Articles (2020)

Introduction

Although hammock shelters intrigued me in the past, I never bought into the concept. Finding a level spot to sleep had never been an issue for me, and objectively speaking hammocks were heavier than tents. I could easily use a 3- to 3.5-pound tent, split between two people for a carry weight of 1.5 to 1.75 pounds. On the other hand, even the excellent and venerable Hennessy Expedition Asym weighs over 2.5 pounds. Frankly, I’d rather have the ease and convenience of a tent while carrying a pound less! But hammocks still called to me, and when I stumbled upon the Hennessy Hyperlite Asym Zip, I knew I finally had to give hammocks a chance.

Specifications

The complete hammock shelter (hammock, netting, fly, and line), only weighs 1 pound 9 ounces! At that point, its weight is on par with my half of a tent… and lighter than most solo tents (single-wall tarp-ish shelters excluded). Based on weight alone this was a great hammock, but what also really caught my eye was the side zipper.

I’ve always liked the idea of using my hammock as a camp chair, but I didn’t like the need to unstake and invert other Hennessy models. I wanted to be able to leave my stuff in the hammock, and I wanted minimal fuss. With Hennessy’s introduction of zippered models, you can just unzip the side and plunk down your rear. That sounded comfy AND easy! I bought the hammock and waited impatiently for a chance to take it for a spin.

Performance

The hammock was intuitively simple to hang and rig, although being new to hammocking it took me a few tries to figure out how far it would sag. (My solution: if in doubt, hang it higher.) As I unzipped the hammock, I noticed a bit of a glitch, or inconvenience perhaps, in the hammock instructions and actual use. The instructions said that the hammock had to be fully unzipped for entry and egress, but once in the hammock there was no way I could reach the foot-end zipper. I didn’t want to destroy the zipper, so pondered a few minutes and came up with an easy fix.

I passed a long-ish piece of reflective cord through the far zipper pull, then through a small plastic ring at the asymmetric point, and tied it off to make a loop. In use, the idea is much like the cord used to raise and lower kayak rudders. From a reclining position I can just pull on one “side” of the loop to unzip, or pull on the other side to close up for the night. I really like the reflective cord for being a cinch to find in the dark. It works just about perfectly and protects the integrity of the zipper.

Comfort

Once settled into the hammock, the first thing I noticed was how comfortable it is. You hear people talk about the asymmetric design, and how Hennessy designs allow you to lay flatter, but I think it’s hard to grasp until you crawl in one. Mind you, you’re not perfectly flat. But there’s just about the right amount of curve for me that I don’t need a pillow, and my weary feet get a little lift to drain. The other significant point of comfort comes from the side tie-outs.

Just before buying the Hyperlite, I had tried using another company’s hammock for a couple of nights. It was a disaster! Turning over was a delicate balancing act, and the sides of the hammock squeezed tightly enough around my shoulders to compress the insulation of my sleeping bag to nothing. In contrast, the Hyperlite Zip was plenty stable for shifting around and rolling over to sleep on my other side. Another point of pleasure: the hammock sides stayed well away from my shoulders and feet, allowing my sleeping bag to loft fully and giving me unrestricted comfort.

This is not a small point. In other hammocks I’ve felt a bit like I was stuffed into a sausage casing, even when laying as cross-wise as possible. There was absolutely none of this feeling in the Hyperlite. In fact, I even had a little movin’ around room!

With some futzing about I can get dressed and undressed in the hammock, but found it easier to change while on the ground. Inside, a small mesh pocket hangs from the ridgeline, ready for my glasses and headlamp. The sides of the Hyperlite come up just enough to give some wind and elemental protection, but are low enough to peer through the mesh while reclining. I liked that you can easily unzip the mesh on a nice day and flip it over the ridgeline for more airflow and a cleaner view. Of course, how much you can view is affected in part by how you’ve pitched the fly.

Getting the “Hang” of It

The shelter is ridiculously easy to pitch once you have things set, and getting it set just took a little playing around. What would require “setting” on a hammock? Just the tension and placement of the fly, really. A plastic hook attaches to a prusik knot on each end of the ridgeline; all you have to do is slip a plastic ring from the fly onto the hook and slide the prusik to adjust. Part of the adjustment is simply centering the fly over the hammock. Once centered, though, you can adjust the tension slightly to create more or less gap between the fly and hammock netting. I’ve found that it’s easiest to leave the system all together, so pitching just requires pulling the hammock out of my pack, tying off to a couple trees, and sinking two stakes.

Tying off to trees brought me a couple surprises. My standard method of rigging a tarp ridgeline is to use a trucker’s hitch on one end. When I did this with the line on the Hennessy, though, the sheath melted and stuck together. Using the supplied tree straps and tightening through them had similar results. Guess I should have read that part in the instructions! Not surprisingly, the best course of action was the one Hennessy recommends: Pass the line through the tree strap, then spiral wrap the line back on itself ~10 times toward the hammock, the same back to the tree, and pull the line through the loop. It works well, but don’t skimp on the wraps.

For other hammock newbs out there, I’ve found that how you position the hammock between your hanging points can affect the hammock’s level. If the amount of line on each end is equidistant from hammock to tree, the hammock should hang pretty level. If, however, the line is significantly shorter on one end, that end seems to hang higher. If the line is particularly long on one end, that end seems to hang lower.

I love a good taut pitch, and as I stood back to admire the well-executed design of the Hyperlite fly something caught my eye a few times. The fly just looks too short, like it needs more length. It seems like the hammock barely fits under there. But then, this is the Hyperlite we’re talking about, and minimizing excess is the name of the game. More importantly, the fly has kept me dry in moderate rains… I haven’t experienced any other type of inclement weather with the hammock. I’m confident that despite the appearance, the fly provides good coverage.

Accessories

Hennessy has an accessory for their hammocks called “Snakeskins” and I tried the skins along with the hammock. You basically put a narrow but long silnylon windsock (a Snakeskin) on each end of the ridgeline. When it’s time to pack up you just roll the hammock up like you would a sleeping pad, then pull the Snakeskins over the hammock to keep it all together. You can rig the skins to cover just the hammock, just the fly, or both. I used it primarily to cover both. And let me tell you, it makes quick work of stashing the hammock! However, I found that packing the long, hard, snaked roll was inconvenient. I just couldn’t find a good way to stuff that big sausage shape into my pack in a way that was particularly space efficient… which bothered me, because I really liked the way the Snakeskins worked initially. I’ve found that it’s easier for me to just stuff the hammock straight into my pack.

Comparisons

We thought it would be interesting (and instructional!) to compare the Hyperlite with other complete hammock shelters on the market. Models chosen were the lightest options from those companies. Although many people say they choose to hang because of the light weight, for example, notice how several of the models compare to a two-person, double-wall tent with vestibule. The Bear Mountain is 32 oz/2 pounds heavier than the Fly Creek, and yet two hikers could split the weight of the Fly Creek, effectively making it weigh ~1 pound per hiker. Other factors, such as comfort or rough country hanging, can still make hammocks come out (ahem) on top. The Hyperlite is the lightest (and cheapest for weight) complete hammock shelter on the market… although the Warbonnet Blackbird is nipping right at its heels.

Conclusion

So how about it? Is using a side zipper instead of bottom-entry Velcro an improvement? Is the Hyperlite actually, well, light? Is this thing worth considering instead of a solo tent?

Yes.

