Articles (2020)

When I first heard that I’d be testing a Timberland boot, I couldn’t help it: First image that came to mind, the leather boat shoes I used to wear. Second thought, rap. Third thought, the bright custard-y work boots. “Timberland” did not equal “ultralight backpacking” at any part of my mind. But I enjoy experimentation and surprises, and waited, somewhat bemused, for the arrival of my sample Cadions.

The Timberland Cadion, as I soon discovered, could do the trick for ultralighters. This isn’t a boot to dismiss based on brand familiarity.

When I pulled the Cadions out of the box I immediately noticed the aesthetic and the light weight of the mid-top. The aesthetic brings to mind the swoopiness and busy-ness, with consideration for stream-lining, of a trail runner. Its upper fabric is reminiscent of a stout laminated fabric that you might find on a heavier rain jacket; for some reason it reminds me of a mid-weight dry bag. The boot appears to be well-constructed. There is a significant rand surrounding the boot, with a rubbery diamond matrix wrapping from the heel to over the instep. The hardware is all stout metal, and the upper hooks have a lot of depth… a lotta hookage, as it were. The Cadion’s tongue is gusseted up to the second hook, some extra height helping the Goretex liner keep your foot dry.

Next thing even a casual eye would probably notice: the relative narrowness and low volume of the boot. It is not a bulky or cavernous boot. Rotating the boot in hand reveals a relatively deeply-lugged Vibram sole.

In my work as a buyer, pack-fitter, and boot-fitter, I found that people (primarily men) frequently think they need a huge, super-wide boot… but, in reality, they do not need such a boot. On one hand, you want some room to prevent blisters. On the other hand, too much room makes a boot sloppy (and blistery, and less sure-footed). I throw these thoughts into the ring here because I’ve found that so many people think they have monster feet when, in reality, they measure a very average “D” width. That said, my feet are a very average “D” width. And, although my biggest problem fitting shoes is excessive width and volume, I found the Cadion to be a relatively low-volume, narrow fit.

The Cadions let me know if I mistakenly wear a pair of my thicker socks. If you use aftermarket inserts, you’ll have to use lower-volume ones. While these boots are probably ideal for those with distinctly narrower feet (the fit reminds me a bit of La Sportiva, perhaps a hair more snug?), I found them perfectly serviceable for my average feet.

Timberland did a nice job balancing the amount of support with some trail-feel. It’s been years since I’ve worn Salomon XA Pros, but I remember wearing that shoe on the trail and thinking that it had a great amount of support underfoot, and a slightly unusual amount of feel under my big toe. I get the same kind of feeling with the Cadion. (This is just an impression, folks… If you research the midsoles and combined support or flex of each piece of footwear, and find that, actually, the Cadion has 124 pounds of resistance at 60 degrees flex, compared to an old XA Pro of 119 pounds at 54 degrees flex-and yes, I’m completely making up bogus “testing” specs for things that aren’t really tested-if you find, somehow, that the two are not all that similar… that’s okay! I’m just trying to relay my initial impression of the feel.) I spent a stupid amount of trail miles contemplating whether the amount of feel under the ball of my foot was too much, or just right… and finally realized that I didn’t seem to be having any problems, so all was probably good.

I don’t know how I could have possibly been so… stupidly absent-minded, but there were several occasions when I grimly pulled on the Cadions for a day hiking in the rain, forgetting that the Cadion is a Goretex boot! After splashing through several deeper puddles in a row I remember being surprised at how perfectly dry my feet were. Ha! The flip side: some days my feet were warmer than I cared for, but, for whatever reason, I didn’t find the Cadion to be as hot as other Goretex footwear I’ve worn. Maybe there was just less foam and stuff in the boot, maybe it’s just mental, maybe Timberland worked some kinda magic, but they seemed a bit cooler than your average GTX boot.

