long Velcro patches at 9″ intervals along the top and half of one side.

It has a 3″ by 6″ mesh window at the bottom to allow ventilation and control condensation buildup.

It comes with a heavy-duty nylon stuff sack that weighs 0.7 oz and so adds 10% to its weight. The stuff sack has a mesh base to drain water and make it easy to confirm that the bivy sack is inside.

Construction

The Thermo-Lite material is a soft, waterproof, windproof fabric. It is made from four-ply non-woven polyolefin and vaporized aluminum. The fabric has a papery feel and can be ripped with a firm pull but is considerably more durable than thin Mylar. The outside has a dull silver coating. There is no seam sealing.

The packaging hints that the non-conductive material is better in a thunderstorm than other reflective materials (presumably they are referring to Mylar). The material is quite flammable, which may be an issue when the user is huddled next to a fire.

Function

This bivy sack is roomy for one person and in an emergency two can squeeze inside. This could be life-saving when hypothermia threatens. Compared to a Mylar space blanket the material is quiet and the soft fabric feels warm against the skin.

The Velcro-opening side should be helpful in getting an injured person into the bivy sack. The bivy sack is long enough to cover a tall person completely and the Velcro tabs on the top allow it to be closed over the head or fastened around the neck.

The material is waterproof but not breathable, so there is potential for condensation and dampness inside the bag. This makes it more suitable as an emergency bag than for normal use. Along with the mesh patch at the foot, the 6″ gaps between Velcro patches allow for some ventilation. Ironically, the ventilation features prevent the bag from being thoroughly sealed for use as a vapor barrier.

The Emergency Bivy Sack is more than twice the weight and nearly three times the cost of the Mylar Adventure Medical Kits Emergency Sleeping Bag, but it offers improved comfort, easier access, and better durability.

It is a cheap, light alternative to carrying a fully featured waterproof-breathable bivy sack. This bag is half the weight of most of the lightest of these, and it is 25% lighter than an Epic breathable-but-not-fully-waterproof bivy sack.

Overall Impression

This is a functional, waterproof, non-breathable bivy sack for emergencies. The Velcro and soft fabric make it more comfortable and easier to use than a space blanket. Light and affordable, this bag and a warm jacket may get you through an unplanned night out in fine fettle.

Functional Designs Sweetie Pie Summer Bag Doubler

Functional Designs Sweetie Pie Summer Bag Doubler


Manufacturer’s Website:
www.functionaldesign.net

Specifications

Doubler Size

  • Temperature Rating: Summer Doubler +40 deg F
  • Shell Material: Black 50 denier Ripstop Nylon
  • Fill Material: Polarguard 3D
  • Total Weight: Summer Doubler 12 oz. (18.4 oz – BPL.com measured)
  • Length: 58″ (56″ – BPL.com measured)
  • Shoulder Girth: Additional 60″
  • Hip Girth: Additional 60″
  • MSRP: Summer Doubler $79

General Description

The Sweetie Pie Bag Doubler is light synthetic filled quilt that zips to a standard single- person sleeping bag to make a two-person sleeping system. Functional Designs intends the Doubler for use above the sleepers, with a standard sleeping bag underneath.

Other reviews of the Sweetie Pie bag doubler unblushingly beckon couples to paradise inside a single sleeping enclosure. So we forwarded our product sample to a particularly intimate review team and gave them free reign to design and implement a testing program that will see if the bag doubler lives up to its name or is just another piece of dry cake.

Our review team intended to test the bag doubler with their mummy bag of choice, the de facto standard Porsche of the lightweight backpacker: Western Mountaineering’s 28-oz UltraLite. If the bag doubler and the UltraLite are able to serve the needs of two close sleepers, that would result in a sleeping bag weighing 46.4 oz for two people that is comfortable in most three-season conditions. Our review team had mixed results.

Construction

The Doubler is a handsome, well-made product. It is simply a flat quilt with Polarguard 3D insulation, offset stitched in 15″ baffles and shelled in black ripstop nylon taffeta (1.9 oz/sq yd). The lining fabric has a warm and soft feel (“silky,” says she). It is shaped like the business end of a ladybug – almost circular but then tailored straight across at the top and pulled down into a shallow tail at the foot end (see the photo, where the black Doubler is zipped to a blue sleeping bag).

There is no draw cord along the top. A set of YKK #8 zippers (the industry standard for sleeping bags) ring the outer curved edges of the piece, shielded by 1.5″ wide draft tubes. The weight of the product as measured was 18.4 oz, more than 1.5 times the advertised weight of 12 oz (but still less than most sleeping bags it might replace).

The usable space in this bag (distance from zipper to zipper) measured 56″ at the widest point (not the 58″ claimed by the manufacturer), near where the sleeping couple’s hips might end up.

Our product was the summer-weight Doubler, rated at 40 deg F. Functional Designs also makes a three-season version rated at 10 deg F and will soon release an expedition-weight Doubler.

Function

Attempting to mate the Doubler with the Western Mountaineering UltraLite, our reviewers were dismayed by the fact that the UltraLite uses a non-standard YKK size in order to save weight, and so the two could not zip together. We learned that this is the case with most other bags in WM’s ultralight series. The moral is this: YKK #8’s may be the industry standard, but exceptions may exist on certain bag models, especially with lighter sleeping bags, so be sure to check!

So, our reviewers paid a visit to a local outfitter and tried the Doubler with several popular-brand mummy bags. Most mummy bags of a standard design (for example a North Face Kilo and a Mountain Hardwear Down Upgrade bag) accommodated the Doubler beautifully and made quite a lovely nest, even for a rangy sales clerk who was nearly six feet tall. Members of the gear shop staff oohed and ahhed at this unfamiliar but clearly useful piece of gear.

The bags that are most suited to a Doubler transformation are ones that zip very nearly to the bottom, because otherwise there’s a single-bag pocket at the foot end — in the very center of the setup — that accommodates the taller person’s feet and leaves the other person in cramped quarters indeed. Ones that zip around the bottom (like many semi-rectangular ones) are not appropriate: too much of the Doubler’s length is spent traveling across the bag’s bottom.