I liked being able to leave my stuff in the hammock, as well as the ease of having a ready seat. It’s a simple thing to unstake one side of the fly and flip it over the ridgeline, revealing a pretty grand and comfortable view (depending on your site location). The hammock is the lightest of its kind that I’ve encountered, and I feel that the ounces are well-spent on comfort, weather protection, and ease of use. There were some nights wiggling around trying to adjust things when I would have gladly just crawled into a tent… but this hammock has made me a part-time hanger.

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at a discounted rate for ownership by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.

Introduction

The 3-section adjustable, collapsible aluminum trekking pole is overwhelmingly the most popular style on the market today. However, most of these poles weigh half a pound or more. Sure, it is possible to find a lighter pole that lacks the ability to collapse, adjust, or both. However, what about the hiker that wants all of these features without a big weight penalty?

Enter Fizan, an Italian company that has been making aluminum poles since 1947. Fizan have simplified and refined the standard trekking pole design to create the Compact – what they say is the world’s lightest three-section adjustable, collapsible pole. At a claimed 158 grams (5.6 oz) per pole, they might be right.

So, is this the trekking pole for the ultralight backpacker who wants to have their cake and eat it too?

Description

Specifications and Features

Fizan Compact are three-section, adjustable and collapsible trekking poles that weight 158 grams (5.6 oz) per pole, according to the manufacturer. Pole height is adjustable from 58 to 132 centimeters (22.8-52 in). This means that they can extend long enough for nearly all hikers and compact short enough to easily stow away on or in a backpack. The poles are made of lightweight 7001 aluminum alloy. The Flexy Locking System is an internal barrel adjuster comprised of a delrin expander and aluminum pin. Each pole has an EVA grip, neoprene strap, 50-mm removable basket and carbide tip.

Performance

Kristin and I tested the Fizan poles on numerous hikes throughout the Italian and French Alps during the first half of 2011. We used the poles on and off trail, over dirt, rock fields, streams, and snow.

The poles easily adjusted with a twist of the shafts, just like any conventional pole with a twist-lock mechanism. With the upper shaft in the right hand, twist the lower shaft away from you, disengaging the expanders. Adjust the pole position to the new desired height, and twist the lower shaft towards you to lock. Despite the minimalistic and uber-simple adjusting system, the Compact poles never slipped once. I can’t say this of all barrel adjuster poles that I have used. For example, I have owned two generations of the Komperdell Carbon Duo Lock poles and both pairs slipped occasionally. Fizan says that their internal expanders have a holding power of 220 pounds (100 kg).

The remaining features are reliable if unexceptional. The foam grips and neoprene straps are similar to those found on many other poles. Using these was familiar and comfortable. The poles are identical. Some people find asymmetrical grips to be more comfortable, but I prefer the ease of use of symmetrical grips – I do not have to take the time to figure out which pole goes in which hand. Additionally, Kristin and I like symmetrical grips as we often hike with only one pole each and can therefore share one pair of poles. The 50-mm press-fit basket is easy to remove, or exchange for an additionally available 85-mm trekking or larger powder basket. The carbide tips grip well and are long lasting. A plastic tip covering is provided, which helps protect your gear when you pack the poles away. These plastic tips provide better traction on rocks, but can wear through relatively quickly when used for hiking.

The Compact poles have an extremely solid feel to them, despite the light swing weight. We did not worry about the poles buckling under our weight. The poles did not vibrate or rattle when used on rocks. During our testing period, nothing wore out, came lose, or needed repair. The poles are well crafted, sturdy and reliable.

Comparisons

The Fizan Compacts are the lightest in their class (three-section adjustable, collapsible poles). The nearest competitor is the Exped Alpine Lite, which is made of aluminum and is 24 grams (0.9 oz) heavier. The other poles in this field are all made of carbon fiber, a material which is prone to slippage and suffers catastrophic failure. This may a factor that has led to the discontinuation of several carbon fiber poles, such as Komperdell C3 Duo Lock (aka REI Peak UL Carbon), Brasher Provolution, and a few models from Leki. Carbon fiber does dampen fatigue-causing vibration.

Comparison Chart: 3-Section, Adjustable, Collapsible Poles

*Discontinued; was distributed in the US as REI Peak UL Carbon.

**While not distributed in the US, they can be shipped from the UK for $80. The poles cost about 60€ in Europe and 55£ in the UK.

***Sold in UK, prices based on exchange rate as of 6/16/2011. Price does not include shipping to the US.

There are a few other trekking pole models to consider that are even lighter than the Fizan Compact poles. However, to save weight they lose the ability to either adjust or collapse.

Adjustable But Not Collapsible

Collapsible But Not Adjustable

For more information, please see these related BPL articles:

• Titanium Goat Poles (non adjustable versions, 2006)
• Alpkit Carbonlite (2007)
• Gossamer Gear Lightrek 4 (2010)
• Black Diamond Ultra Distance (2011)

Look for an upcoming review of the CAMP Xenon 4 poles, as first reported at Winter Outdoor Retailer 2011.

Assessment

The Fizan Compact are great all-around trekking poles. Throughout months of use, we did not have any issues with them. They are sturdy, reliable, and comfortable. They do not slip. Height adjustment is easy and consistent. They perform as well as, or better than, any other similarly designed poles, yet the Compact poles are lighter. Finally, the low price makes these poles an excellent value. Even without US distribution, the poles can be delivered to the US from UK-based companies for $80, including shipping and taxes. The poles are distributed in the UK, throughout continental Europe and Asia, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Compact poles are ideal for the backpacker who wants all of the basic features – adjustable and collapsible pole, removable basket, removable adjustable padded strap, comfortable grip, and sturdy construction – yet in a lightweight and low-cost package. However, not all hikers want this full set of features, and for them a few lighter options are available.

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.

Introduction

The Granite Gear Virga, introduced about ten years ago, has become a stalwart among frameless backpacks. It’s a fairly Spartan pack, and retains a plain webbing hipbelt when other pack manufacturers have added a padded hipbelt. But it has Granite Gear’s DNA – a great fit, comfortable shoulder straps, and a load lifter design that really works. How does the veteran Virga compare with newer cutting edge frameless backpacks?

Specifications

Description

As with other packs in our frameless backpacks roundup, we are discovering substantial discrepancies between our measured pack volume and the manufacturer’s specified volume. In the case of the Virga, the specified volume is 3200 cubic inches (52 L), and our measured total volume is 3940 cubic inches (65 L) which includes all pockets and the extension collar. That’s a difference of 740 cubic inches (12 L), which is the approximate volume of the pockets plus extension collar, which are not normally included in total volume according to the ASTM standard. However, for frameless backpacks, the traditional method is to include all pockets and the extension collar in the total volume, and itemize the volumes by component because lightweight backpackers want that information.

The Virga’s measured volume bumps it into our larger volume packs category, which is frameless backpacks suitable for lightweight backpacking. As will be seen in this review, the Virga simply has too much volume to be used for ultralight backpacking.

Performance

Although the Virga lacks some of the amenities of the newer packs, its fit and comfort are remarkable. The Virga has a yoke at the top of the pack that works in conjunction with the pack’s load lifters to effectively pull the top of the pack against your shoulders without adding pressure to the shoulders. The shoulder straps are well padded, and the 1.5-inch (4-cm) wide hipbelt is comfortable.

Although the Virga’s volume is specified at 3200 cubic inches (52 L), which would put it in the category of frameless backpacks for ultralight backpacking, it is in fact a larger volume backpack that is more suitable for lightweight backpacking. It simply has too much volume for ultralight backpacking, except perhaps for carrying an extended food supply.

The Virga is solidly constructed using fabrics that are a good balance of lightweight and durability. However, one thing I noticed is the fine dust in Utah canyon country really sticks to the fabric, so the pack needs to be rinsed after such use.

