Introduction

Hyperlite Mountain Gear expanded a niche in the ultralight shelter category – they created an ultralight modular shelter system in which the components can be used separately or together. The components are: a catenary tarp, a mesh insert, and a front beak. The complete shelter adds up to a well-ventilated double-wall tent with full weather protection, or you can use the mesh insert or tarp separately when conditions allow. And HMG went to the extreme on the materials – Cuben Fiber – so these shelters are extremely light. The Echo I (one person) weighs just 23.6 ounces (669 g), and the Echo II (two people) weighs 29.9 ounces (848 g), with guylines but without stakes. An ultralight modular shelter system is a wonderful idea, as long as the components fit and function well together and separately; so how well do these shelters perform in the real world?

Specifications

Design and Features

The design of the Echo I and Echo II shelter systems are identical; they only differ in size (see specifications above). Both consist of a catenary tarp with Spectra core guylines, a mesh insert, and a front beak. Adjustable trekking poles are required for setup; optional carbon fiber tarp poles available from HMG. I will briefly describe each component separately:

• Tarp – This is a full-fledged Cuben Fiber catenary tarp with fully bonded and reinforced ridgeline and tieouts. HMG uses a stronger weight of Cuben Fiber (CF8), which is 0.78 oz/yd2 (26.4 g/m2). The Echo 1 Tarp provides 51 ft2 (4.74 m2) of protected area and weighs 8.1 ounces (230 g, measured weight) with guylines, and the Echo II Tarp provides 68 ft2 (6.32 m2) of protection and weighs 9.3 ounces (264 g). The Echo II tarp can be used with the Echo I Mesh Insert (but not the reverse).
• Mesh Insert – The mesh insert has elastic cords (three at each end) that connect to rings on the tarp. It’s easy to install after the tarp is set up, or it can be left connected and set up as a unit. The lower sidewalls are Cuben Fiber CF8 and the bathtub floor is heavier Cuben Fiber CF15 (1.48 oz/yd2/50.2 g/m2) for extra durability. The Echo I insert weighs 11 ounces (312 g, measured) and provides 18 ft2 (1.67 m2) of floor area, and the Echo II weighs 15.4 ounces (437 g) and provides 24 ft2 (2.23 m2) of floor area.
• Front Beak – The front beak provides a vestibule-protected entry for the shelter. It’s also made of Cuben Fiber CF8 and has a full-height water-resistant zipper with two pulls. The weight is 3.9 ounces (111 g, measured) for the Echo I, and 4.7 ounces (133 g) for the Echo II.

There are five useful configurations possible with the Echo shelter system:

1. Tarp only
2. Tarp plus Front Beak
3. Tarp plus Mesh Insert
4. Tarp plus Mesh Insert plus Front Beak
5. Mesh Insert only

Video tour of the Echo II.

Performance

Set-up is fairly fast, but not as fast and easy as some single-wall shelters. I set up the Echo I in the rain one time and it required a long five minutes! The mesh insert and beak can be left attached to the tarp and set up as a unit. Simply spread the shelter on the ground, loosely stake the four corners of the tarp, set trekking poles to 45 inches (114 cm) for the front end and 36 inches (91 cm) for the rear end, insert tips of the poles into rings on the tarp ridgeline, tighten the guylines, and stake down the corners of the mesh insert. The beak is the hardest part to set up because the geometry needs to be just right for it to fit properly. The process becomes easier after you have done it a few times.

The livability of the Echo I and Echo II is very good as far as floor space. I used the Echo II both solo and with my wife and had adequate room for people plus gear. As expected, the Echo II is heaven for one person, with loads of room inside.

According to manufacturer specifications, the Echo II provides 3 inches (7.6 cm) more headroom, but I measured it to be the same as the Echo I. The actual headroom will vary a bit depending on how the tent is pitched, but nevertheless it’s inadequate for a taller person. The mesh inner tent stretches when you press against it with your head, so that’s basically the situation for taller people. My wife commented: “It looks like there is more headroom than there really is, because you see the underside of the tarp”.

