Articles (2020)

Preamble

This pack was sent to me from Russia at the instigation of a BPL member. The review of it has been sadly delayed by a system crash that wiped all my disks. Some recovery was eventually possible, six months later.

Introduction

Bask is a Russian company and has a very high reputation for its sleeping bags. So, I was happy to field test their Light 69 pack when it was offered. This is a single compartment mountaineering pack, and the design shows it. The exterior has a very clean design, but with adequate anchorages for ice axes and rope. Yes, it does have small side pockets at the bottom for catching the bottom end of poles, etc.

Brief Description

This is a single compartment pack of traditional design: straight sides, side compression straps, a short throat, conventional lid with single pocket, and webbing attachment points running up two sides. It is quoted at 69 L capacity, and mine weighed 1.18 kg. The lid pocket is quite large.

Field Testing

The photo to the left shows Mt Jagungal and the pack in front. It was a bit cold and misty: I had a windshirt on over my normal shirt. The photo on the right shows morning tea on the second last day, in gorgeous sun. The pack is on the right, opened up so I could get the stove out. A bit of gear spread around – it was, after all, fine weather.

We woke up the next day on top of the Great Dividing Range to find a foot of snow on the ground. Fortunately, we didn’t have too far to go as we were both wearing light joggers for this trip. But that sort of turn-around is quite common in our mountains.

I was quite pleased with how the pack performed on this trip. I probably had about 12 kg in it all told, and it rode well with no sway and no pressure points.

I was sufficiently happy with the pack at this stage that I took it to Europe to walk the Red Route of the Via Alpina for two months. I would normally take my external H-frame pack for such a trip, but handing the very light H-frame over to the airport baggage handlers for an international flight has always worried me. So, I went with this pack instead.

I started with 14 kg total in the pack. That is probably just a bit high for the design, although it was quite manageable. If the majority of weight were food, it would soon sort itself out. I reduced the load to about 11.5 kg halfway through the trip by posting some gear that we were not using back home. That did seem to make a lot of difference in comfort.

In the composite here we have, from top left clockwise:

• A via ferrata route above Wolayerseehutte, Austria (note the cable) – Sue wouldn’t let me climb too far though.
• Early morning above Obstanseehutte, Austria – it was a lovely day.
• Sue climbing up to MeilarHutte in limestone country – 3,000 metres of up and down that day ending up on a tiny col barely wide enough for the hut. For some reason Sue was not interested in taking a photo of me and the pack just here.
• Finally, lunch on Feldernj÷chl pass at 2,045 m near Zugspitz, Germany’s highest mountain, looking at Gatterl Pass in the middle of the photo. That is a tiny gate on that narrow spur between Germany and Austria.

Okay, some spectacular photos (in some spectacular country), but the pack performed very well for the whole trip.

Technical Details

The body fabric is a light but quite strong proofed nylon, easily as good as anything available elsewhere in the world. The base fabric is strong, although a slightly tighter weave would be nice if that was possible, as I could see spots of light through the weave. However, many tough pack fabrics are like that. The buckles are by National Molding, one of the two major USA brands (ie not Chinese). The nylon webbing is, well, standard stuff.

It has a couple of interesting features, as well. The lid can float if you wish. There are two webbing straps by the shoulder to adjust its position, or to detach it. Normally when this feature is offered (and I don’t like detaching lids) you end up with a gap between the lid and the pack above the shoulders which lets rain in. Well, in this pack they have added a storm shield to handle that. It is the rectangle of fabric marked with a blue cross. It works very well except that the fabric used has a sad tendency to lose the coating after a lot of heavy use. The ‘white’ areas show where that is starting to happen. The throat fabric is similar. A better fabric for the two would be nice, but remember that I gave this pack a lot of use.

If you remove the lid, you can still use this flap as a sort of lid. The two buckles marked by green lines can be secured to the conventional straps on the outer face of the pack to cover the throat. I haven’t used this feature myself.

There are no straps over the throat under the lid. As I often carry a tent on top of the throat and under the lid, this concerned me a bit. So, I added two straps as marked in red. They proved to be essential in the field for me.

Between these two added straps, you can see a little loop of yellow cord. There are a few of these scattered around the pack. You can use them as anchors for extra cords to attach gear if needed. They are quite strong but very unobtrusive. I thought they were clever.

The throat is made of a medium-weight fabric – no silnylon here. It was adequate. I would have preferred it to be slightly longer, but never had a problem as the lid covered the throat very well. In the photo here, the throat is open and only partly covered by the lid, and the sides of the lid are tucked up inside. When walking there is a complete seal.

The buckle at the waist did tend to slide very slowly: I would have to readjust it every couple of hours. To add some friction I added a bit of soft webbing to the main webbing and doubled the excess webbing back through the buckle. That worked. The problem lies with the design of the buckle: some have a more aggressive bite on the webbing than others.

There is a single pocket in the lid. I added a small security pocket inside the lid pocket to hold money and passport. Some packs have a security pocket under the lid, which is a very good idea.

The D-rings on the shoulder straps worked very well as anchor points for my camera case. The sternum strap is not long, but it was adequate.

This is an internal frame pack. The frame consists of a sheet of stiff plastic foam tucked into a sleeve on the back panel, as shown here sticking out a bit. This foam is light but served well to add strength and shape and protect my back from hard lumps. It had an unfortunate curl about the horizontal axis in it, which made the pack curl up a bit when empty. Perhaps if they had oriented the roll of plastic foam the other way when cutting the sheet out it might have been beneficial. Once I got some gear into the pack, this ceased to matter. Even after the two months of continuous walking in Europe, the foam showed no particular signs of wear, just a faint curl in the corners.

The back has two padded strips down the full height: they sit on either side of your spine. That seemed to work fine, although it did get a little warm in very sunny weather. But, in the mountains, sunny weather is unreliable!

Summary

Bask makes good packs. This one gave me no trouble at all. I liked it. This might sound like ‘faint praise’, but praise it is, and I don’t give praise easily. It handled our 2-month European walk just fine.

Disclosure: 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

The Blaze A.C. 60 is not born of blazon fireworks or Las Vegas-style, in-your-face theatrics. Its appearance is relatively unassuming, though not unattractive… techy enough to look like a contemporary pack, but without standing out, the Blaze reminds me of a good spy’s ability to blend in. It performs well in the field, too, and looks its role: solid, light, utilitarian.