The Cadion also feels noticeably light, for a mid-top. I’ve worn heavier shoes, to be sure. It’s not a boot that will weigh your feet down after a day on the trail. With its sleeker fit, it’s also not a boot that will be jutting out to grab roots, rocks, and trail debris as you pass through. This stream-lined profile, combined with a closer fit, vaguely remind me of a rock-climbing shoe, but without the discomfort.

If you tend to think “waffle-stomper” when you hear the word “boot,” even though that boot is arguably half-way to a shoe, these will change your mind. It doesn’t have the clunkiness. It doesn’t have the weight. And it doesn’t have the “I have a 2 x 4 strapped to my foot” kind of feel. Shock absorption and walking comfort are excellent, without those qualities jumping out and calling attention to themselves.

The upper hook eyelets have the best, grabbiest hold I’ve noticed. The eyelets themselves are quite deep, with a recessed pocket of sorts furthest in. I never had the boots come untied. Conversely, sometimes I found it a bit more difficult to unlace the Cadion than I expected. In the end, I felt that having a boot that didn’t come untied was worth having to futz a wee bit more when taking them off.

The sole durability issue I had was, er, the sole. Both the right and left boot experienced some delamination of the sole from the midsole under the ball of my foot. It was just that lug on both boots. It did give me the opportunity to see the integration of the webbed midsole integrated under the outsole. The outsole and midsole otherwise have shown no sign of premature degradation.

When it gets right down to it, I would, indeed, consider this a mid-high (or mid-low, if you prefer) boot for ultralight or lightweight backpacking. It is not a boot that I would recommend buying online. Instead, I would recommend trying on the Cadion at a brick-and-mortar store. Although the fit could be considered roughly parallel to a broadly generalized “La Sportiva” kind of fit, it would be in your best interest to try this one on. Although relatively low volume and relatively narrow, as compared to a vast market of wide and voluminous footwear, I think this will do well for a number of backpackers.

The Timberland Cadion feels good after a day of logging some miles, gives a decent amount of support without announcing itself, and keeps me plenty dry splashing through early-season puddles. I was pleasantly surprised by how well Timberland approached this segment of the market, and they’ve reminded me to keep an open mind to purveyors I wouldn’t normally consider as “ultralight.” I wouldn’t describe the Cadion as my “end-all” boot, but I’ll gladly wear it on the trail.

The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge and is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Introduction

In the winter of 2011, Rab came out with the Infinity down jacket, one of the first commercial garments to use Pertex’s new Quantum GL 10D fabric (25 g/m²). The Infinity also marked the first time Rab used 850 fill power down in a product. This winter, GoLite entered the ring with the similarly designed, but lighter, Bitterroot down jacket, which also features Quantum GL and 850 fill power down. Both jackets have a bevy of features, like a full front zip, zippered hand pockets, internal pocket(s), and a hood.

Kristin wore the Infinity and I, the Bitterroot, through three months of backcountry skiing and camping in the European Alps and mountains of Norway. How do the two fare, on paper and under real world conditions?

Specifications

*See final note at end of article. New retail price is $199 as of March 2012.

Common Features on all jackets:

850 fill power down, Pertex Quantum GL shell and lining, stitch-through baffle construction, insulated hood with nonadjustable elastic closing, elastic cuffs, full front zip with YKK5 zipper, zippered hand pockets with YKK3 zipper, double cordlock hem, and stuff sack included.

Additional Features:

*Microfleece lining only on outer side of pocket, not on palm side. See photo in Performance.

Performance – Apples to Oranges

Kristin and I wore the jackets throughout a winter and spring of backcountry skiing. We wore the jackets at our snow camps, during lunch breaks, on summits, and even at night to boost the temperature rating of our 3-season quilt. We stuffed and unstuffed the jackets every day for months on end.

First, the fabric. At no time did the feathers poke through the Quantum GL. There are no tears, signs of abrasion, or unraveling seams. Moderate snowfall did not penetrate the Quantum GL, even though the fabric is not DWR treated. Call me impressed!