The vestibule (front beak) provides some space for wet gear or a canine friend. Although the shelter floor is a heavier weight of Cuben Fiber, I would be reluctant to allow a dog with sharp claws inside. The floor is durable enough to lay directly on many surfaces without a groundsheet, but it is vulnerable to punctures from sharp objects. Cuben Fiber has very high tear strength, but it’s vulnerable to punctures. I would say the risk is about the same as a tent with a silnylon floor.

I encountered rain, heavy at times, on nearly every one of the six backpacking trips I took with the Echo shelters. I found both the Echo I and Echo II, with the front beak, to be very storm worthy in heavy rains, not a drop came inside. One nighttime thunderstorm while camping at 12,000 feet (3,658 m) produced heavy rain and strong winds hitting the rear of the shelter. The tarp flapped quite a bit but it stayed completely dry inside. The mesh insert has tall bathtub walls and foot end, which really helps to intercept any splash or spindrift. However, the Echo tarp and mesh inner tent combination (without the front beak) is vulnerable to wind-driven rain from the front. I used the front beak on trips where I expected rain because the mesh entry door is not as well protected from wind-driven rain as the rear of the tent.

Inside the HMG Echo I during a heavy thunderstorm.

I used the Echo II Tarp by itself on one trip (photo above, under “Performance” heading). A larger tarp like this provides lots of sheltered area for one person plus gear, eliminating the need to carry a sleeping bag cover. It was breezy most of the night, causing the tarp to flap a bit and overall making it more difficult to get a good night’s sleep compared to sleeping in a tent. In contrast, using the tarp plus the mesh insert provides much better protection from wind and nighttime breezes.

Comparisons

Other modular shelter systems similar to the Hyperlite Mountain Gear Echo I and Echo II are the Alpinlite Gear (www.alpinlitegear.com) Bug Shelter and tarp system and the Mountain Laurel Designs (www.mountainlaureldesigns.com) Serenity Shelter plus a tarp, and their pyramid-type shelters plus a mesh InnerNet.

The Alpinlite Bug Shelter is available in several sizes. It’s made of silnylon and mesh; for example, the two-person version weighs 32.1 ounces (910 g), costs US$455, and has more floor area and headroom. The Bug Shelter does not have a bathtub floor for end and side protection, but one is being developed. An alternative system is to pair the Alpinlite Bug Shelter with the Gossamer Gear SpinnTwinn spinnaker tarp; that system for two people weighs about 23.8 ounces (675 g) and costs US$330, significantly less than the Echo II but it does not have a front beak.

The MLD Serenity Shelter plus a Cuben Solo Pro Tarp weighs 11.8 ounces (335 g) and costs US$294. The MLD Grace Duo Spinntex tarp plus Duo InnerNet mesh interior weighs 24.7 ounces (700 g) and costs US$350. The DuoMid plus the Duo InnerNet weighs 26.5 ounces (751 g) and costs US$370. These combinations weigh less than the HMG Echo Shelters, but they lack a beak to protect the front entry. The headroom in the Serenity Shelter is about the same as the Echo Shelters, but the mid-type shelters have a lot more headroom.

My thanks to reader Dan Durston for information used in this section; for more details, read his full reader review of the HMG Echo I Shelter in the Backpacking Light forums.

The systems described above have their pros and cons. They cost less than the HMG Echo Modular Shelter System, have a bit more floor area (and headroom in some cases), but the lack of a bathtub floor in the Alpinlite shelters is a serious drawback, and there is no beak/front vestibule to protect the entry (except for the MLD Mids).

Assessment

This HMG Echo Modular Shelter System really makes a lot of sense because it has five useful combinations. And it’s very lightweight, equivalent to the weight of many lightweight single-wall solo tents.

It’s important to note that the Echo shelters are intended for the experienced ultralight backpacker. These shelters do not have the convenience features that most lightweight backpackers prefer, like a dedicated pole set, two doors with vestibules, storage pockets, and extra interior space. They will be best liked by the minimalist backpacker, one who wants things simplest and lightest.