We reflected on the fact that, with the Doubler in place in the expected configuration, the couple would be sleeping under this $79 piece, using possibly a $370 down bag as nothing more than a mattress pad, probably in the process compressing areas of down that never otherwise get slept on. Perhaps it would be wiser to flip the whole thing over and sleep on top of the Doubler and under the bag. This “off-label” use might be entirely appropriate, enabling two people on a cold night to pool body heat under a single very warm bag with a minimal insulation layer beneath the bag to control drafts and improve cushioning somewhat. It would achieve great economy of weight, though the couple would have to conquer the breeze gap between their necks. In fact a couple might snuggle in comfort under bags of various weights in various climates with the summer-weight Doubler serving for all; on a given trip they would also have the option of placing the lighter or heavier bag above them according to the weather.

This flipped-over configuration (Doubler on the bottom) might seem problematic with a hooded bag. But the hood tends to cup nicely over the shoulders of one of the sleepers and it would give a bit of extra length to a setup that’s a little stingy in that dimension. In addition, when the sleeping bag (whether hooded or not) is the top cover, its draw cord can be used to snug the top layer at the neck. With the sleeping bag underneath, its cord is not as easy to adjust and cinching it would not conserve heat as effectively: recall that the Doubler, which would then be on top, does not have a draw cord.

Overall Impression

The Sweetie Pie Doubler made a good first impression on us. It presented some unique possibilities in a sleep-system configuration for two people and was compatible with many popular bags. Still, many lightweight backpackers will do some arithmetic and wonder just what the Doubler will accomplish for them. If they are already using a pair of ultralight bags or blankets in the 40-degree range (e.g. high-fill down bags from Western Mountaineering, Nunatak, or Rab Carrington), each piece might already weigh less than the 18-oz Doubler, meant for such temperatures, or scarcely more (the typical range in this group is 16-19 oz). Such customers will not be motivated to attach the Doubler to some other bag that will inevitably be heavier. It certainly is true that the heavier a pair of bags is, the more weight a couple saves by substituting the Doubler for one of them — and probably many backpackers don’t have summer bags, so many will in fact stand to save weight. That’s IF the Doubler can be married to the bag, which in the case of many of the lightest bags, with their slender zippers, it can’t. Backpackers interested in the Doubler should do the calculation for their particular bags and make their decision accordingly.

The Doubler realizes an ingenious idea and executes it nicely. Perhaps the Functional Design people will see their way to making a variant that adapts to some of the bags the lightweight community favors, especially since their idea is conceived as a weight saver. An optional narrower-gauge zipper will make it that much lighter, and perhaps for the lightweight crowd they’ll even use more delicate shell material (e.g. 0.85 oz/sq yd nylon). For now they’re off to a good start: their Polarguard pancake will work well for some, and the design, developed further, would probably work well for most.

Integral Designs Endurance Bivy

Integral Designs Endurance Bivy


Manufacturer’s Website: www.integraldesigns.com

Specifications

Size: Small, Regular, Large

  • Pertex Endurance MVP PU coated nylon (1.9 oz sq yd)
  • Orange / Lilac / Aluminum
  • Total Bag Weight: 10 oz, 11 oz, 12.5 oz
  • Length: 70″, 75″, 80″
  • Chest girth: 66″, 66″, 66″
  • Hip girth: 60″, 60″, 60″
  • Foot girth: 46″, 46″, 46″
  • MSRP: Short ($120), Reg ($130), Long ($140)

General Description

The Integral Designs Endurance Bag Cover is what most of us call a bivy sack. It is made of very water-resistant Pertex Endurance fabric and has taped seams. The fabric is almost waterproof. Pertex Endurance is a reasonably breathable fabric, breathing nearly as well as popular waterproof-breathable fabrics with laminates, membranes, or microporous coatings. However, do not expect the Endurance Bag Cover to remain condensation-free in wet, humid conditions.

The Endurance Bag Cover is one of two mass-market bivy sacks using Pertex Endurance. (The other is the Rab Carrington Survival Zone, available only in the UK.) The Endurance Bag Cover is also one of the very lightest of the bivys in the waterproof or nearly waterproof class of fabrics. It is also one of the simplest designs on the market with no zippers, bug netting, pad straps, or such.

At $130, the Endurance Bag Cover is in the price range of many bivy sacks and costs less than many heavier and more complex ones. It is a feasible purchase for many mainstream backpackers.

Intended Use

Integral Designs intends the Endurance Bag Cover to be used with both a groundsheet for protection from wet ground and a tarp for protection from overhead moisture. Because Pertex Endurance is not completely waterproof (based on our own objective testing), we think that this is an appropriate recommendation. We put the bag cover through its paces as per Integral Designs’ recommendations, but as well we extended its use range to more extreme conditions. We used the Endurance Bag Cover in snow caves, under tarps, and as a stand-alone shelter. Our reviewers agreed that it is ideally suited for use as a solo shelter for summer or otherwise fair-weather mountain hiking when the following criteria are met:

  • only intermittent rain is expected, and
  • the user is not sleeping directly on snow.

In addition, the Endurance Bag Cover is ideal for use with a tarp. With it our reviewers could “size down” their tarps and worry less about getting their sleeping bags wet with rain spray under the tarp. In addition, most of our reviewers did not need a ground cloth when they used the bag cover. We found that with minimal care in campsite selection, Pertex Endurance is durable enough for extended use.

Fit, Styling, and Aesthetics

The average weight of the samples we reviewed was 13.2 oz, although we found that products being delivered more recently are less than 11 oz in the regular size. The Endurance Bag Cover was roomy enough to accommodate a 1″ thick, full-length, sleeping pad as well as a typical three-season down sleeping bag (with 5-6″ of loft). Winter sleeping bags with a larger girth and more loft (7-8″) were a tight fit. With an average-sized user (e.g. 5’10”, 175 lbs) the bivy somewhat compressed the loft of a winter bag. There is enough room in the Endurance Bag Cover’s hood to stow plenty of extra clothing for a pillow, along with our water bottles and water filter (for protection from freezing on cold nights).

Product performance.

We tested the Endurance Bag cover during more than sixty nights in the backcountry, ranging from warm and dry conditions in the Desert Southwest, warm and humid conditions in the southern Appalachians, the cold and wet conditions of the Washington Cascades, and the cold and dry conditions of the northern Rockies. We made observations on condensation, wind and water resistance, and general ease of use.

Condensation Resistance

In our field tests, the Endurance Bag Cover was more resistant to condensation than similar bivy sacks made from Ultrex, two-layer Gore-Tex, and Conduit SL (Mountain Hardwear). However, it lacks a face-fabric layer (as in three-layer Gore-Tex and clone laminates). This made the bivy prone to condensation in humid conditions. In similar conditions, bivy sacks made with three-layer Gore-Tex and TegralTex (Integral Designs) had less condensation. Their inner layer (often a tricot knit) disperses droplets from water condensation across the fabric’s inner surface area, preventing them from clogging pores through which vapor “breathes.”

