Articles (2020)

Lightweight Integrated Canister Fuel Cooking Systems State of the Market Report 2011: Part 2 – Trends, Stove Ratings, and Selections

Integrated canister fuel cooking systems have advanced substantially in every way – they’re lighter, faster, more efficient, and have more cooking capacity and versatility. In this part we highlight this evolution, explore how these stoves can be very weight-efficient, and identify the top performing stoves for different situations and needs.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011

An open letter from a grandfather to his two grandsons, about his CDTA volunteer time.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 1
Sleeping in mother nature’s flower garden.

My dearest boys,

I just returned from my Continental Divide Trail Alliance – Hopewell Lake project and want to add another chapter to Bobo’s Misadventures. In addition to an expected trail work experience, several things happened that were entirely unexpected. Sort of like life, right?

On the eve of my departure to New Mexico, the sunset was exceptional. Crooked Stick sunsets are always a delight, but tonight’s was a real show stopper. As I watched the sun go down over Shavano, I could not help but wonder how such a thing of beauty was created? There are a lot of theories on how our sunsets are created, but one thing is for sure, a sunset is not manmade!

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 2
Sunset on Crooked Stick.

After sunset I went down to a local restaurant for dinner. I saddled up to the bar and started talking with the young man sitting next to me. You know I like to learn people’s stories, so I started learning about my new friend, Phillip. Phillip is in Salida on a solo fishing trip. He is a software consultant from Denver, is married with a young child, does not particularly like his work, Is 40 years old, and was recently diagnosed with multiple sclerosis.

He shared the story of his two most recent MS episodes, one of which has left his left leg feeling permanently hot. He also attempted to describe how he is trying to come to terms with his illness. He went on to describe the out of this world cost for his medical treatments and the price he will pay the rest of his life for the simple misfortune of getting sick. Phillip was remarkably upbeat, given his future.

Here I was on a stool next to Phillip on the eve of four very physically demanding days in the woods, and in perfect health, while the young man sitting next to me, 20 years my junior, has a life changing medical condition. How did this come to be? More importantly to me, what do we think and how do we act when we learn of others’ misfortunes?

We have all heard the quote, “There but for the grace of God go I”, but I just can’t accept that. I have done nothing to earn a special place in God’s graces, and I am sure Phillip has done nothing to fall out of Gods graces. I have never seen the problems of others as a contextual/comparison opportunity for me to feel good about my good fortune. What to do?

I decided I would carry Phillip’s condition with me in my heart while in New Mexico and do my best to send him healing energy. Praying? Yes, perhaps it can be called that.

On Sunday, July 31, I mounted my trusty BMW GS 1200 and left for Hopewell Lake, New Mexico. The ride was everything you hear about Colorado and New Mexico: curving roads, Norman Rockwell scenery, cool, dry weather, perfection.

On my way down I was passed by another GS and Gold Wing, pretty much hauling the mail. Up to that point I was behaving myself, but given I am almost 60 and yet to fully mature, I gave chase. My BMW was fully loaded, but I had set the suspension accordingly, so it handled pretty well. We ran through the mountains as a group of three jet fighters, having a ball. We pulled into Chama, New Mexico and had lunch as three old friends. Such is the motorcycle and adventure bond. One guy was a retired judge and the other was an ad man.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 3
Loaded up, the trusty BMW is always ready to take me on an adventure.

One the special things that I like about group adventures is the make-shift family that forms around shared purpose. Whether it is the burning man family or a trail family, I always enjoy being a part of my short-term focused family.

In the case of my New Mexico trail family, I decided to name us the Flower Children. I did so because we worked in Colorado meadows during the peak flower bloom and because some of the trail experiences brought me back to the flower child mindset of questioning everything.

We set up camp Sunday afternoon in the wildflowers and had our orientation meeting.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 4
Paying attention at our safety meeting.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 5
A make-shift family photo.

We were told we were going to build brand new Continental Divide trail, but we were around 45 miles from the Continental Divide. This did not make sense to me, until we were told the Divide crossed reservation land, and the Native Americans said they already had a trail and did not need another one. Thus we were building the “Continental Divide Trail,” just 45 miles from the actual divide.

Our leaders, Mugzy on my left and Jon on my right, introduced themselves, followed by volunteer self introductions. Our flower family consisted of a man who had hiked the Appalachian Trail four times and had 15,000 hiking miles under his belt, a couple of wonderful cooks that gave us everything they had in order to make our food enjoyable and plentiful on a $7.50/person/day budget, a strikingly beautiful lady who worked harder than any woman I have ever seen, a 77-year-old man that outworked all of us combined, a young man who took time off from his restaurant job to work hard labor and be with folks who share the love of the outdoors, an brilliant engineer from the New Mexico lab, a young man learning music, another young man who was working on building a new life, plus Jon and Mugzy, who went out of their way to assure everyone their work was valued and appreciated. Great leadership!

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 6
Me as the head of the snake, breaking trail.

We would build new trail like a snake. The head of the snake would establish the route, followed by a couple of volunteers (me and a young man named Xander) who hacked out organic matter with a heavy tool, followed by a team raking the organic matter into piles, followed by tossing organic matter off the trail, followed by a cleanup crew to make it tidy. We were always mindful of how water impacts the trail, working hard to avoid creating erosion problems. After a half day or so, we found our rhythm and work that we individually found comfortable.

Tuesday morning, I found myself at the head of the snake. We were crossing beautiful meadows in full blossom and aspen groves, doing what I think makes America great and what has made civilizations successful for eons: difficult volunteer work. When we’re committed to a common goal and each other, watching out for each other, we can create a lasting benefit to all of humanity. We were engaged in the slowest of all possible enterprises, working with our hands, walking the land, building and creating a thing of beauty intended to be of benefit to others for eternity. Totally satisfying.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 7
A new trail is taking shape.

I was immersed in these thoughts when a frightening and intense sound thundered out of the sky. It was a shocking contrast to the quiet of the forest. One B1 bomber flew by, then another screamed at us at tree top level. I was immediately struck by the visual image of one of the fastest, most destructive machines in the world flying so low, while we toiled laboriously on the ground to create something good. Fast/slow… destruction/creation. What a contrast!

In a flash, the machine and noise were gone, leaving our little family attending to our business of creating a timeless thing of beauty and utility.

The extreme opposing images kept rolling around in my head. I started thinking, “Is the B1 bomber Americas premier visual and audible symbol of freedom and global stability? Or is the B1 the tip of America’s spear turned on our humanity? Does the bone chilling noise coming out of the B1 represent power and freedom? Or is that awful noise the tearful cries of humanity being shredded? Are humanity’s basic needs for health, hope, security, justice, food, and fuel being consumed and sprayed out the tail of a machine purpose built for destruction and death?”

Boys, I would guess you will be the ones to answer the questions above. For humanity’s sake, I hope we as a country make the switch and use our power to create, rather than destroy. Using destruction to gain success just doesn’t make any sense to this old flower child.

The last three days we worked on the trail and visited with campers coming through the camp site. We talked with a German motorcyclist who had traveled the trail that extends from Canada to Mexico and with Americans who had just started on their bikes, headed north from Mexico on their way to Canada. On the last night of camp, our cook Tim made an upside-down pineapple birthday cake for me! Wow, what a generous and appreciated surprise.

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 8
Sorry, I can’t divulge my wish!

Continental Divide Trail Project Report: Hopewell Lake, NM, August 2011 - 9
The nicest bedroom on the planet.

Friday I packed up and rode home with a tired body and an energized soul: another wonderful volunteer CDTA project completed and a glorious motorcycle ride home through New Mexico and Colorado.

Hey, Ethan and Nate, remember how I’m always harping on the power of writing things down? Just before I left for New Mexico, I was reviewing the written things I wanted to accomplish this summer. My calendar showed that I wanted to hike two fourteeners before leaving for California. I hiked Shavano once this summer, but since time was running out, I wasn’t going to be able to hike the second mountain.

Xander, the young man who was at the head of the snake with me, mentioned in camp that he wanted to hike Shavano and Tabeguache. Both are 14K+ mountains. Since both are also in our backyard and Xander had impressed me with his work ethic and maturity, I invited him to hang out at Crooked Stick. Once home, I asked him if he wanted company up Shavano.

Yesterday, Saturday August 6, we hiked Shavano while Xander bagged both mountains. I got my two 14K hikes completed. Did I get up those mountains because I wrote it down? Did writing things down and living with intention coalesce, enabling me to get up the mountains? I think so. If you want it, write it down.

Next week I leave for my sixtieth birthday Triple Crown: Muir, the Grand Canyon, and Zion. I will do a trip report for you when I return.

I love you both,

Bobo Bruce

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review

A sub-40 ounce, two-person, double-wall, hybrid tunnel tent that sheds wind and rain with ease?

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 1

Introduction

The Vango Helium Superlite 200, at a claimed 39.5 ounces (1.12 kg), is one of the lightest two-person double-wall tents on the market. The tent is very similar in design to the Vaude Power Lizard UL and Terra Nova Photon/Laser line. Like its European brethren, the Helium Superlite 200 utilizes lightweight fabrics, minimal features, and a hybrid tunnel design to save weight, while still providing good weather protection. However, there are a few significant differences. How does the Vango Helium Superlite 200 perform, and are the unique qualities an advantage over the competition?

Specifications

Year/Manufacture/Model 2011 Vango Helium Superlite 200 (www.vango.co.uk)
Style Three-season, two-person, double-wall, non-freestanding hybrid tunnel tent with floor and one side-entry door with vestibule
Included Tent body and fly, two aluminum poles with sack, seven aluminum stakes with sack, repair kit (four patches of fabric and one pole sleeve), storage bag
Fabrics Fly: Protex 20d ripstop nylon, 5000 mm, taped seams
Inner Tent: 40d ripstop nylon with two mesh windows
Tent Floor: Protex 20d nylon, 5000 mm
Poles and Stakes One pre-bent center pole and one vertical strut at foot of tent, F10 Flexlite 7.9 mm aluminum; c-shaped aluminum stakes (x7), 4 in (10 cm)
Measured Floor and Height Dimensions 74.8 in (190 cm) long x 31.5 in (80 cm) wide at head and foot x 47.2 in (120 cm) wide at the middle; head-end height is 3.3 in (7.5 cm), center height is 32.3 in (82 cm), and foot-end height is 11.8 in (30 cm).
Features Lightweight fabrics, no-drip side entry door with vestibule, tent pocket, Tension-Band
System (TBS), can be pitched all at once or fly only, no guylines
Packed Size 15.7 x 4.7 in (40 x 12 cm)
Total Weight Measured weight: 41.7 oz (1.18 kg)
Manufacturer specification: 39.5 oz (1.12 kg)
Trail Weight Measured weight: 39.9 oz (1.13 kg)
Manufacturer specification not available; weight excludes stuff sacks and repair kit
Protected Area: Floor Area: 20.4 ft2 (1.9 m2)
Vestibule Area: 7.0 ft2 (.65 m2)
Total Protected Area: 27.4 ft2 (2.55 m2)
MSRP 280 GBP (440 USD as of 9/22/11)

Design and Features

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 2
The tent packs down small – barely larger than two Nalgene bottles (left). One pole, one vertical strut, a few stakes and it’s up! I could have tightened the lines a bit to make the fly fabric more taut (right).

The Helium Superlite 200 is new to the market and is part of a larger line of similar tents by Vango. The standard Helium line has been around for several years and uses more traditional (read: heavier) fabrics. The 100 and 200 part of the name denotes the tent size (100=1 person, 200=2 person, and so on). The Helium Superlite tents are lighter weight versions of the original line, but the difference is not great. For example, the Helium Superlite 200 is only 5.6 ounces (160 g) lighter than the Helium 200.

The Helium Superlite 200 has one central pre-angled pole that gives the tent structure and steep sidewalls. There is one vertical strut at the foot of the tent, creating more interior space and better airflow. The fly can be set up without the inner, creating a floorless waterproof shelter that weighs 24.7 ounces (701 g). The inner is a bright orange solid nylon with small mesh windows at the foot end and on the door. The inner attaches to the fly via half a dozen plastic clips. The four corners of the bathtub style floor have 2.8-inch tall (7-cm) struts and elastic straps that connect to the fly stakes.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 3
The entry-way is protected from rain when the door is rolled up, but is small and hard to crawl through (left); the vestibule is just big enough for Kristin’s GoLite Jam2 and the circular door has mesh only on the top third (right).

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 4
The tent set up in fly only mode: the foot area (top left) and head area (top right). It is still a tight squeeze to fit two full-length sleeping pads – the corners of the pad touch the edges of the fly in the foot area (bottom left) but there is sufficient room at the head area (bottom right).

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 5
Things get even tighter in inner tent, as two pads must overlap at the foot (left) and head (right).

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 6
The tension band system (TBS Pro) provides structural support against lateral winds by forming a triangle with the ends of the pole and the apex. The TBS Pro as shown in fly-only mode (left). When the inner tent is set up, the bands fit through velcro-sealed slits in the fabric (right).

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 7
At the foot of the tent, a 17 inch (43 cm) strut slides into a small sleeve attached to the fly (left). This is tensioned by three nylon straps, providing structure at the foot area of the tent, while also leaving a pyramid of unused protected area (right).

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 8
The bathtub-style floor has elastic cords at the corner that attach to the two fly stakes at the head and two at the feet (left). The elastic straps on the inner tent attach to plastic hooks on the fly along the poles (right).

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 9
The YKK #3 zipper on the fly door has a zipper cover that is kept from flapping with velco in two places, and can be further secured from inside the tent with a metal hook and loop fastener at the very bottom. The two-way zipper allows venting from the top (right).

Performance

We tested this tent in a variety of conditions over numerous trips during the winter and spring of 2011. The Rhine Trail of Germany, the Italian Dolomites, and the Norwegian coastal mountains were our testing ground.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 10
Upon first inspection, the tent had a few unsightly construction issues on the tent inner: sloppy sewing work at the ends of all four TBS velcro holes (left); long strands of fabric dangling, as contrasted against the black of my shirt sleeve (center); loose fibers along the entire length of the door zipper (right).

Our first backpacking trip was a multi-day affair along the Rhine River, where the temperature dropped to 14 °F (-10 °C) each night. On the first night, we were concerned about warmth so we closed the tent door and closed the fly door but lowered the two-way zipper to help ventilate. In the morning, we woke with frozen condensation on the fly and both sides of the inner tent! For the remainder of the trip, we left at least one of the doors halfway open, trying to balance condensation with heat retention. Our efforts were insufficient for such calm, cold weather, as we experienced bad condensation the entire trip.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 11
Moisture condensed and froze during really cold nights in Germany (left). Condensation was guaranteed to form on the fly and inner, if we closed the fly door, even when the weather was warmer. On other trips with better conditions, we still faced serious condensation issues (right).

From that experience in Germany, we realized that condensation is a serious weak point of the tent. The two mesh panels on the inner tent are too small to allow proper ventilation, with the one at the foot being mostly blocked by the sleeping bag. There is no vent on the fly. Furthermore, the fly comes nearly to ground level, creating a tight seal around the entire tent, effectively blocking any airflow. It does not help to unzip the two-way zip on the door, as zipper flap also blocks airflow. The only options to increase ventilation are to leave one or both doors open. This design flaw is a significant limitation.