Thru-hikers should especially like this shelter system. It keeps weight to a minimum and offers shelter options, depending on the conditions. A solo backpacker can carry a shelter system that weighs less than 1.5 pounds (680 g) and have the choice of sleeping under a tarp, in a mesh tent, in an open-ended double-wall shelter, or in a fully protected double-wall shelter with vestibule. That’s a lot of options for the weight! A thru-hiker is less concerned about convenience features because they typically hike late into the day, then set-up their shelter and go to sleep.

For hikers who appreciate a little more room and comfort, the Echo II is probably the best choice. For 6.3 ounces (179 g) more, one gets a whole lot more floor space, and the shelter can be used solo or with a partner. Also the Echo II Tarp provides a lot more protected area when tarp camping.

The only significant drawback of the Echo shelters is their low headroom for taller hikers. By the numbers, the Echo II has 3 more inches (7.6 cm) of headroom, but the difference is moot because the inner mesh tent tapers down to only 32-33 inches (81-84 cm) of headroom only 12 inches (30 cm) inside the tent. For shorter hikers, the shelters’ headroom is likely to be less of an issue.

Overall, the Echo modular shelter system is one of the nicest shelters I have tested. Its choice of materials balances lightweight and durability, it’s well designed and constructed, the components are designed to work together, it’s wonderfully versatile, it’s very storm worthy, and it will last a long time.

What’s Good

• Extremely lightweight
• Highly versatile
• Quite durable
• Excellent construction
• Plenty of floor space for one or two people
• Excellent ventilation and condensation resistance
• Mesh insert provides full bug protection
• Very storm worthy
• Gear in the entry vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent

What’s Not So Good

• Limited headroom
• Requires a fairly large area to set up
• Full system takes longer to set up compared to many tents
• Does not provide as much wind protection as a tent
• Front trekking pole support blocks entry
• Expensive

Recommendations for Improvement

• Increase headroom

Introduction

Vibram has made an entire line of footwear, the FiveFingers, built around the concept of barefoot walking. The benefits of barefoot walking and running are explained in great detail on Vibram’s website.

While it makes a lot of sense to me, it is also quite a touchy subject with adherents in both camps. I wanted to know how their KSO Treks would work for backpackers, and as an added bonus, my kids thought the “gorilla feet” looked cool.

Specifications

Design and Features

As this is the first Backpacking Light review of a FiveFinger product, I suppose a bit of explanation is in order. The Vibram FiveFinger line of footwear all has a common feature in the way each toe is wrapped separately. This lets your toes move naturally just as you would when walking barefoot, instead of them being forced to move all together as they are in a typical shoe.

The KSO Treks are the burlier ruggedized version of the regular KSO (Keep Stuff Out), so named due to the wrap-around design. The Treks add a lot to the regular version that also seems to be right up the lightweight backpacker’s alley. Vibram recommends the Treks for “light trekking, trail running, and travel.” The Treks add kangaroo leather at the upper and sock liner for durability and breathability. The leather is soft enough to wear against bare skin. While it is offered in black, I chose brown to help hide the dirt and mud I expected to be in.

Vibram doubled the thickness of the EVA midsole in the KSO to 4 mm in the Treks to offer more protection from stone bruising. The biggest difference between the two are the cleated 4 mm Vibram TC-1 rubber outsoles. Besides providing more traction, the small lugs help keep rocks at bay. The rubber outsole comes up high enough to protect the front of the toes and a small section comes up to protect the heel also. A leather and nylon strap runs over and around the foot to provide a snug fit by pulling it tight and securing with the generous Velcro section.

The sides of the toes (where they touch other toes) is made with highly breathable nylon that is close to being a mesh. Water freely flows into (and out of) these spots. According to Vibram, the Treks are machine washable. They say to use a gentle, warm water cycle with liquid or powdered detergent, and hang to air dry. They warn to keep the KSO Treks away from direct sunlight or heat source while drying.

