Articles (2020)

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.

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats

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

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats - 1

Introduction

This mini-review is part of Part 2 of our survey of airmats. We show three Kooka Bay mats here: a tiny tapered micro mat, then a short synthetic-insulated rectangular mat, and at the bottom a full-length Down airmat or DAM. All are ‘air core’ mats, but with very different target markets. The mats shown in this photo were measured and field-tested by Roger Caffin; Will Rietveld field-tested some slightly different mats, as explained below.

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats - 2

Note that the mats tested by Will are not the same as the ones tested by Roger. This is partly a reflection of the fact that Kooka Bay does a lot of custom manufacturing. For this reason we have moved Will’s comments up to the front here. Roger’s comments follow the tables of data covering the mats he tested.

The mats shown use very conventional valves found on many airmats: they screw shut. They can be a bit of a pain to operate at times as they tend to leak while you are closing them up. At the time of writing we understand that Kooka Bay were negotiating for some custom valves, as shown here. Will they be any better? (They do look similar to the valves used by Vaude and Nemo.)

Also, it should be noted that at the time of writing Kooka Bay was not able to offer a pump for any of their mats. Blowing up a DAM with your lungs is hardly the right thing to do. We understand Kooka Bay is actively experimenting with the design of small pumps to fix this problem. We do not know yet what valve their pump will connect to, but it is likely to be their new design.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the fabric is not all that quiet when you slide around on it. For a solo sleeper that won’t matter at all, but a sensitive partner might notice the noise if you thrash around during the night.

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats - 3

I (Will) tested two [LuxLite] pads: one tapered torso length 48/34 x 84 x 3.8 cm (19/13.5 x 33 x 1.5 in) and one mummy shaped 152 x 51 x 6.4 cm (60 x 20 x 2.5 in) on four trips. These are by far my favorite pads. They are very lightweight and very comfortable. The torso pad weighs just 159 g (5.6 oz), and the mummy pad weighs 292 g (10.3 oz). They are a perfect balance of light weight, durability, and comfort. Most other sleeping pads (except for the NeoAir pads) seem overbuilt by comparison.

An uninsulated inflatable sleeping pad is normally warm down to about 2 C (35 F). I experimented with the combination of the Kooka Bay Mummy pad plus a Gossamer Gear ThinLight pad (0.32 cm, 48 g or 1/8 in, 1.7 oz) on top to extend the temperature range of the pad. On three nights I stayed warm on this pad combination down to -2, -6, and -7 C (29, 21, and 19 F). The combination is shown here in the morning. I was amazed that such a thin foam pad on top made that much difference. The ThinLight pad conformed to the shape of the Kooka Bay pad and did not slide around on the mat; it stayed put, which was really nice.

The Kooka Bay pads are reasonably priced, adequately durable, and very comfortable. They are definitely my first choice for ultralight backpacking.

GoosePad Down airmat

Length 180 cm / 70.9 inc
Width 60 cm / 23.6 in
Thickness 10 cm / 3.9 in
Shape Rectangular
Weight 797 g / 28.1 oz
R-Value 5.7 – 10.8
Drag Force 11/11 N
Insulation Down
Inflation Blow
Larger Side Tubes No
Material 70d coated nylon taffeta
Repair Kit No
Stuff Sack No
Price ns

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats - 4

R-Value

As with any Down airmat, you expect high R-values, and the Kooka Bay DAM obliges. But it is more complex than that: the down is packed at quite a high density into the middle five tubes, with what seems to be just air in the outer tubes. Well, it’s the middle tubes where you will be sleeping, so there is some logic there. Actually, the down density seems very high in the mat Roger tested, and it may be that Kooka Bay would be willing to customise how much down is inserted. Anyhow, the mat retains a very high R-value down to a quite thin layer (or high compression).

Slipperiness

The mats tested by Roger were all made of the same fabric which was very non-grippy: the plain surface of the nylon fabric could slide quite fast. In fact, only one other mat was worse for slipperiness. This degree of slipperiness is actually fairly normal for the uncoated side of nylon fabric. Fortunately, there is a ready cure for the problem: stripes of silicone sealant on the underside. As note with the POE Ether Elite mats, the stripes can take the mat into the super-grippy category, and they add very little weight. The alternative approach is to obtain custom fabric such as that used by Nemo (for instance), but commissioning the manufacture of that is extremely expensive.

Comments by Roger Caffin

This mat has a huge amount of down in it, which accounts for its fairly high weight. As mentioned, you could order one with a bit less down. The absence of down in the outer tubes was a surprise at first, but it does make some sense. What would be nice would be if Kooka Bay could narrow the middle tubes down a bit and make the edge tubes a bit bigger, to cradle you into the centre of the mat.