Specifications

Checking out the Basics

The Blaze A.C. 60’s identity is clearly Granite Gear, with the twin vertical “fins” of robustly nubby nylon. Between those familiar fins is a new feature, however – a stretch mesh pocket running the full height, constrained by a Lineloc compression system in place of the familiar webbing. In fact, the whole pack compression uses Linelocs and cordage in place of traditional webbing and “Fastexery.” It is clean and streamlined, with paracord-esque cordage joining panels via compression points. There is a matching pair of stretch mesh side pockets of conventional depth as well, and a small quick-release Lineloc to allow compressing over or under/through the pocket.

From the factory, the Blaze comes lid-less, a roll-topper with a sleeve that extends about a foot above the frame and main body of the pack. An optional top pocket is available for those of you who just have to have a lid, but I was quite happy with the pack sans lid. One compression strap crosses laterally over the top of the pack, and one crosses front to back. For a 12-inch extension above the frame, my initial impression was that the two straps wouldn’t provide enough load control, but field trials showed otherwise.

My torso length is 17.5 inches; given that most Regular (or Medium) frames start around an 18-inch torso length, I trial-fitted both a short and a regular frame. I found that the regular frame fit me better. I generally wear a 33- or 34-inch waist pant, and found that the size medium hipbelt fit me well. Actually, it seems like the Blaze A.C. 60 belt wraps around more than many other manufacturers, to the point that I briefly toyed with a size small hipbelt, but the medium was clearly the way to go for me. The only difference in the women’s Ki model is a women’s-specific hipbelt; both genders get the same shoulder harness (and rest of the pack). In all honesty, “back in the day” we used to make packs gender-specific by swapping the shoulder harness and hipbelt, and generally by selecting a shorter-torsoed pack for women. My point is that prior experience has shown it to be a practical way to fit and manufacture packs, with equal comfort and performance, and I openly embrace any such endeavors of simplification.

The shoulder harness worked well for me and proved extremely comfortable under a variety of loads and miles, but my decade or so of experience as a professional packfitter prompted some thoughts about the harness that I would recommend you consider when fitting the pack. The harness, while of excellent construction and state-of-the-market in finish quality, is not as curved as other harnesses on the more ‘traditional’ market, and the straps are perhaps a touch longer in use. As I said, I found the pack and harness quite comfortable, however, there is little strap curvature around the neck, and some people might experience a bit of rubbing there. This is of particular note because the way we typically adjust that neck opening during a fit is to raise or lower the harness. In fitting many, many people, I have found that the Granite Gear harness tends to fit a little too close, borderline pinching on some people, even when the straps cannot be lowered/the torso made shorter. Also, I’ve found that the clearance of the shoulder harness isn’t ideal for the exceptional variety of people Granite Gear intends to fit with their packs. I strongly encourage Granite Gear to consider developing slightly more anatomical and more sizes of harnesses. End soapbox.

The frame of the Blaze seems to provide a good amount of support for an ultralight pack. The back panel is a serpentine-ish molded foam sheet that inserts into a stretch mesh back panel. I’ll admit, I thought the air channels looked pretty gimmicky. I mean, c’mon. How well can they work? But on an early prototype I was testing, which was trial-fitted with stacked and glued foam, a few of the foam blocks shifted and on some stretches of trail I absentmindedly found myself thinking that my back seemed a bit hotter and wetter. The production model is rock-solid, one-piece construction that performs well and feels comfortable.

Looking into the Finer Details

I noticed the lighter main-body fabric of the pack the first time I touched it. While distinctly nylon in feel, the material has a more substantial canvas kind of feel, too. I haven’t researched the materials science on this one, folks! But it feels like a more robust, inspiring material than Granite Gear’s ‘legacy’ packs. The next two things I noticed were tactile as well. The stretch mesh feels like it has an excellent balance of stretch, durability, breathability, retainability (of stuff in pockets), and weight. The Lineloc compression cords pull through somewhat stiffly, though they release easily with upward thumb pressure on the device. At first blush, it seems like the cordage has a bit too much bite when tightening, but with use it becomes apparent that it’s just right.

There is a zippered full-length, full-width sleeve if you are so inclined to carry a bladder inside the pack, along with two corresponding simple slash pass-throughs. I find it a lot less of a hassle to just strap the bladder on top of the pack. The top and bottom straps of each shoulder pad, and the crossing top compression straps, have ‘neat-freak bundlers,’ little plastic toggle and shock-cord thingies so you can roll up and secure your excess straps. I find the bundlers extraneous, and I’m not sure that many people would actually take the time to use them in the field. Mine will no doubt end up cut off.

Features-wise, however, the Granite Gear team did a delightful job of eliminating most of the usual excess. Aside from those features mentioned, there are two ice axe loops and, yep, that’s about it. (I consider a sternum strap standard on a shoulder harness, and personally wouldn’t consider removing one.)

Fire by Friction?

This pack’s not gonna start any fires on me! Time after time the pack just rode along, not particularly announcing its presence. That is a remarkable feat for a pack – quite a compliment. If you can just about forget the fact that you’re wearing a backpack, well, kudos to the pack! I am not a thru-hiker or an ultra-runner or a mile-monger of any kind, really, but even after 14-mile days, I was in no rush to ditch the pack.

I think the firm, comfortable, full-wrap hipbelt contributes significantly to the comfort. It seems to bear the weight of the frame quite well without developing hot spots. The frame proved plenty supportive for UL loads, and allowed for enough adjustment with load lifters to prevent shoulder soreness. My typical three-season baseweight is somewhere around ten pounds, but on one long weekend trip I brought all sorts of extra “fun” stuff… a chair, hammock, extra tarp, sparklers, a string of LED lights… and after my 13-year old pup decided she’d had enough of her dog pack, I piled her pack of food, pad, line, and doggie sundries into the extension sleeve. Even laden like the proverbial pack mule, I found that the pack not only handled the weight, but was comfortable. I’d guess that my heaviest carry has been around 30 pounds with this pack.