The Superlite 200 is small in every way. It is not wide enough to fit two full length Neo Air sleeping pads, which are slightly narrower than standard-width pads. Kristin and I share a down quilt, which means that we need less space to sleep. However, even cuddling under one quilt, we pressed against the edges of the tent at our feet and our heads. There was very little extra space at our head – just enough for a book, water bottle, and headlamp. The pocket is not practical, as it is located next to the door at a point where the fabric does not have structural support. Any item in the pocket pulls down on the tent, further reducing head space. Finally, it is impossible to sit up in the tent as it hangs far too low. In fact, crawling through the front door was so tight that we often inadvertently pushed against the tent as we finagled our way in and out.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 12
It is a tight squeeze for even one person: me (6’0”/1.83 m) and my light down quilt. The sleeping bag blocks most of the 2.8-inch (7-cm) tall mesh window in the foot area (left) and even without a sleeping bag hood, my head pushes against the tent (right).

Pitching was fairly easy and took about five minutes, once we got the hang of it. First, erect the center pole and slide it into the pole sleeve. Tighten the pole adjuster, located on the opposite side of the door. Stake out the two corners at the head. Then stake out the foot area, with the single strut angled slightly away from the sleeping area. Only five stakes (at 5 grams each) are needed, but two more are provided to secure each end of the main pole.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 13
It was slightly challenging to get a really taut pitch at the foot end of the tent. Any initial slack was exacerbated overnight by rain, which softened the top soil and enabled the short stakes to slip a little by morning. Hence, a sagging tent.

The Helium Superlite 200 is excellent at protecting against rain, albeit the real-world usefulness is limited by the condensation issue. The highly-rated (5000 mm) waterproofing of the fly is the main aspect where the tent really outshines its peers. The fabric is significantly more waterproof than Cuben Fiber and sil-nylon (including the double-sided coated sil-nylon used on the Vaude Power Lizard UL). Three days of constant downpour in the Dolomites did nothing to penetrate the fly. The stakes are too short to hold really well when it rains continuously – longer stakes would be appreciated. Setting up a tent “as-one” is a very welcomed attribute. The fly is erected with the inner tent hanging beneath it, so that the interior doesn’t get wet. To battle condensation when the wind and rain was not strong, we would partially close the fly door, leaving the rest of the door rolled up and attached to the fly. This way the inner tent would be protected from rain, but the vestibule would still be exposed. A half-open fly door aided with ventilation, but left us vulnerable to changing winds.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 14
One uncomfortable night in the Dolomites: super soft snow and frozen ground made for a difficult situation where I was not able to get a good pitch. The tent was like a bad bivy, or worse, like a nylon blanket.

The tent is very stable in strong winds due to its hybrid tunnel design, tension band system, and low profile. Nothing we experienced ever made me question the wind stability of the fly. The stability of the tent relies heavily on a good pitch, which is not always possible. The two corners or angles in the main pole improve the usable interior space by making the side walls steeper and decrease the risk of a pole breaking under stress. For tunnel tents, a standard straight pole would need to be curved at a strong angle, the stress of which brings the pole closer to its breaking point. The pre-angled pole of the Superlite 200 reduces that forced curvature. The tension band system was a nice bit of insurance, but we never really needed it as we were able to pitch the tent in line with the wind. Still, it was nice to have, because we have tested other tents that failed when the wind changed directions at night and pounded the tent from the side. This tent never flapped in the wind. As noted before, we actually hoped for wind, as we knew the tent could withstand it and it would reduce condensation.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 15
The tent in fly-only mode: easy to set up, lightweight, and roomier, but by no means spacious.

We tested the tent without the inner, hoping this would offer good wind and rain protection for a mere 24.7 ounces (701 g). There is more space at the head area and better sit-up room in the fly-only mode. However, the short pole at the foot area prohibits sleeping bags/pads from gaining any usable area down there. While we appreciated the extra space without the inner tent, the condensation was exponentially worse. Condensation formed along most of the fly within minutes of us sealing the fly door so we had to leave the door open. Based on our testing, we surmise that there are only two situations when the fly-only setup is practical. First, if there is no need for bug or rain protection, the door can be left open. However, in that case a fly is also not necessary. Second, if there is strong wind, which would help push out moisture and thereby reduce or eliminate internal condensation.

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 16
Holes started forming on the tent inner after the first few uses: on the seams of the apex (left), and on the ceiling near the holes for the tension band (center and right).

For a tent of this weight class, I would consider the fly and tent floor to be extremely durable. We had no problems with holes in the fabrics or any rain leakage. The inner tent, however, showed signs of wear and tear after the few uses (see photos above). This was disappointing, as I thought maybe Vango used nylon on the inner tent because it is more durable than mesh. Clearly this is not the case. One of the stakes is also slightly bent from use in the rocky terrain of Norway.

Assessment

Vango Helium Superlite 200 Tent Review - 17
When the Helium Superlite 200 could be set up well in ideal conditions, such as this grassy plateau in Norway, it could withstand strong winds as well as a conventional mountaineering tent that weighs four times as much.

The Helium Superlite 200 could be a great tent for the right person(s) in the right conditions. There should be a high probability of wind, and a good chance of very strong winds. Rain would be a problem only if it was not accompanied by wind. Livable space should not be a priority. Low pack size and low weight should be necessary. The maximum user height should be 6’0” (1.83 m) and they shouldn’t mind pressing their head and feet against the tent. Obviously, these few parameters really limit the useful range of the Helium Superlite 200.

We appreciate the low weight, small packed size, and robust design. However, for us, it is not worth the compromise when there are so many other tents on the market that weigh the same or less, handle condensation better, and are much more livable. The tent is too small for two average-sized people to use, and not long enough to even feel like a spacious one-person tent. Even though it is more waterproof than its peers, it handles condensation so poorly that the interior still gets wet (when it is not windy). The tent was measured at 2.2 ounces (62 g) heavier than Vango claims. The sloppy seams and fragile fabric of the inner tent make us question the durability, which is especially notable considering the high price. With a few improvements in design, construction, and fabric choice, the tent could be much better. Of course, if Vango made those changes, the tent would also be even more similar to its competitors.

What’s Good

  • Low weight for two-person, double-wall tent
  • Hybrid Tunnel Design is good at shedding wind
  • Fly is highly waterproof
  • Fairly quick set-up
  • Option to pitch in fly-only mode
  • Ability to set up fly and inner tent “as-one” ensures that the interior stays dry during rain
  • Side entry protected during rain

What’s Not So Good

  • Bad condensation
  • Too little usable space
  • Small door
  • Poor durability of inner tent
  • Expensive

Recommendations for Improvement

  • Add a high vent
  • Increase usable head area with a strut, small pole or some other structural improvement
  • Change fabric on inner tent
  • Use more mesh on inner tent
  • Provide three long stakes for the most critical points (one at the foot and two at the head)

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.

New Balance 1000 Insulated Boot Review

The NB1000 replaces the discontinued Keen Growler as our favorite lightweight insulated boot; it’s made of lighter materials and has the same insulation and functionality.

Introduction

We prefer shoes and boots that are all synthetic, no leather. Although leather components in a hiking boot seem to communicate quality and durability to consumers (therefore consumers “demand” leather, according to manufacturers), we see no advantage to leather. It’s heavier, absorbs water, and stiffens and cracks when it dries out. Many manufacturers would argue that modern leathers are treated to avoid these problems, but we much prefer synthetics because they are lightweight and perform better (boot manufacturers, are you listening?).

That’s why the Keen Growler, became our favorite lightweight winter boot. It has a mostly synthetic upper, an outsole that provides good traction, a good fit, and it’s reliably waterproof. Since the Growler is now discontinued, we have been looking for a good replacement, and we found one in the New Balance 1000.

New Balance 1000 Insulated Boot Review - 1
The New Balance 1000 is a lightly insulated boot that comes in men’s (left) and women’s (right) models as well as extended sizes and widths. The women’s version has a furry collar.

Description

The New Balance 1000, introduced in fall 2010, is a lightly insulated multi-purpose boot. This would include hiking, snowshoeing, snow walking, shoveling snow, après ski, doing winter errands in town; you can even wear them to church if you’re so inclined. They are mid-height plus, so the boot surrounds the ankle and extends up the leg a bit. It’s the same height as the Keen Growler.

New Balance 1000 Insulated Boot Review - 2
The New Balance 1000 is described as a multi-sport lightly insulated boot, meaning it can be used for a variety of activities in colder temperatures.

Insulation is 200g Primaloft Eco, which is sufficient for cool weather active sports, like hiking, walking, backpacking, and snowshoeing – anywhere extra warmth and traction are desired. It is not meant for really cold conditions like snow camping.

We tested men’s size 12 4E width and women’s 6.5 D width, which weigh 18.9 oz/boot (536 g) and 13.2 oz/boot (374 g) respectively, which are about the same weight as the lightest mid-height hiking boots.

The boots are fairly flexible, which is good for a general-purpose insulated boot, because the foot flexing helps to keep feet warm. A really nice feature of New Balance shoes and boots is that many models are available in extended sizes and widths, including the NB1000. I have wide feet, so I got the boots in a 4E width. The extra width provides plenty of room to wear heavy socks inside the boots for extra warmth. My advice for fitting insulated boots is to size up at least one size and add one increment of width too. Fortunately, New Balance allows you to do that, while other shoe and boot manufacturers don’t.

Other notable features include a D-ring to attach a gaiter hook at the front of the boot, a ridge on the heel to hold a snowshoe strap, soft foam padding and a gusseted tongue around the ankle area to keep snow and debris out, a lugged Vibram outsole for multi-directional traction, and a durable rand around the sides.

Performance

We tested the NB1000 in most of the activities mentioned above. In winter they are handy for doing just about anything outside where extra traction and warmth are needed. In early spring we wore them on an overnight hike to a mountain cabin, where we hiked a total of 18 miles (29 km) in them through wet snow, water, and mud. They stayed dry inside and were very comfortable to wear while hiking all day.

The rigid plastic external heel counter provides support equal to a heavier boot. For me, the heel cup was a little loose with thinner socks, but snug when wearing thicker socks.

New Balance 1000 Insulated Boot Review - 3
The NB1000 is well suited for winter walking or hiking. They became our favorite footwear for frequent walks on snowpacked trails. Their 200g Primaloft Eco insulation is sufficient for active pursuits, but not enough for really cold temperatures or slower activities.

While we found the NB1000 to be perfect for winter walking, they are a bit chilly for things like snowshoeing, unless it’s a sunny warmer day, or we are pushing it as an aerobic workout. When snowshoeing with friends, it’s a workout for the person in front breaking trail, but the people plodding behind get cold feet with lightly insulated boots. A good solution is to use heated insoles, like the new rechargeable ThermoSoles, that have a wireless controller. (We will publish a review on those later on.)

New Balance states that the 1000 upper is “water-resistant and seam-sealed to keep feet dry and comfortable.” The boots do not have a waterproof-breathable membrane or bootie. We tested the boots in lots of snow, water, and mud and they did not leak. The aggressive Vibram Icetrek sole grips hardpacked snow very well. The best test of a boot’s waterproofness is to walk several hours in wet snow, which we did with the NB1000 and they stayed dry inside. This is saying a lot, because other boots with OutDry, Gore-Tex, and eVENT membranes that we have tested have wetted through during the same test.

Assessment

The NB1000 weighs about 3 ounces/boot (85 g) less than the Keen Growler, which is evident when we compare the two side by side. The Growler has a more robust construction, with more durable materials and Keen’s traditional pronounced toe cap. The NB1000 reflects New Balance’s running shoe expertise, with a preference for utilizing lightweight materials to attain the same functionality. Overall, we would say that the Growler is built to withstand more rugged use and last longer, while the NB1000 will perform well but will have less longevity. The bottom line for most people is that winter shoes are worn less often and in less rugged conditions than summer hiking boots, so they will last a long time with normal use.

New Balance 1000 Insulated Boot Review - 4
New Balance 1000 (left) compared with the Keen Growler (right). Both boots have solid performance and good durability, but the New Balance does it with less weight.

It’s also notable that the original Keen Growler is insulated with 200g Primaloft and has an eVENT bootie. The boots we reviewed had that configuration, and they performed exceptionally well. However, about a year later Keen switched to a proprietary insulation called KeenWarm and a proprietary membrane called KeenDry, which perform well from what we hear. The Growler is also wide in the toebox, equivalent to the NB1000 in a 4E width, so they fit me very well. No matter, the Keen Growler is discontinued, although there may still be some around in retailers’ storage rooms.

Back to the present, we feel the NB1000 is a worthy replacement for the Keen Growler as our favorite lightly insulated winter boot. It has New Balance’s DNA in their selection of lightweight materials combined with design features that maximize functionality and longevity. In other words, they are not overbuilt like the Keen Growler, rather they resemble a rugged trail runner more than a light hiker. And that is the type of lightweight footwear that we prefer. They are also a great value, about the same price as a pair of trail runners.

Specifications

Manufacturer New Balance (http://www.newbalance.com/)
Year/Model 2010 Model MT1000 and WO1000
Type Mid-height plus, multi-sport, lightly insulated boot
Insulation 200 g Primaloft Eco
Sizes Men’s 7-15 in five widths
Women’s 6-12 in three widths
Materials Upper is water-resistant and seam sealed suede and mesh; midsole is molded
EVA, lugged Vibram outsole
Features 200 g Primaloft Eco insulation, highly water-resistant mostly synthetic upper,
Vibram IceTrek outsole, gaiter ring, snowshoe heel strap compatible, durable
rand, dual-density foam collar, gusseted tongue, rigid external heel counter
for extra stability
Weight Measured Weight: 18.9 oz/boot (536 g) (Men’s 12 4E)
Manufacturer Specification: 16 oz/boot (454 g) (Men’s 9)
Measured Weight: 13.2 oz/boot (374 g) (Women’s 6.5)
Manufacturer Specification: 13.5 oz/boot (383) (Women’s 7)
MSRP US$105

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.

Lightweight Integrated Canister Fuel Cooking Systems State of the Market Report 2011: Part 1 – Overview and Performance Evaluation

The Jetboil Personal Cooking System was a major innovation back in 2004. We reviewed it in-depth and reported on its strengths and drawbacks. It’s wonderfully fuel-efficient and wind-resistant, but heavy, a bit slow, and low in cooking capacity. Fast forward to 2011; now we have eight backpackable integrated canister fuel stoves. They are fast, fuel-efficient, wind-resistant, some are cold-resistant, they have a much higher cooking capacity, and some are truly lightweight and can be pared down to as little as 7.5 ounces (213 g). Got your attention?

You don’t have access to view this content.

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review

The Mount Asgard Smock is a minimalist mountaineering shell meant to withstand hard use and bad weather. If Superman needed a jacket, would this be the one?

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 1
I dubbed this my Superman Jacket due to the bold blue and red colors, the sturdy construction, and the flying-like pose necessary to don this pullover.