The measured torso length of the Virga in the Long Torso size is 20.25 inches (51 cm) by the BPL method (inside of shoulder strap to center of the hipbelt), and 21.25 (54 cm) by the conventional manufacturer method (top of shoulder strap to bottom of the hipbelt). It’s a great pack for a tall hiker. Unfortunately Granite Gear plans to drop the Long Torso size in fall 2011.

In our pack compression/volume reduction tests, reported in Part 2A of our frameless backpack state of the market report, we found the Virga can be reduced 42.5 percent in volume, which is quite good. It has two good compression straps on each side that work well, although the two lower ones pass either over or under the side pockets and interfere with pocket access.

From our pack load carrying capacity tests, reported in Part 2B, we estimate that the Virga can comfortably carry around 27 to 28 pounds (12.3 to 12.7 kg). That corresponds exactly with my field experience, where I carried the Virga loaded up with 28 pounds (12.7 kg) quite comfortably.

I’m a pocket freak; I like to have ample outside pockets on a backpack so items needed on the trail are handy and I don’t have to enter the pack’s main compartment during the day. The Virga is deficient in that department; there are only two stretchwoven side pockets and that’s all. Granted the side pockets are large, but they are not enough to meet my needs, especially if I have a water bottle in each one. Rather than the cradle on the front of the pack, I would much prefer a large stretchwoven front pocket that matches the side pockets, and perhaps a top lid on the pack with a zippered pocket. Also, it’s hard for me to live without hipbelt pockets for my digital camera, snacks, and other trail necessities. Granite Gear has add-on hipbelt and shoulder strap pockets available, but they are a bit on the heavy side.

Comparisons

Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 4. The closest comparisons are the Mountain Laurel Designs Exodus and GoLite Pinnacle.

Assessment

The Virga surprised me with its remarkable fit and comfort. I prefer a pack with a tall torso, and the Virga delivers. The pack hugs my back very well and the suspension system is very comfortable. These features allow this frameless backpack, without removable stays, to comfortably carry a hefty load. Granite Gear really knows how to design a comfortable pack that is also durable and lightweight.

The drawbacks of the Virga are in its features. In my opinion, the huge 18-inch (46-cm) extension collar is overkill and a nuisance when loading the pack because it gets in the way. If the Virga is filled to the capacity of the extension collar, it would be top heavy and beyond its comfortable load carrying capacity. I would recommend trading the long extension collar and front cradle for a large front stretchwoven pocket with one strap connecting it to a top lid with a pocket. For me, that would be a more useful design, because it would provide the outside pocket space that the Virga needs.

Granite Gear seems to like a pack design with a cradle on the front to attach a tent or sleeping pad, because that feature is common in their pack range. With that design, the Virga is a capable load hauler, so it’s a good Sherpa pack for carrying a high volume/moderate weight load. However, for loads over 30 pounds (13.6 kg), a lightweight internal frame pack would be preferable.

In my opinion, the Virga is a frameless backpack that could be great. It fits and carries very well, but its feature set needs to be more fastpacker friendly. With a few revisions it could become one of our favorite packs.

What’s Good

• Good volume reduction system
• Durable fabric
• Very comfortable shoulder straps
• Comfortably carries moderate loads
• Large stretchwoven side pockets
• Excellent construction, very sturdily built, with adequate reinforcements
• Load lifters work very well
• Fits surprisingly well

What’s Not So Good

• Pack has 23% more volume than specified
• Huge extension collar gets in the way when loading pack
• Unpadded webbing hipbelt
• Only two outside pockets

Recommendations For Improvement

• Eliminate the long extension collar
• Add a large stretchwoven front pocket and top lid

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

Introduction

Equinox has been making ultralight silnylon backpacks for years. Their newest pack is the ARAS Eagle (I don’t know what ARAS stands for), which has three distinctive features: a top pocket, a front bungie compression system, and a stiff mesh backpanel. Actually, the pack is loaded with features, as listed in the specifications table below. Unfortunately it only comes in one size (Medium) that fits torsos 17 to 19 inches (43 to 48 cm). If the pack fits you, and you like the feature set, then this may be the pack for you.

Specifications

Description

The ARAS Eagle is innovative in several ways:

• It has a top pocket, which departs from the traditional rolldown closure and top strap. The top pocket provides another stowage option and covers the top of the pack.
• It has two wings from the backpanel seam that hold a capable bungie compression system on the front of the pack. Each of the wings has a zippered pocket.
• The backpanel is stiff mesh. On the inside behind it, there is a wide sleeve that will hold a folded sleeping pad against the backpanel. The sleeve will also hold a hydration bladder, but it may be more convenient to put it in one of the side mesh pockets.
• The pack has a total of eight outside pockets (3 front and side mesh pockets, 2 wing pockets, 2 mesh hipbelt pockets, and 1 top pocket).

Performance

The main drawback of the ARAS Eagle is it only comes in one size – Medium. This is unfortunate because it is quite a nice pack with a lot of features and is value priced. The pack’s torso length is 16.5 inches (42 cm) by the BPL measurement method (underside of shoulder strap to center of the hipbelt), and 18.75 inches (48 cm) by the conventional manufacturer measurement system (top of shoulder strap to bottom of the hipbelt). This translates to a size Medium, which means the Eagle will not fit taller hikers.

The Eagle did not do very well in our pack torso collapse tests, mainly because of its short torso length. For consistency, we tested all of the packs on me, and all of them were a size Large except for the Eagle. We tested it with a coiled closed cell foam pad in the main compartment, whereas a folded pad in the pad sleeve would probably have performed better. Consequently, our measured comfortable load carrying capacity of about 18 pounds (8.2 kg) is probably low. With a good fit (pack torso length matching user torso length), the Eagle should carry 20 pounds (9.1 kg) comfortably, and possibly a little more.

The Eagle soared in our pack compression/volume reduction measurements. The front bungie system on the pack reduced pack volume 70%, which is the highest of the thirteen packs tested. The Eagle’s sturdy bungie system is attached to two wings on the pack’s backpanel seam, and wraps completely around the sides and front of the pack. For compressing the pack to reduce its volume, it’s best to compress the pack first, then fill it with gear. A bungie system has the disadvantage of overlaying the pack’s front mesh pockets, making them less convenient to access, but doable by stretching the elastic cords with one hand and reaching in with the other.

A few things we discovered while testing the Eagle are:

• Dust really sticks to the pack’s silnylon fabric (fortunately it is easily rinsed off with water).
• The pack’s padding is apparently open-cell foam because it soaks up water like a sponge when wet.
• The Coolmax face fabric on the suspension system abrades easily.
• The zippered pockets on the bungie system wings are very narrow and not very useful. The narrow pockets can be used to stow valuables or a car key, but we found it hard to find items that fit in the small space.

Comparisons

Comparative specifications can be found in our Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 3. The closest comparisons are the Gossamer Gear Gorilla, and Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet.

Assessment

The Equinox Eagle is a unique pack in several ways, so you need to understand its pros and cons to determine if you like it or not. The main pack body is barrel shaped, rather than rectangular, so it extends out further from your body. The backpanel is a stiffer coarse mesh, which is unusual but not a problem. When loading the pack, one would typically place a sleeping pad into the sleeve behind the backpanel, so body sweat may wet the pad surface but not your gear behind it. The narrow pockets on the bungie system wings are a bit funky; they are narrow and it’s hard to find a good use for them.