The biggest problem with this mat is blowing it up. The mat has to be blown up by mouth – unless you can rig up a cunning pump of some sort. At the time of writing Kooka Bay did not offer a pump to go with the mat. As noted in our previous review of the POE Ether Elite mat, when you blow such a mat up by mouth several times you end up with condensation inside the mat. I was able to get rid of the condensation in the POE mats by hanging the mat up with the valve open for a week after a multi-day trip. Doing that on a walking trip might be a bit too hard. A better method for this mat would be to inflate it using a pump of some sort at home, place it in the sun for a couple of hours to evaporate the water, then roll the mat flat while it is still hot. You may have to do this a few times.

Sleeping on the mat was of course very comfortable. The thickness means you can afford to reduce the pressure slightly to spread the load out, without impacting the R-value under your hips too much. Being full-length meant I had no problems keeping my feet off the ground. With the big thickness and without large side tubes I found a slight tendency to roll around, but it was quite manageable. A slightly shorter mat would also work very well.

Rectangular Synthetic Insulated airmat

Length 115 cm / 45.3 in
Width 47 cm / 18.5 in
Thickness 6.3 cm / 2.5 in
Shape Rectangular
Weight 328 g / 11.6 oz
R-Value 3.4 – 4.6
Drag Force 11/11 N
Insulation Climashield XP
Inflation Blow
Larger Side Tubes No
Material 70d coated nylon taffeta
Repair Kit No
Stuff Sack No
Price US$99

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats - 5

R-Value

As mentioned in Part 2, the synthetic fill in the Kooka Bay mats is quite significant – or thick, when fluffed up. This is why the R-value declines rather slowly for this mat. I think (but am not sure) that the fill is only in the middle tubes again, missing out on the two edge tubes.

Slipperiness

This mat has the same fabric as the GoosePad mat above, and behaves exactly the same.

Comments by Roger Caffin

This mat is a bit of a contradiction in some ways, but other manufacturers should perhaps take note. The weight is under 400 grams, putting it into the summer-weight class, but this is a 6.3-cm thick insulated airmat! The only problem with it for winter use is the rather short length of 115 cm (45 in). In theory, that is a bit short for use on snow, but if you are not really tall and you have enough gear to make a pillow off the end of the mat, plus a little more to put under your feet, it makes for a very warm, comfortable non-snow winter mat. With a light foam layer over the top, a hardy soul might get away with it on snow provided the weather was very kind. I haven’t tested it on snow, but it works fine in cold weather.

Blowing up this mat has the same problems as listed above. Add a pillow pump and you could be set.

TaperLite

Length 81 cm / 31.9 in
Width 46 cm / 18.1 in
Thickness 3.0 cm / 1.2 in
Shape Tapered
Weight 160 g / 5.6 oz
R-Value 1.1 – 1.6
Drag Force 11/11 N
Insulation None
Inflation Blow
Larger side tubes No
Material Coated nylon
Repair Kit No
Stuff sack No
Price $59

Kooka Bay GoosePad, Kooka Bay Synthetic Insulated and Kooka Bay TaperLite Mats - 6

R-Value

OK, so the R-value on this mat is a wee bit low. It is, after all, meant for very enthusiastic SUL campers. You will need to keep it fairly well inflated for both warmth and comfort.

Comments by Roger Caffin

At 160 grams (5.6 oz), this was certainly the lightest mat tested. But it is also very ‘micro,’ both in length and in thickness. Yes, some mats were actually thinner (2.5 cm), but those mats had a foam core: this one is just air. The mat is tapered, and even the tubes are tapered. But it is awful light…

The thinness means that you either bump the ground – very easily, or you blow this one up pretty hard. But when it is blown up very hard it is not all that comfortable unless you have well-contoured soft stuff underneath. Also, it does not smooth out the lumps and bumps of the ground very well, either when hard or when soft. Basically, it is an interesting exercise, and may be worth considering if you are going to be sleeping on soft pine duff, but it was definitely less than exciting when laid down on hard ground and flat rock! In fact, I was not game to try it out overnight in our Hawkesbury sandstone country: I know how rock-hard that can be. On thick grass it was fine for a snooze in warm weather.

Traditionally one expects to put the wide end of such a mat at the shoulders, but you should reconsider that. I reversed the orientation and found that the narrow end was just fine under my shoulders and the extra width was appreciated at my hips. That’s for side-sleeping, but I suspect that sleeping on my back might be the same. With something this small, you have to be a bit creative.


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.

Mammut Light Pump Mat

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

Mammut Light Pump - 1
Mammut Light Pump Mat.