Given the height of the extension sleeve above the frame, I was pleasantly surprised by how secure and non-wobbly the pack was when stuffed to the brim. I anticipated having a giant lump bouncing on the back of my head with each step, but it stayed where it should, above the pack and away from me. Another pleasant surprise was the center stretch pocket. I’ve never been a fan of mesh pockets on the back of a pack, in large part because there is usually a lack of load control over the contents, but also because of the coarseness of the mesh we see in the UL world and, frankly, I’ve just had no need for them. My stuff is all organized in a few dry sacks, the tent or tarp generally just shoved into the corners of the pack. However, I found myself shoving rain gear in this front center pocket. Tossing in the sunglasses. Maybe a foam sit pad or a baggie of GORP. All this stuff is normally just right under the collar of my pack, or in the lid, but I found the slide-in stash convenient. The full height of the pocket offered good trail ‘security,’ and I still had good load control (even when I stuffed in the chair, etc.) with the three Lineloc compressors passing over the pocket. At one point, I shoved a 10×12 sil tarp in the pocket and cinched everything down… only to have the tarp balloon out from between the compression cords. It kind of made me wish for a wispy fabric panel to hold better compression along the length of the pocket, but for an object with as little mass as the tarp, such an alteration would be purely cosmetic.

Conclusion

The Blaze A.C. 60 is an excellent pack for those playing along the borders of ultralight – the majority of us. I found it adapted well to a wide variety of loads, those ranging from small daypack size (and weight) to consuming all available pack space. It provides plenty of support and weight transfer through a comfortable and efficient fit. The pack has necessary features, but few (if any) extraneous bits. The breathability of the back panel was a noticeable benefit. In all, I’ve come to think of the Blaze A.C. 60 as my ultralight workhorse and jack of all trades.

While I, and many others, find the fit to be comfortable, those who find the fit less than ideal will likely find the pack to be a bit more of a generic fit, perhaps reminiscent of a one size fits all tube sock. The analogy might not be particularly apt, but, like those socks, this pack will fit most people well. I would like to see the Granite Gear designers turn some of their efforts away from packbag design to harness and hipbelt design. It seems like the shape of the harness, in particular, needs to catch up with the increasingly contemporary designs and construction of the packs themselves. I hope that part of their consideration will include the relation of curvature as related to where the straps attach to the pack, and any effects on overall torso length. One other nitpicky aspect of design I would like to see the Granite Gear team approach is slightly longer framesheets. When carrying heavier loads, a longer (and correspondingly stiffer, thus likely heavier) framesheet would help with more efficient weight transfer. I think the design of the A.C. 60 is probably just ducky the way it is, but I would be interested in trying out the same thing with a slightly longer frame… I’d be surprised if it didn’t carry even more comfortably.

So how about it? What’s the bottom line on this pack? I like it. It carries remarkably well while remaining unobtrusive. Its minimalist but (mostly) functional features seem ideal for most ultralight to light backpackers, and I think the pack strikes an excellent balance between “rugged durability” and ultralight. I suspect that most readers would find this a good pack on the trail.

Disclosure: 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

CAMP is known for making some very lightweight ski mountaineering and climbing gear. In fact, a number of their competitive ski mountaineering equipment is some of the lightest on the market, like a 195-gram harness (6.9-oz), 290-gram (10.2-oz) pair of crampons, and 260-gram (9.2-oz) Rapid ski pack.

The X3 600 does not fall into that category of super specialised ultralight equipment. Rather, this pack is a fairly simple, stripped-down ski touring pack. It is the lightest of the X3 line, which includes the X3 Light ($170, 17.3 oz/790 g) and X3 ($160, 35 oz/990 g). These other two packs have tougher fabric, more padding, an aluminum frame, and back-panel access. In an effort to go lighter, has CAMP found a good mix of weight and durability with the X3 600? Or, have they gone too far and made a pack that just doesn’t hold up to the inherent abuse of ski touring?

Specifications

Description

The X3 600 is a fairly straightforward pack with a few minor twists. The pack is made of HyperGrid SN44 fabric and has a tall mesh pocket on each side. There is a single straight fiberglass stay that is removable. The back panel, hipbelt, and shoulder straps are all well padded. The attached lid has one zippered pocket. There is also a hipbelt pocket and chest pocket, both on the right side. Finally, there is a quick attachment system for skis, with a nylon loop on the left hip and a nylon leash on the right side.

Performance

Kristin and I tested this pack over four months of backcountry skiing and day hikes in Europe, during the winter and spring of 2011.

The fabric, HyperGrid SN44, is CAMP’s name for a lightweight gridstop nylon. It is not as tough as Dyneema or other similar fabrics in the 200 denier range. After three months of use, the front face of the fabric was showing areas of abrasion with a few pin holes. The pack saw a lot of snow use, but no abuse: I never sat on it or glissaded with it, nor did I take any significant falls on hard snow pack. The visible signs of wear and tear are disconcerting considering the duration and type of use.

A 30-liter capacity is generally a good size for a ski day pack. I can fit a lot of gear in there – a down jacket, extra layers, food, water, shovel, probe, and so on. However, the X3 600 lacks sufficient compression capability to reduce volume. The single compression strap, from the lid to the bottom of the pack, does not compress enough, which equates to a less comfortable fit and more space for items to shift around internally. Additionally, the items tended to “sink” to the bottom of the pack as they are not really secured in place. Sometimes this could be avoided by repacking, but not always. It was very uncomfortable as hard items rubbed against my backside with each stride. The torso size is a bit too small for my 6′ (183 cm) frame, but good for Kristin (5’7”/173 cm) and there are no torso adjustments.

The frame is not meant to increase carrying weight so much as to keep the pack from collapsing under the weight of gear, especially skis. However, the fiberglass stay goes straight along the spine (no ergonomic curvature) and ends on the tail bone (no padding). Unsurprisingly, the bottom of the frame rubbed against my tailbone when I carried more than 15 pounds (6.8 kg). This tended to be most noticeable when skinning uphill, as I was wearing less clothing (padding) and carrying a heavier load, with lots of clothing and food. Where the fiberglass strut ends at the bottom of the pack is a focal point of pressure and sees a lot of wear, but this area is not reinforced. Naturally, the fabric wore out and the pole poked through. The pack continued to function fairly well despite this, because it was designed to add back panel stiffness and continued to do so. Besides the frame issue, this pack was comfortable to wear while skiing and hiking. The hipbelt, back, and shoulder strap padding was very good. In this regard, everything functioned as it should have.