The pack’s dominant bungie system on the front of the pack is something that you will either love or hate. As mentioned, the pack body is barrel-shaped, so the bungie system is an integral part of the pack design needed to tighten the load. I am not particularly fond of bungie systems because the elastic cords get in the way when accessing the pack’s pockets. However, Janet likes the system because it compresses all the soft clothing she carries. She would like to see a little extra length on the elastic cords so it can be loosened a little more for loading the pack.

The single size (Medium) of the Eagle also limits the Eagle to shorter hikers. Overall, the Eagle is a bit of a conundrum. If the pack size and feature set appeal to you, the Eagle is a very comfortable ultralight backpack. Janet is 5 feet 2 inches (160 cm) tall; the pack fits her well and it’s very comfortable to carry, so she likes the Eagle a lot. The pack does not come close to fitting me and I don’t like the bungie system, so it’s not my first choice. This demonstrates how important fit and comfort are in choosing a frameless backpack. As always, it’s important to do your research and select the pack that best meets your needs and preferences.

What’s Good

• Comfortable suspension system
• 8 outside pockets
• Top lid covers the top of the pack and its pocket provides extra stowage
• Lots of features
• Very effective volume reduction system
• A great value

What’s Not So Good

• Only available in one size
• Bungie compression system interferes with pocket access
• Narrow wing pockets are not very useful
• Padding soaks up water and surface fabric abrades easily

Recommendations For Improvement

• Offer the pack in at least three sizes
• Use closed-cell foam in the suspension system
• Use a more durable surface fabric on the suspension system

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

Introduction

The ZPacks Dyneema X 26 frameless backpack and its cousins are as close to a custom frameless pack as it gets. The same pack design is available in either Cuben Fiber or Dyneema X fabric and in three volume sizes. You can specify the torso length and choose from a long list of options, so you end up with a lightweight pack customized to your needs and preferences. Of course you pay for the extras. ZPacks owner Joe Valesko is a thru-hiker himself and has an innovative way of keeping the options light. How does the tested ZPacks Dyneema X 26 compare to other lightweight frameless packs for ultralight backpacking?

Specifications

Description

Like several other packs in this frameless backpack roundup, the measured volume of the ZPacks Dyneema X 26 differs significantly from its specified volume. I measured the volume, including all pockets and extension collar, at 3300 cubic inches (54 L), which is 700 cubic inches (11.5 L) more than its specified 2600 cubic inches (43 L). It is customary to include the volume of all pockets and the extension collar in the total volume of frameless backpacks, and itemize the component volumes for user information. I did not include the volume of the optional top side pocket on my test pack.

Performance

In the pack load carrying capacity tests we conducted as part of our Frameless Backpacks State of the Market Report 2011, the Dyneema X 26 was comfortable to about 18 pounds (8.2 kg) without stays and to about 20 pounds (9.1 kg) with stays. The stays did not make much difference. The heaviest load I carried in the pack on a backpacking trip was 21.5 pounds (9.8 kg), with a folded inflatable sleeping pad in the pad sleeve, and the pack carried the load quite well. On the same trip, the pack had plenty of room for gear plus expendables, and enough room left over for another four days’ travel, so the extra volume is evident.

The pack fits me quite well; note in the photos that the shoulder straps are level with my shoulders. My torso length is 20.5 inches (52 cm) and the measured pack torso length is 19 inches (48 cm) by the BPL method (inside of shoulder strap to middle of hipbelt), and 20.5 (52 cm) by the conventional manufacturer method (top of shoulder strap to bottom of hipbelt).

While ZPacks’ features and options are lightweight, they are not high functioning. The side elastic compression cords do not compress the pack very well, resulting in only 32% volume reduction, which is the second lowest in the group of packs I tested. The top compression cord uses a LineLok connector to hold it tight, and the arrangement works very well. The external carbon fiber stays are very lightweight and convenient to insert/remove, but they do not provide as much support as stays on the inside of the backpanel provide on other packs. The add-on mesh side pocket seems quite vulnerable to snagging, but it did survive quite a bit of brush bashing on my trips; I would prefer a Dyneema ripstop pocket to match the other side pockets. The backpanel sleeping pad sleeve is made of Dyneema ripstop fabric, and works just fine, but it seems like a stretchy mesh sleeve would be better. Finally, ZPacks’ hipbelt pouches – essentially a stuff sack – function well and hold a lot, but I would prefer zippered pockets for easier access.

Comparisons

Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 3. The closest comparisons are the Ultralight Adventure Equipment (ULA) CDT, Hyperlite Mountain Gear Windrider, Gossamer Gear Gorilla, and Mountain Laurel Designs Prophet.

Assessment

The ZPacks Dyneema X 26 is a good pack choice for shorter ultralight trips, or longer trips if you have a low volume gear kit. Dyneema ripstop fabric is an excellent balance of durability, light weight, longevity, and cost. The same pack can be constructed of Cuben Fiber at a similar cost, but you only save 4.4 ounces (125 g) and Cuben Fiber has a limited lifespan. ZPacks’ long list of options is another plus, but it requires you to make a number of decisions. My advice is to choose carefully on the options.

Although ZPacks’ external stays did not add much support in my torso collapse tests, reported in Part 2B of our frameless backpacks state of the market report, they are very lightweight at 1.5 ounces (42.5 g) and they help maintain the pack’s torso length, especially for smaller loads.

For me, the two main shortcomings of the ZPacks Dyneema X 26 packs are: 1) it’s oversized, and 2) the compression system does not reduce pack volume very much for smaller loads. I wanted a frameless pack to match the volume of my gear kit plus expendables, but the pack’s extra 700 cubic inches (11.5 L) caused it to be under filled much of the time. On top of that, the pack’s compression system did not function very well to reduce pack volume for smaller loads. Webbing side compression straps would do the job much better than the pack’s elastic cords.

Overall, the Dyneema X 26 is a strongly constructed, durable frameless pack well suited for ultralight backpacking, especially with lighter loads. Unlike many other packs, this one can be customized with options to meet nearly all of the user’s needs and preferences.

What’s Good

• Durable fabric
• Comfortable suspension system
• Comfortably carries loads less than 25 pounds (11.3 kg)
• Large stretch nylon front pocket for convenient access to items needed on the trail
• Fabric side pockets provide more durability for bushwhacking
• Lots of features and optional accessories
• Very sturdily built, with adequate reinforcements
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size)

What’s Not So Good

• Volume is way over specification
• Optional stays do not provide much additional support
• Elastic cord side compression straps do not compress the pack very much

Recommendations For Improvement

• Accurately state the pack volume, or downsize the pack
• Use side compression straps, rather than elastic cords, to better compress the pack

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

Specifications

Technical Details

These come after the MT740TR shoes we reviewed recently, but they have several interesting improvements. Both my wife and I received them in size 10 4E: our preferred sizes. They are just slightly heavier than the 740s, but we think the benefits are worth it.

New Balance says of them: “This all-terrain running shoe has a long history of proven performance, featuring N-ERGY in the heel for advanced cushioning. With its rugged AT Tread outsole and superior fit, the 814 is perfect for rough trails and unpredictable surfaces.” Once again, it is not all that easy to separate out spin from value, but the following points seem relevant.

First of all, they are ‘all terrain’, and that can be combined with the ‘rugged AT Tread outsole.’ Yes, they are definitely all-terrain and the sole is rugged enough for ‘rough trails and unpredictable surfaces.’ We get plenty of that off-trail. Actually, I found the sole was just a little more stiff and rugged than on the 740s, so that traversing on soft stuff (mulch, mud) was a bit easier.