The jackets are both very warm for their weight thanks to the light fabric and large amount of high-quality down. The Rab has quite a bit more down and feels like it is overstuffed. After months of use, the Infinity still lofts fully. Originally, the GoLite jacket had nearly as much loft as the Rab. However, by the end of our testing period, there were certain areas that had compacted slightly, like the inside of the elbow and the armpit. This isn’t necessarily indicative of a difference between the jackets. I do sweat more and am a warmer sleeper than Kristin, so it’s possible that this moisture wilted the GoLite down feathers slightly. Rab has a simpler stitching pattern on the back, which could save a bit of weight and cost compared with Golite’s more complicated pattern. GoLite’s stitching creates more cold spots but should also better hold the down in place. I’m unaware if there is any consensus on which method is better.

Kristin generally wears a size small, but had to move up to a medium Infinity for her arms to fit. With the medium, the sleeves are nice and long, but the torso is still on the short side and the torso has way too much extra space. Rab keeps the torso short so as to not interfere with a climbing harness. However, Kristin (like most females I know) really prefers a longer torso to cover most of the hips for better warmth retention.

The GoLite zippers are more finicky. The hidden zippers on the hand pockets are more likely to catch. I often had trouble starting the front zipper on the Bitterroot – I generally have this problem with two-way zippers. Furthermore, I find it unnecessary to have a two-way zipper on a jacket unless the torso is seriously long. For those who prefer a two-way front zipper, the Bitterroot is the way to go. Otherwise, the Infinity gets the nod here.

The two interior pockets on the GoLite were more useful than the single Rab pocket. The Bitterroot’s small pocket held my camera batteries and iPhone, and the large one held gloves or socks for drying, a hot water bottle, or even the jacket itself! Meanwhile the Infinity’s interior pocket was just large enough to hold a phone, point-and-shoot camera, and/or a few snack bars.

Direct Comparison – Apples to Apples

Upon returning to the States, I got hold of a regular production Bitterroot (the orange one that I had tested out in the field was a prototype) and an Infinity, both in mens medium. Now I could compare apples to apples. The direct comparison highlighted a few differences between the jackets that Kristin and I noticed earlier, but couldn’t be sure if the variance was from comparing mens and womens models. The Rab hood is thicker, more snug and has a higher collar. Rab’s hood is meant to go under the helmet, whereas GoLite says that their hood is helmet-compatible.

The GoLite hand pockets are in a lower, more natural position whereas the Rab pockets are higher to avoid overlap with a climbing harness. The womens Infinity has micro-fleece lining on the outer portion of the pocket but not on the inner side. This is an excellent compromise,as it saves weight over a fully-lined pocket but still provides a soft touch to the more sensitive side of your hand, which happens to be the side that rests against the pocket (seriously, this is harder to describe than it is for you to go put your hands in your jacket pocket and see what I mean). I don’t understand why the women get this feature and the men do not. Similarly, the Bitterroot has a micro-fleece chin liner on the womens model, but not the mens. My chin stubble tears up the chins on most of my jackets over extended use, so I would appreciate the extra comfort and protection for the jacket, from me!

The mens jackets were cut like most down jackets – boxy and too much space around the torso for my preference. There was too much extra space even when wearing a thick baselayer and MontBell Thermawrap Parka. I also found that there was too much volume around the upper half of my arms, particularly with the Bitterroot. I exclusively wear mens medium-sized clothing, and particularly like the trim fit of MontBell and many European brands, so you may prefer the “standard” sizing of these jackets.

Conclusion

Both jackets are excellent. They are well made, very warm and pretty darn light considering all of the features. They are also designed for different users. The Infinity has more down, consistently smooth weather-proof zippers, a down-filled draft tube, snugger hood, higher collar and harness-friendly hand pockets. If you want maximum warmth and weather protection, this is clearly the better choice. On our scale, the Infinity jackets weigh less than Rab’s specifications, whereas the Bitterroot weighs more, relative to GoLite’s specs. Finally, the Infinity retails for $75 less than the Bitterroot, meaning you get a lot more jacket for the money.