Introduction

Two years ago, UK-based Berghaus formed a special cross-departmental R&D team called MtnHaus. The group’s mission was to focus on creating a few extraordinary products without deadlines, marketing guidelines, or seasonal goals. Basically, MtnHaus was told to throw out the usual rules, think big, and go for it.

One of the first products to come out of the Berghaus brain trust is the Mount Asgard Smock, which weighs a mere 9.7 ounces (276 g). This waterproof/breathable pullover has all of the features necessary for mountaineering – tough fabric, unrestricted movement, helmet-friendly hood – and nothing more. In sports where speed is safety and every gram is important, the Mount Asgard Smock provides maximum protection for minimum weight.

Description

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 2
I was comfortable wearing a pack and a harness thanks to the pullover style (low bulk, few seams, no zippers) and long torso.

The Mount Asgard Smock is a minimalist mountaineering shell meant to withstand hard use and bad weather. To start with, the smock is made of Gore-Tex’s most durable fabric, Pro Shell with micro-grid backing. The shell has passed W.L. Gore’s Extreme Wet Weather Test and therefore carries their Storm rating. The Asgard hood is crafted so that it fits snugly over any helmet with a simple one-handed tug on a pair of well-located straps. The wired hood and high collar offer substantial face protection.

The minimalist aspect is defined by the pullover-style. Compared to a jacket, the smock has fewer seams and a shorter front zipper, both of which save weight and bulk while increasing breathability. The shell has only one pocket and no pit zips, which further lightens it. The entire jacket is constructed with micro stitching and mini-seam tape to save weight over standard-sized tape, yet still provide the same waterproofing.

The Mount Asgard Smock has a 7.9-inch (20-cm) long chest pocket zipper and an 18-inch (46-cm) front zipper. The water-resistant zippers are backed by a protective storm flap that is 1.2 inches (3 cm) wide in the face and neck area, but widens to 2 inches (5 cm) at the chest, where the front zip and pocket zip run parallel. If water was to penetrate the zippers, it would be stopped by the internal storm flap. The bottom of the front zipper has five perforated holes that reroutes water to the outside of the shell so that it does not drip down the interior of the jacket.

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 3
The Asgard Hood: it swallows helmets with ease (left); is comfortable untightened and without any head gear (center); and tightens efficiently and intuitively with a tug on the pair of elastic cords (right).

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 4
Details: Drainage holes at the bottom of the water resistant front zip (top left); close-up of the two zippers and the pocket zipper garage (top right); hood-tightening pull tabs, located at the neck line (bottom left); non-elastic Velcro cuffs (bottom right).

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 5
More details: Located low on the left hip, the twisted gear loop is a smart solution for climbers who want to clip their jacket to their harness – it is difficult to clip into accidentally, but easy to intentionally do so (left); The zipper pull of the front pocket hangs below a pack’s sternum strap, allowing unfettered access (center); the hem tightening tab, on the right hip, is minimal and unobtrusive (right).

Performance

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 6
This is the first size-medium jacket with a hood that fits over my giant noggin and XL ski helmet (left). The collar is very tall and provides full facial coverage when needed (right).

The Mount Asgard Smock is cut for climbing and mountaineering. As such, the torso is long and tapered towards the hips. The sleeves are very long, and combined with the diamond-shaped gusset, enable unrestricted arm and shoulder movement. My wrists were never exposed while backcountry skiing, even during some fantastic falls into the snow. This is very impressive for such a snug fitting jacket without stretch fabric. The jacket is not tight on my frame of 6’0”/1.83 m and 170 lbs/77 kg. I was able to wear a wool baselayer, MontBell Thermawrap Parka and avalanche transceiver underneath the shell with room to spare.

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 7
The red diamond-shaped gusset allows great upward arm mobility. This creative design element maintains the athletic cut and does not add bulk.

The feature set of this pullover is minimal for a shell, but still substantial enough for mountaineering use. The wrist cuffs are large enough to be adjusted while wearing gloves and long enough (3 in/7.5 cm) to hold tightly to the Velcro. The hood’s pull-tabs are a cinch to cinch in a pinch. I prefer storing smalls things in my hipbelt pocket, so I don’t mind that the jacket only has one pocket on the left breast. The interior fabric of the chest pocket is stretchy mesh, which helps when storing oddly shaped objects like sunglasses. The water-resistant zippers worked flawlessly, even during bouts of freezing rain or sleet. Water never penetrated the zippers, so I did not observe the zipper drainage holes actually working.

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 8
I don’t mind the pullover-style of the jacket as the front zip is large enough to accommodate my head in an XL ski helmet.

The Mount Asgard Smock is so minimalistic that even this ultralighter couldn’t find ways to save more than few grams. I found the twisted gear loop to be unnecessary, though cutting it off would only shave off a gram or two. The manufacturing labels were sewn into the mesh pocket and were easy to remove. These are extremely minor weight savings and can easily be done by the user.

I didn’t go out of my way to abuse the jacket, but I wanted to see if it is as tough as Berghaus claims. I did not ever use the supplied stuff sack when I crammed the jacket into my ski pack, against my aluminum shovel. I often carried my skis on my shoulder. I sat on my jacket in the snow or on my skis. None of my rough treatment damaged it, and after months of use, the jacket looks and performs as good as new.

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 9
Maximum breathability: mini-seam tape (top left); one mesh chest pocket (top right); clean construction with absolute minimal seams – as shown on the front (bottom left) and back (bottom right) of the jacket, turned inside-out.

Gore-Tex Pro is not the most breathable waterproof fabric available, but Berghaus does an admirable job of maximizing the moisture transport by limiting physical impediments. For example, the entire torso is composed of only two pieces of fabric. As a result, the seams only run vertically along the sides of torso, as well as in the articulated arms and sculpted hood. The micro-stitching and mini-seam tape reduce areas that are not breathable. The single chest pocket is made of mesh on the inside, thereby eliminating double shell layers.

It is highly unusual that the Mount Asgard Smock does not have pit zips. This is a rare thing for Gore-Tex, though quite common on lightweight eVent jackets. The difference is that eVent transports moisture at relatively the same rate at all humidity levels, but Gore-Tex needs the higher humidity level to perform well. Therefore, the absence of pit zips might actually help in the transport of moisture. The user would quickly reach a high humidity level, where Gore-Tex most effectively works, and moisture transport is maximized.

I was pleasantly surprised at how well the Mount Asgard transported moisture – breathability was the best I’ve yet experienced in a Gore-Tex shell. Still, it was not quite as good as eVent, and I don’t have experience with any of the new waterproof/breathable fabrics on the market. The large front zip helped in venting heat, but this was not enough to overcome the fabric’s limitations. I found the shell to be too warm/sweaty for skiing uphill. Therefore, I preferred to wear the smock when my primary concern was not getting cold and wet, which was when the shell really shined.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many users report that eVent fabric can be too breathable, in the sense that the wind cuts through the shell. Clearly that would not be a positive attribute for a shell, like the Asgard, that is designed to withstand the most extreme weather.

The emphasis with the Mount Asgard Smock is more waterproof and weatherproof than breathable. As such, I was more likely to wear this jacket when I needed protection from the wind, cold, and precipitation (rain or snow). When it was just cold, I could add another insulating layer or exert more energy to produce more heat. If it was simply windy outside, I much preferred a good wind shell. But when all three weather factors combine, this jacket was crucial in keeping me warm, dry, and safe.

Comparison

Millet’s LTK Shadow (10.6 oz/300 g) is a Gore-Tex Pro Shell pullover with many of the same features as the Mount Asgard Smock, but it won’t be available until the summer of 2012 (see Winter ISPO 2011 Day 3). Several companies manufacture Pro Shell jackets and Active Shell smocks, but no other Pro Shell smocks are currently on the market.

The Rab Demand Pull-on (10 oz/280 g) is a similarly spec’d pullover that uses three-layer eVent fabric. It, however, uses the lightweight fabric, not the medium weight eVent that is used on Rab’s more robust mountaineering jackets. This fact, plus my personal experience, makes me think that the Gore-Tex Pro fabric is more durable than lightweight eVent.

Assessment

Berghaus Mount Asgard Smock Review - 10
Staying protected in the Italian Dolomites.

Simply put, the Mount Asgard Smock is a very well-designed mountaineering shell that offers significant weather protection at a very low weight. It is trim fitting yet not restrictive. The helmet-compatible hood is the best I have ever used – it is simple to tighten and protects without getting in the way. The breathability of Gore-Tex Pro is maximized, and waterproofness is not compromised. The shell is durable, the features are spot-on for mountaineering use, and weight was saved where appropriate.

There are only two things I would change about the jacket. First, the collar is so tall that my breath fogged up my protective eyewear. A few perforated holes in the mouth area of the collar would allow some moisture and hot air out without compromising the weather protection. Berghaus already has the capacity to do this as evidenced by the holes below the front zip. I would also like to see a two-way zipper used on the front zip. This would enable access to things under the jacket, like an avalanche beacon or items in a base or midlayer chest pocket. Additionally, this would allow venting of the chest area without exposing the face, which typically doesn’t have any other layers of protection.

There are many excellent mountaineering jackets like the Mount Asgard Smock, but none that combine this level of durability and feature set for such a low weight. Some ultralight waterproof/breathable shells are as much as three ounces lighter, but they could not withstand the abuse of alpine sports. Lightweight eVent jackets have better breathability, but don’t protect from the wind as well and likely aren’t as durable. This smock is ideal for the outdoor enthusiast who needs this combination of extreme-weather protection, climber-friendly innovations, streamlined design, light weight, and excellent durability. For general backpacking or high intensity sports, other jackets may offer more appropriate features, better breathability, greater comfort, and/or lighter weight.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer Berghaus (www.berghaus.com)
Year/Model 2011 Mount Asgard Smock
Availability September 2011
Sizes Men’s S-XXL
Fabric Gore-Tex Pro Shell with micro-grid ripstop backing
Features Helmet-compatible hood, wire brim, one chest pocket with water resistant zipper, adjustable elastic hem drawcord, Velcro cuffs, articulated sleeves, diamond underarm gussets, stuff sack included – an additional 0.7 oz (20 g)
Weight Size Medium
Manufacturer Weight: 9.9 oz (280 g)
Measured Weight: 9.7 oz (276 g)
MSRP $350 (available in the US through www.backcountry.com and www.thetannery.com)

Also available as a jacket with full front zip and two chest pockets – MSRP $400, 12.3 oz (350 g) (only available in the US through www.thetannery.com).

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 under the terms of this agreement.

Backpacking versus Thru-hiking

Thru-hiking is not simply a longer version of a backpacking trip. Considering thru-hiking a long trail? Make sure you know what you’re getting into and set yourself up for success.

Backpacking versus Thru-hiking - 1

Introduction

Imagine kissing your job and your friends goodbye to thru-hike a long trail over six months, then quitting the trail in just a couple of days. As loony as that sounds, it is what happens to hundreds of people every season as they are surprised by the reality of a thru-hike. About one in five prospective Appalachian Trail thru-hikers quit within the first week!

What’s even more surprising is that most of those who quit don’t do it because they suffer an injury. In fact, most who quit have no ailments and they adore backpacking. Their love for the outdoors is what motivated them to thru-hike a trail in the first place. They love backpacking and figure a thru-hike is a natural extension of that love.

Such reasoning is flawed, because backpacking and thru-hiking are different species.

People don’t discover this pre-thru-hike because they simply rely on their limited backpacking experience, their gut instinct, or Uncle Harry who supposedly knows everything. This article is for people who are considering thru-hiking a long trail and want to make sure they know what they’re getting into.

Gear Selection

Everyone who attempts to thru-hike a trail that’s over 2,000 miles long learns that there is a big difference between backpacking and thru-hiking. For example, compared to a successful thru-hiker, the typical backpacker brings far more and far heavier items:

A Typical Backpacker Brings A Typical Thru-Hiker Brings
Multiple pots and pans to make gourmet meals One ultralight titanium pot
Fresh clothes for each day outside Extra pair of underwear – no extra clothes
Large, comfortable tent Tarp
Full-length deluxe inflatable mattress Thin foam pad
Heavy-duty sleeping bag Light sleeping bag (sleep with your clothes if it’s cold)
Gigantic expedition backpack Small, lightweight backpack
Camp shoes and lightweight chair Neither
An MP3 player Ears to listen to nature

Bringing a sleeping bag that is one pound lighter than a typical sleeping bag may not seem like much, but the differences begin to add up. Even little items, such as a minuscule knife versus a full-size Swiss army knife, can have an impact if you do it across the board.

Indeed, if you consistently pack an item that weighs 25 to 50 percent less than the typical version of that item, your pack weight will decline 25 to 50 percent. As obvious as that sounds, most of those who plan a thru-hike don’t think about this, nor do they heed the lesson of those who have hiked before them. Instead, hikers look at their heavy-duty compass and think, “What’s the big deal? It’s only an ounce or two heavier.”

On the other hand, a prepared thru-hiker will search for a lightweight, accurate compass. In my case, for example, my compass is integrated in my watch. In fact, the Appalachian Trail is so well marked that you could even leave your compass at home. I learned that carrying a compass does not guarantee that you will not get lost – I managed to get lost on the Appalachian Trail even with signs all around me.

The Backpacking Paradox

The paradox of backpacking is that the more distance you walk, the less you should carry. This is counter-intuitive, and the best way to learn the lesson is through the experiences of others, though statistics prove that many learn in a more expensive and frustrating way: through their own experience.

A smart thru-hiker carries the bare minimum to be safe and walks 10 to 30 miles a day so that he avoids backpacking in the winter (which requires far more gear and is more dangerous than hiking during the other three seasons). If a thru-hiker desires additional comfort, she can usually buy it or have it shipped to her next resupply point, which is rarely more than four days away. Such a lightweight strategy lets her minimize both body stress and calorie burn.

The weekend backpacker, on the other hand, is often in no rush, so he can afford to carry the kitchen sink because he’s usually not walking very far. The casual backpacker loves having the pancake griddle and the comfy chair in the middle of nowhere. He walks five miles, sets up camp, and enjoys relaxing with his espresso. Although that is great fun, it can cloud your ability to understand the backpacking paradox that one should carry less the more one travels.

Learning from Trail Lore

Hundreds of people have completed the Appalachian Trail and several people have written books about what you should bring and how to minimize your pack’s weight. Nevertheless, every season, over half of the hikers ignore trail lore and repeat the same errors of the previous year’s hikers.

Visit either terminus on the Appalachian Trail and you’ll find people starting their thru-hike with gigantic 50-pound packs. By the end of the journey, nearly everyone will have trimmed down their packs to half their starting size. To do this, thru-hikers frequently abandon hundreds of dollars of gear, buy hundreds of dollars of new gear, and get back on the trail again. The abandoned gear in hiker boxes testifies to the expensive lesson of what separates thru-hiking and backpacking.

At least a few people benefit: one thru-hiker I met was able to hike from Georgia to New York on $20. He didn’t start with any gear, but he picked up most of of what he used from the castoffs of hikers before him. He acquired almost all the gear he needed in just the first 30 miles! He also lived off the food that hikers didn’t want because they learned that eating the same food every day gets a bit old after a while.