The lug pattern on the sole, visible in the first photo, seems to be pretty good. The photo here shows my wife Sue stepping down a very wet and muddy bit of rock on a rather wet day, with no trouble at all. What is not so obvious to you, although it was very obvious to my wife at the time, was that one slip off the bottom ledge would have taken her over a 20+ metre (60+ feet) sheer cliff. But no worries: excellent grip.

There is some cushioning at the heel, but not a lot. Certainly you get a whole lot more ‘contact’ with the ground than with ‘gel-sole’ shoes, and that is critical to stable footing. That said, these would not suit the barefoot advocates.

The ‘traditional’ molded footbed is made with all sorts of little bits of arch support and heel cup etc, etc. I don’t like the attempts at interfering with my natural action. These footbeds are a long step back towards reality and good engineering: they are little more than a flat slab of good, fabric-covered foam. They fit well inside the shoe. If they get wet (wading a river maybe) you can take them out and squeeze them dry. The surface under them is fairly flat as well. This is good shoe engineering.

The external trim is also an improvement. Yes, it has been designed to have no forward-pointing bits of trim to catch on the scrub, but we expect that now. What is nice is that the rand has been built more lightly. There’s no huge rubber toe cap or bumper weighing down the toes of your feet. These shoes are light at the front, but still quite able to kick through scrub if you must.

The lacing design has no fewer than three sets of holes at the top of the ankle. Frankly, I can’t imagine anyone ever wanting to use the tightest set. I tried it briefly, and found the tension across the arch of my feet quickly caused considerable pain. Most of the time I was happy with using two sets of holes, although Sue preferred to use just one set, laced fairly loosely. Even with that fairly minimal lacing, the shoes showed no inclination to fall off her feet.

The thick cord-like laces are, I think, a backward step.The lumpy ones found on previous models were much better. These thick ones had a bit of a tendency to come loose. A quick retro-fit of some New Balance lumpy laces fixed that easily enough.

One thing the lacing pattern does not do (loud cheers) is to have a lug in the middle of the tongue at the toe end. Some shoes do this, and I find all that extra lug does is to curl the toe up in a undesirable manner. Plus, if the lug is used by the lace, it gets in the way of a gaiter hook.

The tongue is conventional in shape and just wide enough. Another 5 mm width would be nice as I seem to push the tongue sideways a bit when walking fast. But it is well padded, so I am not complaining too much. The rest of the ankle cuff is clear of my ankle bones and soft enough: it didn’t cause any hassles with rubbing.

The body, or fabric, is a multi-layer synthetic mesh. They can do very clever things with mesh construction these days. It ventilates moderately well, lets in only a small amount of dust (it happens), and seems to be very rugged. The reinforcing trim on the surface is light but robust. My wife got the bright orange version: orange mesh and orange trim on the sole face. Rather cute. I got the black fabric with red soles version.

Field Testing

The two photos here were taken 24 hours apart, in our alpine region around Mt. Jagungal. At the left, we were having morning tea in the sun, without a worry in the world. On the right we were heading out enthusiastically. About 100 mm (8 in) of snow had fallen overnight, and we were not really equipped for serious snow travel. Yes, we did have enough gear to survive the day in reasonable comfort, with reserves, but why tempt the weather gods? And yes, the shoes were quite good in the fresh snow. The lug pattern meant we were not slipping at all. They were warm enough.

We think New Balance shoes are getting steadily better and better.

What’s Good

• Light weight
• Excellent torsional rigidity in sole
• Flat footbed with negligable ‘arch support’
• Not much dust or debris penetration
• Good balance, not toe heavy

What’s Not So Good

• Thick laces

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

Introduction

I’m not gonna lie: When I learn of a product that a company has named “Mindbender,” I expect something pretty over the top. “Hey, man, bend my mind!” I expect magicians popping out of hats… er, wait… Of course there’s a lot of hyperbole in names and marketing, so I’m automatically a bit suspicious… and curious. Vasque says they developed the 23-ounce (650 g) Mindbender for running ultras, and the shoes seem to give good torsional support, soooo… how are the Mindbenders for ultralight backpacking?

Assessment

Before we ever hit the trail, we’ve gotta try on some shoes, so we might as well start by talking about fit. My foot is just about as average as possible, a 9D/42 Euro, with no funky toes or bunions, and a moderately high arch being the only non-boring part of my foot. I found that the stiffer fabric on the toebox impinged upon the top of some toes, particularly the big toe, so I had to go up to a 9.5/42.5 shoe to get the toes out of harm’s way.

The last (form that the shoe is shaped on) is noticeably straighter than many, but I found it largely comfortable. It is a relatively low-volume toebox compared to many, and I wouldn’t want to wear this shoe with a much wider forefoot. Vasque literature describing the last depicts it as good for people with flat feet. I don’t know if flat-feet (fleet-foot?) people tend to have feet that run straight and true on the outside, with wide and bulbous toes wrapping to the inside, but that’s the fit that strikes me as best for this shoe. Although my pinkie toes are a little bit crunched, the big toes could have a little more room to slide over toward the medial plane.

As a bootfitter, one thing we commonly do is analyze how a shoe or boot laces up on a customer. This can give you an idea of how the volume of the shoe correlates to a specific foot. The Mindbenders lace up with barely any gap left on either side of the tongue, despite the slightly larger volume of my foot due to the higher arch. This suggests that perhaps there’s a bit more volume over the crest of the foot than necessary, or perhaps that gap just needs to be opened up a bit wider for more lacing control.

The heel confuses me. On one hand (ahem: foot) it seems to fit relatively close. I think what I perceive is that the upper perimeter of the heel fits looser and feels a bit boxy. The depth of the heel cup/low point of the ankle is noticeably lower than that of other trail shoes. At first I thought I was just imagining that difference, so I measured the Mindbender and three other trail shoes I own. The Mindbender was the lowest-cut of the four I own, at 1 ⁷⁄₈ inches. Average of the other three was 2 ³⁄₈ inches, with one of my best-fitting shoes being at 2 ⁵⁄₈-inch depth. On-trail use showed me that this depth can be a significant factor in fit and performance.

Walking around and getting accustomed to the Mindbenders, I was struck by their comfort. There’s a good amount of cushion underfoot, but I still have some feel of the surface I’m walking on, and in a good way. It’s plush, with feel. The shoe gives me a relatively neutral stride, with a slight bit of supination (making the arch-side of the foot raise a little), which would be good for more flat-footed pronators. But the shoe strikes me as totally wearable for those with an average arch. With a normal gait on relatively flat surfaces, the heel feels noticeably secure. I can feel the upper region pulling away from my foot a little, but it doesn’t really feel like my heel will slide around at all. One fault I find with some trail shoes is an unstable heel platform, but the Mindbenders seem to keep me level and secure.

With about 50 trail miles on the shoes, I had some stitching come out on the upper and some strange puckering on the rand. The stitching appears (and feels) to be purely cosmetic, and the puckering doesn’t seem to affect anything, so I’m not too concerned about either issue. Vasque has been very easy to work with, and I have no doubt they would have repaired or replaced the shoes if I had asked, but it struck me as completely unnecessary.

Speaking of trail miles: I had some mixed experiences with the Mindbenders. I’ve been carrying some extra weight while gear testing, and probably carry 20-25 pounds for a weekend. With that kind of pack weight on flat terrain and trails with a few roots and rocks, the Mindbenders performed nicely. They were just… there. Supportive, but not in the way. However, in more rolling terrain and/or with rougher trails, the Mindbenders turned out not to be my shoe.