However, the Infinity may be overkill for certain users. If you’re mostly backpacking, I’d definitely consider the Bitterroot. It may not be quite as warm (based on the amount of down and lack of draft tube), but has a hip-covering torso and is 3 ounces (85 grams) lighter. The interior pockets are very useful, the microfleece-lined hand pockets are soft on the hand and in a more comfortable location, and some might prefer the two-way front zipper.

Final note: As this article went to publication, GoLite announced their new direct-to-consumer business model which substantially lowered the retail price of their entire line of products. The Bitterroot now retails for $199 – an excellent value and a significant savings over the Infinity. With this new pricing, it’s harder to make a compelling argument that justifies spending the extra $100 on the Infinity.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.

Overview

The Rab Kinetic is a hard shell jacket that offers full features at a minimal weight. Much like it’s slightly lighter, but less featured sibling, the Pulse, the Kinetic is made of Pertex Shield Plus. Shield Plus is a 2.5 layer polyurethane coated fabric much like those offered on most other hard shells in this class. Compared to the previous Pertex Shield, the new Plus fabric has a much better feel, almost tissue paper-like. I much prefer the feel of the new Plus on my bare skin over the more trash bag-like feel of the previous Shield.

Just like the Pulse, the Kinetic offers a full zipper (YKK Aquaguard) backed by an internal storm flap, a roll down helmet compatible hood, and a single exit hem drawcord. The Kinetic, also like the Pulse, comes in a medium cut, and that is where the similarities end. The Kinetic weighs in at one ounce more than the Pulse, and that extra ounce comes from the addition of a stiffened brim, two mesh-back hand pockets in place of the single chest pocket, and adjustable velcro closures on the wrists in place of the elastic. Undoubtedly those changes will be well worth the extra weight to some and not worth the bother to others.

I have been using the Kinetic both on the trail and in town for the past couple of months and have found the performance quite favorable. Here in the Southeast, I find it practically impossible to hike with any hard shell during the warmer seasons. With our ridiculously high humidity I always find myself wet, either from my own perspiration or simply the rain itself, so unless hypothermia is a risk I usually choose the rain. With that said, if you’re looking for a lightweight shell capable of dealing with foul conditions the Kinetic is an excellent piece of gear.

Specifications

Overview

The Zpacks Multi-Pack is a unique product that doesn’t have any direct competition. Thanks to all of the available mounting options, you can use the Multi-Pack as a chest pocket hung from your pack’s shoulder straps, a pack lid, a waist pack (fanny pack?), or even a shoulder bag (purse or man bag). The Multi-Pack has three buckles and one webbing loop on each side that can be used with the four pieces of webbing also included. All four pieces of webbing can be attached to a backpack on one end and to the Multi-Pack on the other, and the two larger pieces can also be clipped to one another to form a waist belt or shoulder strap when using the Multi-Pack alone.

The Multi-Pack is a good size for general all-around use with a volume of around 215 cu in (3.5 L). Zpacks uses a waterproof hybrid material composed of Cuben Fiber and Nylon for the Multi-Pack (this is the same fabric used on their Exo backpack). The Multi-Pack features a water-resistant zipper for access, and the water-resistance of the pack itself is enhanced by placing the zipper across the front of the pack rather than on the top. However, the Multi-Pack is not seam sealed. So while it is quite water-resistant, it will not survive submersion, and when used in a long downpour water will eventually leak in.

Thanks to the variety of mounting options, the Multi-Pack can be attached to most any backpack. I primarily use the Hyperlite Mountain Gear Porter or a GoLite Rush 20 for my trips and had no problems mounting the Multi-Pack to either. On a recent overnight trip I was able to load all of my gear into the Rush 20 with the Multi-Pack mounted as a front or chest pouch. Using the Multi-Pack in this configuration allowed me to shift some weight to my chest and provided me with quick access to my camera, a Sony Nex-5n, and my day’s rations.