Introduction

This mini-review is part of Part 2 of our survey of airmats. We have one Mammut mat here: the new Light Pump. It is an ‘air core’ mat, but it has a layer of insulation inside it to boost its R-value. In addition, it is one of only two mats in this survey which have internal pumps, designed to save you from getting a woozy head and, more importantly, to stop you from filling the inside of the mat up with water vapour from your breath. It is full length and not ultralight.

Light Pump Mat

Mammut Light Pump - 2

Length 186 cm / 73.2 in
Width 52 cm / 20.5 in
Thickness 6.5 cm / 2.6 in
Shape Mummy/Rectangular combination
Weight 615 g / 21.7 oz
R-Value 2.2 – 7.1
Drag Force 13/18 N
Insulation PU foam layer
Inflation Pump
Larger Side Tubes Yes
Material Two ‘TX’ fabrics, details not given
Repair Kit Yes
Stuff Sack Yes
Price SwFr 220

R-Value

This mat manages to combine the warmth of a foam-core mat with the comfort of a big air-core mat. As you can see from the graph of R-value, it starts out very warm, and manages to stay fairly warm down to a considerable ‘softness.’ In fact, it did not seem to be very easy to get it below 30 mm thick in testing, so we didn’t bother.

Mammut Light Pump - 3
Mammut being pumped.

Slipperiness

This is not a very ‘grippy’ mat: it was sliding quite easily in the laboratory. Curiously, the top surface has more grip than the bottom surface – which is strange, but apparently a function of the two different fabrics used. However, in the field we found that the large side tubes and the general shape seem to compensate somewhat for this. We did not find it sliding around.

Comments by Roger (and Sue) Caffin

Despite the pump, this is not a fast mat to blow up as it is rather large, but it does not take a lot of effort to keep pumping away. What does take some attention is keeping your palm over the inlet valve during the pump strokes. We can assure you that if you don’t block off that inlet valve the mat won’t inflate! OK, you don’t make that mistake twice. I would add that a damp hand seems to seal the inlet hole much better than a dry one. After a couple of goes, it is quite easy to inflate.

A key thing to note with this internal pump business is that there are two valves, as shown in the inset. The top one is the exhaust valve, which must be sealed to inflate. The bottom one is the inlet valve, and the red cap is more in the nature of a safety cap you insert at the end. The two seals worked well though, with no suggestion of them leaking over several days’ storage while fully inflated at home.

How hard to inflate the mat is an interesting question, but the nature of the pump means you can’t over-inflate the mat. We found that stopping just short of where the pump no longer works was enough inflation. You could deflate it slightly if the ground is not cold for even greater comfort. This is a very common trick. The large side tubes did work well at stopping us from rolling off this mat or having it creep out from underneath.

Mammut Light Pump - 4
Mammut being used.

Our normal practice (Roger and Sue) is to tie our two mats together with tape loops. Sadly, they are not visible in the photo here, but they were there. That technique works, but the shape of the mat does leave a bit of a gap for the legs. The gap is visible in the photo, where the Mammut Light Pump is teamed up with a Big Agnes Insulated Air Core mat. However, we found it did not matter much, as the gap was not too wide, and my quilt had some insulation underneath down around my calves. Sue was testing out a quilt/sleeping bag I had made for her a few years ago, while I was testing out the Katabatic Sawatch quilt. Sleeping on our sides means our legs were angled across the gap rather than running down the length of the gap. The small gap at the head end was never a problem either.

I got to sleep on this mat for only one night on the cold trip in our alpine region shown in the photo. Yes, it was comfortable and warm. After that first night my wife Sue pinched it off me. Now, Sue is not keen on heavy gear, but she did say at the end of the trip ‘I’m keeping that one.’ It would seem she slept very well on it, down to freezing temperatures. You can take that as a recommendation. We didn’t get to test it on snow as we didn’t have any lying around … in late spring in Australia.

Mammut supplies the usual little repair kit with this mat: it is found in a little pocket inside the stuff sack they supply. It may be worth commenting that unlike many over-sized stuff sacks, this one is small enough that it does require some effort to get the mat rolled up tightly enough to fit. You need to start by folding the mat lengthwise into one thirds, then rather aggressively rolling it up tightly. Fortunately there is a hook-and-loop strap at the end to keep it all together once you have rolled it up. Our strong suggestion is that you do not cut this strap off in the pursuit of lightness: you will need it!


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.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest ProLite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats

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

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 1
ProLite (top), NeoAir (middle), Deluxe LE (bottom).