History not used is nothing… and if you don’t use the stuff – well, it might as well be dead.  – Arnold Toynbee

It’s important to learn from history. Before you thru-hike, talk to those who’ve gone before you. One guy told me about hiking 10 miles a day and carrying 70 pounds – this same guy would later tell me about his chronic back problems. Many outdoor shop salesmen (who often know little about thru-hiking) encourage beginning thru-hikers to get an “expedition” backpack, even though most thru-hikers would be better off with the “day packs.” Getting a small backpack is a great way to discipline yourself. With so little storage space, you have no other choice but to get rid of unnecessary items and to find lighter versions of the necessary ones.

When I talked with the thru-hikers, they all wished that they had minimized their pack weight from the start. In other words, they all wished that they had learned from trail lore. This lesson applies to life off the trail too. The goal is to learn from other people’s experiences so that your experience is the best it can be.

Fortunately, most of the readers here already practice the concept of lightweight backpacking. Nevertheless, they undergo their own transformation during a thru-hike, and they should anticipate and prepare for it accordingly. What often happens is that they go from being lightweight backpackers to ultralight backpackers. Help avoid the transition in the middle of the thru-hike and make sure you have truly pared down your gear list.

Backpacking versus Thru-hiking - 2

Physical and Mental Preparation

Typical backpackers can be out of shape and don’t need much mental fortitude. If it’s pouring rain, a backpacker can just postpone the trip or stay in camp for the day. A thru-hiker has no such luxury and must press on. This ability to wake up early and break down a campsite during a rainstorm is uncommon in backpackers, but common with thru-hikers.

The related difference is the physical conditioning. Many thru-hikers start out of shape. That’s OK, but to increase your odds of successfully finishing a thru-hike, get in shape. Doing so will result in a crucial side-benefit: you’ll develop your mental toughness.

For instance, before doing my first thru-hike (the Appalachian Trail), I would take a vacation day on a three-day holiday to make a four-day weekend. Do the same and try to hike at least 15 miles each day. Get up the next day and do it again. And again.

If you can do that, then pick a weekend that has a weather forecast of challenging weather. Doing back-to-back 20 miles days under nonstop rain is different than doing it in ideal weather.

After a couple of long weekends of doing that, you’ll have a good idea if you have the physical and mental fortitude required of finishing a thru-hike. More importantly, pay attention if you are truly enjoying the experience. Surviving isn’t enough – the goal is to survive with a smile.

Food Selection

Another example of the difference between backpacking and thru-hiking is food selection. Backpackers often buy expensive packaged freeze-dried meals. Or, they tend to favor gourmet meals and attempt to reproduce Wolfgang Puck’s cooking in the woods.

Thru-hikers have a far different diet. First, all but the wealthiest thru-hikers avoid expensive freeze-dried meals because they will break their budget over six months. Second, a thru-hiker’s cooking habits are more about efficiency than about being a five-star chef. That means simple meals that can be made in one pot. Boiling water is about as complicated as it gets. Third, thru-hikers have paradoxical dietary requirements. On the one hand, they need healthy, nutritious food to power their body for months and help with recuperating after each hard-working day. Without such healthy nutrition, many bodies (especially older ones) will have trouble somewhere along the way. On the other hand, thru-hikers have a peculiar (and seemingly insatiable) need for junk food. Chocolate bars are a thru-hiker’s currency.

Therefore, beginning thru-hikers often need to simplify their cooking gear and food preparation habits. They can’t afford to ignore their long-term nutritious dietary needs. And yet, they need to consider the psychological benefits of tossing in a bone (or in this case, a sweet treat) into their supplies to keep morale and motivation up.

Conclusion

Every thru-hiker loves backpacking, but most backpackers wouldn’t like thru-hiking. Thru-hiking is not simply “lots of backpacking.” It’s a different sport altogether. Traditional backpacking has a pattern of hike-rest-hike-rest. Thru-hiking’s pattern is hike-hike-hike-rest-hike-hike-hike.

For many, the monotony and rigor of thru-hiking can turn backpacking into a job and not just a simple walk in the woods. That explains why a whopping 50 percent quit within the first six weeks of a thru-hike that normally takes six months. Get prepared with your gear trimming, trail lore reading, physical and mental exercise, and food selection and bump yourself  up into the 50 percent of FINISHERS!

Photos courtesy Ryan Linn

Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt Review

Patagonia introduces the lightest down jacket to be found. We now have four good contenders for an ultralight down jacket shootout; which one will come out on top?

Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt Review - 1
The Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt has a measured weight of 5.6 ounces (159 g); it’s the lightest down pullover currently available.

Introduction

Patagonia calls it a Down Shirt rather than a down jacket; actually, it’s a pullover. And, Patagonia modestly calls it their “lightest-weight insulation” with no hype (thankfully) about it being the lightest down garment in the world. Technically it is. It’s insulated with 800-fill power down and has a very lightweight 0.8 oz/yd² (27 g/m²) shell fabric, so obviously it grabs our attention.

With Patagonia’s new Down Shirt we now have a total of four really lightweight down insulated jackets to choose from: the MontBell Ex-Light Down Jacket, MontBell Down Inner Jacket, Crux Halo Top, and Patagonia UL Down Shirt. Looks like we have four good contenders for an ultralight down jacket shootout.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer Patagonia (http://www.patagonia.com/)
Year/Model 2011 Ultralight Down Shirt
Style Hoodless insulated pullover
Fabrics Shell and lining are 10d 0.8 oz/yd²) (27 g/m²) ripstop nylon with Deluge DWR
Insulation 2 oz (56.5 g) 800 fill-power down
Construction Sewn through with 1.25 x 2 in (3.2 x 5.1 cm) square quilting, set-in sleeves
Loft Measured average two-layer loft is 0.9 in (2.2 cm)
Features Down-filled stand up collar, 12.75 in (32 cm) #3C YKK zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, beard guard at top of zipper, elastic cuffs, no elastic in hem, set-in sleeves, stuff sack included
Weight Size Medium tested
Measured Weight: 5.62 oz (159 g)
Manufacturer Specified Weight: 5.9 oz (167 g) size Medium
MSRP US$250

Description

Before we get to the shoot-out, let’s review the new Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt. As mentioned, it’s insulated with 800 fill-power down, has a lightweight 10 denier (0.8 oz/yd²/27 g/m²) shell, and has Patagonia’s Deluge DWR finish for water-repellency.

Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt Review - 2
Front and rear views of the Patagonia UL Down Shirt.

The UL Down Shirt has a trim fit and is intended to be worn as a midlayer or outerlayer. The style I tested is a pullover, but a full-zip version (called the Down Sweater) was introduced in spring 2011. I normally wear a size Large, but the Medium I tested fit, well, like a shirt.

The construction is sewn-through, which is typical of ultralight down garments. It’s quilted in a 1.25 x 2 inch (3.2 x 5.1 cm) pattern to hold the down in place, but the quilts compress the insulation to some extent. I measured the double-layer loft to be 7/8 inch (2.2 cm), so it does not have a lot of loft. From the testing and research I conducted for my Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010, I found that a jacket’s fill weight is more related to a garment’s warmth than loft is.

The UL Down Shirt has almost no features, just a stand-up insulated collar, #3 half-height front zipper, and elastic cuffs. No pockets.

Performance

Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt Review - 3
I wore the UL Down Shirt as a midlayer and outerlayer on eleven trips in early 2011 while backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, day hiking, and spring backpacking trip in southern Utah canyon country. Wearing the Patagonia UL Down Shirt as a midlayer with a hardshell jacket (left) or windshirt (right) over it helps a lot to seal in the heat.

I mostly wore the UL Down Shirt as a midlayer while active on colder days and for extra warmth in camp. It does fit like a shirt, so the best way to think of it is as a substitute for a fleece layer, which can weigh twice as much. In the past, I have carried a microfleece pullover for a midlayer, which is one of the lighter midlayer alternatives available. But a typical microfleece top weighs around 8 ounces (227 g), so the Down Shirt is about 2.5 ounces (71 g) lighter, quite a bit warmer, and is more water-repellent.

While backcountry skiing, I found the Down Shirt to be comfortable as a midlayer while active on below-freezing days. While climbing with skins on, on a 25 F (-4 C) sunny calm day, the Down Shirt was too warm, and I had to open up my jacket to cool down or take off the midlayer to avoid overheating. It was quite comfortable while climbing on an overcast or windy day. While backpacking, I found the Down Shirt worn as a midlayer to be enough warmth for nighttime and morning temperatures down to freezing. In my opinion, it’s too thin and not warm enough for mountain backpacking; it might be adequate for mid-summer, but not for the shoulder months.

Worn as an outerlayer in cool conditions, the Down Shirt is warm and quite wind-resistant. I purposely wore it in such conditions on several day hikes and was impressed with the amount of insulation and protection it provided for such little weight. That said, I want to emphasize that the Down Shirt performs well in active pursuits, but its warmth is limited in less active situations, like staying warm in camp.

Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt Review - 4
From wearing the Down Shirt in the rain (left), I found it only somewhat water-repellent; notice wetting in the seams. In my indoor “puddle test,” where I place 1/8-cup (30 ml) of water on the garment for one hour, the Patagonia Down Shirt flunked badly. Nearly all of the water penetrated the jacket’s seams and created a sizeable puddle on the tray inside (center). After two hours, the entire area was wetted out and the down was soaked (right). I have applied this test to a lot of down jackets, and this is the lowest water resistance I have observed.

Ultralight Down Jacket Shootout

As mentioned, we now have four contenders in the ultralight down jacket category: the MontBell Ex-Light Down Jacket, MontBell Down Inner Jacket, Crux Halo Top, and Patagonia UL Down Shirt. Their specifications are compared in the following table.

Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt Review - 5
Patagonia UL Down Shirt (left), MontBell Ex-Light Down Jacket (center), and Crux Halo Top (right). The MontBell Down Inner Jacket (not shown) is similar to the Ex-Light except it’s insulated with 800 fill-power down and has hand pockets.

Comparative specifications for four ultralight down jackets. Data are manufacturer specifications for size Medium. Loft measurements are by the author.

  Mfr. Weight oz (g) Down Fill-Power Fill Weight oz (g) Shell Weightoz/yd² (g/m²) Measured Double Layer Loft inches (cm) MSRP (US$)
Patagonia UL Down Shirt 5.9 (167) 800 2.0 (56.5) 10d 0.8 (27) 0.9 (2.2) 250
MontBell Ex-Light Down Jacket 5.7 (162) 900 1.8 (51) 7d 0.74 (25) 2.0 (5.1) 165
MontBell Down Inner Jacket 7.3 (207) 800 2.0 (57) 15d 0.82 (28) 2.0 (5.1) 155
Crux Halo Top 7.9 (224) 832 3.7 (105) 15d 0.97 (33) 1.25 (3.2) £140 (approx 226)

Key Points from data in the table:

  • The MontBell Ex-Light Down Jacket is the lightest by manufacturer specifications, but the Patagonia UL Down Shirt measured weight is slightly lighter, so it’s essentially a tie.
  • The MontBell Ex-Light jacket is insulated with 900 fill down, has much more loft, has lighter weight shell fabric, has a full-height zipper, and costs much less.
  • The MontBell Down Inner Jacket weighs a bit more, has the same fill weight, has more loft, has hand pockets, and is value priced.
  • The Crux Halo Top weighs 2 ounces (57 g) more, but it also has the highest fill weight and presumed warmth. It has a long torso, so it’s a good choice for tall hikers, and it’s a good value for European buyers.

Overall, it looks like the MontBell Ex-Light Down Jacket wins the shootout. It weighs about the same as the Patagonia Ultralight Down Shirt, but has higher quality down, more loft, lighter shell fabric, a full-height front zipper, and costs US$85 less.

Although the Patagonia Down Shirt is a very useful garment, it comes up short on its specifications, is overpriced compared to the competition, and the poor performance of its Deluge DWR treatment is a surprise. For its US$250 price tag, I would expect an ultralight down jacket that exceeds the MontBell Ex-Light’s impressive specifications, e.g. 2.5 ounces of 900 fill-power down, and a better DWR treatment.

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 review this product under the terms of this agreement.

Completing a Thru-Hike

What sets successful thru-hikers apart from the rest of the pack? Superfitnessawesomesauce? A trust fund? The best gear? The answer may surprise you.

Completing a Thru-Hike - 1

Thru-hiking the Appalachian Trail, Pacific Crest Trail, or Continental Divide Trail has a tendency to kick your butt. Most fail. I met many successful pilgrims on these trails, and I tried to look for a common thread. Here are some characteristics I thought they would share:

Wealth: I figured you probably need the financial wherewithal to support the multi-month journey.

Wrong: One guy (Cheapo) hiked from Georgia to New York on $20. His secret? Live off the freebies in hiker-boxes.

Good Gear: Those who travel with shoddy equipment are surely at a disadvantage.

Wrong: A man named Spider thru-hiked the AT with the same old, decrepit gear he’d had for 35 years.

Superior Nutrition: Poor nutrition would certainly catch up to you during the hike and hamper your ability to finish it.

Wrong: A few thru-hikers survived mainly on Snickers and other junk food.

Excellent Cardiovascular Conditioning: Thru-hiking is the ultimate endurance sport, so surely cardiovascular fitness is paramount.

Wrong: In Virginia I met George Ziegenfuss who blew that theory – he was in his sixties and hiked the AT with only one lung. He was huffing and puffing when he was sitting down, but he overcame that “inconvenience.”

Disease-Free: Your body should be healthy and free of debilitating diseases.

Wrong: Sticks and Stones, two ex-military men, thru-hiked together to raise money for Leukodystrophy, which Sticks battled. Although Leukodystrophy is a progressive disorder that affects the brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves, it did not stop Sticks from thru-hiking the AT.

Youth: I initially thought that being young and strong was a common denominator.

Wrong: I recalled the first female thru-hiker I met on the AT – she was in her sixties. Others have completed it in their seventies. In 2004, Lee “The Easy One” Barry became the oldest person to ever thru-hike the AT: he was 81. The fastest thru-hiker our year was Linsey, a man who biked from California to Georgia, hiked up to Maine in about 72 days, and then biked back to California. He averaged about 30 miles a day on the AT and never took a day off. He was 63.

Sight: OK, at the very least, you should be able to see the darn trail! Right?

Wrong: a blind man, Bill Irwin, hiked the whole trail with his trusty seeing-eye dog named Orient. It took him nine months (50% longer than average), and he fell hundreds of times, but he made it.

I was dumbfounded. I couldn’t seem to find a common denominator among all the successful thru-hikers. Yes, the majority were young, strong, ate healthy food, carried lightweight gear, and could actually see the trail, but there were so many exceptions. It wasn’t until I finished a thru-hike that I figured it out.

The only common thread that separated the successful thru-hikers from those who weren’t successful was their will. Those who complete a thru-hike in one season have an unbreakable will. They want to complete the trail so badly that nothing will stop them. Their rock-solid courage triumphs over the fear and adversity that confronts them throughout their arduous journey.

Therefore, if you’re planning to thru-hike, it certainly helps to follow the valuable tips at Backpackinglight.com and lighten your load. However, don’t forget get to load up on the most important ingredient: the WILL.