The Xpress Evo Carrying System worked well, but is not without faults. There are two general ski carrying set-ups: the A-frame, whereby a ski is held by straps on each side of the pack and then are strapped together at the top to form an A; and the diagonal strap, where the skis are held diagonally across the front of the pack, with a loop on the bottom left corner, to catch on the bindings, and a buckled strap on the top right, to hold the skis vertically. CAMP’s system is similar to the latter. The difference is that CAMP’s pack allows the skis to be strapped in and out without having to take off the pack. The skis are slotted into the loop on the left hip. Holding the skis vertically with my left hand, my right hand passed the strap around the skis and hooked it into the plastic loop on my right shoulder. The skis can be attached in a matter of seconds. As an added bonus, the weight of the skis is kept close to my back, helping with my center of gravity, and does not crush the contents of the pack.

There are two times when this set-up is really handy. The first is obvious – approaches where I needed to hike to find snow. I was always the fastest to put my skis on my pack because of this. The second instance where the system is worth its weight in gold (well, maybe not with today’s gold prices): when a slope becomes too steep to continue skinning up, then the only way to continue upward is by carrying the skis and walking. If the slope is that steep, then there is also a decent chance of a bad fall or dropping a piece of gear. CAMP’s system allowed me to put my skis on my pack without having to take off my pack. With either of the other two systems, I would have to take my pack off and put it on the snow to attach my skis, and then hoist the combo onto my back. CAMP’s set-up is faster, which reduced my time exposed to any risk, and much safer, as my pack couldn’t possibly slide down the mountain. I also felt it was easier to keep my balance, as I wasn’t trying to maneuver the pack and skis from the ground to my back. Note while CAMP calls this the Xpress Evo Carrying System, other manufacturers, like Dynafit, also have similar set-ups.

Because of the small pack size and small frame, the added weight of carrying skis was noticeable but bearable. I think it carries better on a person with a smaller torso, like Kristin. I carried the skis for up to an hour at a time during long approaches in late spring conditions and was comfortable. Every once in a while I banged my elbow against my Black Diamond Fritschi bindings. This would not be an issue if I had smaller, lighter tech-fit bindings (which nearly everyone in Italy does).

The side mesh pockets are good sized and can accommodate climbing skins, jacket, or 2-liter water bottle. It is nice to stash wet skins on the outside of the pack to dry out, or conversely, to keep things on the inside from getting wet. The pockets are not designed to be for on-ski convenience, as the tall mesh makes the pockets inaccessible while the pack is being worn. The pockets are tall enough so that things didn’t fall out if I took a tumble. However, it is still possible to lose items from an open pocket, which is why most ski packs have zippered pockets. Plus, mesh pockets tend to collect snow and are generally weaker than fabric.

The hipbelt pocket is large but not unwieldy. I kept my camera in there, plus a snack or pair of liner gloves. The pocket is removable, but I would not remove it as I prefer the convenience over the 0.8-ounce (24-gram) weight saving. Being removable, however, meant that the pocket jostled around a lot and could bang into my hip given the right (or wrong?) conditions. This wasn’t noticeable when I was skiing, nor when the pocket was filled with soft items. However, it was painful when I had my camera in there on a day hike and ran downhill. The pocket also banged around when carrying my skis and hiking downhill.

The gear loops are simple, light and removable. They are easy to use and can be tightened sufficiently to secure gear like trekking poles, helmet (via the helmet straps), and supposedly, ice axes. I was a little leery of carrying an ice axe on it. Most packs use a stronger gear loop for the bottom, which is where the axe’s head would be secured. The CAMP pack’s loops are stretchy here, which means the pick and adze could move around too much. While this probably wouldn’t be an issue for a small axe or mellow tour, it is not a risk I would want to take. There is no place to attach crampons, but perhaps something could be rigged up with the gear loops. Compact crampons, like CAMP’s Race 290, could fit in the side mesh pockets.

Assessment

The CAMP X3 600 has a few design flaws that make it unsuitable for light ski mountaineering, yet the pack is not light enough for competitive racing, nor is it access-friendly enough for general winter use like snowshoeing. The fabric started to wear through in one season. The frame broke, in the sense that the fiberglass stay poked through the bottom fabric. On BPL scales, the pack weighed 10% more than the manufacturer’s specs. The availability of one pack size and with no torso adjustment limits the fit range for consumers.

However, the pack wasn’t all bad. I really liked the Xpress Evo Carrying System. It was simple, lightweight, efficient, and safe. The big pockets were a blessing on spring days when I could dry out my skins. The MSRP of $100 is fairly low for a ski pack. CAMP could easily alter the frame design, which would be a big improvement. The hipbelt pocket should just be permanently attached, which would save weight while improving performance. More robust ice axe loops would only add a few grams. These few changes would definitely make the pack more attractive to a wider audience.

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 the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the Exped Aries Mesh tent. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The Exped Aries Mesh is a straight two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel. First, the specifications.

It would seem that the listed weight is rather less than the measured weight. It is not clear what the listed weight was meant to include.

Details

This is a fairly ‘stock standard’ two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel tent, but built with Swiss attention to detail. For instance, the pole feet go into webbing pockets lined with spare repair sleeves rather than simple eyelets. It is not all that lightweight, but it is quite rugged. That includes the mesh inner tent – the mesh is also quite rugged. However, the mesh will not stop a breeze, which is why this tent is listed as a single-skin tent.

The fly fabric is listed as ‘flame retardant.’ This is to comply with laws in some states. It’s an extremely stupid idea as the flame retardant won’t prevent a melt-down but is reported to reduce the fabric strength quite severely. Too much political correctness. The groundsheet is listed as being waterproof to 5 m water head (which is good).

The interior of the tent has reasonable floor space for two, and very reasonable headroom. The rear end of the tent does slope down, making the very rear less useful for sitting, but there seems to be a fair bit of floor space in the middle with high headroom. The sides go straight up and the middle is wider than most, so the middle region is quite usable. You would certainly be able to pack a lot of gear down the sides of your mats.

The tent pole stuff sack is a work of art, with separate pockets for the poles, the stakes, and the spares. The ‘spares’ include a repair sleeve, a slider for the zips, self-adhesive repair fabric for the fly and the groundsheet, and some spare mesh for the inner tent. The stakes are fairly wide-angle with folded-over ends which are comfortable to the hand. The aluminium is a bit soft, making it a bit difficult to hammer them in. The literature says 16 stakes; I am fairly sure I found 13.

The guy ropes are about 2.5 mm diameter, with sparkles for visibility at night. They have toggles as shown here. You need to slacken the tension off the guy with one hand to slide the toggle along the string, but that is easy to do. You can see the toggle here and in the photos below. You can also see in the photos below a yellow ‘flag’ on each guy rope. Actually, the ‘flag’ is a little nylon pocket into which you can stuff the coiled-up guy line. Very tidy people, the Swiss. Also, I am sure the flag may help prevent others from falling over the guy!