Introduction

This mini-review is part of Part 2 of our survey of airmats. We have a number of Therm-a-Rest mats here: the ProLite series, the NeoAir series, and just for reference an older model no longer available called the Deluxe LE (Limited Edition). The Deluxe mats have supported Roger and Sue Caffin for many years in the snow, and serve as a sort of benchmark for comfort and warmth. (You might note that we frequently abbreviate the company name to TaR. They are a major player, after all.)

It should be noted that the mats shown on the Cascade Designs Therm-a-Rest web site are apparently updated versions for 2011, and the names may have changed slightly. We doubt the properties have changed much though.

By and large the Therm-a-Rest mats do not include a repair kit: a kit is sold separately. Summarising from an email from Cascade Designs: ‘it is called the Therm-a-Rest Fast & Light Repair kit, and is suitable for repairing any of the mattresses in the Fast & Light line. It includes Seamgrip adhesive, applicator and Fast & Light color patches. The retail price is US$9.95.’ Perhaps their statistics suggests that few people ever need a repair kit? I have never needed one myself, and there are good general purpose patches available as well.

It may be worth mentioning here that while I have heard of customers returning their Therm-a-Rest mats to Cascade Designs seeking assistance with leaks, the general experience has been that the company has no hesitation in replacing a mat if they think it will help the customer. With support like this, one has to feel fairly confident (and they get very good PR out of it as well).

ProLite Mats: XS and S

Once again we will compress all the ProLite mats into one table, as they are basically all the same except for the length.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 2

Length 91 cm / 35.8 in 120 cm / 47.2 in
Width 50 cm / 19.7 in
Thickness 2.8 cm / 1.1 in
Shape Mummy
Weight 227 g / 8 oz 299 g / 10.5 oz
R-Value 1.4 – 2.6
Drag Force 16/12 N *
Insulation Foam
Inflation Self
Larger Side Tubes No
Material Nylon Fabric
Repair Kit No
Stuff Sack No
Price (typical) US$59.95 US$79.95

* See under Slipperiness about the drag forces.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 3

R-Value

The graph above is taken from our Review of the mat. Once again, it shows how the R-value decreases in the expected fashion as the mat gets thinner. However, it must be said that it does not decrease very fast, even down to the ridiculously low value of 10 mm thickness. That is of course due to the foam fill: even squashed almost flat the air does not get a chance to circulate. We (Roger and Sue) have to add that we have used these mats down to quite low temperatures and been comfortable. I doubt we would let them get down to 10 mm in normal field use.

Slipperiness

This is one of those mats which can go flying in the night. The fabric on these mats is covered with little ‘anti-slip’ dots, according to the Therm-a-Rest marketing. Well, they seem to act more as enhanced bearings. We did ask Cascade Designs (Therm-a-Rest) about how slippery the ProLite mats are, and got a rather unsatisfactory answer from the relevant manager. Basically, he suggested that we should either add silicone stripes or change our groundsheet material. Roger felt that suggesting he change his groundsheet material was not a helpful reply. However, since the company has used a far, far better material on the NeoAir mats it would seem the designers may be aware of the problem.

The latest blurb on their web site says ‘Bottom grips and textured top surface hold the mattress in place while you sleep.’ We have not tested this latest fabric as the mats were received before they came out.

You may note that the drag force found for the silicone-treated surface of the POE Ether Elite mat (28 N) is far higher than the drag force found for the silicone-treated surface of the ProLite mat (16 N). We ascribe the difference to several factors. First, the silicone stripes on the Ether Elite were down the middle of the tubes, while on the ProLite they are just on the underside. That means the forces are much more focused on the silicone stripes on the Ether Elite mat, and this obviously increase the drag. Also, the surface of the Ether Elite mat was smooth, while the ProLite mat had ‘dots’ all over the surface, and it is possible that these dots were poking through the silicone a bit, reducing the actual contact. I did smear the silicone fairly thinly on the ProLite mat, perhaps too thinly. Finally, the silicone stripes on the ProLite mat are by now fairly old and worn, while the ones on the Ether Elites are fairly new. What all this goes to show is that you might need to redo the stripes after a few years of use.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 4
ProLites in Europe.

Comments by Will Rietveld

Janet and I slept on the ProLite in sizes Small (47 x 20 x 1 in) and Extra Small (36 x 20 x 1 in) on one multi-day backpacking trip. Janet found the pads to be comfortable because she has more padding on her hips. I found the ProLite to be just barely comfortable. The pads are not quite self-inflating and require some blowing to top them off. They did not readily slide on a Cuben fiber tent floor.

On one cold frosty night down to -4 C (25 F), after a rainy evening, I found the ProLite to be warm underneath me. Its die-cut foam core provides good insulation for occasional nights below freezing.