The greatest amount of condensation occurred in warm, humid conditions. However, we had significant condensation in cold (subzero), dry conditions when we slept in clothing that was damp from a full day of snowshoeing, skiing, or winter climbing. Neither of these results is very surprising. Under these conditions even the most breathable of bivy sacks would probably collect condensation as well.

Wind Resistance

Based on our experience inside the bivy sack in windy conditions, we believe the Pertex Endurance to be completely windproof. Air cannot be “sucked” through Pertex Endurance fabric; and we could not move measurable amounts of air through the Endurance fabric under a 20 psi vacuum.

Water Resistance

The bivy is made of highly water-resistant Pertex Endurance (1.9 oz/yd2) and has taped seams. In the field, the bag cover was impervious to melting snow and rain spray. However, when the user is sleeping on wet ground or snow, the high pressure caused by body weight seemed to allow some moisture to seep through the material. This effect was only an issue in a snow cave or on extremely wet, hard ground. We found that the Pertex Endurance has enough water resistance for almost all three-season backpacking in the mountainous areas of the West.

Features

The Endurance Bag Cover is simple in design: it consists of two pieces of mummy-bag shaped fabric sandwiched together with a head opening secured by a drawstring. A contoured foot box prevents compression of a sleeping bag’s loft in that area. It has no weight-adding items like zippers, bug netting, pad straps, or other gizmos. The bivy lacks a storm-proof head opening. This is a problem if you use the bivy alone (e.g. without a tarp) in serious rain. Our reviewers solved this problem by sleeping with the bivy “upside down” (i.e., with the head opening towards the ground rather than the sky). Unfortunately, this caused a variety of problems, not the least of which was difficult entry and exit, and increased condensation (due to poor ventilation of the warm and humid air inside the bivy sack). However, if it is to be used only occasionally in this mode, it may be only a minor inconvenience.

The design of the drawstring and hood, with its pattern cut, is unique, and it allows the chest of the bivy to be cinched tight while the hood remains wide open. This is a smart design that traps heat in the body of the bag cover while allowing free circulation of fresh air where it is needed the most — around the head so one can breathe easily. For the most part, we found the design to be both effective and comfortable. One reviewer who tested the bag on only four nights, found the design quirky and annoying.

Recommendations for Improvement

Integral Designs has designed one of the lightest waterproof bivy sacks on the market. During the early stages of testing, we were somewhat dismayed at the lack of “storm- proof-ness” (fabric leakage under high pressure and drawstring hood closure). However, over time and with experience in different conditions, we agreed that the weight loss justified sacrifice of these features. This was truer for reviewers who used a tarp with the shelter. Our reviewers agreed, however, that a more water-resistant floor (such as 1.4-oz silicone-coated nylon or 1.9-oz urethane-coated nylon) could be used in the floor to make the bivy more suitable for snow caves and very wet ground.

Summary

The Endurance Bag Cover is ideally suited for tarp camping in wet and stormy conditions. Paired with a lightweight poncho such as the SilPoncho (also from Integral Designs), the bivy-poncho/tarp combination can provide an incredibly light and versatile raingear-shelter combination for the backpacker skilled in tarp camping.

Final Grade B+

We found the bag cover to be a very good design, but we would have appreciated a floor that was waterproof under high pressure and the option (perhaps in another version) of a more storm-proof hood design.

Integral Designs
5516 – 3rd Street S.E.
Calgary, Alberta
T2H 1J9 Canada
Phone: (403) 640-1445
Email: info@integraldesigns.com
Manufacturer’s Website: www.integraldesigns.com

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.)

Beyond Backpacking, by Ray Jardine (Book Review)

Book Review: Beyond Backpacking

Beyond Backpacking. AdventureLore Press, Arizona City, Ariz. Library of Congress Catalog Number: 99-72758 First Edition, Third printing, 2001. 517 pages $19.95 in paperback 1 pound, 9 ounces

INTRODUCTION

The Pacific Crest Trail Hiker’s Handbook hit like a thunderclap for countless backpackers – current, wannabe and former – when it was published in 1992. Particularly for those who had missed the first go-round of ultralight backpacking in the early 1980s, the notion of heading into the wilderness with perhaps twenty pounds, total, was a revelation. Especially, the approach has enabled PCT and AT and CDT thruhikers to complete their journeys in one season, covering as much as thirty miles a day. More common loads and techniques cut that daily mileage essentially in half, making a four-month thruhike a pipe dream for all but the fittest.

The original sales-limiting title has become Beyond Backpacking and the text expanded to provide more detail and relate further refinements to the “Ray way.” What follows is a survey of this latest work, warts and all. We came to praise Ray, not to bury him. However, after a careful reading of Beyond Backpacking, we find we must do a bit of both.

Credit where credit is due: Ray Jardine has probably done more than anyone else in the last decade to alter the way backpackers approach planning and equipping their long-distance hikes. An experienced hiker, climber and adventurer, Jardine used his experience with carrying “traditional” loads and equipment to question and eventually toss out virtually every part of the accepted methodology – replacing them with new techniques and gear of his own design.

Jardine’s methods – the “Ray way” – knocked many of us out of our complacent belief that we knew all there was to know about planning and outfitting for a trip. We may once have thought of twelve miles as a long trail day, as we humped our forty-five-pound packs up and down the mountains, but the Ray way challenged us with images of as little as fifteen-pound total loads opening the door to marathon-distance daily mileage tallies. A big jump in the number of AT and PCT thru-hike finishers over the last ten years, some toting as little as ten pounds of gear and clothing, is evidence enough that Jardine has had a positive impact. This revolution isn’t limited to thruhikers (who, after all are a tiny fraction of the backpacking set). All who head out into the wilderness can carry a lightened load, increasing both their enjoyment and their range. Hence, this new book.

In response, the backpacking gear industry has merely yawned. The flood of eight-pound packs and tents and five-pound sleeping bags; and of two-pound stoves and water filters and rain parkas and sleeping pads and mess kits, not to mention the solar showers and chair kits and CD players and espresso makers and lanterns – this continues unabated. Yes, there is lightweight gear being made (including that of one company, GoLite, that is inspired by Jardine’s designs) but such gear remains a tiny niche market ignored by the major makers.