Summary

Ideally, I would have liked to review the Sirius II instead of the Aries mesh, as the Sirius is a genuine four-season double-skin tent. However, it is not marketed in the USA. So we have the Aries Mesh: a three-season tent. As you might expect from a Swiss company, it is well made and rugged, although you do pay for the strength with the weight. Could you use this tent in the snow? Yes, keeping in mind that you may need to block spindrift from entering.

Disclaimer: 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 the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the MSR Dragontail. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The MSR Dragontail is one of two tunnels we know of that are made in America. First, the specifications.

Extras include guy ropes, a spare guy rope toggle, and a pole repair sleeve. It should be noted that MSR has not been able to resist the massive overkill syndrome on the stuff sacks, especially on the tent bag. This can be pruned down of course.

Details

This is a single-skin tunnel designed for winter use. There is an inherent contradiction in this claim of course, and users have reported that the inside surface does get a lot of frozen condensation on it which can be brushed off onto the occupants. The tent is well made, but is not without some deficiencies.

If you have both ends open, there is a mesh floor to the tunnel that prevents insects from getting in. There are zips in both ends of the mesh tunnel floor to allow you to access the zippered exterior flap – in case the weather changes. There are also mesh doors inside the tent to keep out insects. However, the zip on the mesh front door goes down one side and then turns a sharp corner at the bottom before running across at floor level. In sub-zero conditions, that tight corner in the zipper may present real problems if the zip gets wet, then freezes.

The way the rear end can be closed up does present one unexpected problem. If you follow my recommendation to roll the tent up from the entry end to the rear end, there can be a bit of an issue with getting the air out of the rear end of the tent at the end of the rolling. You need to make sure there is not much air left in the tent before you start rolling. However, the stuff sack they supply is huge, far bigger than needed, so I guess you could pack the air away too. Or make a smaller stuff sack for field use.

Somewhere along the line, MSR changed the design of the Dragontail and how the poles are fitted. The early versions (see below) had the poles threaded into sleeves, making the tent fairly robust and making the fabric quite smooth when the tent is properly pitched. But, on later versions, (see above) the poles are not threaded into the fly; rather they are connected to the fly with a small number of clips. Was this change to make it easier to pitch the tent, or to reduce the cost of manufacture? I fear the latter, as the effect of the clips is to make the fabric surface look quite crinkled, as shown above. I could not get rid of this crinkling. I think someone at MSR lost sight of what a tunnel tent is meant for. I far prefer the threaded pole version, but you can no longer buy it.

On both versions, (old and new) there are a couple of fabric loops at mid-height and the top of each seam. These loops are of a length that could take the poles. When I first erected the clip version of the tent I automatically threaded the poles through these loops, but the official MSR photos show them lying unused. I think I misunderstood these loops, and that they are really meant to be guy rope attachment points. In the photo above you can see that Ray put a guy rope onto one of these loops on the far side of the tent, because of the wind direction.

However, all the official MSR photos show the tent without any guy ropes attached. I find this amazing. Does it mean that MSR does not expect the tent to be used under high wind conditions? Or was there a disconnect between the designers and the marketing team? I did find that the tent sways sideways quite a bit in a light side-on wind when there are no guy ropes. I also noted that the fabric does belly a bit in a side wind. I am quite sure the tent will need guy ropes in bad weather. Anyhow, the tent I received had four 3 mm guy ropes with plastic Nite Ize Figure 9 toggles – all with MSR logos as well. Since I can see not four but eight guy line attachment points, I was a bit disappointed by this shortfall. I would add that 3 mm cord is awfully heavy for guy lines (gross overkill actually), and that you don’t need any toggles on string this thick, just use a taut line hitch.

The tent comes with a handful of ‘groundhog’ stakes. These are the common Y-stake, but they have nicely rounded corners. I find these Y-stakes rather hard to insert compared to a tubular stake, and much harder than a Ti wire, but at least they didn’t hurt my hand. Each stake has a loop of the 3 mm guy rope cord to help you extract it. A lighter cord would have been adequate.

I had better add here that the tent supplied came with no guy ropes at all, which seemed strange. I inquired about this and was told that the designer had played with it, and he had forgotten to replace the guy ropes in the bag! Also I received only 11 stakes, although the specs say 12. They did send some guy ropes later, but I don’t know whether they sent the full compliment. These things happen.

The ‘vestibule’ space at the rear of the tent forms part of the groundsheet space. The front vestibule is not large, but it is adequate for gear and cooking with a little squeeze. It has only one access zip however: you need to make sure you’re not facing the wind on that side of the tent. Curiously, the zipper has two sliders. Exactly what one uses the top slider for is not clear to me. (I suspect a manufacturing mistake myself.) Once the door has been opened (unzipped) it can be held out of the way with a toggle at the pole seam. This is good. There is a matching toggle at the other side of the tent, and it seems to be totally useless to me (there is no zipper there).

The fittings at ends of the poles are called ‘feet.’ On most tents, the feet are designed to slip into a grommet or something similar. That applies here too, but (like some other companies) MSR has done something silly with the feet: they have knobs on the end. The usual explanation is that the knob helps keep the foot in the grommet, but that is not a sensible explanation. The pole foot is going to stay in the grommet regardless of any knob. What the knob usually does is to jam the pole foot in the grommet if there is any mud and grit around, and that did happen here. I had trouble getting the pole foot out during testing. I normally slim all the knobs down on a lathe before taking such a tent out. It makes life so much easier.

The poles fold up into a tidy bundle provided you get the bend at the top right. I am not going to explain how to do this: you need to have the poles in your hand. Anyhow, some neat design work here.

Summary

Despite the deficiencies listed, this remains a well-made tent that will serve nicely in the snow when not subject to extreme conditions (like really bad weather above the tree line). Add some permanent guy ropes to it for sure. Do up the windward ventilation window and it should take a fair bit of wind, although, being a single-skin, condensation (water or frost) then becomes a bigger problem than normal. The vestibule is not large, but one can cook in there.

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 the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the Wilderness Equipment First Arrow. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The Wilderness Equipment First Arrow is a tapered three-pole two-man double-skin tunnel. It is described on the company web site as a ‘5-season 2/3-person tent,’ but this is marketing spin. First, the specifications.