Comments by Roger Caffin

We have had these mats for a while now, and we have carted them around the world. The photo here shows them early in the morning on a small high alp below the summit of Matte, a mountain in Switzerland on the Alpine Passes route. We spent two months walking around the mountains on this trip with these mats. They proved to be comfortable and warm enough (with quilts), very reliable, and largely self-inflating. I would not discount either the reliability or self-inflating factors.

I have used the ProLite mat as a reference point in some comparisons in this series. They are light, foam-cored so require only a few puffs to be fully inflated, they seem warm enough for three-season use, and they have been fairly robust – no patches yet after several years. You could do worse.

NeoAir mats

Three different models of the NeoAir mat were provided, differing only in length as far as we could see. So the data for all three (Regular, Medium and Short) has been condensed into this one table.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 5

Length 182 cm /
71.7 in
164 cm /
64.6 in
113 cm /
44.5 in
Width 50 cm / 19.7 in
Thickness 6.9 cm / 2.7 in
Shape Rectangular
Weight 396 g /
14.0 oz
366 g /
12.9 oz
255 g /
9.0 oz
R-Value 1.6 – 6.1
Drag Force 27/25 N
Insulation Air + Radiant Baffle
Inflation Blow
Larger Side Tubes No *
Material Nylon
Repair Kit No
Stuff Sack No
Price US$129.95 US$139.95 US$149.95

* This mat has the tubes running across the mat, not along the length. This gave the reviewers a lot of trouble in the initial review, as the prototype supplied was significantly narrower than these ones. They didn’t tell us they were sending undersized prototypes before hand, so we didn’t know, and consequently were a bit critical in the review.

R-Value

Cascade Designs claims an R-value of 2.5. The figures we measured obviously span that. So we will quote what they have to say about the internals of this mat:

Our patent-pending reflective barrier returns warmth to your body and reduces heat loss to the ground, keeping you three times warmer than any other uninsulated air mattress.

Well, ‘three times’ is a bold claim, and suggests the mat they are comparing the NeoAir to has an extremely low R-value of just over 0.8, but they do not actually say what physical mat they are comparing it to. A bit of marketing spin perhaps, but we can forgive them because the mat does measure up fairly well. It is warmer than, say, the Big Agnes Clearview, so there is some truth to the claim. But do note that there is little chance of exploiting the top end of the thickness scale shown above: you will compress the mat well below that when you lie on it, especially if you ‘soften’ it a bit. And that means the upper end of the measured R-value scale is similarly well out of reach. It just isn’t going to happen.

It may be appropriate here to comment on this wide range of R-values (1.6 to 6.1) in relation to the claimed R-value of 2.5 and the claimed thickness of 6.9 cm. There is no way you will ever manage to get the thickness quoted when you are sleeping on the mat, but the claimed R-value of 2.5 corresponds roughly to a thickness of 3.5 cm (see graph above). This is quite a low thickness, so clearly Cascade Designs is being quite conservative with their warmth claim here. This is consistent with our observations at the start about the degree of customer support the company gives in handling any return mats. The company can be relied upon.

Slipperiness

Fortunately, the mat is not very slippery at all. Being rectangular also helps if you use tie loops around two of them.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 6
NeoAir with foam.

Comments by Will and Janet Rietveld

We tested the Small and Regular size NeoAir pads on four camping trips. They take a little longer to blow up compared to other pads. Both of us found them to be very comfortable, especially when partially inflated so they were softer. By soft, we mean that we are a little short of bottoming out at the hip and shoulder. Some people have complained of the NeoAir pads being crinkly and the noise interfering with their sleep; we did not have that problem. The full-length size Regular NeoAir provides a huge amount of comfort at 14 ounces.

Since the NeoAir has width-wise chambers rather than length-wise chambers, it felt narrower than other pads, and I had to make more effort to stay centered on the pad when turning over at night.

We slept on the NeoAir by itself down to -2 C (28 F) without feeling chilled on the bottomside. I experimented with a Gossamer Gear Thinlight foam pad (3 mm or 1/8″ thick and 48 g or 1.7 oz) on top of the NeoAir Regular (as shown in the photo here), and stayed warm down to -7 C and -8 C (19 F and 17 F) on two nights in a tent. The ThinLight foam really extended the warmth of the NeoAir, stayed in place very well, and conformed to the shape of the NeoAir pad.

Overall, the NeoAir pads are at the top of the list of my favorite sleeping pads. Their reflective layer gives them a bit more insulation than the Kooka Bay pads, but they take longer to inflate and are more expensive.

Comments by Roger Caffin

In the initial review of the NeoAir mat I mentioned that my wife complained strongly about the amount of noise I made with the surface of the (pre-production) mat. It’s hard to tell, as I don’t have that mat any more, but these mats did not seem quite as noisy.