Jardine proclaims that we don’t need the manufacturers, and he backs up the claim by giving detailed plans for making everything we need to go hiking, from clothing on out. Something seems to have clicked: Beyond Backpacking is selling well: it’s in its third printing.

Jardine the man is the book’s biggest asset and simultaneously its biggest problem. The book’s foundation is solid as a slab of Sierra granite: toss out your preconceptions of how a backpacking trip ought to be planned and outfitted. Here are philosophies and methods proven to increase vastly your backcountry capabilities. Where the author gets himself into trouble is in blurring his theories – including some profoundly wacky ones – with fact.

This is a stroll through selected portions of the book, highlighting the strong, the weak and the what-planet-is-he-from-anyway? The early chapters form the book’s foundation, starting with…

The Myth of Heavy-Duty Gear

Jardine wisely begins by offering us the Grandma Gatewood model of backcountry travel, including this quote: “Most people are pantywaists. Exercise is good for you.” He discusses typical backpacking gear and the reasons we tend to over-rely on it – many of the reasons being fear-driven. He isn’t afflicted by gear-itis; many of us would like to be as free from this dreaded affliction.

Packweight

Jardine calls upon his own growth as a hiker in showing the reasons for and benefits of slashing pack weight. As we follow along on his path of self-discovery, we can really begin to appreciate the vast amount of experience and willingness to tinker and try new things that led to the Ray way. There wasn’t a “Eureka” moment – it’s all the result of a lot of work over the many very long hikes that he and his wife have taken. The man has trail “cred.” But here also the dubious claims begin, including a graph that seems to argue if you can carry fifty-five pounds ten miles you can exceed forty miles a day carrying nothing. Specifically, he claims that a fifty-eight-pound pack carried ten miles requires the same energy as ten pounds carried thirty. Whatever the arithmetic, the point is well taken: less weight equals more miles. Simple. However, the lack of any sort of data to support the metrics presented remains a chronic problem throughout the book. Jardine frequently and repeatedly proffers indefensible numbers in support of various claims.

Problems aside, we’re well advised to note and retain the following passage:

“Remember that behind each piece of gear and clothing is a philosophy for using it to best advantage. And too, that the type of gear we need depends almost entirely on what we think we need.”

The lightweight gear overview comprises the Packweight chapter’s central core, and it preps the reader for a concise discussion of how to reduce that weight, including the all-important “Concentrate on heavy items first.” Management-theory buffs will recognize this as an application of the Pareto Principle. The discussion and arguments are well presented and form an effective backbone for the rest of the book.

The critical equipment discussions in Beyond Backpacking revolve around what might be called the equipment tripod: pack, shelter and bed. It’s easy to notch up twenty or more pounds for just these items (more weight than many lightweight hikers carry, total). Jardine has developed replacements for everything comprising the tripod – slashing the weight for all to as little as five pounds. An astonishing breakthrough.

The Backpack

Jardine describes his stripped-to-the-bone, sub-one-pound pack – essentially the pack many will recognize as the GoLite Breeze. It’s a rucksack of lightweight fabric with no frame and no waistbelt. The discussion, which touches at various points on the history of backpacks, is fascinating, and it compares Ray’s simple pack with the typical bells-and-whistles bombproof commercial backpack. Jardine begins the dubious claims as he attacks the competition:

“An internal or external frame pack with its hip belt cinched acts as a brace, limiting the natural movement of the spine, and restraining these motions. Over the long haul this saps energy. Furthermore, by constraining the spine, designed for suppleness in absorbing shocks, both the hip belt and the frame increase one’s chances of injury – for example should one step off a root or rock without thinking, and land too hard. Crunch!”

This is but one of many times the author asserts the correctness of his way by attacking what he views as the competition. He similarly dismisses sternum straps, which he calls “chest corsets,” claiming that using one prevents proper breathing.

One has to wonder, though, whether he didn’t abandon the humble sternum strap and waist belt too soon, based on his single-shoulder carry: “I found it far more comfortable and less restrictive to carry the pack on one shoulder only.” Ironically, this note may provide the strongest argument as to why a simple rucksack might not be the very best way to carry even a reduced load: the most influential proponent appears to have concluded that it’s not comfortable.

The pack-loading sequence on page 60 warrants several re-readings.

Tarps and Tents

Shelter is the second leg of the equipment tripod. Jardine is a vigorous champion of the tarp as opposed to a tent or other options. In doing so he sets the tent alternative up as a straw man. He remains far too fixated on his early backpacking experiences and fails to consider tent designs that may fare better in the conditions he singles out. This doesn’t negate the strength of his pro-tarp arguments – most are well considered and well presented – but he falls into the trap of overstating the tent’s faults, needlessly damaging the entire discussion.

Dubious claims: · “During the night the hiker’s body gives off several pounds of moisture.” Jardine is claiming here that we lose several pints of water nightly through exhalation and through our skin. He doesn’t define several (three, five, twelve?) nor does he cite quantifying research or note the relative losses from exhalation and from insensible sweating. · “Most tents have a so-called ventilating gap all around the perimeter of their rain flies; and hot air balloons have gaping holes in their bottoms. Neither ventilates the interior, since the buoyancy of the warmer air keeps it from dispersing.” This appears to be a goes-up-and-stays-put model of air movement. He stops short of proclaiming the formation of little rain clouds moving in opposing circles due to the Coriolis effect, depending on the hemisphere in which one finds oneself sleeping. Matching each piece of gear – shelter in this instance – to the destination and expected conditions is wise, but it seems foolish to accept blindly the notion that sleeping in a tent assures one of a drenching, be it a drenching in one’s own sweat and breath or in rainwater from a failing tent fly or floor. It might likewise be foolish to embrace the counterproposition that selecting a tarp banishes moisture issues.

Strength – tent and tarp compared

Jardine maintains straight out that a tarp is stronger than a tent. Tents surely can and do fail, but tarps suffer similarly, whether from ripped fabric or ripped moorings. Battened down with enough guylines and attachment points, a flat tarp will generally stay put, but I’ve seen torn fabric and pulled-out grommets too often to give tarps the unequivocal nod over all tents for strength. Match the tool to the task.

Jardine’s more-engineered tarp with “beaks” is an improvement over a flat tarp if you’re committed to the basic A-frame pitch. It’s going to be stronger and more rain-resistant and it should flap less. I get a little concerned about his many, many guylines, as well as the complexity of the bug-tent-under-the-tarp combination that he offers up for insect season. The combination blurs the line between tarp and tent and has a kludged look that raises questions about its ease of use. Still, his knack for clever innovation shines through and gives the backpacker new options to consider.