“Champions aren’t made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them. A desire, a dream, a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill.” — Muhammad Ali

Francis Tapon is the first person to yo-yo the Continental Divide Trail. He is the author of Hike Your Own Hike and, most recently, The Hidden Europe. Both books and his 77-minute CDT Yo-Yo Video are available at his website.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic

Race report, gear and food, and, for the really ambitious, pointers for entering a wilderness race.

“The will to power would rather will nothingness than not will.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

 

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 1
The author and Paige Brady at the finish of the 2011 Classic. Photo: Paige Brady.

What is the Classic?

As Andrew Skurka wrote here a few years ago, the Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic is “the original adventure race.” It came about because of a bet concerning who could run from Hope to Homer (on the Kenai Peninsula, south of Anchorage) the fastest. It first ran 30 years ago and has continued under the same mores ever since. Point to point through roadless Alaskan (big) wilderness, courses run around 100 miles in a straight line. The rules are elegant: carry everything you need from start to finish, use only human power, first to the finish wins.

It’s a thinking person’s race, as evidenced by the races’ first three-year cycle, on the Hope to Homer course. Roman Dial won the first year, as well as the second, though in dramatically different fashion. Scarred by heinous bushwhacking and older and wiser from frightening river swims, Dial brought skis, a packraft, a partner, and a different route. He and Jim Lokken all but cut the previous year’s time in half by skiing across the Harding Icefield and packrafting the Fox River. History indicated that while strong legs are a prerequisite for a strong finish in the Classic, they are hardly a guarantee.

For those tangled in a long-standing affair with backpacking, and the not infrequent outgrowth of wishing to expand the range of backcountry experience as far as possible, ‘the Classic’ is known as merely that for a reason. Speed is hardly the universal apotheosis of backpacking, but the difficulty of moving quickly through the wilderness is possessed of a purity which is as undeniable as it is unrivaled. I think I’m in good company in being of the opinion that the primary difficulty in any athletic pursuit is intrapersonal, with the presence or absence of competition only a more or less efficacious catalyst. Wilderness and its unrivaled ability to highlight human fragility only makes this more plain. Alaska has the biggest wilderness around, which is why ‘the Classic’ gets to wear a capital C.

My Race

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 3
Paige takes a cookie break.

In Alaska a few people asked me, both before and after the race, where I first heard of the Classic. I still cannot recall, but it has been growing in my consciousness for quite a while. It’s been my Everest, my Tour de France, the summit and presumptive summation of a large number of my personal and athletic aspirations. A big effing deal. So I was nervous for weeks, before and about the race. Not because I was worried about sore feet, bears, river crossings, getting lost, or getting cold. I’d been training for the Classic specifically, with it in mind, for around two years. Long enough to know how to deal with all the aforementioned details with confidence, and more significantly long enough to know that my primary struggles before and during the race would have very little to do with physical obstacles and everything to do with fear. Fear of failure.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 4
Paige descends towards the Trident Glacier in the afternoon of day one.

My team didn’t fail, but neither did we win, rather coming in second to Luc Mehl, John Sykes, Tyler Johnson, and Todd Kasteler, who traversed the Black Rapids, Susitna, and Yanert glaciers on a route substantially shorter and more committing than ours. A bold gamble paid off for them, and their route put them above the brush that soaked us on day two, at an altitude that avoided some of the rain which did the same. Most significantly, they didn’t have the luxury of stopping mid-route and waiting for the weather to improve, as we did. If they hoped to continue under any circumstances, doing so continuously was the only option.

They made the correct choice, as did we, and the contrast between the two points cuts right to the heart of the Classic. We had to choose, just as they did, and weigh which parts of their decisions were practical fears and which were psychological (and thus under some contexts and from some perspectives, illusory). It’s easy to see heuristics as overly simple, especially in outdoor adventuring, with safety and the choices out of which it is built existing apart from ego and perception. This is not so. What is safe for one group is dangerous for another, and in exactly the same circumstances. Could that second evening, with its soaking rain, wet brush, and then wet snow have been safe to continue into for a different pair of people with better gear and more determination? Very possibly. Due to gear, circumstances, and attitude, for us it was not. If we had been different, or the weather had been kinder, and thus enabled us to push through the evening into the night, could we have challenged for the win? Unlikely, though the splits are tantalizingly close.

Neither Paige nor I spoke about teaming up before the race was underway, though we later admitted we both wanted to. Neither of us had done the Classic before, though we both had lots of relevant experience, albeit from very different sources. Neither of us admitted we wanted to win, though we both wanted to. We even consulted, right before the start in the gravel lot by the old Black Rapids roadhouse, on whether to inflate our boats before the start. We both decided not to, due to the wind, then both changed our minds shortly thereafter. I put in and got a jump on the field by running all the larger waves, but Paige and another racer came back to me when I made some bad line choices and got hung up on gravel bars. Paige and I took out at McGinnis creek together, hiked the ATV trail up to the plateau together, and in a few hours were a team, officially.

It was a wise decision, though when Paige pushed the pace on a few hills early on I was worried that I wouldn’t be able to hang (we were averaging 12 vertical meters/minute). We switched leads naturally and well, me leading in brush and sponga (spongy tundra), Paige across the Trident and Hayes glaciers. She rallied late at night while dealing with the moose trail and my drowsiness in the moat at the northwestern edge of the Hayes, and by 4:00 AM we were building a fire under the arms of a particularly large willow a few miles below the west toe of the Hayes glacier, a strong 18-hour push in the bag, and almost off the first of my three maps. It was after our 2.5-hour break, including about 100 minutes of sleep, when my feet and legs felt shockingly fresh and the rain had yet to start that I declared my desire to win. We kept momentum climbing up out of West Hayes Creek and down to the Little Delta, though it flagged slightly as the tailwind chilled us on the hike up the river, detouring on several occasion to look for a crossing. We found a good, though fast, crossing, though Paige fell in getting out of her boat, which sealed the deal on making a fire to warm up. We took another good nap under our very nice tree, before setting out into the bushwhack. The tangled mile across the flat was only the preamble to 1,000 vertical feet of bear trails through head high grass. Not horrid travel, but utterly soaking. The choice to fly back to our tree was an easy one, as such good sources of shelter and dry wood were scarce.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 5
The author headed towards the snowline in Buchanan Creek. Photo: Paige Brady.

It was the next morning, with an impressively low snowline across the valley, low ceiling, and steady drizzle that doubt really began to take hold. As Paige noted several days after the race, my mind rarely stops working, and certainly didn’t on that occasion. In truth, we had both gotten very cold the previous evening returning to camp; even with a fire raging, we shivered for hours after, and for me that had been quite scary. We were about three times as far from a road as you can get in the Lower 48, with an exactingly minimal safety net. I was right up against the choice of the Classic, confronting my psychological limits and just how large a role they played in building the boundaries I use to guide myself through the world. Failure was not a matter of pure circumstance, as we, and especially I, had plenty of food, but of will. I waffled, called a few flying operations on the sat phone to feel out our options, while Paige stoically slept a bit more and called previous winner Bobby Schnell to get a weather report. His data indicated a general clearing soon, and as the clouds started to lift around noon so did my psyche. I woke Paige up, and we blasted.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 6
Paige a few hundred vertical feet below Buchanan Pass.

I had, with no small amount of patient assistance from Paige, passed the test, and what followed was the most sublime 14 hours of hiking I’ve yet done. Tundra and drizzle led over a short pass into Buchanan Creek, which climbed into the clouds in one aesthetic boulder-floored upward slash. A few regular inches of snow appeared around 5,500 feet, truly confirming the two sets of human tracks we had already seen here and there in the mud of the stream bed. After a few diversions as the creek steepened and the clouds closed in, I knew that the guy with big feet and Inov-8 OROCs was a good route finder, and the tracks led effortlessly over the pass and down the other side. We breezed past Chris Wood (a professional sheep hunting guide from near Anchorage, and the owner of the OROCs) and Don Moden, dropping them without trying. I was firmly in the lead then, with legs turning over utterly absent of any perceived stress or exertion. Our unnamed drainage hit the West Fork of the Little Delta, and on instinct I cut into the brush and within 30 seconds happened upon a multi-species game trail worn mountain-bikeable with abundant traffic. We swooped out onto the gravel bars and around the bend southwards, flying. The sky was beginning to clear and darken as we stopped for dinner and a shoes off break, with the peaks and drainages marching with stunning symmetry up either side of the river. Conversation and confidence flowed as we continued up to and into the precipitous side canyon which would give us passage to the Wood River, which would take us off my second map.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 7
The clouds clear in the upper reaches of the West Fork of the Little Delta River, late in the evening of day three.

What had already been a reboundingly superlative day of extremes continued into the next. Close to the pass a sheep trail cut up onto steep tundra and talus, and Paige had to tell me out loud that the white rocks up above were actually just rocks, and not mysterious baby sheep hiding from us in plain sight. Indirect moonlight and the dull Alaskan midnight sun bent the steep pass into angles which seemed impossible, but yielded easy walking up sheep trails all the same. We summited the pass at 12:30, and looking down into the Wood valley I was brought to tears thinking that this moment and all the memories of which it was built was the pinnacle of every step I had hiked in my life, every trying hike when late in the day I looked within myself to find the will to go on, every route finding challenge, every five more miles, every fire built in the rain, every trip planned in earnest, every book and article read. Everything I was and had been made of over the past thirty years of my existence, and at the end was my late father, dead these 19 years from cancer, sitting watchfully in whatever spiritual afterlife atheists like me believe in, roaring in approval at every next step I took.

In most respects I could have ended the race right there and had all I ever wanted.

We were still 50 miles from the road, and had few intentions of stopping until we got there. The descent canyon was even more extraordinary than that used for the ascent, resembling in its steep rawness nothing so much as a Death Valley canyon with a snow-fed creek howling down the cobbles. I kept looking over my shoulder at oblique flashes of light, wondering why Paige was indulging in flash photography. It was the moon, which we couldn’t see, but which was shot towards us from the huge snowy mountains finally absent cloud cover. The headwaters of the Wood River, early that morning, was quite the place to be.

We still had one more bivouac in store, willfulness or not. Around 2:30, I started to fall asleep on my feet and Paige, more alert, took the lead. My seven-hour high had come to an end, and by 3:00 AM I was sleep-walking extended stretches with no guess, in my moments of alertness, how I managed to stay upright. Soon Paige was doing the same. I called a halt, backtracked 50 yards, gathered together likely-looking piles of driftwood, fired them up, emptied my pack onto the gravel, and passed out, shoes on. We both slept until the big piles had burned down to ashes.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 8
Paige packing up after a sleep-enforced bivy on the upper Wood River, on the morning of day four.

We were both motivated to resume progress, but, like before, the shivers had hold of us and would not let go. My shell pants, put away wet the previous evening, were stiff with frost. I built up another big fire, and we fired up our stoves and inhaled hot coffee and calories. We would be packrafting the Wood soon, and best to do that in the sun, if at all possible. Two and a half hours seemed to be the sweet spot for breaks, as this one, like the very first two days before, had been that time almost exactly. A bit more walking got us in the early morning sun and into our boats for a ripping eight-mile, just-over-one-hour run down the Wood. There were plenty of sweepers to avoid, but with my greater comfort on the water I ran point for most of it, and we made the takeout near lower Grizzly Creek without incident. The boating was as good as packrafting gets, due in no small part to the marvelously speedy break our feet got.

I was beginning to smell the barn, and jumped back into the sharp end of finding the best trail up the brushy creek. It took a while for the several trails to resolve themselves into one, but, when they did, that path took us up into the tundra and the top of our last pass with ease. My legs were reveling in it all, as was I, bit in the teeth, last significant climb of the race, emptying the tank. We averaged 11-12 vertical meters per minute for the last 30 minutes, almost continuously, which at that moment seemed a borderline absurd vindication of my training. Paige was not far behind as I sat on the soft tundra, looking at last into the Yanert valley. Paige took an Aleve and gave me one (mine had gotten wet two days earlier). At my request she gave me a Tylenol as well, which upon further reflection was in fact a NoDoz.

If you had told me then that we had over ten hours left, I would have been irate, but everything must come to an end, and we lost our momentum inexorably as we descended. Quads and feet were sore, and slowed on the rough terrain. Minds were tired, and slowed further, still in the alder and willow ‘schwacking. The Yanert, fast at first, slowed drastically as it lost gradient in the last five miles before Moose Creek. Finally, our feet and legs swelled and stiffened during over three hours sitting in small boats, and our will to push a pace on the final eight miles of ATV trail flagged. Back in the willows, we had both stopped caring about being fast to be fast, being instead motivated only to be done. Adding to the aura of mundane endings, the mosquitoes came out in force. We didn’t talk much on our way to the gravel pit, and hardly talked more as we found the sign in sheet and signed in, seeing that Luc and crew had shot the moon with their improbable route and finished 20 hours in front of us. Luc had a left a note with directions to a friend’s cabin down the road, and it was there in the unbelievable, foreign familiarity of carpets, clean wood walls, chairs and pillows that I realized we had in fact finished it.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 9
Paige floating the Yanert as the evening grew long.

A life-long goal, with an amazing partner found in unlikely circumstances. I was sad to have lost, though not very, and numb from the route’s final beat down, though not for long. Mostly I was slowly coming to terms with an irrevocable fact: I would carry the burden of the Classic for the rest of my life. My intimate, tactile, direct knowledge of my capabilities had been thrust back and broadened with a suddenness the like of which I cannot recall happening since I became a teenager. The act of having traversed a huge swath of remote terrain with precious little artifice in which to find comfort had removed, preemptively, any number of future excuses for any number of future challenges. It had been revealed to me that humans, me being one, were capable of astonishing things, and under duress were capable of them right now. There was, is, no going back.

Naturally, I’ll be doing the Classic again next year.

Gear and Food

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 10
Aside from the bottle of olive oil, which I did not bring, this picture shows my complete menu and kitchen for the Classic.

The Classic traditionally melds three different gear paradigms: lightweight backpacking, packrafting, and race-pace sufferfesting. In Packrafting! Roman Dial writes about his participation in the first classic, and his obsessive weight-shaving beforehand, including adding insulation under the top of a bivy sack “…to make a sort of weather-proofed top-half-of-a-sleeping bag.” The start of the race this year featured almost all the major brands of packs common to ultralight backpacking, and it’s safe to assume that a comparably extensive influence would have been in evidence had I exhumed every pack’s contents.

Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic Gear List

 
Category Item Weight (oz) Post-Game Comments What I’d Bring Next Time (Same Route, Similar Conditions)
CLOTHING LaSportiva Crossleather 28 Wore with Inov-8 insoles (less arch support). Worked great, wished I could have durability and fast drying in one. Experimenting with LaSportiva X Country at the moment.
Injinji CoolMax Mini-Crew 1 Great overall, cuff height may have exacerbated abrasions on ankles from side hilling. Injinji CoolMax Crew
NRS Hydroskin 3 Perfect. Kept feet warm in snow and glacial rivers, but not too warm while just hiking. Wore whole trip. Same
Dirty Girl Gaiters 3 Light, dry/drain fast, kept gravel out. I add a 2″ x 2″ patch of velcro to heel for extra security. Same
Haglofs OZO 7 Great shell, bomber in the route’s modest bushwhacking. Hood is fantastic, and thumb loops keep rain and splash out. Same
Montane Featherlite Pants 4 Wanted rain pants instead, esp for wet brush. Kokatat Deluxe Boater’s Pants
Pile Hoody 15 Wanted more torso insulation. Patagonia R2 Vest, MontBell Thermawrap Parka
Capilene 2 Long Sleeve 6 Same
Capilene 1 Stretch Short Sleeve 5 No chaffage. Same
Patagonia Traverse Pants 10 Perfect pants. Same
Capilene 2 Boxer Briefs 3 No chaffage. Same
Buff 1 Good warmth for weight. Same
SmartWool Cuffed Beanie 2 Hat redundancy a good thing. Can layer without causing eyes to bug out. Same
Sunday Afternoons Sun Tripper 2 Dries faster and vents better than conventional ball cap Same
Polarized Shades 1.5 Same
SLEEPING Capilene 2 Bottoms 5 Useful, could have been heavier. Maybe something heavier.
SmartWool Socks 2 Sleep socks very useful. Same
Heatsheets Bivy 4 Not so good, kept wet in, esp after condensation from first use. Better to have a small tarp for rain and wind. 5 x 8 foot flat tarp
COOKING/FOOD BPL Firelite 900 3 Good size. Overall hot food and drinks were key to keep warm and awake, totally worth the weight. Might be worth having, as a team, one Jetboil and one bomber firestarter (that’s lighter than a stove).
Sea to Summit Aluminum Spoon 0.5
MSR Pocket Rocket 4 Good for starting fires, much slower than Paige’s Jetboil. A tradeoff.
Gas 6 Almost killed cartridge by trip end, estimate 70-80% of use was starting fires.
15,000 calories 128 My food was close to ideal. Finished with ~3,000 calories, a decent safety margin. More candy and chocolate. Would probably cut that safety margin finer.
Silnylon Sack 1
PACKING GoLite Jam 31 Perfect, no chaffage. Kept compactor hooked the whole time. Lighter MYOG pack with similar harness, slightly smaller, better side pockets.
Sea to Summit 13L Drysack 3 Same
RAFTING Alpacka Yukon Yak (decked) 87 A decked boat is much drier and warmer, highly recommended. Same
Aquabound Shred (200cm) 40 Have since replaced with lighter, stiffer, longer, smaller bladed Werner Shuna. Werner Shuna
Inflation Bag, 2x Lash Straps 5  Same
MISC Repair/Med Kit 10 Never used! Same
Canon S90 w/Shoulder Bag 10 Would’ve used a WP camera more. Same
Photon Light 0.5 Not needed, but hard to give up. No light!
Sat Phone 12 Mandatory gear. Same
Nalgene Canteen 3 Fail. Sprung leak and was too hard to drink from on the go. 20 oz Specialized Bike Bottle
Black Diamond Distance 130cm 10 Collapsability great for boating and airlines. Good stiffness, great grips. Tiny baskets a mixed bag, but ok. Length is 10cm longer than I’ve been using, but with the dual grip handles the long length provided extra push forward when I wanted it and longer lengths for bogs and stream crossings. Same
Compass, Maps 8 Combo of big maps, a small pocket map, and a GPS (Paige had a Garmin Dakota) works well. Similar setup, planned with partner.
SPOT2 6 Was neat to let folks at home follow along. My mom did panic a bit when we stayed put for so long. Not sure, possibly same, possibly none.
Bear Spray 10 Worth it for possibility of encounters in thick brush. Same
Spyderco Clipit Rescue Knife 3 Specific knife in case of entrapment while packrafting. Baladeo 22.
Total Weight (oz) 483.5
Total Weight (lbs) 30.2

The benefit of a light pack for the Classic are obvious. As Roman Dial wrote in this magazine half a decade ago: “weight kills speed.” Making certain that all necessary gear is as light as possible is the first task of going light, re-interrogating what “necessary” means is the second step. Going at race pace means finding out how little sleep is necessary, and for every one of the thirty years of the Classic racers have done what Roman did and left traditional sleeping gear behind to save weight, ensure minimal sleep, and thus maximize speed. Paige and I both employed this strategy with reasonable success. The team that beat us hardly slept at all, and the ten hours they gained by so doing was half their margin. Luc, John, Tyler, and Todd have comparable gear selections, but being up on glaciers for the majority of their route lacked the option Paige and I had to build fires and thus sleep for extended periods. This contrast points to a central tenant of the Classic: necessity is the best midwife of extraordinary human performance. The Classic may seem to reward boldness in gear selection, but only because the human spirit does the same.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 11
Paige napping on the morning of day three. So long as we were somewhat dry and warm, sleep came easily.

Training for the Classic

Having completed the Classic, and in so doing having had such a fulfilling experience, my natural inclination is to encourage friends and acquaintances to seek out the same. This might not be so wise, but read these tips with the following in mind: I’ve only done one Classic and as such know very little, and these are written with the non-Alaska dwelling rookie in mind.

Patience is vital when training for the Classic. The mental capacity to deal safely with the unknown, the skill sets which need to be nurtured, and the nature of the physical development the Classic requires are all necessarily built over years. To a large extent they cannot be rushed. My specific physical training plan for 2011 centered around backcountry skiing in the first few months of the year, as well as a twelve-hour adventure race in April. These counted as, relative to the Classic, short and hard efforts. I would then take the fitness, specifically speed and power, gained therein and build more specific endurance via a series of intense backpacking trips. I ultimately did four of them, two or three days each, in late May and June. The primary criteria for each was to have 14+ hours a day of difficult foot travel, with a secondary purpose of building up my packrafting and route finding skills. I had half a dozen routes picked out for these purposes, but due to our heavy and late winter here in northwest Montana, every one had to be either heavily modified or scrapped altogether, as avalanche danger lingered well into June. Though the new routes were almost always shorter, the low snowline and resultant tough conditions ended up being perhaps the greatest asset my training this year had. I reaped the physical and mental benefit of some truly awful slogging in rotten snow, which is in both respects ideal training for the Classic.

Trails

 

One of the hallmarks of most Classic routes is the absence of human-made trails. We had perhaps 16 miles of ATV trails on our route, split evenly at the very beginning and very end. While the footing on the glaciers, sponga, river cobbles, and game trails varied enormously, it was always varied, and usually fairly soft, at least when compared to the trails common to the Lower 48. The bottoms of my feet have been more sore after numerous sub-30-mile dayhikes on the hard packed trails of Glacier National Park than they ever were during the Classic, in large part because the footing was so varied. Putting in big miles on trails is thus not especially good training for the Classic.

With a Capital C: My 2011 Alaska Mountain Wilderness Classic - 12
The author feeling the burn after a three-day, ~100 mile traverse of the southwestern Bob Marshall Wilderness over Memorial Day weekend, 2011. The cold, wet packrafting, hiking, and snow slogging on that trip was superlative training for the Classic. Photo: Meredith Chenault.

This highlights the extent to which it’s hard for those outside Alaska to prepare specifically and well for the Classic, especially if you happen to not live close to the large wilderness complexes of the mountain west. Even in my backyard, the Bob and Glacier, the overwhelming majority of major valleys have a human-built trail. Constructing a route which compared favorably with the Classic is not possible in snow-free months. Residents of the midwest, south, or mid-Atlantic should seek out what off-trail travel they can to build the muscle and connective tissue necessary for safe, fast travel, and count on at least one training trip to the greater ranges of the Lower 48. The difficulties of melt-off in the mountains peak at an ideal time for a training trip approximately one month before the Classic.

The aforementioned backpacking trips were hard enough, mentally and physically, that I couldn’t do them on consecutive weekends. They ended up all being two weeks apart, with shorter outings occupying the intervals between. This arrangement, which my body obliged me to make, had the dual benefit of providing plenty of time for recovery, and allowing for shorter more intense efforts to ensure no top-end power was lost. To further serve this end, I did hill hiking intervals once during the week, 1-3 minute efforts with 5-10 reps. This general approach of training power/speed and then endurance is one I used racing mountain bikes, and I was pleased with how it generalized to a much longer event on foot. The weekend before I left for Alaska, I was already officially in taper mode, but took advantage of the four-mile hike in to a packrafting first descent in Glacier to test my fitness. With a ~20 pound pack and no trekking poles I hit sustained rates of vertical ascent (18 vertical meters per minute, measured on my Suunto Observer watch, which is an invaluable training tool) close to my all out best in training (22-24 vertical meters per minute). On the morning of day four, hiking up the last ascent of consequence before descending to the Yanert, we were able to sustain 11 and 12 vertical meters per minute. That extrapolates to 2,360 feet of ascent in an hour, a rate which will get you up the South Kaibab trail in the Grand Canyon in almost exactly two hours. I did not expect to see figures anywhere near that high so late in the race, and I take it as a sign that my training was solid.

Rest

 

As important as hard training is for the Classic, hard resting and recovery is even more vital. The Classic is enormously stressful on connective tissue, and your training must be equally hard. At the same time, going into the Classic anything other than fully healed from such stress is quite foolish. My experience tells me that connective tissue takes exponentially longer to heal than muscles (be it from training or injury), and thus a good rule for the hardest of training for the Classic is to over-rest. My last backpack was three weeks before the race start, and I didn’t do anything hard that lasted more than an hour or so for those three weeks. For the week before the race, I spent my time crewing for friends at a race, working, and once in Alaska hanging around Anchorage going to parties and eating scones. Mental, and well as physical rest was key to being able to empty the tank once out on course.

Skills

 

Finally, there are also the various skills necessary for the Classic, though packrafting, navigation, and fire starting stand out. It doesn’t strike me as very reasonable to go into a Classic without being an outright expert at the latter two. Packrafting experience in scrappy little creeks, without beta and in first descent mode, is a very good idea, as is experience in big and small water Class III, but you can always walk more and boat less. Picking a good route and starting a fire when you must are not so negotiable. The macro navigation on our route was pretty simple, it was the micro work which could make hours and hours of difference. Some of this is Alaska-specific – what sorts of brush are found on a given aspect and elevation – and outsiders are at a handicap. Other parts come down to the intuition for finding the best game trail or route through scree and boulders, and are built only by practice and more practice. Fortunately this practice can take place anywhere away from obvious human influence. To highlight a point from above, the game trail we hit coming into the West Fork of the Little Delta was a thing of beauty and saved us 20-30 minutes over staying out in the gravel bars.

Conclusion

 

In the end, training for a Classic isn’t unlike training for any other athletic event. Set the date for the race, decide where you want to be on that day, and work backwards through a course of development races and training trips. The Classic is just bigger, and that development course might run back for years. Remember the truth in cliché: the training is the meal and the racing merely dessert. If you can line up for the Classic in good condition, you’ll already have become the person you want to be. Finishing the race will just highlight it all the better.

Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Montrail

Mini-reviews of the Montrail Sabino Trail Mid GTX, Mountain Masochist Mid GTX and AT Plus Shoes

Montrail

We review here three Montrail shoes:

  • Sabino Trail Mid GTX: these turned out to have an E width
  • Mountain Masochist Mid GTX: these turned out to have a D width
  • AT Plus: low-cut shoes for comparison, which turned out to have an E width

As mentioned in the main article, we were looking for wide mid-height shoes, and the web site did say that these were wide. This could deceive the customer who does not try the shoes on physically before buying. We are not happy with those web sites which do not tell the customer up front what the actual widths are on the internationally-accepted Brannock scale.

Overall Comments

Roger and Sue Caffin

It was only after these shoes arrived that we realised that they were not as wide as we had expected. The widths listed above do not appear on the Montrail web site: they were obtained after an email request to the company. They certainly could not fit our 4E feet, even with just thin socks. The narrow widths meant that we could not test these shoes out in the field. A few comments can be made from inspection – that is all.

When the shoes arrived in Australia, they stank rather badly with an acrid ‘chemical’ smell, and this smell lasted for many weeks – or even several months. (I checked regularly.) Even if the shoes had been of a satisfactory width, we do not think we would have been happy wearing them because of this smell. We do not know what caused it, but suspect the manufacturing process.

All the Montrail shoes had the lacing connected to the toe of the shoe as well as at the two sides of the tongue. This is visible in the photos. We don’t like this idea for two reasons. The first is that it gets in the way of a front hook on gaiters; the second is that it seems to pull the toe of the shoe upwards, which can, in some cases, be uncomfortable and intrusive. Fortunately, it is very easy to undo that lacing.

Will Rietveld

My feet are measured to be an E width, so the Montrail Sabino Trail and AT Plus shoes did fit my feet. They are not, however, as wide as the GoLite shoes we tested. I think back to the earlier Montrail shoes with their IntegralFit last; they had a wide toebox and fairly narrow heel, so they were a good fit for my feet. The new Montrail shoes seem to have abandoned that last. The current Hardrock Wide, AT Plus, and Sabino Trail are intended to fit wider feet, but they are not all that wide. These are shoes that you will need to try on to see if they are wide enough for your feet. The Mountain Masochist is a very nice shoe, but unfortunately it is simply too narrow and I could not wear it. Contrary to Roger’s account, when my shoes arrived, they did have a solvent smell, but it quickly dissipated and was forgotten.

The Shoes

Montrail AT Plus – 408 g (14.4 oz), E width

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Montrail - 1
AT Plus

These are very robust low-cut joggers – they actually weigh more than the Mountain Masochists, which are mid-height. They have a very solid sole with good lugs underneath. It is unlikely that they would ever clog up with mud. The footbed is reasonable, with not too much padding at the arch, and the edges of the heel cup should not cause problems. The exterior or upper is also rather robust and should block dust very well. There are two sets of top holes for the lacing: if you have ‘solid’ feet you won’t want to use them both. The laces are soft and knot well. The tongue is well padded and wide enough. The ankle cuff is padded, but you will need to check the bit at the back, on either side of the Achilles tendon. For some it will be fine; for others it may be a bit intrusive. But it is soft enough that it should adapt to your foot.

Roger Caffin

I tried these on around the house (inside and outside) for a while. They were not bad, but Montrail had initially shipped a size 12 to me by mistake, and the toe was, of course, excessively long for my foot. They corrected that and sent me the required size 10 later. Since these shoes do not have a membrane lining the base, the footbed was fairly flat, and the footbed would be comfortable for someone with a narrower foot than mine. I was able to wear these around the house, but I could sense that they were too narrow. The ankle cuff was soft and unintrusive, the tongue was soft and wide enough, and the lacing fairly good. Certainly they felt very robust, especially at the sole. I did not wear them long enough to say much more.

Will Rietveld

These are low-cut shoes we used for comparison with the mid-heights. I wore them on several day hikes while carrying a backpack. Montrail says they are an E width. They are adequately wide for me, when wearing medium weight socks, but they are not as comfortable (for me) as the GoLite shoes. The difference is apparently in the lasts used. They fit quite well; I like them better than the two Montrail mid-height boots, but I wish the toebox was wider.