Given the light weight of even the ‘full length’ versions of this mat, it is not hard to see why some people will accept the extra weight over a Short version: 366 g vs 255 g (12.9 oz vs 9.0 oz). That doesn’t solve the width problem though. Yes, the width seems to be the same 50 cm (19.7 in) as many other mats have, but the way the ends of the tubes fall off at the sides does seem to make the mat seem a bit narrower. That said, when you strap two of them together sideways with tape loops, the width problem seems to disappear a bit. Actually, with tight loops, you can really get two of them to feel like one very wide mat, which has some advantages. It is likely that strapping one of these next to another rectangular mat of similar thickness would also work quite well.

As Will mentioned, a significant problem with the longer versions of the NeoAir is blowing two of them up in the evening. It does take a while and a lot of puff – especially as they are so thick. But they do seem a bit more comfortable when not fully inflated, so maybe you just have to compromise. But note: all that blowing does mean you have blown a lot of moisture into the mat. Fortunately the internals are not susceptible to moisture, and you can hang the mat up in the sun with the valve open when you get home.

Perhaps the biggest problem with these NeoAir mats will be the cost. They are on a par with the down airmats in cost – but lighter.

Deluxe LE mats

This mat has not been available for many many years. It has been included as a sort of reference point, and to show that not so much has really improved over the years. OK, it is a bit heavier.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 7

Length 119 cm / 46.9 in
Width 51 cm / 20.1 in
Thickness 5.0 cm / 2.0 in
Shape Rectangular
Weight 750 g / 26.5 oz
R-Value 4.4 – 8.7
Drag Force 18/18 N
Insulation Foam
Inflation Self
Larger Side Tubes NA
Material Nylon
Repair Kit No
Stuff Sack No
Price NA

R-Value

This mat is nicely warm. We have used it in the snow down to temperatures of -17 C (1 F) or lower, and we were warm. Well, we were until we got out of the tent, anyhow! (I am not sure just how cold it got during the night shown in the photos here, but it was cold outside. But the morning sun was nice.) In addition, the surface of the mat is a knit fabric which is comfortable in itself.

In fact, I sometimes think that we were warmer on this mat in the snow than on hard ground. The reason is probably because what heat leakage there was did preferentially melt the snow under our hips, allowing the thickness of the mat to even out there. We often found ‘hip holes’ left on the tent site when we packed the tent away in the morning.

Therm-a-Rest NeoAir, Therm-a-Rest Prolite, and Therm-a-Rest Deluxe LE Mats - 8

Slipperiness

A drag force of only 18 N does not seem very much, but I have to say we had little trouble with these mats. I think part of the reason has to be that we always tie the two of them together with our tape loops, but I think there may be a little more to it than just that. The mats are very ‘square’, both in shape and at the edges as well, so they rest together very nicely. Well, that just goes to show that ‘drag force’ has its limitations as a measurement of slipperiness.

Comments by Roger and Sue Caffin

We included this mat in this survey as a reference point, to show just what was possible more than 20 years ago. The mat may be fairly heavy, at the top end of our allowed weight range, but it does still qualify. Not only does it qualify, but it ranks well for warmth and comfort too. So many other mats were heavier – why, we do not know. Note that while our two Deluxe LE mats are over 20 years old, they have a grand total of one tiny leak in them, and that was fixed many years ago with a dot of polyurethane sealant rubbed in (Shoe Goo, actually). So any claims by companies that they have to make their mats heavier to get them robust enough are … debatable, to say the least. But you know what tourists are like, so perhaps it is understandable.

In addition, we didn’t find a single mat in the survey which had a surface quite as nice as these ones. A soft knit fabric which is quite nice to sleep on: a far cry from some of the plastic-y surfaces we encountered in the rest. This mat set a fairly high bar many years ago, and still serves as a reference point for winter use.


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.

MontBell UL 90 and MontBell UL 120 Mats

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

MontBell UL 90 and MontBell UL 120 Mats - 1
Both sizes of the MontBell UL Comfort System Pads.

Introduction

This mini-review is part of Part 2 of our survey of airmats. We have two MontBell mats here from the UL Comfort System Pad series: the 90-cm and the 120-cm versions. They are traditional self-inflating foam-core mats. As the mats are both rectangular and only differ in the length, we have condensed the data for the two into one section. The photo here shows the two of them, stacked one on top of the other. In addition, we cover two other neat little Japanese add-ons which were provided. They were unexpected but definitely appreciated.