Spare parts include two pole repair sleeves and two spare zipper sliders. The 150 mm long stakes have an X crosssection and loops of 2.5 mm guy rope cord.

Details

This is a three-pole two-man double-skin tunnel tent. Despite having a modern silicone/PU polyester fly, it is rather heavy, which reflects two things. The first is that the basic design is now almost 30 years old. Nothing the matter there, but it brings a bit of heritage. The second – the heritage bit, is that it was, and still is, designed to be used by novices. That means that some components are designed to be misused, mishandled, and generally beaten up by novices. In fact, there is a heavier version available, with a 75 denier PU-coated polyester fly. That adds about 150 g (5.3 oz) to the tent weight – which tells you that the rest of this tent is made from even heavier fabrics. I should add here that I know the owner of the company and have argued this issue of fabrics with him. I understand the constraints of his market and of his retailers.

Entry is from either side, but not from the end. In the photo here it looks as though the string from the end-bell corner goes to the corner of the bathtub groundsheet but that is not so: it goes to the foot of the pole. The groundsheet is clipped to that string via bungee cord and a hook. If it is pouring rain when you set this tent up, you will have to unclip the corner of the groundsheet before opening the door, or you will fill the groundsheet with rain. This approach makes the overall length of the tent shorter, but it imposes some inconveniences.

Looking at the tent from the rear shows how much of a taper there is in both height and width. There is enough floor space for two air mats and some gear when two people are sleeping in this tent, but there is a bit of a problem during meals in bad weather. If one person is cooking up front, where does the second person sit? The answer is that the second person has to be lying down on one side, or seriously scrunched up. This is reflected in the much-reduced ‘Sitting Space’ listed in Part 2 of this series.

The company web site lists this tent as a ‘5-season, 2/3-Person tent’. I will stick my neck out and call this marketing spin. I have never seen the fifth season – what is that? And while you could get three people into this tent, I don’t want to be one of them. It just is not that big! Okay, maybe you could sleep three in a pinch, in good weather. To their credit, the web site does admit ‘Despite the incredible versatility of the First Arrow, if you must have a tent that three or more people can sit around in comfort take a look at the Cirque model.’ I am all for a bit of comfort.

The pole sleeves are very heavy fabric, far heavier than I would ever use myself. I was told that this has been necessitated by the way some novices try to poke the poles through the side of the pole sleeve. However, since I know that it is quite possible to thread poles through the length of a silnylon sleeve for years on end without damage, I am inclined to say that any novice who does that should pay for the repairs themself! My experience with these pole sleeves has been that the heavy fabric is its own problem: I had some trouble getting the poles into and out of the sleeves because the fabric was so heavy. When the fabric is icy, it gets even more difficult. Let’s just say I disagree with the company’s logic.

The groundsheet material is also rugged – similar logic. The guy ropes are ‘only’ 2.5 mm cord, but they still seem a bit heavy. However, the weight of the guys is not high, so it is a secondary matter. On the other hand, the First Arrow has been taken to the Indian Himalayas and used there successfully, as shown here. Okay, there are times when ‘rugged’ has a value! I will add that the rather heavy side-entry stuff sack provided with the tent does have a large (and rather superfluous) flap of groundsheet material: groundsheet repairs are definitely possible. Me, I would quickly make a lighter and smaller stuff sack. I think the company will also provide patches of the fly material if needed: they do carry some spare.

You can adjust the tension at the top of the tunnel using two end guys, visible in the photo here and in the next photo. On most tents, you set the tension by relying on the seams in the end bell. In addition, the guys can allow you to alter the curvature at the top of the pole – to reduce it, actually. This does protect the pole from being over-bent in the middle. But their real value is structural and is illustrated in the next photo.

The rear end does come to a point, so there is only one ‘end’ stake on this tent, but that does not mean the safety of the tent relies on that one end stake. As may be seen in two of the photos, there are two end guys as well to support the rear pole. The rear end is well braced.

Summary

There is little doubt this is a rugged tunnel tent, but you pay for it with extra weight, and the floor space and height are not great. That said, there is plenty of room for two people sleeping. There is adequate ventilation from the rear end for all-season use. You will need to be careful threading the poles into and out of the stiff sleeves (especially in the cold), and when opening the door in heavy rain. If you can handle all of that, it should last a long time.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and the author/BPL has returned or will return this product to the manufacturer upon completion of the review. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the Vango Tempest 200 tent. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The Vango Tempest 200 is a straight two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel. First, the specifications.

Details

This is a fairly standard slightly tapered two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel tent. It is not light, but since it has been approved for Duke of Edinburgh Award students, one suspects a major market is likely to be high school kids in the UK. It is built accordingly – but there were some little trivial funnies nonetheless. It comes with a repair kit and 16 rather massive stakes. You could comfortably leave some of those behind.

The tent is listed as having 2.5 poles, which is a bit unusual, but you can see the half-pole holding up the vestibule over the entry. This is actually a rather clever solution to several problems. First, the half pole makes extra space in the vestibule without increasing the footprint. Second, the roof from the main pole to the half pole covers a very large ventilation hole (covered with mesh of course), providing quite good ventilation while really keeping the rain out. Third, half a pole is lighter than a whole pole.

Of course, that means the tent really only has two poles for the main fly fabric, so it is not quite as storm-worthy as, say, a Macpac Olympus. One is tempted to suggest that the British are perhaps a bit more concerned with rain in their country. This idea is boosted by the fabric water pressure ratings: 5,000 mm water pressure for the fly and 6,000 m for the groundsheet. Incidentally, the fabric is a plain weave (I fully approve) with a distinctive honeycomb embossing – done with heat. The reinforcing at the corners is also done very well.

The rear end of the tent slopes down a bit, making the very rear less useful for sitting, but there seems to be a fair bit of floor space in the middle with adequate headroom. The sides go straight up fairly straight, and the front end is a lot wider than most. It might be possible for two people to almost sit side by side near the front end. You would certainly be able to pack a lot of gear down the sides of your mats.

There is no cover for this exterior vent, but the hood does cover it quite well. The rear end hood is the bit of fabric thrown back in this photo: normally it comes forward and holds two storm-worthy end guys. Combined with the front vent, this tent has quite a bit of ventilation.