Overall, I believe the Multi-Pack is an excellent product that doesn’t really have any direct competition. With the variety of configurations and mounting options, this is an item that easily goes from backcountry to front country. The only thing preventing a Highly Recommended rating is that while the Multi-Pack is really good at several things, it doesn’t necessarily excel at any of them.

Year/Model	2012 Zpacks Multi-Pack
Style	Accessory pocket
Weight	Manufacturer Specified: 2.8 oz (80 g)BPL Measured: 2.8 oz (80 g)
Features	4 adjustable straps, 3 buckles and 1 loop per side on the pocket, water-resistant zipper
Options	40 inch (102 cm) or 50 inch (127 cm) belt for use as a waist belt or shoulder strap
MSRP	US $39.95

Overview

The New Balance Minimus MT00 is a zero drop trail runner that is extremely minimal by design. Unlike a lot of trail runners, the MT00 is available in a 4E and, after having found the standard Minimus varieties too narrow in the toe, I was excited to try out the wider version. Getting straight to what all lightweight backpackers are interested in, my size 10 4E shoes weigh in at 10.3 oz (292 g) for the pair. Yep, they’re definitely light. In addition, these checked off several other good boxes on my most wanted list: they have zero drop (no heel-rise), are extremely breathable, and offer no support. I’d venture that the MT00 is one of the most minimal trail running shoes currently available.

The MT00 consists of a largely mesh upper with strategically placed fabric overlays. The only padding found in the upper is around the upper ankle and in the heel cup. The shoe forgoes the more traditional removable padded insole and replaces it with a permanent piece of thin fabric. One good look over the MT00 and it’s apparent they’re designed to be worn sock-less (I still choose to wear socks for grit protection). The outsole shares the same pod-like design as the MT10/MT20 but only uses Vibram rubber in high-wear areas (blue areas). All other portions of the outsole use a blown foam (dark grey areas). My understanding is that New Balance determined the high-wear areas based on feedback from testers as well as from studying returned test shoes.

While I don’t consider myself to have a truly wide foot, I do have a fairly squared off profile with my toes so shoes with a wide toe-box tend to fit me best. The standard width Minimus shoes are too narrow for me, as mentioned above, but I find the 4E version to be just fine, if even a bit too wide in all but the toe. After having a lot of trouble finding a trail shoe that fit properly, I really wanted the MT00 to work. Unfortunately, a recent high mileage day hike across typical Southeastern terrain left me unsatisfied. I really like the fit of the shoe as well as the overall minimal design, but I feel that the outsole is best suited to smoother terrain. If you find yourself traveling mostly on hard-pack (or maybe soft-pack) dirt or duff, these shoes will likely be just fine. If you’re generally on rocks and roots though, the MT00 probably isn’t the best fit.

My first trip was less than 10 miles but included several water crossings as well as some off-trail travel. I had no issues with the MT00 and found them to drain far better than any shoes I’ve previously worn. Post-trip, I was still very enthused with this shoe. My next trip, however, left me with some residual damage. We covered approximately 22 miles of mixed trail and gravel road and, between the roots on the trails as well as the larger gravel, my feet were left in a bit of agony. Even though the trip was a few weeks back, I still have some tenderness in my arches that I mostly notice after walking a few miles (you can see in the outsole photo above that the arches use the blown foam in place of the harder Vibram rubber). As far as wear, I only see minimal indications, primarily limited to the foam areas of the outsole.

All said and done, even though I consider myself a minimalist when it comes to footwear and try to go barefoot as often as possible (even on asphalt), I found the MT00 to be a bit too bare for my typical trail conditions. If you find yourself mostly traveling on smooth terrain, be it on trail or off, these might be a great shoe for you. However, if you tend to spend more time on rocks, roots, or otherwise rough ground the MT00 will probably leave you wanting a bit more underfoot protection. As a side note, I could see these being a great shoe for packrafting or other sports where you spend more time on the water than on foot.

Specifications