MontBell UL Comfort System Pad 90 and UL Comfort System Pad 120

MontBell UL 90 and MontBell UL 120 Mats - 2

Length 87 cm / 34.3 in 118 cm / 46.5 in
Width 50 cm / 19.7 in
Thickness 2.4 cm / 0.9 in
Shape Rectangular
Weight 315 g / 11.1 oz 428 g / 15.1 oz
R-Value 2.2 – 3.9
Drag Force 21/21 N
Insulation PU foam layer
Inflation Self
Larger Side Tubes No tubes at all
Material 40d non-slip nylon
Repair Kit Yes
Stuff Sack Yes
Price US$59 US$69

R-Value

We have given just one graph of R-value here because, as mentioned above, the two mats are identical in construction except for length. The R-value is perfectly adequate for three-season use, which is what these mats are intended for. They are a bit warmer than, say, the Therm-a-Rest Prolite mats, but they are a bit heavier. When you normalise the R-values for the mass per unit length of the mat they cluster very closely with the other foam-core mats – which figures.

Slipperiness

With a drag force of 21 Newtons (N) the MontBell UL Comfort System pads just manage to move up into the ‘not too slippery’ category (ie >20 N). However, they are much less likely to slip out from under you in the night for at least one reason – or two in some cases. The first is that they are definitely not as thick as the air-core mats, and this seems to make them more docile in the field.

Things get more interesting when there are two of you sharing a tent with the same mats. MontBell has very cleverly put holes in the edges at the corners, and you can use the holes with the little toggles they provide to link two mats together: loops are not needed! That makes the combination very stable. Alternately, as shown in the picture here, you can ‘stretch’ the mat by adding a pillow at the end using the same holes and toggles.

We also tested these with a Gossamer Gear 1/8″ Thinlight mat on top: there was no sliding around between the two.

MontBell UL 90 and MontBell UL 120 Mats - 3
MontBell with pillow.

Comments by Will Rietveld

Janet and I tested the MontBell 90-cm and 120-cm sleeping pads and attachable pillow on three backpacking trips. While they are a few ounces heavier than the TaR Prolite pads, they are also more comfortable. The foam inside is apparently not die-cut, which accounts for the extra weight (and comfort). In contrast to the Prolite pads, I found the MontBell pads to be decently comfortable. The pads were warm on nights down to -1 C and -3 C (30 F and 28 F).

MontBell’s attachable inflatable pillow (68 g /2.4 oz) is addictive. It attaches to the pad with toggles and loops to hold it in place, and it’s just the right height to support my head. I leave it attached when packing it, so it’s very convenient to use.

Overall, I find the MontBell sleeping pads and pillow very likeable for sleeping comfort; I just wish they were a bit lighter. Note that MontBell will be revising their sleeping pads for spring 2012, to be announced at summer 2011 Outdoor Retailer.

Comments by Roger Caffin

Of course, being only 2.4 cm thick you need to inflate these mats fairly firmly to keep you off the ground. But they are of comparable thickness to other self-inflating mats, and of comparable comfort. Yes, 6+ cm is nice, but we found these thin MontBell mats to be quite adequate with just a bit of care about clearing the ground of major lumps. And they were quite warm enough for three-season use.

We also tried them out on a lightweight trip in alpine country, sleeping on bumpy snow grass. I found that a firm inflation definitely help smooth the snow grass bumps out – I was even able to wiggle around to get my hip over the gap between two humps of grass. That worked fine.

MontBell UL 90 and MontBell UL 120 Mats - 4
MontBell on a cold night.

The alpine trip did show up a limitation of these mats. The temperature during the nights got down to -3 C, -3 C and -8.6 C (28 F, 28 F, and 16.5 F) according to my little recording data logger. That was a bit too cold for the MontBell mat – or perhaps the already frozen ground was too cold. So I put a 1/8″ Gossamer Gear Thinlight pad over the MontBell mat to boost its insulation a bit. I doubt that the thickness dropped below 24 mm even under my hips, but the snow grass did help there. Anyhow, that worked just enough – and note that I was using a Katabatic quilt on the mat, so there was no help from the down. The photo here shows my winter tent decorated with light snow on the third morning while I was pulling it down, and the frost-heave in the ground nearby. Yep, that ground was cold! Mind you, I think the snow grass definitely helped me a fair bit as well as it mostly kept me off the soil. (We won’t go into the last night of that trip, when we got about 100 mm (8 in) of snow overnight: we left fairly quickly after that!)

MontBell Pillow

When I first saw the extra pillow I was not very impressed with the idea, but two things changed my mind. First, the pillow actually works: my head is stable on it, unlike some ‘balloons’ which left my head rolling off the side. I am fairly sure the reason for the stability is the two internal baffles you can just see in the second photo: they stop the middle from bulging. The second reason was the really neat way the pillow attaches, or anchors, to the mat. The inset in the photo shows the little toggles they use for this. The toggles are light and very reliable. The light weight of the pillow (68 g /2.4 oz) and the low cost (US$29) help as well. By way of comparison, my MYOG cored-foam pillows weigh 110 g (3.9 oz): somewhat heavier!.Yes, I did use the pillow on the alpine trip mentioned above. I found that it worked better for me if I stashed some flat gear (day-time clothing) under it to raise it slightly. But this little pillow has become a keeper for us.