Warmth – tent and tarp compared

The section begins with a discussion of perspired and respired moisture and what happens to it underneath a tarp. Jardine notes that the moisture will condense to liquid when the dew point is hit – on what it condenses depends on the temperature and relative humidity. If the temperature is low enough, condensation will form in the sleeping bag’s insulation. He maintains that the humidity in a tent on a cold night will necessarily reach one hundred per cent and at that point, all this moisture will stay put, eventually soaking the occupants. He concludes: “The net effect is that on cold nights a tarp is warmer than a tent.”

This is a bold claim. Thermometer readings routinely show a tent as being 10 deg. F. warmer inside than out. Add the reduced wind chill and you have a strong argument for a tent’s being warmer than a tarp, not colder. While it’s likely that in specific conditions moisture accumulation overwhelms these advantages and tilts things in the tarp’s favor, we’re left wondering how commonly that crossover point occurs.

Jardine really stacks the deck discussing tents in the rain – spinning a tale of dumb tent user and dumb tent design to show that the tarp wins in a head-to-head rainy-day comparison. Regardless, his tarping process is well thought through and can be considered required reading for the proto-tarper: several readings would be about right. But in all fairness, tenting in the rain can and does work too, without the misery related here. Thousands do it every night. Enough said.

The information on the many different tarp configurations and pitches to accommodate a variety of sites and weather conditions is terrific. It might be good to photocopy (half-size, of course) these pages, with their instructive diagrams, and take them along. Advanced tarpology is learned over time under many conditions, and some crib notes could be just the thing to facilitate the pitching process on a cold, windy, rainy night.

Dubious claim: “Black (tarps) lose more heat at night.”

This is Jardine’s first of several mentions that dark colors lose more (radiant) body heat in the cold and dark. Along with a test of the theory that black cooking pots are more heat efficient, I’d love to see some data from the field to back up the claim. My suspicion is that, even if it is measurable in the lab at all, the effect is phantom in the field.

In “A sense of connection” Jardine shares a little secret: sleeping under a tarp or under the stars puts us more in touch with our surroundings. He’s got a point – it can be wonderfully liberating. Still, it’s not easy for everyone to give up the cozy tent environment – any kid who has a cardboard-box fort immediately understands the sheltering joys of that little nylon envelope. Hikers need to decide for themselves which they prefer. You can carry a tent and still be “lightweight.”

Groundsheet and Pad

The topic is handled well, and Jardine takes the opportunity to reinforce the importance of site selection. There’s a visit from what I call Bizarro Ray too:

“To me the shortcomings of a thick mattress go far beyond its weight and bulk. Due to its thickness it lessens one’s connection with the earth. Heavy boots do the same. They reduce the communication from the earth into our feet and on up our body and into our mind and heart. The connection works in the other direction too: from the heart and mind, to the body, the feet, and down into the earth. I believe that we are meant to walk on the ground by day and lie on it by night. The earth communicates with us in ways that science is only beginning to discover, and the less we insulate our feet and bodies from the earth’s vibrations, resonance and energies, the more we benefit.”

Am I alone in thinking that the reason Ray isn’t a practicing aerospace engineer is that his his bark-and-maize rocket designs wouldn’t fly?

Jardine describes achieving his minimum pad size and thickness through trimming, trimming and trimming until he could trim no more – ending up with a torso pad. Yet he also notes that on longer trips, one must guard against losing critical core body heat over time, and this may entail retaining more of the pad. He’s absolutely correct in this, all the more so when at times caloric intake isn’t adequate. Pervasive cold can devastate morale and turn an otherwise wonderful trip into misery. (My recommendation to the mixed-weather ultralighter is to consider packing one obscenely warm clothing item, despite the hit on packweight and bulk. A small indulgence, it could be a trip-saver.) Really he’s right both ways, that the ultralight hiker should carry no more pad than necessary, but also no less.

Quilt and Sleeping Bag

Jardine details the development of his quilt system – quilt and pad forming the third leg of the tripod of major gear items. The philosophy, design, construction and use are all well presented, and the system comes across off as a very intriguing option. Since we flatten a sleeping bag’s bottom insulation underneath us, why not dispense with a traditional bag and rely on a quilt tossed over a foam pad? It’s an ingenious option, and it can be quite versatile under varied conditions while being efficient in both weight and bulk. Jardine chooses to use synthetic fill, citing down’s susceptibility to moisture. Fair enough, but he also claims that down compressed into a stuff sack is irretrievably harmed. This flies in the face of the limited life of synthetics, generally recognized, and down’s ability to last decades:

“The first time you cinch down those compression straps, you snuff out, permanently, approximately 10% of a sleeping quilt or bag’s loft. And you can subtract an additional 2% for each subsequent compression.” Do the arithmetic: after forty-five nights, your down bag’s stuffing has – pfft – disappeared.

Remaining Equipment

In a catchall section, Jardine touches a variety of gear and clothing. Surprisingly, he spends little space on the kitchen hardware, and he discusses cookfires separately.

Jardine prefers little wood fires to stoves. Nothing wrong with that, presuming you have adequate fuel and skill – there’s certainly less to carry and to break down. Having to melt snow or boil drinking water, or hiking where wood fires are not permitted (including stretches of the PCT) means a stove or cold food. He argues that his little fires are more environmentally responsible than carrying fuel:

[On stove cartridges] “Still, we cannot escape the fact that the empty cartridges are an ecological disaster, considering the huge quantities of them going into the landfills. Some types are recyclable, which is nice in theory but rarely practiced.” First, to claim there’s a grievous mass of backpacking stove cartridges appearing amidst our urban detritus is silly. We also can’t presume that recyclable cartridges aren’t recycled: since most backpackers are very responsible with their trash, why presume that they can’t toss an aluminum cartridge into the recycle bin? It’s insulting. Saying “ecological disaster” is hyperbole. Wouldn’t it be better and more ethical for Jardine simply to state why he’s opposed to stove-cartridge use? Something like “they are the least efficient of the many ways to carry stove fuel” would make the point nicely.

Ray surprises me, given the many reports of his espousing a raw food diet, that he doesn’t recommend it in Beyond Backpacking: “Jenny and I have experimented extensively with non-cook foods. And we have hiked for weeks without a stove, eating pre-cooked and dehydrated foods. So it can be done, but we have never found it satisfying. Nor have we found it particularly energizing. In our minds, the energy and vitality provided by freshly cooked meals is well worth the trouble.”