The guy rope arrangement is a bit novel: there is a fixed loop of cord attached to the tent and an adjustable guy rope with toggle running off the middle of the loop, as shown here. The idea works fine. As delivered all the knots were some really queer thing which had me scratching my head a bit: I doubt the knots would have held in a storm. I retied all of them: a good exercise for some novice campers to go through before they leave home.

The first is the groundsheet, which extends from the inner tent door outwards to cover the vestibule floor. It is detachable via bungee cord loops. This has several good uses. The first is that you now have somewhere to sit inside the vestibule while getting out of very wet clothing – even if the ground is rather muddy. Trust me, it is nice to have. The second benefit is that by covering the vestibule area you limit the evaporation of water off the wet ground – reducing the amount of condensation inside the tent. The third is that you now have somewhere a little more pleasant than gooey mud to prepare dinner. Ah yes – it rains a lot in the UK!

The second thing to see in this photo is the two diagonal bits of webbing. They are inner tent guys, reinforcing the main pole. There are similar guys for the rear pole. Having these here will limit sideways sway if the wind should come from the side. They are adjustable, to conform to the vagaries of the ground, but they manage to be just clear of the inner tent. I have used a similar device on a dome tent with some success.

The photo also shows how the inner tent is attached to the fly and the poles – with bungee loops and little hooks. This works fine. However, when the tent was delivered it came in two parts, and I did find it a shade complex getting the two parts mated properly. This is something you need to do just once, but before you leave home!

Summary

This tent shows its heritage and intended market. It is fairly robust, very waterproof, and not too difficult to set up. It may not be ideal for a howling blizzard on a snowy col at 4,000 m, but it is not meant for that, after all.

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 the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the Stephensons Warmlite 2R. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The Stephensons Warmlite 2R is a tapered two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel. First, the specifications.

The web site lists the weight of the 2R as 2.75 lbs (1.25 kg), but that is considerably less than the weight of the tent tested. It may refer to the weight of the tent without the poles, or it may be that the zips on the tent tested were extra.

Details

This is a rather small tapered two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel tent deriving from the mid-2000s. The brand was created by Jack Stephenson, and the company is now run by his son Bill. The brand was famous (legendary? notorious?) for the scantily clad ladies in the early catalogs. Stephensons were very early users of lightweight materials and VBL materials. This tent would seem to be made from standard silnylon – in almost any of the wide range of colours available.

The sides are moderately wide, so you have plenty of storage space for gear at your sides. However, the rear end of the tent both tapers in and slopes down, so that it is only useful for your feet while sleeping.

The rear end, of course, has none either. That means you have no space to store your packs or shoes, and no space to cook during bad weather. We list the sitting space in Part 2 – that area where there is at least 80 cm of head room as being a scant 70 cm x 40 cm. One person might sit at the entrance, but the second person (and this is a two-man tent) will have to lie down the whole time.

Can one fit shoes outside the groundsheet but under the fly? No, because that narrow gap is covered in mesh to keep all the insects out. This mesh is visible in the photo here.

The entrance to the tent is a little strange. There is a single door on the end bell (no inner mesh door to keep out insects), but this door is secured by two sets of zips. There is an inner zip that runs from the pole arch down the side and across the bottom, making a sharp turn at the corner. It meets another zip coming down the other side. These are visible in the photo. But then there is a second zip running all the way down from the pole arch, in parallel with the first. It may be that this is meant to serve as a rain-flap over the first, but the design is extremely complex.

Unfortunately, it gets worse. The outer zip then extends beyond the end bell to form part of the ground anchor system for this tent. Just how strong the zipper is would be questionable. In addition, the zipper leaves the end bell at a bit of an angle, putting a very high load on the silnylon fabric at the point of departure. Fortunately, there is also a webbing anchor in parallel with the zipper. It is possible to tighten the webbing so it takes most of the load. However, half that tension goes to the groundsheet, which is also a strange decision. I find allowing a little slack in the groundsheet is essential on rough ground. The design also means that only half the tension in the webbing is applied to the roof of the tunnel, and this tension is crucial to the tent staying erect in bad weather.

By way of comparison, the vertical yellow tube is an Easton 344 (8.50 mm) pole. There are only two poles: Stephenson asserts that you don’t need a middle pole, although they will fit mid-point guy rope anchors to the fly at an extra cost.

However, considerable care needs to be taken with these poles as the walls are very, very thin, and the ferrules are very thin-walled. I measured the larger pole as having a 0.3 mm wall thickness; the Easton 344 pole has a wall thickness of 0.48 mm. What this means is that although the poles will be very stiff in the field, they will also be very susceptible to damage: dents will easily occur, and inadequate insertion will be disastrous.

It’s a rather ingenious arrangement. It is also a bit hard to find the first time you pitch the tent! There is no provision with this sort of design for tensioning the sleeve, but the sleeves seem to come out reasonably tensioned by design.

Now, guy ropes and anchoring. Well, there is no provision for guy ropes. None at all (unless you opt for the extra-cost mid-point ‘Wind Stabilisers’). Saves weight I guess. In truth, the rear end is probably small enough that it simply does not need any guy ropes, and the pole at the entry end is huge, so maybe it does not need any guy ropes either. Maybe. But that means the tent must be staked out with a very high lengthwise tension: far higher than normal. All that tension, plus the wind loading from the rear end, goes on one solitary staking point, shown here. Do you feel lucky? You may note that I chose to put two stakes (orange Ti wires) into the ground in the photo, and I had reservations about how well they would hold tension. I imagine a well-sunk ice axe might be a good idea in the mountains.

The rear end of the tent is blocked by mesh, with an ingenious silnylon cover flap. You pull the top end of the string and the flap comes up to block the mesh. No zip at the sides, but I think the idea is that the wind will push the silnylon flap against the mesh and block it that way. To get inwards ventilation, you pull the lower end of the cord. The main door has a mesh-covered vent as well. It can be zipped shut to keep the rain out. When open there is a bit of light elastic that keep the silnylon cover away from the mesh, to let the air through. However, there is no hood over the vent, so in bad weather you won’t get much ventilation.

The sewing is rough and very amateur, and so are some design features. Seen here is a major seam: it is single-stitched, with no hemming at all. Now it may be that a single line of stitches is strong enough in this position, but it looks terrible. This style of construction was found all over the tent. See also my comments about the main door zippers for instance, and look at the photos of the pole sleeve end and the loose bungee cord sticking out of the pole end cap. In our previous review of the Warmlite down air mat, the same problems with construction were found and commented on. For a tent priced at over $500, this is just not good enough. It pains me to say so, but the Chinese tents I own show a much higher quality of manufacture.