MontBell UL 90 and MontBell UL 120 Mats - 5
MontBell extra mat.

MontBell Sit Mat

You have to admire both the ingenuity of the Japanese designers and the alertness of the MontBell PR people. In addition to sending a pillow with the mats they sent the little fold-up mat shown here. It seems to be made of the same fabric but firmer foam, and has the toggles and holes. Oh – the spacing matches the main mat, and the sit-mat does include the same toggles. The sit mat can therefore attach to the foot of the air-mat.

The MontBell sit-mat weighs 71 g (2.5 oz) and costs US$17. Once again, my first reaction was ‘ho hum,’ but after a little while I found I was taking this fold-up mat everywhere. Not only to tie to the bottom end of the MontBell airmat at night, but also on day walks to serve as a sit-mat for meal stops. Why did it slip so easily into my standard gear? I think because it managed to combine comfort, durability and ease of packing. My other (MYOG) foam sit-mat of the same area – which does not fold up, is always a bit of a pain to get into my pack at the last minute, when everything else has already been packed away, and I find I am still sitting on it. (Happens all the time!) But this one is much easier to pack away. Very ingenious. Another keeper.


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.

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.

Vaude Norrsken Insulated Mat

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

Vaude Norrsken Insulated Mat - 1

Introduction

This mini-review is part of Part 2 of our survey of airmats. Here we have a full-length Vaude Norrsken insulated airmat.

Vaude Norrsken mat

Vaude Norrsken Insulated Mat - 2

Length 181 cm / 71.3 in
Width 49 cm / 19.3 in
Thickness 5.6 cm / 2.2 in
Shape Rectangular
Weight 630 g / 22.2 oz
R-Value 2.8 – 4.7
Drag Force 4/9 N
Insulation Air/Synth *
Inflation Blow
Larger Side Tubes Yes
Material “30d PA/PES with TPU coating”
Repair Kit No
Stuff sack No
Price US$145

* The mat has a layer of ‘PES Primaloft Infinity 80g/m²’ inside it. To quote the Primaloft web site: ‘PrimaLoft INFINITY is a fine denier, high loft continuous filament insulation engineered for maximum warmth, compressibility and softness.’ What PA/PES means I don’t know. PES normally means PolyEtherSulfone, but that is a hard engineering plastic sometimes used as a replacement for polycarbonate. TPU is a fancy way of saying PolyUrethane.

R-Value

The R-value for this mat is perhaps a shade low compared to some of its competition, especially when the price is taken into account. That said, it should be quite adequate for three-season use, especially with a foam overlay.

Slipperiness

Vaude Norrsken Insulated Mat - 3

Well, this is the most slippery mat in the whole collection by far. Of course, what any smart camper will do as soon as he gets this mat is to put some good silicone sealant stripes along the underside, after which all will be well on that side. So the very slippery base is not a significant problem. The top surface is even more slippery than the underside, but that is offset by the good side-tubes on the mat, which should go a long way towards keeping you on the mat.

Comments by Roger Caffin

This is a moderately thick full-length insulated airmat. (There is also a Short version.) The Primaloft insulation material is bonded to the inside of the top surface – so don’t use the mat upside down. It’s a nice mat, but just a little heavy.

This Norrsken mat has an innovation I haven’t seen before: there seem to be eight tubes on the top side, including the large outer tubes, but there are nine tubes visible on the underside. Obviously they have some zig-zag internal dividers inside the mat. They don’t explain why they have done this: perhaps it limits the air circulation a bit more? Regardless of the why bit, the side tubes are larger than the middle tubes. In fact, they are probably essential for a good night’s sleep in the field.

The valve is different from normal: you give it a quarter turn (or a bit less) and then pull it out, to open. To close it you push it back in to shut it off, then give it that quarter-turn to lock it shut. This is rather neat. Certainly, it seems to work well, and a lot faster then the common screw-down sort when you are trying to keep all the air inside after you have blown it up. Nemo use the same thing on their Zor mats.

The larger side tubes do give this mat a bit more stability than one might expect for the slightly narrow 49-cm (19.3-in) width, so that is good. They seem to work reasonably well at keeping you on the mat. The weight is a bit high compared to some other mats, but bear in mind that this is the full-length version. The Short version weighs 550 g (19.4 oz).


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.