He launches an attack on nonstick pans: “Yet, I wonder whether even these coatings are safe. I have seen reports that indicate that most types of plastic are themselves health hazards, when used with food and water. However, I am not quite ready to start carrying glass water bottles.”

Proof please, before wrongly frightening the large percentage of readers who have used Teflon and other nonstick pans. Even should one accept the odd premise about “most types of plastic,” it’s a Gumby-esque stretch to condemn approved pot coatings. I’m surprised he doesn’t bring up aluminum and Alzheimer’s while he’s at it. Ironically, Ray neglects to note the PAHs (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons) his cooking fires add to the food. He’s got to be aware that smoking wood puts carcinogens into your dinner. Bon appetit!

Compass and Navigation

There’s a lot to take away from this discussion, including Jardine’s cautionary tale of completely circling a mountain while trying to descend in the clouds. Even experienced wilderness travelers get lost! We must pay attention to where we are and where we’re headed. Bizarro Ray boldly steps forward with this note, following a discussion of certain animals’ ability to follow magnetic north: “Scientists say that humans have the same type of gland. Obviously, modern mankind has lost touch with this little device, but many of the more primitive earth-connected peoples apparently used it very effectively. It might be possible for modern-day people to get back in touch with this long-lost skill.”

Let’s leave my glands out of this.

And this from the discussion on doing without a flashlight, “Using this method, you can find your way even in complete darkness.”

Ray has evidently neither been deep in a cave nor unloaded film in a darkroom. Believe me on this point: in the complete absence of light, no primitive ability emerges allowing you to see.

Trekking poles

Ray dismisses poles: “In actual fact the poles add to the total stress, because of their weight. Let’s say that each pole weighs 16 ounces. Two pounds lifted from the ground between each of 2,000 steps equals two tons of unfavorable stress that the poles add – per mile – to your entire body.”

Jardine is perhaps confusing stress with work: to be sure, carrying the poles’ weight is work, more work than if you leave them in the store and go without. (If the poles, however, are also replacing tent or tarp poles you’d otherwise be carrying, they may represent no extra weight/work at all.) Regardless, poles reduce stress associated with impact shock to your knees, ankles and hips. But instead of considering the benefits, we’re handed an argument, with metrics, that simply misses the point.

Clothing and Footwear

The Clothing section is solid. I especially appreciated the value Jardine places on routinely cleaning clothes while on the trail. The Footwear section discusses swapping traditional hiking boots for lightweight hikers or running shoes. There are a couple of chuckles in the hiking barefoot and moccasin segments, and I think his assessment of hiking in sandals is right on target. Re: wet feet – considerable discussion is offered on the futility of keeping one’s feet dry while hiking in the wet, and on how to cope with wet shoes and socks. Good stuff. Jardine also covers fit, insoles, orthotics, shoe construction, and in-field modifications. He’s certainly gone through more than his share of shoes. He makes an excellent point about avoiding injury by retiring worn-out shoes that still appear okay.

Food

Up to this point in Beyond Backpacking, as I read along for the first time, I was completely willing to forgive Ray his eccentricities, since I was easily able to separate the wheat from the chaff and had learned a lot and gained a number of things to try. But in the literary equivalent of throwing a car into reverse on the freeway, the book then headed on to discussing food and water, and my outlook changed. Nothing encountered up to this point adequately prepared me for the Food section except, perhaps, for this early passage back on page 36:

“Locate a line of ants marching towards who knows where, and dribble a bead of white flour across their path. This will confuse them greatly, but eventually they will find their way around the flour and resume course. Now pour a bead of freshly-ground [sic] whole-wheat flour across their path. Immediately they will start feeding on it. They know real food when they find it.”

Thus Ray sets up the noble ant as spokesbug for his viewpoints on food and nutrition. So far so good, if just barely. But next Spaceship Ray blasts off and takes us along on a fear-and-loathing cruise through the Galaxy of Industrialized Food. He doffs the gloves right away with “Not all ‘food’ is food.”

(Please note: Much of the discussion is moot for the typical hike of a week or less, during which most could probably make do with thirty-seven Ho-Hos and a fifth of Jack Daniels.)

People planning thruhikes, high-daily-mileage hikes and severe-condition hikes need to pay close attention to their food: what and how much to take, and how to prepare it. The problem in Beyond Backpacking is that Ray spends so much time attacking the food and agriculture industries that he buries what useful information he presents. In short, denigrating these industries is more important to him than helping his reader. Some excerpts: · “These food companies are large and prosperous, and they use every resource in their arsenal to sell their wares. We, the consumers, are their prey.” · “Processed flour is the nation’s most popular food staple. Americans eat more if it than anything else. Yet it is so lacking in nutrition that it hardly qualifies as food.” · [Endosperm!] “This lifeless part of the grain is then further processed, refined, bleached and treated to become the nutritionally desolate version of wheat known as white flour. It has a long shelf life because microbes cannot subsist on it very well, and neither can we.” · [On Paul Stitt] “He says that the food giants do their best to stifle these types of studies because ‘too often these tests show their “foods” are incapable of sustaining life.’ ” · [On semolina] “Consumed in such high quantities it will sap your energy, and it can turn your summer’s journey from one of enjoyment to one of drudgery. [Here it comes.] Many long-distance hikers, myself included, have eaten corn pasta for nearly every meal while on journey, and with excellent results. Not so with white-flour-based pasta.” · [On “excitotoxins”] “Many types of foods popular with backpackers contain chemicals designed to make our brains interpret the foods as tasting good. In fact [sic], most commercial foods contain such chemicals. Neuroscientists call them ‘excitotoxins’ because they excite the neurons in our brains to the point of killing many of them, causing brain damage to varying degrees. Evidence suggests that MSG, aspartate and a whole class of similar chemicals play a major role in degenerative brain disease, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and Huntington’s. When these chemicals appear on a packaged food’s list of ingredients, which they rarely do, their names are almost always disguised. Yet, despite their damaging effects, the food industry finds them enormously helpful in bolstering profits.” Reread this last passage. For someone trained as a scientist (engineer), the author has emptied a sack of extraordinarily wild and dubious claims and accusations. (Replace excitotoxins with alien technology and the food industry with the Pentagon and you’ve got a good three- or four-part “X-Files” episode.) How are we supposed to take the book seriously after reading this screed?