Montrail Sabino Trail Mid GTX – 442 g (15.6 oz), E width

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Montrail - 2
Sabino

There is no doubt that these are mid-height: they are very high at the front. The upper cuff band is slightly separate from the main body of the shoe, so you could choose to leave one of the top two holes unlaced – or even both. They have the same sole pattern as the AT-Plus shoes, and the same laces. The side of the sole is labeled ‘Perimeter control’ – meaning unexplained. The base of the sole is labeled ‘Gryptonite’ – but no triangular big G signs. The mesh upper seems a lot more open weave than the fabric uppers on the AT-Plus shoes, but the shoe does have a Gore-Tex lining, so dust isn’t going to get in. Mind you, in summer heat that also means that moisture is not going to escape very easily, Gore-Tex notwithstanding.

Roger Caffin

The size supplied was an 11, but I could feel the narrow width, so I only wore them around the house and outside the house. In addition, it seemed that the footbed (similar to the AT-Plus) was lower in the middle than at the left and right edges. I removed the footbed and checked: yes, the internal construction did seem to be raised at the sides. I am not sure why this was so. This may not worry someone with a narrow foot, but it did worry me a bit. I tried putting these boots on and off a couple of times: it was a bit of a struggle getting my foot into and out of the very high ankle cuff.

Will Rietveld

These boots are also an E width according to Montrail, but they seem narrower, and I had to wear thinner socks in them so they were not too tight. Although they look like a very lightweight, supportive, and protective boot, my feet were not happy after a full day of hiking in them. On a trip to Bryce Canyon NP, I alternated wearing the Sabino Trail and GoLite Carbo Lite, and the Carbo Lite was much more comfortable. I like the Sabino pronation control, and they have excellent traction. I’m disappointed that the fit did not agree with my feet, because these are otherwise very nice boots.

Montrail Mountain Masochist Mid GTX – 391 g (13.8 oz), D width

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Montrail - 3
Masochist

Higher than the AT-Plus joggers, but not as high as the Sabino Trail Mid GTX boots – and lighter than either of them. Unfortunately, as Will writes, they are quite narrow. The sole is different from the previous two, as you can see from the photos. There is some room for a bit of mud to collect in the diagonal grooves, but they are very tapered and it is unlikely that much would stick there. The sole is a much lighter construction, with Gryptonite still there and a small ‘Sticky rubber’ logo as well. Certainly they flex more easily than the previous two. The upper has a mesh exterior and a Gore-Tex lining. The laces are the same as the others. The tongue is, as usual for a membrane-lined shoe, connected up the sides.

Roger Caffin

These are supposed to be a size narrower than the previous two, but I have to say I could not feel a lot of difference. What I did notice was that the footbed felt a lot flatter than on the Sabino Trails, and checking under the footbed confirmed that. The ankle cuff was lower and definitely not intrusive, as found on the Sabino Trail shoe.

Will Rietveld

These boots are a D width according to Montrail. They are very nice lightweight boots, but they are simply too narrow for my feet. I wore them on two day hikes, then quit wearing them. They squeeze my toes together too much and my feet were sore by the end of the day.


This is a mini-review in the 2011 Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes State of the Market Report. A subscription to our site is needed to read the parent article.

Disclosure: The manufacturers provided these products to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and they are owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review these products under the terms of this agreement.

A Marriage Proposal on Walden Pond

Can a backpacker more comfy on the trail find love with a lady for whom three stars is roughing it? An excerpt from Ron’s recently published memoir, Pathfinder: Blazing a New Wilderness Trail in Modern America.

I now face a life that is, like everyone’s life, filled with trail intersections, with unmarked spots where I don’t know which way the trail goes, and with the awful uncertainty that accompanies a world where choice is infinite. And with all the beauty that infinite choice offers, I miss – more than I could have imagined – a world where my only choices involved where to stop for the night and which flavor of Lipton dinner to eat for each meal.

– Scott Huler. “Bringing the Trail’s Lessons Back To Life,”
in The News & Observer, Raleigh, NC, May 22, 1995.

I met her the old-fashioned way, via the Internet. Actually, I was looking for a backpacking partner with whom to explore the Sea-To-Sea Route. Instead, I found a four-star hotel maven whose interest in trails was minimal but whose tolerance for me was both unexpected and very welcome. She and I had both been hitched before and had a sense of the compromises inherent in marriage. So, forsaking thirty years of nomadism, I decided to propose to her on Valentine’s Day at Walden Pond, home of my hero Henry David Thoreau.

Since a proposal is one of the few acts in life for which there is little or no guidance, I mass-emailed my friends for advice. The resulting hilarity showed that many people doubted that marriage was part of my vocabulary. Their suggestions ranged from the quaint (hide the ring in a snowman) to the literary (read aloud to her from Thoreau’s journals.) My recently-divorced buddy Keith Clark wrote from Anchorage to warn, “I got married on Valentines Day. Don’t do that. Hard to get dinner reservations every year, and now, it really sucks as a remembrance.”

“Bah humbug, to you, Keith,” I thought. However, on V-Day, fate intervened with the winter’s most hellacious snowstorm. Blowing every which way, the blizzard convinced Tine that travel was too dangerous. That coincided with my learning that Walden Pond was not the bucolic retreat popularized by my hero Henry D. Actually, it was a state park with 9:00 to 5:00 hours and zillions of recreationists who were prohibited from parking anywhere but in the $5.00 lot that closed at 5:00 PM. So Valentine’s Day was out. However, the next evening Mr. Romantic decided to lead an outlaw expedition in the dark to declare his love.

The object of my affections was decidedly uninterested in trudging to Walden by headlamp. Thoreau held no more appeal for her than the smell of unbathed thrus. Nevertheless, the night after Valentine’s Day we found ourselves on busy Walden Street south of Concord. The only light came from the glare of oncoming headlights. To avoid being hit we slogged along a high berm into the frostbite wind while the snow squeaked loudly under our boots.

Halfway to the park, Tine balked. What was the point of risking our lives on that dangerous road? Why couldn’t we be in a warm restaurant ordering something tasty? That somehow reminded me that both Thoreau and his brother John had proposed unsuccessfully to the same girl. If Walden’s greatest hero had been shot down, what chance did sorry Strickland have?

Frightened by the incessant traffic, Tine felt hungry and cold. But I explained that the evening’s associations with Thoreau were important to me, so she gamely gave it another try.

We continued south across the Concord Turnpike’s river of cars. Soon we were in deep woods and crunching along a snowy trail in search of the pond. Dressed in GoLite down parkas and rain pants, we defied the temperature and the wind. I was excited by my mission and by the sense that I was where the American conservation movement had begun.

A Marriage Proposal on Walden Pond - 1

Tine’s mood brightened as soon as she saw the lake’s flat, white expanse bordered by its ring of dark hills. As a Mount Holyoke undergraduate, she had loved winter ponds so much that she’d spent many hours peering at their ice-entombed leaves and bubbles. So when she found Walden’s expanse of snow-covered ice, she forgot her earlier reservations about my daft date. She ran out into the middle of the pond and flopped down on her back to drink in the stars.

I lay beside her, aware of the vast silence between us and Venus on the western horizon. Walden seemed almost a part of the familiar constellations overhead. Snow cushioned my hips and head. Feeling at home, as I always do in the wilds, I sought the courage to tell Tine what she had meant to me. “Our whole is greater than the sum of our parts,” I stumbled, aware that any words sounded insignificant in such a magnificent setting. Keep it short, I thought. So I reached for her gloved hand, and simply said that I loved her and wanted to marry her.

She hesitated so long that I became aware of the cold seeping up from the snow and ice. My fingers, exposed to the air for a photo, began to throb painfully.

What would she say? I suddenly realized that I truly had no idea what her response would be.

The moments stretched by interminably. I began to fear that maybe I was making a fool of myself. Finally she blurted,“Yes, I will marry you.” The relief I felt boomed through my mind like a giant crack in the ice. We embraced despite the barriers of our puffy coats. When we kissed, I felt lost in a dream.

Yes, I will marry you, she’d said. I wondered if I could both make her happy and wean myself from my nomadic lifestyle.

“Yes,” she said again. And, as if reading my thoughts, she added, “It will be the beginning of many exciting new trails.”


Pathfinder: Blazing a New Wilderness Trail in Modern America by Ron Strickland, was published by Oregon State University Press in 2011. Available from Amazon or Powell’s.

Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Treksta

Mini-Review of the Treksta Evolution Mid GTX

Treksta

We review here the Treksta Mens Evolution Mid GTX shoes. The company’s big claim for these is that they use a rather different last from the industry ‘norm,’ much more in the shape of a real foot, and which they call ‘NestFIT.’ In fact, we found that the width seemed to be a genuine 4E, so they fit us all. In addition, the shoes have what they term a ‘rocker’ sole: instead of the traditional flat shoe bottom they are built to have a deliberate curve to the sole. This is not a new idea, and it is meant to aid in walking.

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Treksta - 1

The Shoes

Treksta Evolution Mid GTX: 445 g (15.7 oz), US$140

When you look at these shoes from above, you can see waviness along both sides near the front of the shoe. We think this is meant to reflect their use of a last shaped like a genuine foot, with toes. We applaud the idea in principle, as too many shoes seem to be made on a last created by a fashion designer who has never looked at his or her feet – let alone surveyed the masses of customers. However, whether the outside of the shoe needs to have this waviness is a good question: it is unlikely that anyone would want a shoe that was so snug (or horribly tight) that the contours of the toes were that important. It is more likely that the waviness is put there just for marketing value.

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Treksta - 2

We are not sure why it seems that way, but the shoes do have a somewhat ‘synthetic’ look to them. This is neither good nor bad: perhaps it is another step in the evolution away from the classic big heavy leather boot image. The lug pattern underneath seemed to be a curious mixture of rubbers and concepts, although that might be just the colours used. They seemed to grip OK on wet and dry rock.

Roger Caffin

The claimed rocker sole is there, but barely noticeable. This is good. I once had some shoes from the UK with a ‘real’ rocker sole: they were rather strange things and I was not sold on the idea. Whatever rocker curve was in these shoes did not seem to cause any problem with a depressed ball of foot on one day walk.

There is a significant arch support inside the shoe, which verged on being uncomfortable. It did not actually cause any bruising on a day walk, but I was aware of it pressing against the underneath of my arch near the heel all day. I didn’t really like that. The rep was apparently not aware of any of the foot problems which we now know that arch supports cause.

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Treksta - 3

The worst problem I had was the ankle padding. There is a small but quite hard inner ‘rim’ which does not adapt the way soft leather does, and by the end of one day my left ankle was in considerable pain. The area of the rim responsible is shown ringed in red. I undid the two top layers of lacing but that did not help: by now my ankle was very tender. In the end I had to cut short a walk down Chapman Ridge and return to the car, slowly and cautiously. After that little problem, my wife Sue declined to try the shoes out. Of course, it may be that someone with a differently-shaped ankle (like slimmer than mine) would have no problems at all.

Will Rietveld

I had the opportunity to test the Treksta Evolution in a low-cut with the original last a year ago. That last provided more volume, and I was very pleased with the fit. With the new Treksta Evolution Mid GTX, the company decided to take some volume out of the toebox area. Unfortunately, the last now used for the mid-height boot, with its reduced toebox volume, blows it for me. The boot seems out of proportion; the upper and heel cup are fine, but the toebox is shrunken. The wider width is still there but there is not enough volume in the toebox area. For wider feet, the Treksta shoes are definitely worth having a look at, but you may end up liking the low-cut version better than the mid, as I did.


This is a mini-review in the 2011 Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes State of the Market Report. A subscription to our site is needed to read the parent article.

Disclosure: The manufacturers provided these products to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and they are owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review these products under the terms of this agreement.

Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: GoLite

Mini-Reviews of the GoLite Timber Lite, Surge Lite, and Carbo Lite Shoes

GoLite

We review here three GoLite shoes. Note that GoLite Footwear is a separate company from GoLite outdoor equipment and apparel, with a separate website.

  • Surge Lite: light mid-heights with a very different sole pattern and some leather trim.
  • Timber Lite: mid-height shoes with a rather high front, and some leather trim.
  • Carbo Lite: described as 3/4-height, but are actually low-cut.

The GoLite webpages for these shoes are all rather bare. The GoLite Footwear website has pictures and a size chart, and some icons for the marketing spin words used for the technology, but they have no obvious data on the weights, the fabrics used, what membrane if any is used, and so on. (If there is such data, it is too well hidden.) The Surge Lite page does not even show the soles.

The Shoes

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: GoLite - 1
GoLite footbeds.

The GoLite shoes are not specified as “wide,” but they are actually about an E width, definitely wider than the ‘medium width’ common in the footwear industry. Roger describes the GoLite shoes as “not particularly wide, but wearable;” Will describes them as “a perfect fit for my E width feet; their PreciseFit system allows me to adjust the shoe volume, and the heel cup is right-on for my feet.” So, as usual, it’s all about fit, fit, fit.

All these shoes have a very strange footbed ‘system.’ You get one footbed plus two extra fore-foot sections, as shown here. The idea is that you can add a thin layer to the thickness of the front end of the footbed to customise the shoe width to suit your feet. We applaud the basic idea, that foot width matters, but the execution had some faults. We will cover those here rather than under the individual shoes. Before doing so, it should be noted that Will did not report these problems, but Roger and Sue certainly did. But, Will’s feet are narrower than the Caffins’. So you need to try before you buy!

First, as you can see from the photo, the PreciseFit system is supposed to be focused on width, but how do insoles affect the shoe’s width? The answer is “not very well.” This system adjusts the shoe’s volume, not width. That said, it’s a useful system, but don’t believe that the thickness of the insole is really going to make the shoe any narrower or wider.

The first problem is probably more significant. If you add the medium width insert to the footbed, all is well: the footbed thickness is fairly uniform across the joint at the top edge of the grooves. But if you don’t add the extra thickness, then there is a serious discontinuity, which was easily felt under the foot. It felt like a really bad version of an ‘arch support’ to Roger and Sue. In addition, it did not really make a huge difference to the perceived width of the shoes.

Unfortunately, making the footbed a uniform thickness did not solve the problem of the lump under the arch. The main footbed has a moderately aggressive arch support built into it, and the bed of the shoe also has an aggressive arch support. The end result is that if you have a strong well-developed arch, you are going to get some pain from the ‘arch support’ in some of these shoes. This cannot be recommended.

A secondary problem with the concept is that it allows the bits of the footbed to move around if you are walking hard. Roger and Sue have seen cases where a light footbed in another shoe ended up folded at the middle, creating a most unwelcome form of arch support. As conditions were a bit wet at the time, it seems that the water reduced the friction inside the shoe such that the footbed could move around inside the shoe. In that case, the problem was solved by cutting off the toe section of the footbed: the heel section was sufficiently thin that the discontinuity was not a problem.

In contrast to Roger’s experience with the GoLite shoes, Will found them a good match for his feet. As stated, the shoes are about an E width, which would qualify as ‘wide,’ but they are not advertised as such. Rather, GoLite features the PreciseFit system as a way of adjusting the width, which makes absolutely no sense. The thickness of the insole definitely adjusts the shoe’s volume but not the width. Without a forefoot insert added to the main insole (the max volume option), the insole has a drop off behind the metatarsals, which Roger comments on. Will felt this at first, then it essentially went away and was not noticed anymore.