Bottom line, I couldn’t keep my foot in the shoe. As a buyer in outdoor retail for nearly a decade, I’ve worn a LOT of trail shoes, but I’m not sure if I could even count on one hand the number of shoes that came off so easily. It was so shocking that I stopped a number of times just to make sure the shoe was even on right, let alone laced and tied properly. Situations that applied some torsion to the upper, such as turning while coming down a hill, seemed to exacerbate the problem the worst. Awkward angles on rocks or foot placements were also bad news. On one short ten-mile hike, my foot must’ve slipped out of the heel at least half a dozen times. Wowzas!

Despite Vasque’s commentary, “The tailored instep and lower volume heel keeps your foot securely in place,” I found that the lower volume heel PREVENTS the shoe from keeping your foot securely in place. Indeed, as I alluded to earlier regarding heel cup depth measurements, those shoes that best control my heel have the deepest heel cups. Again, the Mindbenders had the least depth of any of my shoes. Also of note, whereas many trail shoes have a stiffened upper, rising from the lowest point of the upper to wrap around the Achilles, that section of the Mindbenders is completely unsupportive, flexy, inconsequential open-celled foam sheathed in fabric. It would be generous to say there’s 1.5 inches of depth to the top of the slightly more supportive rand on the heel. Having nearly sprained my ankle several times because of the shoe’s inability to retain my foot, I no longer wear the Mindbender as a UL backpacking trail shoe. I don’t know who would best fit the heel. I’m tempted to say people with “fat” heels, but I firmly believe the problem is primarily in the depth of the cup.

What I like most about the Mindbender is the balance of cushion and feel underfoot. The support is good, it’s just ineffective when my foot is slipping out of the shoe. I’ve also tried a surprising number of uncomfortable shoes with mesh uppers, but the Mindbender upper feels pretty good.

Conclusion

There’s definitely some room for improvement on the Mindbenders. To get a comfortable fit for most people, the forefoot should rotate toward the big toe several degrees; as it is, I can feel my pinkie toe hitting the outside while my big toe is on the verge of swimming with room. I’d recommend changing the lacing in some way… probably by shifting the opening for the tongue down each side a bit, because the volume over the crest of the foot feels like it should be sufficient. Lastly, and most markedly, the heel cup really needs more depth. Another possibility would be to add slightly less depth, and stiffen the upper reaches of the heel cup.

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/BPL has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.

Introduction

Elemental Horizons, founded by Matthew Lagas-Rivera, is a new, small company offering lightweight backpacks and accessories. The Aquilo is a frameless backpack with an available contoured aluminum tubular stay. At 31.5 ounces (893 g), the Aquilo weighs twice as much as the lightest frameless backpacks I tested for our Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011, but for lightweight backpacking, where the Aquilo properly fits, its weight, suspension system, features, and load carrying capability are impressive.

Specifications

Description

First things first; although the Aquilo is specified at 2700 cubic inches (44.2 L) for size Medium and 3200 cubic inches (52 L) for size Large (which I tested), I measured the actual volume of the Aquilo (size Large) to be a whopping 4090 cubic inches (67 L), which is 28% larger than specified. Matthew later mentioned that the specified volume is for the main compartment only. The key point here is that the Aquilo is a large volume frameless backpack, well suited for lightweight backpacking, but it has way too much volume for ultralight backpacking. I would love to see a smaller version of this pack for ultralight backpacking.

Performance

As shown in the photo, even with the pack’s compression system fully tightened, the pack still has too much volume for my ultralight gear kit. With the main compartment partially full, the pack’s top closure straps don’t work very well (they slip), and I had to criss-cross them to tighten the top down.

I finally measured the Aquilo’s actual volume as part of my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report (reported in Part 2A), and was amazed to see the final outcome – 4090 cubic inches (67 L) for size Large, which is 890 cubic inches (14.6 L) over the manufacturer specification. The total volume includes all of the pockets and the extension collar, as is customary for frameless backpacks. For comparison, that’s about the same volume as the GoLite Pinnacle and Six Moon Designs Starlite, which are clearly in the lightweight backpack category. The lightbulb moment here is that the Aquilo is a larger volume backpack appropriate for lightweight backpacking, not ultralight backpacking.

The manufacturer is addressing the issues I mentioned and has added the following: an extra compression strap to each side of the pack (six total), two tall side pockets (for a total of four side pockets) so a hydration reservoir can be carried on the outside of the pack, an internal sleeping pad sleeve, removable internal stash pocket so it can be used as a wallet, one compression strap on top of the pack, and a Velcro attachment for hipbelt pockets. These changes correct all of the issues I raised and really zero in on creating the “perfect” pack for lightweight backpacking.

In my load carrying capacity tests, reported in Part 2B of our Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report, the Aquilo came out on top. With its stay inserted, it supported a 30-pound (13.6-kg) load with minimal pack torso collapse. The reason for this is the Aquilo’s stay actually connects to the back of the hipbelt, which is a first. Other larger volume frameless backpacks have removable stays available that slide into sleeves on the inside of the backpanel, but they do not anchor to the hipbelt to directly transfer weight. Rather, they simply stiffen the pack and assist with weight transfer via a “virtual frame.” Although the Aquilo’s stay connects to the hipbelt, it still does not create a true internal frame backpack with a built-in frame.

Comparisons

Comparative specifications can be found in my Frameless Backpack State of the Market Report 2011 Part 4 (coming soon). The closest comparison is the Six Moon Designs Starlite, which is slightly lighter, has slightly more volume, and costs the same.

Assessment

As noted, I had difficulties using the Aquilo for ultralight backpacking. However, once I measured its true volume and moved it into the lightweight frameless packs category, it became a standout in that category.

I tested a pre-production version of the Aquilo, and provided feedback that has been incorporated into the production version of the pack. I have not seen the production pack as of this writing, but photos supplied by the manufacturer show that all of my issues have been corrected. The production version will retain its large volume, and add many significant improvements with minimal effect on pack weight. Pack weight without the stay will be 31.5 ounces (893 g) for size Medium and 33 ounces (936 g) for size Large. With the mentioned improvements, the production pack will be very competitive with the Six Moon Designs Starlite and other frameless packs for lightweight backpacking.

The Aquilo weighs about two pounds, which sounds heavy, but its weight is modest when you consider the pack’s suspension system and features. For lightweight backpacking, the Aquilo is an excellent choice for comfortably carrying loads up to about 30 pounds (13.6 kg), providing plenty of room for a larger volume gear kit, and compressing down when needed. In Part 2B of my SOTMR I compared the load carrying capacity of packs with removable stays with a lightweight internal frame backpack (the Osprey Exos 58), and found the Aquilo matched the performance of the Exos. And the Aquilo weighs about 10 ounces (283 g) less.

Overall, if you are looking for a great performing lightweight pack for lightweight backpacking (base weight under 20 pounds/9.1 kg, total weight under 30 pounds/13.6 kg), the Aquilo is definitely worth a closer look. For a new pack introduction, it looks like the Aquilo nails it.

What’s Good

• Excellent volume reduction system
• Durable fabrics
• Excellent removable stay system, the best currently available
• Excellent suspension system for a frameless backpack
• Comfortably carries moderate to heavy loads
• Large fabric front pocket and side pockets for convenient access to items needed on the trail
• Excellent construction, very sturdily built, with adequate reinforcements
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size)
• Hipbelt pockets available

What’s Not So Good

• Volume is way over original specification (corrected)
• Top straps easily slip with smaller loads (corrected in revised model)
• Bottom of side pockets extend to the ground and are subject to abrasion

Recommendations For Improvement

• Accurately state pack volume (done in manufacturer’s new website)
• Offer a smaller volume version of this pack for ultralight backpacking (under development)

Introduction

The Eddie Bauer First Ascent line of performance clothing is attracting a lot of attention. The garments are well designed, utilize cutting edge materials, perform well, and are a great value. I previously reviewed the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Downlight Sweater, which is an excellent balance of quality materials, lightweight, warmth, and value. I was attracted to the Eddie Bauer Expedition Baselayers for the same reasons.