He’s not done though, by a long shot.

· [Quoting Blaylock] “More and more diseases of the nervous system are being linked to excitotoxin build-up in the brain. For example, disorders such as strokes, [blah, blah, blah – lists several] and even AIDS dementia [!] have been linked to excitotoxin damage.”

At least Ray manages to stop before blaming AIDS itself on food additives.

He’s still not done, because he needs to attack: · Energy Bars · Sugar and candy · Coffee · Alcohol · Freeze-dried foods · Grains that are…”dead”

If you make it that far, you’ll find that Ray does sanction certain foods late in the chapter. He makes an important point on caloric density, using an analogy to rocket fuel. He extols fresh foods – certainly we all crave them after a few days on the trail, and with good reason – but can’t refrain from suggesting eating potatoes raw. He slips in attacks on the meat and dairy industries and genetic engineering: “Frankenstein food and Terminator technology.”

Corn gruel is suggested to those for whom corn pasta isn’t corn enough. He says a positive thing or two about powdered milk. Attacks granola bars. Attacks dehydrating. Says some useful things about home packaging tools and techniques.

The gaping flaws in Jardine’s food theories are exposed each thruhiking season by many, perhaps most, of the finishers. Do yourself a favor and read some of the many fine online thruhiker journals – it’s amazingly common for successful finishers to have subsisted on diets of Pop-Tarts, ramen, mac ‘n cheese, Lil’ Debbies, and Stovetop Stuffing mix, supplemented by pigouts every time they hit town, on anything that can’t run away fast. A common, perhaps the prevailing, thruhiker philosophy is to shovel in as many calories as possible and let the body sort it out.

Somehow it works. Recommended? Only your stomach knows for sure.

In short, this chapter leaves the future thruhiker needing some educated, well-reasoned and applicable information. Any decent textbook on nutrition will be more useful than what is presented here.

Food leads inevitably to…

Water

I’m a big believer in the value of hydration and, of course, Jardine has me outdone. After declaring we’re all “walking waterbags” he recommends drinking a quart an hour. Well. In a ten-hour hiking day that means knocking back twenty pounds of the stuff. Whether this is even possible depends in part on whether you have to carry your day’s water along with you (ironically, likely to be in conditions where you actually need that much: e.g., the desert). Further, it is not unlikely that anyone consuming two-and-a-half gallons of water without scrupulously replacing electrolytes would experience some problems.

Bizarro Ray takes his rightful place on stage: · [On the Batmanghelidj book about water] “The book’s subtitle is ‘you are not sick, you are thirsty! Don’t treat thirst with medications.’ In particular, if you know anyone who suffers back pain, neck pain, headache, migraine, anginal pain, high blood pressure, hypertension… hand them a copy of the ‘Batman’ book.”

Thanks, but I thought all those maladies were caused by excitotoxins?

And this, on the “shortcomings” of water purification: · “While training for our fifth thruhike we drank directly from clean, natural sources, a few sips at first, then gradually increasing in quantity over the weeks and months. In this way we helped condition our bodies to the water’s natural flora. Then, during the actual journey we drank all our water straight from the springs, creeks, and sometimes the lakes – after carefully appraising each source. And for the first time in years I remained symptom-free…”

In wrapping up the water section, Ray eulogizes The Force:

· …being able to drink freely of the earth’s life-force provided a refreshing connection with the natural world.” · “Normally spring water is safe to drink. And in many cases the algae growing in it is [sic] safe to eat.” · [On springs] “I have come to think of them as sacred – as did many Native American peoples. I did not perceive them as such when relying on water filters. But now when I drink from a pure, flowing spring, I feel like I am making a closer connection with the earth and its life-force. And I think anyone could feel the same, whether they filter that water or not. I see pure spring water not merely as another commodity, but as a priceless gift from the Creator for the continuance of life. And I always give thanks for that, in appreciation of the water’s true worth.” · “Previously, when people and animals ingested the protozoa or cysts they were not nearly as prone to disease and illness. [Ray seems unaware of diarrhea’s role as a leading cause of death in the third world.] This is because they produced antibodies that fought off the microbes or at least staved [sic] their effects. But within the past several decades, two factors have contributed to the increased risks of our contracting giardiasis. · [Ready?] “As a result of living in civil sterility, our bodies have essentially quit producing the antibodies necessary to maintain our natural immunities. This civil sterility comes from drinking municipally treated tap water or bottled water that is free of giardia (in most cases), and by taking medicinal antibiotics, eradicating any pre-existing giardia parasites in our bodies.”

Ray closes the water section by suggesting we leave “some small token of nature” as a gift in return for having accepted the gift of water. I’ve taken to leaving pinecones in the office sink.

Returning Gently, Gently to Terra Firma

After the boulder-strewn rapids of the Food and Water sections, things smooth out considerably in the rest of the book. The depth of Jardine’s experience comes through in the chapters on physical conditioning, hiking pace, foot care, walking-related stress injuries, stretching, hygiene, and first aid supplies. Get yourself into hiking shape and care well for yourself once you begin. Limit your and others’ exposure to disease. Keep your body and clothing reasonably clean and in order; in return, you can accomplish your goals in good health.

In the Obstacles section, Jardine talks about dealing with rain, lightning, snow, creek fording, and heat. He tackles poisonous plants (oak and ivy) and critters of all kinds: flying, crawling, biting – eight-, six-, four- and finally, two-legged. Bottom line: knowledge and some realistic fear management can see us through these encounters. Most here is well worth reading, despite moments like Ray’s quote of someone who declares we can overcome mosquitoes by controlling our smell and our “vibrations.”

Jardine is perhaps at his best in chronicling the nitty-gritty details and the positive mental attitude that are paramount to pursuing our dreams of a long hike. Everything from finances to drift boxes to partners to “supercharging mileage” is here. A great deal of the success of any military campaign lies in supplies and logistics (my metaphor, not Ray’s). It’s conceivable that a person might thruhike the AT with a minimum of planning and supply by simply hopping off-trail to stock up and perhaps “decompress.” The approach won’t cut it on the CDT and PCT. Regardless of what other Jardine techniques you may embrace, supply and logistics methods are necessary to success.