Surge Lite – 397 g (14.0 oz), US$120

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: GoLite - 2
Surge Lite.

These are mid-height shoes with a fairly average sort of ankle and some leather trim. GoLite says they are “Built on our BareTech platform, the zero drop heel and low profile sole allows your foot to move naturally over uneven terrain. And at just over 24 mm between your foot and the trail, you will feel close to the ground and protected from the elements.”

These shoes have what GoLite calls a Sticky Gecko sole. The spin on the web site says it “is inspired by the gravity defying ‘traction’ of geckos. More than 300 small lugs replicate the tiny hairs on a gecko’s feet that create maximum surface contact for better traction, especially on wet, uneven surfaces … Made with two densities of EVA, the Sticky Gecko sole lets you move fast and with confidence over any terrain in any conditions.”

Roger and Sue Caffin

We are unable to comment on these, as GoLite did not send us any. However, just from looking at the soles we do not think they would handle any of our wetter or muddy terrain (down in the river valleys and rainforest) very well. The very small and shallow ‘lugs’ are just not suitable for that sort of stuff. They may suit very light geckos, but not large heavy humans. On rock – another matter.

Will Rietveld

The Surge Lite has GoLite’s new Gecko rubber outsole, which grips well on most surfaces. I wore them on a four-day Utah canyon backpack while hiking off-trail through lots of rock, sand, and boulders, and they performed very well. At first the heel cup was a little loose, and I had to lace through the top rearward loop and tighten the laces to hold my heels down. Subsequently I have not noticed that problem and it seems to be a matter of adequately tightening the laces over my instep. I really like GoLite’s PreciseFit system to adjust the boot volume. These boots have ample width for my feet while wearing medium thickness hiking socks. The Gecko outsole provides excellent traction in dry conditions, but in wet conditions it readily clogs with mud and is ineffective.

Timber Lite – 425 g (15 oz), US$130

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: GoLite - 3
Timber Lite.

These are very high ‘mid-height’ shoes, very high at the front indeed. They also have some leather trim. Their sole is more conventional, although the depth of the lugs is not great. They were barely wide enough for Roger and Sue, but spot-on for Will.

Roger and Sue Caffin

For some strange reason the ‘arch support’ effect in these shoes was not as bad as in the CarboLite. By using the mid-thickness pad under the footbed it was possible to make these shoes just wearable, although the raised arch was still noticeable. They were worn on a day which became rather wet: the sole gripped fairly well in the dry, but the shallow lugs were not so good on wet rock or on muddy ground. The limited friction of the soles was definitely noticed.

The lacing on these high-fronted shoes can come up very high, but you don’t have to use all the hooks. We never did. The ankle region was soft enough that the top edge did not rub when thick wool socks were worn inside the shoes (and the top hooks were not used). GoLite says the leather trim on the outside is waterproof, but the trim has large gaps in it so there must also be a membrane inside the shoe. In fact, the shoes as a whole are labelled ‘waterproof,’ but the nature of the membrane was not given. (That means it is not Gore-Tex.) We both found them reasonably comfortable when worn with the laces only done up part of the way, but that does raise the question of why bother with the height of the ankle in the first place.

Will Rietveld

I found the Bare-Tech platform (4 mm heel rise) to be comfortable on all three GoLite shoes I tested; no particular adjustment was needed to the near neutral design, and they were comfortable from the start. The Timber Lite has a thin leather outer which I can do without, but they are still quite light. The outsole is not very aggressive; they slip on wet or smooth rock. I took a fall while wearing these boots, slipped on some very smooth rock and smashed a finger, requiring stitches. I wore them on six trips. They fit very well, are very comfortable to wear, and have room for thicker socks. Overall I love their fit and comfort, and like them for hiking on dry ground, but I am leery of them on wet or very smooth surfaces.

Carbo Lite – 360 g (12.7 oz), US$115

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: GoLite - 4
Carbo Lite.

GoLite describes these as 3/4-height fastpacker; we would describe them as almost low-cut joggers. As such they provide a useful comparison against the mid-height Timber Lite and Surge Lite. The sole is very similar to that on the Timber Lite shoe – possibly identical. GoLite marketing says these shoes have an ‘internal lace system.’ That just means they have the same bits of webbing between the sole and the laces as almost every other jogger of comparable construction.

Roger and Sue Caffin

The ‘arch support’ effect in these shoes was so bad that we did not take them into the field. A pity, as they look nice.

Will Rietveld

I wore this shoe on numerous day hikes and one three-day backpacking trip. This shoe is claimed to be a mid-height but is clearly a low-cut. I questioned GoLite about this and they confirmed that they call it a mid-height. As with the Timber Lite, the outsole is not very aggressive for traction. However, the fit is great, they are very lightweight, and they are very comfortable to wear. This would be one of my favorite shoes if the outsole was more aggressive.


This is a mini-review in the 2011 Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes State of the Market Report. A subscription to our site is needed to read the parent article.

Disclosure: The manufacturers provided these products to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and they are owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review these products under the terms of this agreement.

Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Salomon

Mini-Review of the Salomon 3D Fastpacker Mid GTX and Salomon XA Pro 3D GTX Ultra Shoes

Salomon

A well-known company, Salomon’s mid-height shoes could be described as traditional. Unfortunately, they do not seem to understand that feet come in different widths, as their website makes absolutely no mention of shoe width anywhere. (It might be noted that Italians are traditionally regarded as having narrower feet than the rest of us.) Like most shoe companies, their marketing spin uses lots of meaningless technical words for their technologies, although they do provide very short definitions or explanations.

The Shoes

Salomon 3D Fastpacker Mid GTX

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Salomon - 1
Fastpacker

A traditional mid-height shoe weighing 459 g (16.2 oz), verging on the ‘high’ side, with a solid rand and toe buffer. Unfortunately they are only a D+ width – not very wide at all. The solid part of the ankle is not all that high really: the top section of the ankle cuff is mainly soft padding. If you removed the soft padding, which does not provide any degree of ankle support of course, they would be getting moderately low at the sides and back. The weight was definitely pushing our limit of 450 g per shoe for size 9 – you can probably blame the rand and toe buffer for a lot of that. Being a GTX model means they could be useful in the snow.

Roger & Sue Caffin

With only a D width, Roger was not able to wear these with any degree of comfort. However, the volume seems to be largish, and Sue was able to wear them on short day walks and around home (a farm), with thin socks. She found them just comfortable enough for that.

Will Rietveld

These boots are at our weight limit, but (for me) they are very comfortable and supportive, and have great traction. They are not as wide as the GoLite shoes, but they are wider than the Montrail shoes, and more comfortable. Salomon specs say they are a D width, but they fit me very well. I do need to wear them with thinner socks so they are not too tight. They are my favorites for off-trail hiking; I wore them on 21 trips! The GTX lining did not fail during my testing and they continue to stay dry in wet conditions. They are a beefier boot than the GoLites and thankfully don’t have any leather. I believe they will last longer too. They are built on a trail running shoe platform. Their outsole is second to none for traction. Overall, if you have only moderately wide feet, the Salomon Fastpacker is a good balance of light weight, comfort, support, durability, and traction.

Salomon XA Pro 3D GTX Ultra

Light-Weight Mid-Height Trail Shoes: Salomon - 2
XA Pro

These shoes simply look lighter than the Fastpackers, and at 414 g (14.6 oz) they are just that. The height is a bit lower, the rand and toe region are lighter, and even the laces are lighter. In fact, the laces are the very thin Salomon ones with a cord lock which you use instead of tying the traditional bow. The sole has a fairly good-looking tread on it, with little chance of being clogged up by mud. The heel region is quite wide: the sides splay out a bit. This is normally done for stability: it does not hurt.

In addition, the top of the ankle cuff at the heel is cut back a bit to increase flexibility, but a soft insert rises a long way up from the back for some reason not obvious to the writers. Perhaps it is meant to aid in keeping your heel in the shoe? You would have to describe them as being half-way between the traditional ‘mid-height’ and a solid jogger. But they do seem to use a smaller last.

Roger & Sue Caffin

These seemed a bit narrower than the Fastpacker, or maybe the last has a slightly lower volume. They were not wide enough for either Roger or Sue to wear them for any useful length of time. Even wearing them inside the house was uncomfortable after a short while.

Will Rietveld

These boots are a bit lighter than the Fastpacker, and I found the performance to be similar. They have a drawcord lacing system, which is fast and convenient, but the cord on one of the boots is too short for my high insteps, so one boot is difficult to put on and take off. Fit is the same as the Fastpacker. I tested them on five trips. This boot is also based on a trail running shoe platform and does not have any leather. Its like wearing a mid-height trail running shoe. I like the extra beef, cushioning, and traction while hiking off-trail. These boots are still light and nimble, but support and protect my feet well. To me, they are what a ‘light hiker’ should be. They have the same high traction enlarged outsole as the Fastpacker. These boots (and the Fastpacker) have a Gore-Tex lining, so they are an excellent choice for hiking in snow and wet conditions.


This is a mini-review in the 2011 Lightweight Mid-Height Trail Shoes State of the Market Report. A subscription to our site is needed to read the parent article.

Disclosure: The manufacturers provided these products to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and they are owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review these products under the terms of this agreement.

Stephensons Warmlite Down Air Mat

Mini-review for the 2011 Lightweight Inflatable Sleeping Pads State of the Market Report

Stephensons Warmlite Down Air Mat - 1
Warmlite DAM.

Introduction

This mini-review is part of Part 2 of our survey of airmats. We have a full-length down airmat (DAM) from Stephensons here. It does not seem to have a special name.

Stephensons Warmlite DAM

Stephensons Warmlite Down Air Mat - 2

Length 174 cm / 68.5 in
Width 56-41 cm / 22-16 inc
Thickness 10.0 cm / 3.9 in
Shape Mummy
Weight 673 g * / 23.7 oz
R-Value 5.5 – 15.5
Drag Force 13/13 N
Insulation Down
Inflation Bag pump
Larger Side Tubes Yes
Material ns
Repair Kit No
Stuff Sack Yes
Price US$145

* The weight of 673 g (23.7 oz) includes the light stuff sack, as this doubles as a pump for the mat. A pity the stuff sack makes such a poor pump.

R-Value

This is a fairly well-stuffed down airmat, or DAM. As such you would expect it to have a high R-value. Well, it does – period! What is interesting is that while the R-value does drop as the mat is squashed flat, it does not drop very fast. This is entirely consistent with the claim heard elsewhere that what matters with down is not solely the loft but the actual amount of down used. And this is consistent with the technical way down insulation works: what matters is the density of the tips of the finest down fibres. So, all other criticisms aside, this is one very warm airmat! It may be rather heavy, but it is warm!

Slipperiness

The slipperiness is about intermediate in our collection of mats. The very high thickness makes things a little less stable, so you may need to take just a little care. If you could tie this mat to another it should be just fine.

Stephensons Warmlite Down Air Mat - 3
Warmlite valves.

Comments by Roger Caffin

This is a very thick full-length mummy-shaped down-filled airmat, or DAM. Down is sensitive to moisture from your breath, so you should use a pump to inflate it. A pump is provided, in the form of a very large stuff sack with a connector on the side. That is the yellow stuff sack on the mat in the first photo. The idea is that you connect the bag to the mat using this large connector, scoop up air in the bag, close it, squeeze it, and inflate the mat. The mechanism should be compared to the Mammut mat and the Exped DAM: they have integrated pumps inside the mat. The connectors on the yellow bag and the red mat are shown here.

The air inlet connector on the red mat contains a valve on the inside, so that once air has gone in it does not sail straight back out. The connector includes a plug to seal it. This plug is essential, as I found the mat lost about half its air over a couple of hours when there was no pressure on it. I would predict a very rapid deflation when you are lying on it if you do not use the sealing plug. That is probably normal for a valve of this nature: all it has to do is help you inflate the mat, not seal it long term. To deflate the mat deliberately you need to poke the inside bit of the valve inwards, to get it to release air. That’s easy. Well, it is good that the plug is included, but the flap of blue fabric holding the plug looked very crude, and the sealing of the valve into the mat also looked a bit amateurish. Given how long Stephensons have been in business, I really was expecting a better finish than this.

Furthermore, the finish on the combined yellow stuff sack and pump bag was definitely unsatisfactory. For a start, the sewing was a bit rough, with the thread tension severely unbalanced. This can be seen in insert at the right side of the illustration, taken from the edge of the yellow fabric between the two connectors shown at the left. But worse, the sewing holes around the seams and around the connector on the stuff sack were large and I could feel a lot air blowing out of them while I was trying to pump the mat up. I felt I was getting only about half the air going into the mat, with the other half being wasted. You could of course seam-seal all the holes, to great advantage.

I have to say that, overall, this is a slightly odd mat. It looks conventional in shape and concept, but the finish is very ‘hand-made.’ That is not to say the mat won’t work: it will, but for a company of this age the lack of a ‘commercial finish’ was unexpected. The edge around the mat is of course welded together, but the weld line is quite narrow, leaving two bits of fabric flapping around outside the weld. You can see that at the very left edge of the illustration. I would have thought welding near the edge of the fabric as well would have protected the inner weld and made it a bit more secure. But, it’s functional, and holds air, which is what matters.

The next question is how easy would it be to use the supplied stuff sack to inflate the mat? Remember: the stuff sack is connected to the mat by the connector, so it can’t be waved around very easily. Sadly, I have to report that I found getting any large amount of air into the stuff sack difficult. It is made from quite light nylon fabric, and it flops around. With a bit of practice I could get the stuff sack half full of air, then I could twist up the end to trap the air inside and squeeze the stuff sack. I seemed to lose a lot of air as I closed the top end of the stuff sack, and I could feel a lot of air blowing away from the region of the valve while I was squeezing, so only part of the air was going into the mat. Squeezing the stuff sack is not all that easy: I tried to stand it upright on the mat and use my body to press down on it, but doing so seemed to put pressure onto the valve bit of the connector from underneath, such that it was forced shut. I had to hold the connector/valve off the floor to get air to go in. Despite the very large pump bag provided, it took many, many pumpings to get the mat inflated. I was not happy with the whole exercise. You would really need a better pump than the stuff sack.

After all those surprises, does the mat itself work? Oh yes, and it is quite comfortable and very warm to sleep on too. I could overlook the rather amateur finish fairly easily if the pump worked reasonably well. The weight is quite reasonable for a full-length DAM, and it is very thick. However, after watching me struggle with the pump bag, Sue declined to be bothered trying to pump it up herself. This is relevant as she is the one who looks after setting up the mats inside the tent in the evening, while I look after the tent and the tent guys etc. So the mat is very nice, but you might need to rebuild the pump bag yourself, or buy a pump from somewhere else (eg Exped).


This is a mini-review in the 2011 Lightweight Airmats State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1 covers the basics, testing methods, and lists all the mats in the survey.
  • Part 2 examines the actual mats, and the performance of each mat tested.

Disclosure: The manufacturers provided these products to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and they are owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review these products under the terms of this agreement.