Although these warmer baselayers are primarily intended for winter conditions, they are also appropriate for summer backpacking in the mountains, where nighttime temperatures can drop below freezing. So, how do they shape up in terms of versatility?

Specifications and Features

Description

There are a lot of performance baselayers around, and most of them are quite good, but how do you choose one that provides the most warmth for its weight? One thing to watch for is the amount of Lycra or Spandex in the fabric composition; these materials add stretch, but they also add weight. Some stretch is good, but fabrics with a lot of Spandex are quite heavy. The things I look for are: 1) polyester, which is lighter and dries quickly; 2) a waffle pattern on the inside that traps more air; 3) a smooth exterior so other garments slide over it easily; and 4) a minimum of Lycra or Spandex, elastic cuffs, or zippered pockets which add weight. The Eddie Bauer Expedition Weight Baselayers meet these criteria fairly well; albeit they are 7% Spandex, and the hoodie version does have one zippered chest pocket.

Performance

I tested the Expedition Baselayers while winter camping, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, fall and winter day hiking, fall and spring backpacking, fall car camping, ice fishing, a multi-day ski trip to a mountain cabin, and even a fall houseboat trip on Lake Powell. I wore the tops over another baselayer or next to skin, and I wore them as a single layer or part of a layering system in really cold weather. Needless to say, the baselayers got a lot of testing in a variety of conditions!

Each of the garments has a trim fit. I am 6 feet (183 cm) tall and 170 pounds (77 kg), with a 34-inch (86-cm) waist and 31-inch (79-cm) inseam and size men’s Large fits me perfectly. The sleeves and pant legs are plenty long in size Regular, and a tall version is available for both men and women.

The garments feel remarkably warm the minute I put them on. They provide a lot of warmth for their weight. The most efficient garments weight-wise are the simple ¼-Zip Top and Pant, which together weigh about a pound (454 g). Lightweight down garments, like the MontBell Down Inner Jacket and Pant, provide more warmth for their weight, but they are much more expensive and are not intended to be worn next to skin.

I tested the ¼-Zip Top while hiking uphill carrying a backpack up a local mountain, where I gained 1,500 feet (457 m) over 1.5 miles (2.4 km) in 45 minutes; and repeated the hike at different temperatures ranging from 5 to 50 °F (-15 to 10 °C). I found that the top is comfortable to hike in only at cooler temperatures, up to about 35 °F (2 °C). The front zipper helps to regulate my temperature, and the top dries out quickly. In colder temperatures the top performed very well under a shell or under a light down jacket and shell. I mainly wore the pants in camp and in my sleeping bag. The top and bottom are also excellent cabin wear in mixed company.

Assessment

These baselayers are well designed, fit very well, and are remarkably warm for their weight. They are also very versatile; I wore them by themselves and in a number of layering systems with excellent results.

I found them too warm to hike in, except for below freezing temperatures. While backpacking or other outdoor activities, the top is very useful for hiking in cooler overcast or windy conditions, and both the top and bottom for wearing in camp.

While I don’t usually prefer to wear a hoodie, I note that the hoodie version is very well designed. The zipper curves to the side of the hood rather than the center, and the hood covers all but my face. For people who like a hooded top, this is a good one.

Overall, the Eddie Bauer Expedition Weight Baselayers are an excellent balance of warmth, light weight, comfort, and value.

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

Introduction

These come after the MT876OR shoes we reviewed recently, but they have several differences, apart from the normal cosmetic changes. We received two pairs, both size 10 4E, so my wife and I could both try them out.

New Balance says of them “Especially well-suited for distance runners in search of mild stability, the 740 trail runner features a medial post for pronation control and ABZORB cushioning in both the heel and forefoot.” I am not sure what that really means, but the ‘mild stability’ bit suggests that the shoes are not designed to take control of your foot and distort it into a shape or motion some ‘expert’ thinks you should have. Needless to say, I approve of the reluctance to interfere with your natural foot mechanics.

Specifications

Starting from the bottom, there is a small change to the lug pattern. I am not sure whether the pattern is better or worse: it certainly grips well and has given good traction to both of us. The photo here shows us at the top of a steep gully on a very wet day – the river went up by 10 metres. I had no problems.

There has been a trend in recent years towards a heel with air space inside it. You can just see this in the first photo as hollows going in from the side. The hollows are meant to provide more spring or cushioning. You can go to extremes with this in the form of gel inserts, but they destroy the ‘feel’ your heel has for the ground, and as a result can lead to ankle injuries. Fortunately the heels on the MT740TR strike a nice balance and do not interfere with feeling the ground.

The internal sole is definitely different from some of the recent joggers reviewed. It feels much firmer. This gives much better traction on loose and muddy surfaces, although it probably ‘smears’ (rock climbing term) less well on extreme rock. It also blocks sharp rocks from poking your sole around. As I am more concerned about wet and mud than rock climbing, this is a plus for me.

Then we come to the external trim. I was critical of some previous models as they had a bit of the trim pointed forwards, so it could catch on stuff and get pulled off. The rand and trim on these MT740TR shoes avoids all those problems, and is very well designed. Has New Balance taken heed of our comments? Who knows?

Some previous versions have had a hard PU bumper at the front, which is fine except that it makes the front of the shoe just a bit heavy. That can make for a bit of toe dragging when you are tired or running. These shoes do not have that problem: the toe is light.

The lacing is designed with two sets of holes at the ankle region: you can see the holes in the first photo. With our high arches, the highest hole – the one nearest the back of the shoe, is completely superfluous! I tried using that hole for a couple of minutes, but the pressure on my arch created pain in that short time. Only using one hole and having the laces fairly loose gave me good retention and no discomfort.

The tongue is fairly conventional in shape, but not quite minimal in size. In practice, it is fine: I just worry about it slewing sideways after a few hours. Some tongues do that, however, this tongue seems to stay in place.

Some shoes give a bit of a problem at the top of the rim at the back. This happens when the top cuts in too much at the back. The idea seems to be that if the back curves in lots it will grip your heel well, but that assumes you have a really pointy heel. We don’t: we have fairly straight Achilles tendons there. However, these shoes were not loose at the heel and did not give us any rubbing at the top either.

There is the usual moulded footbed inside the shoe. It is fairly basic with a not very prominent curl up at the arch. That is not enough to create any problem for those who abhor arch supports. It is thin: perhaps a little more thickness and quality would be good?

The interior of the MT876 shoes had a problem with the lining being not fully attached. These MR740TR shoes have a different interior that has none of those problems: it is smooth and comfortable. Both the lining and the removable footbed are quite comfortable.

Field Testing

We have worn these in the wet and in the dry. In the very wet in fact, as you can see in the second photo! Yes, of course our feet got wet, but it really didn’t seem to matter, and the mesh body allowed the water to drain out easily.