Summary

If you are looking for an ultralight survival tent for two people in the mountains, this might be just the thing. Expect it to function as a reasonable bivy bag for two and it will do that. Mind you, I would skip the side awnings and add the ‘wind stabilisers’ to the order. But if you want a bit more comfort, room for getting changed, sheltering for your gear, and room for cooking in bad weather, plus the ability to sit up in the tent, look elsewhere.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and the author/BPL has returned or will return this product to the manufacturer upon completion of the review. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the Macpac Olympus. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site and from friends, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The Macpac Olympus is a world-class tunnel tent designed to handle some of the harshest conditions in the world: the New Zealand Alps in winter. The Maori name for New Zealand is ‘The Land of the Long White Cloud;’ the rest of us often call it ‘The Land of the Long Black Never-Disappearing Cloud.’ I make no apologies for this tent. First, the specifications. Please note that they are for the current model of the Olympus, but I used to have the older version.

Details

This is a double-skin tunnel designed for very serious winter use, but usable all year round. I better point out that I owned an earlier model of the Olympus for many years, and found it lived up to its reputation in every way, so I may sound a little biased. I have also found that the distinctive shape gets recognized even in Europe – with respect. The sunny photos were, as usual, taken at my place – much warmer than in the snow!

The poles supplied with the tent are DAC Featherlite NSL. They are colour-coded so you know which pole goes where in a howling storm. However, at my urging, Easton supplied me with a matching pole set using their Carbon FX tubing and their alloy elbows. These poles weighed 395 g (13.9 oz), somewhat lighter, but very strong. At the time of writing, I understand Macpac was in discussion with Easton about this option. Both sorts of poles have those silly knobs on the pole feet, but the knobs are fairly small and the eyelets are rather large. I doubt the knobs will be a problem.

The UV30 fabric used for the fly is double-coated 30-denier double rip-stop nylon, basically a form of silnylon. At 60 gsm it is heavier than the common Westmark silnylon, but it still seems very light. As the name implies, the silicone polymer provides some UV resistance, and of course increases the fabric strength. It is rated to 3.5 metres hydrostatic head, which is very good compared to many silnylons.

Owing to the design of the bathtub floor and the interior tent, it is possible to unclip the front end of the ground sheet to roll it back a bit to make an even larger vestibule space. This can be very helpful when the weather is filthy and you need sheltered space to strip off storm gear. It also makes for a very large cooking area – larger in fact than one would normally need.

Snow Loading

Pole Sleeves

The Olympus has the pole sleeve inside the fly rather than outside – it has always been that way. The distinctive shape of the tent helps to locate the poles exactly where they should be, and I can attest that this works very well. You can only insert the poles from one side – they go into a webbing socket at the other end. The pole feet have little knobs but the eyelet on the insertion side is large enough. Sleeve tightening is achieved using webbing. The tent that I owned used Easton poles, but, as noted, Macpac has since switched to DAC poles.

Stakes

This is a tent designed to handle very serious conditions. Macpac supplies four large tube stakes for the ends and 12 special Macpac-design channel stakes, and a very light silnylon bag. They should hold under any summer conditions, but are not usually good enough for the snow. A common end-bell anchor for snow conditions with this tent is often a couple of ice axes, although two deadman anchors are fine.

Summary

Yes, lots of hype, lots of claims, not the lightest tent on the market, and expensive. That does not stop an awful lot of people in our neck of the woods from buying this tent and using it hard. It was born for use in this sort of country and is regarded by many as a gold standard for tunnels.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and the author/BPL has returned or will return this product to the manufacturer upon completion of the review. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.

This is a mini-review to go with our series on tunnel tents. It reviews the Hilleberg Nallo 2 tent. Some of the illustrations are from the manufacturer’s web site, used here with acknowledgement.

Introduction

The Hilleberg Nallo 2 is a slightly tapered two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel, although there is an expanded version as well. First, the specifications.

Kerlon is silicone impregnated, but essentially custom to Hilleberg. They started using it around 1975, but are a bit cagey about what Kerlon 1200 is made from.

Details

This looks like a fairly standard two-pole two-man double-skin tunnel tent, and it is just that. It is a full double-wall tent, but moderately lightweight. Hilleberg claims “Certainly, they are suitable for exposed and/or above treeline use in all seasons,” and general experience supports that claim.

For campers who need more space in the vestibule, Hilleberg offers the Nallo 2 GT. It has a third pole to make an expanded vestibule. One of these is shown in Part 2.

The interior of the tent has reasonable floor space for two, and very reasonable headroom. The rear end of the tent does slope down, making the very rear less useful for sitting, but there seems to be a fair bit of floor space in the middle with high headroom. The sides go straight up and the middle is wider than most (130 cm vs 110 cm), so the middle region is quite usable. You would certainly be able to pack a lot of gear down the sides of your mats.

The stuff sacks are silnylon and very light. The 16 stakes are DAC angle stakes with rounded ends, which are comfortable to the hand. They go in a bit easier than the traditional Y-stakes. The ‘spares’ provided include a repair sleeve and a spare pole section. This suggests they think the fabric and the zips are going to last.

Visible in this photo, as well as the previous one, is a length of webbing going across the end of the tent. This webbing holds the corners of the side panels in place when you have the door wide open. Yes, you can open the door upwards or downwards; it’s shown opened downwards in this case. I usually do it this way because I find the door flaps around and falls down in the doorway when opened upwards. That can be inconvenient, or even alarming, when I am cooking in the vestibule.

Summary

Winter conditions in Northern Europe can be a bit severe, and Hilleberg tents have to be able to take such punishment on a routine basis. The photo shown here is from a web video, and is of a Nallo 2 pitched in the open in a saddle (think mouth of funnel) in a storm. I have used this as an illustration, because I haven’t ‘enjoyed’ such extreme weather myself recently. Personally, I would have put a little more lengthwise tension into the tent, but I understand that the occupants were quite happy. (Actually, I might have tried to find a more sheltered campsite, but sometimes that just doesn’t happen.)

Copyright Acknowledgment

Some of the photos used have been extracted from other peoples’ videos, often posted on YouTube or other sites. Judging by the variable quality, some of them were most likely taken with a phone camera. We acknowledge the owner’s copyright on these photos.

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 the manufacturer to review this product under the terms of this agreement.