If you’re handy at all with a sewing machine, Beyond Backpacking will earn its $19.95 price if using it you complete just one of the several plans presented. Sew a pack, a quilt, a pair of shell pants, a tarp…here’s how to create nearly all your major gear and clothing at a tiny fraction of what you’ll shell out retail. You’re likely to end up with gear better suited to your frame and your needs than you can possibly buy on the open market. (It may take a few tries though, especially with the clothing.) As a non-sewer, I very much admire those who craft their own gear.

Conclusions

There is a solid 400-page book between Beyond Backpacking’s covers, and a less-detailed review might focus on the best of it, legitimately declare the book a success, and issue a cover blurb. Because of the estimable reputations of both the book and its author, it deserves a closer examination than that. It is Jardine’s very stature in the backpacking community that brings the magnifying glass to bear on the book’s shortcomings. The Food and Water sections are a train wreck. Not only do they fail to inform, they sidetrack the reader on a journey into the author’s peculiar mind. Taken by itself, Ray’s nature-boy philosophy might provide a homespun and quirky charm to the book’s solid technical core — perhaps the inevitable outcome when somebody’s been out in the woods a bit too long. But Bizarro Ray with his fear and loathing of the food and ag industries throws the book completely off track. He hates the trappings of modern life (like municipal water treatment and sidewalks) and the way they have suppressed all our good Primitive Man abilities. This, along with his zeal for the teachings of charlatan health “experts,” demonstrates Ray’s willingness to travel with two yardsticks: the steely one he holds up to the trappings of modern western life and the fuzzy live-grained one he uses to measure advice from various faddist gurus. This would be merely annoying in a fireside conversation but, presenting himself as an expert and a leader of the inexperienced, Jardine risks taking on the mantle of fraud. How did this happen? My guess is that, as a lifelong DIY’er, he doesn’t avail himself of an editor. This is a book in need of an aggressive edit.

Does this mean I don’t recommend Beyond Backpacking? No, there’s too much good information presented to dismiss it. Instead, I recommend it to all experienced backpackers and to beginners who’ve completed one of the more established backpacking books, such as The Complete Walker IV or Backpacking, One Step at a Time. Jardine’s methods and philosophies are better read after one has first developed a frame of reference. It’s not a book for beginners, or the squeamish.

GoLite Flash Sleeping Bag REVIEW

The Polarguard 3D-filled GoLite Flash Sleeping Bag takes a modular approach to sleep systems, with a removable top that can be used to adjust the temperature range of the bag: when it’s warm, simply zip it off and leave it home.


Manufacturer’s Website: www.golite.com

Specifications

Medium Size

  • Temperature Rating: +60 deg F Top / +40 deg F Bag / +20 deg F Combined
  • Recommended User Height: 5’6″ to 6′
  • Fill Material: Polarguard 3D
  • Component Weights: Top 14 oz / Bag 40 oz (15/43 oz – BPL.com measured)
  • Total Sleep System Weight: 54 oz (58 oz – BPL.com measured)
  • Shoulder Girth: 62″
  • Hip Girth: 58″
  • Foot Girth: 44″
  • Stuffed: 1200 cubic inches
  • MSRP: $236

General Description

The GoLite Flash is a synthetic-fill sleeping bag with an additional zip-on insulated top for colder weather. It has a full-length zipper and can be used in three modes:

  • With The top alone as a quilt;
  • As an ordinary sleeping bag;
  • With the sleeping bag and top zipped together to add extra warmth.

The GoLite Flash appears to be designed for those who are not zealous enough to use the company’s hoodless, bottomless, sleeping systems but who still want a lightweight synthetic sleeping bag.

Construction

Three shell materials are used:

  • Black Pertex for the inside of the main bag and the underside of the zip-on top quilt
  • Mini-double ripstop on the outer shell of the main bag
  • GoDri waterproof-breathable fabric on the outside of the zip-on top

The sewn-through seam-sealed top of the main bag is probably suitable only for protection from splashes or condensation, not a serious watering, although with synthetic insulation this is not as much of a problem as it is with down sleeping bags.

The insulation is Polarguard 3D which has the best reputation for durability amongst synthetic sleeping bag insulations. The bottom of the bag has a single layer of Polarguard 3D. The thin insulation on the bottom means that little loft is wasted by being crushed beneath the sleeper. This allows GoLite to put the rest of the insulation where it counts most, over the sleeper. The sleeping bag upper has two offset quilted layers. The zip-on top has a single layer of sewn-through Polarguard 3D. The seams on the top are quilted to coincide with those on the upper of the bag rather than in the preferable offset location.

The Flash appears to be well made with neat seams and tidy finishing.

Function

The bag is mummy-shaped with a fairly narrow foot and leg section but plenty of room around the chest area so that the user can wear extra clothes and still be quite mobile in the torso and arms. The floor is narrow so that the sides of the sleeper have thick insulation all the way to the ground. One nice feature of the zip-on top is that in really cold weather you can slide more clothing between the main sleeping bag and top quilt — something that you usually need a bivy sack to do.

The top could conceivably be used by itself as a quilt, but the piece is narrow — 36″ at the widest point. Unless the sleeper is very still, ties may be necessary to hold it to the sleeping mat. The sewn-through quilting means that there is no insulation at each seam in this configuration.

The hood has good loft and is generously sized. With the use of its single one-handed drawcord, it shapes nicely around the head, without compressing the insulation. There is a cozy neck muff and a “beak” flap over the forehead.

One reviewer questioned whether the zip-on top’s extra half inch of loft (as measured by the reviewer) justified an additional 14 oz of weight. This person spoke in favor of just adding an extra layer of insulation to the main bag and skipping the zip-on top layer, pointing out that this saves the weight of two fabric layers and two full-length zippers.

Overall Impression

The Flash is a flexible sleeping system that saves the hiker from buying both a +40 and +20 sleeping bag. Most manufacturers use a full-circumference liner or overbag in their dual- temperature sleep systems. GoLite puts all the additional loft over the sleeper, where it counts most. This saves both weight and bulk. The zip-on top layer also performs some of the functions of a bivy sack. This is nice for colder and windier weather. Some hikers not so enthusiastic about dual-temperature sleep systems may feel that 54 ounces is not particularly light for a +20°F synthetic bag. (By comparison, for the same temperature rating, the single person GoLite Fur 1 is only 29 oz although it lacks a hood. This may be a moot point. If you are considering a Fur 1 then you are probably not a candidate for the Flash. Note: GoLite is redesigning the Fur 1 for this year.) However, the Flash appears well-constructed with a nicely shaped hood, clever distribution of insulation, a nice set of features, and good detailing.