We have also worn them in the dry. The photo above shows a late lunch after a long morning spent bashing down a small valley to the ocean. You wouldn’t think such an inconspicuous valley could present such rough country, but it sure did! I have to say that at no stage were we really conscious of our shoes: they were light, gripped well, and were comfortable. The scrub and the cliffs were another matter…

Will Rietveld also had a pair of these to test in size 12 4E. Unfortunately size 12 was a shade large for Will, but that’s better than a size too small! Will’s notes include the following:

“I normally request a size 12 in most shoes to get the extra width, but I find with wide NB shoes I am better off to request the exact size I need, which is 11.5. The size 12 has too much volume for my feet, so I have to wear two pairs of socks in them, or real heavy ones plus a liner, to fill them up. Then they fit snugly and do very well on the trail.

I wore them on two day hikes and one six-day backpacking trip. They are more flexible than the 814 [which will appear in a later Spotlite] and have the same aggressive tread. I wear them with thick cushy socks for a dialed-in fit. I like them better than the 814 because they don’t have as much heel lift. The heel cup is a bit loose for me. Trail dust does go through the mesh outer, so my feet get dirty. I wore them a lot while hiking off-trail and they did as well as any of the mid-height boots [we were field testing at the time, except for the Salomon Fastpacker].

Overall, it is refreshing to wear shoes that really are wide, rather than pseudo-wide, and also very light. They have good cushioning, good support, good motion control, and great traction.”

What’s Good

• Lightweight
• Excellent sole
• Soft fabric sides
• Not too much dust or debris penetration
• Comfortable with loose laces

What’s Not So Good

• Thin footbed

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

Introduction

The Terra Nova website proudly states: “GUINNESS WORLD RECORD: The Laser Ultra 1 has been awarded the Guinness World Record for the lightest double-wall shelter in the world!” Well, I guess that gets our attention. The Laser Ultra 1 is a one-person double-wall tent with a manufacturer specified trail weight of 17.5 ounces (496 g), which is equivalent to the lightest single-wall tent I know of, the Gossamer Gear One. The Laser Ultra has a Cuben Fiber shell and floor, with a thin nylon fabric interior, and improved ventilation. Is this the Lamborghini of ultralight solo tents, or just the winner of a low weight contest?

Specifications

Design and Features

The 1-gram stakes readily pull out when the tent flaps, and are easy to lose, so the first thing I did was to replace the stakes with the lightest staking setup that I consider adequate, which is eight 6-inch (15-cm) titanium shepherd hook stakes, two Easton 6.25-inch (16-cm) tubular aluminum stakes (for the ends), and two guylines (for the main hoop pole). This adds 2 ounces (57 g) to the weight of the tent, bringing the trail weight up to 21.7 ounces (615 g) and total weight up to 22.7 ounces (644 g).

Video tour of the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1.

Performance

The Laser Ultra 1 is easy to set up: insert the center hoop pole in its sleeve, stake one end guyline, stake the other end guyline, place three stakes at the base of the tent on both ends, stake the center pole guylines. Set-up takes only a couple of minutes. Since the tent floor is thin Cuben Fiber, a groundsheet is essential.

As mentioned above, I substituted some sturdy stakes for the 1-gram toothpicks supplied with the tent, and also added two center guylines, for a total of ten stakeout points. During my testing I experienced wind gusts to 35 mph (56 kph) and the tent handled it with ease. The tent did shake and flap quite a bit, which is noisy, but it’s always noisy when the wind blows.

I found the tent’s Cuben Fiber shell to be quite user-friendly. It stays flexible in cold temperatures and sheds snow and rain very well. I used a thin plastic groundsheet under the tent and did not incur any damage to the tent floor while camping in the backcountry. I chose smooth surfaces to pitch the tent on, but of course one can’t do that all the time. While I am comfortable with Cuben Fiber as an adequately durable tent canopy fabric, I am skeptical of using it for a tent floor. It does have higher puncture resistance than silnylon, and much higher tear resistance, but I would still expect the inevitable punctures and patches on the floor. In its favor, it is easy to patch Cuben Fiber with any kind of sticky tape, tape that does not stick to silnylon.

My sample tent did not come with a hood for the center pole, but one is normally included to secure the tent and prevent leakage through the zipper. It rained several times while I was testing the tent and there was very little leakage through the zipper, so the hood is not really needed.

A double-wall tent with a solid fabric interior retains heat at night, so it is warmer than a tent with a mesh interior or single-wall tent. I have measured a temperature difference of as much as 12 °F (7 °C) in a one-person tent, and 17 °F (9 °C) in a two-person tent, so a tent with a solid fabric interior like the Laser Ultra 1 is warmer at night.

Comparisons

The following table compares the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 with alternative one-person shelters. Because the Laser Ultra is a unique high-end shelter, I compare it with alternative shelters of different types.

Key Points:

• The Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 is a limited production high-end tent, with a premium price tag; the Terra Nova Laser Photon 1 weighs 7.3 ounces (207 g) more and costs about US$430 less.
• The HMG Echo 1 shelter weighs 3.2 ounces (91 g) more, costs half as much as the Laser Ultra, has much better ventilation and versatility, but headroom is limited like the Laser Ultra.
• The Tarptent Moment is a single-wall tent similar in design to the Laser Ultra, weighs 8.3 ounces (235 g) more, has better ventilation, and costs one-fifth as much as the Laser Ultra.
• The MontBell Crescent 1 is a double-wall tent with a similar design, has more floor area, weighs 12.5 ounces (354 g) more, and costs about US$820 less than the Laser Ultra.
• The MLD SoloMid in Cuben Fiber is a floorless shelter with a lot more floor space, better ventilation, weighs 11.5 ounces (326 g) less, has loads of headroom, and costs one-third as much as the Laser Ultra, but it’s not bugproof.
• The Gossamer Gear One weighs 1.5 ounces (43 g) less, has slightly less floor area (but it’s all usable), nearly three times the vestibule area, better ventilation, and costs about US$750 less.
• Overall, every comparative shelter in the table beats the Laser Ultra in cost and matches it or exceeds it in other attributes.

Assessment

Choosing the Terra Nova Laser Ultra 1 gives you the distinction of owning the lightest one-person single-wall tent in the world. Of course, you pay a premium for that privilege. When you consider the weight increment of adding adequate stakes and guylines, the weight advantage of the Laser Ultra diminishes.

While I am comfortable with the longevity of the Cuben Fiber canopy, I’m not sure that a Cuben Fiber tent floor is a good idea because it’s vulnerable to punctures and will likely end up with numerous patches. I would personally choose a floorless shelter rather than one with a Cuben Fiber floor, in which case the Mountain Laurel Designs SoloMid has a lot of appeal because of its much larger protected area, much greater headroom, and much lower cost. Interestingly, all the shelters in the table have limited headroom except the MLD SoloMid, and it has so much headroom that you can almost stand up in it. Alternatively, you can consider the Cuben Fiber floor sacrificial and patch it as much as needed, and it’s easy to patch.

Bottom line, the decision depends on what type of shelter you prefer and how much you are willing to spend. For a high-end ultralight tent, the Ultra is indeed the ultimate. But there are a number of alternative shelters that are also very lightweight and cost a lot less. Perhaps the significance of the Laser Ultra is that it maintains Terra Nova’s position as the manufacturer of the lightest tents in the world, and from our standpoint we admire their innovation and leadership.

What’s Good

• One-pound plus one-person double-wall tent; the lightest double-wall tent in the world
• Fast set-up
• Side entry protected by a vestibule
• Improved ventilation
• Gear in the entry vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent
• Wind stable and storm worthy
• Adequate space for one person plus gear

What’s Not So Good

• Very expensive
• Limited headroom
• No storage pockets
• Cuben Fiber floor is vulnerable to punctures

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/BPL has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.