Performance

I have been using the Treks since April 2010. At writing time, I have put in 54 miles (87 km) of backpacking on them, including 31 miles (50 km) in the Sespe Wilderness in California and 19 miles (31 km) in Itasca State Park in Minnesota. The remainder was on the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) as seen in the picture above. These trips have ranged in temperature from 50 to 97 F (10 to 36 C). Elevations ranged from 400 to 6,000 feet (122 to 1830 m) in conditions ranging from rain and wind to hot sunny days. The loads carried ranged from 17 to 25 pounds (7.7 to 11.3 kg) although I once schlepped a painful 52 pounds in them.

I have also carried the Treks in my pack for almost 400 miles (644 km) just to use them for river and stream crossings and as camp shoes at the end of the day. Much of this took place in the Sierra Nevada in Yosemite and Kings Canyon Sequoia National Parks, with the remainder in the mountains of southern California.

I even used them for travel. You should see the looks they get at airports. I wore them for twelve straight hours walking around Lake Morena County Park campground at the 2010 Pacific Crest Trail Kickoff. I was stopped all day long by people asking if they were the Trek model and asking to see the soles. I was on one foot a lot that day…

Assessment

I have been intrigued by Vibram FiveFingers since I saw them back in 2005 at the Outdoor Retailer Show. I immediately thought they would be great for crossing fast moving water, but the lack of a “real” sole kept me from trying them. Then I saw the introduction of the new Trek model and said “it’s time!” I wore them for a couple days of just running around and at work. I really liked the way that they felt, and I quickly made the transition to walking without a hard heel strike.

I started out using them for four miles of a 22-mile hike on the Pacific Crest Trail. They were great on packed dirt and sand, but as the terrain became rockier I had problems. The Treks grip very well on exposed rock and are OK walking on smooth or rounded rocks strewn in the trail, but triangular profile rocks hurt the bottom of my foot as the profile would telegraph through. And the telegraph message was dot-dot-dot, dash-dash-dash, dot-dot-dot (SOS or Save Our Soles!)… I had to stop and put my trail runners back on.

Now a lot of this is on me. Having spent much of my life barefoot, I was told after my second set of plantar wart laser surgery to stop, as I was picking up the spores in the dirt. Since 2003 I have worn shoes at all times outside, except at the beach. This means my footsies are far from being “tough.” While I had problems with rocks, I met a couple of our members that were doing the same section of PCT that I was on. One was using the thinner regular KSO and was having no problems at all.

Large rock and slick rock were not a problem for me. The soles grip very well and traction was good for all use I had with the Treks. Backpacking in Minnesota was another story altogether. The trails in Minnesota are mostly packed dirt with grass growing on them. Indeed, much trail maintenance is done with a riding mower, I kid you not. The Treks worked very well on these trails.

One thing I discovered right away is that off-trail hiking (bushwhacking) is difficult because of the separate toes. Sticks and twigs like to slide between my toes. So do flowers! One of our BPL members told me that walking through spring flowers near Big Bear California he looked like he was picking mini-bouquets. I thought of his apt description as the same thing happened to me one wet day on the North Country Trail as seen to the right.

While the Treks have been so-so for my backpacking needs, they have worked wonderfully as a river crossing shoe. This was a high snow year in both states I reside in, so the rivers were really cranking during the start of the hiking season. I usually carry Solomon Tech Amphibian water shoes for this reason. The weight of the Treks is the same, but the Treks are much more sure-footed while crossing tricky stretches of water. Being able to have my toes conform to the rocks adds a level of confidence to the chore.

On a trip along the swollen Sespe Creek I had to cross it so many times that I just left the Treks on to save time. I was OK until a person in the group ran out of steam and could not go on. Rather than leave her (or stop) I carried two packs for the last 3 miles (5 km) which put 52 pounds (23.6 kg) on my back and feet. That was completely too much weight to use on the rocks we encountered. The next day my feet were so bruised that I had to wear my trail runners all the way back to the trailhead. Three months later I was back on the same hike, as a group wanted to go to the hot springs they had heard us talk about (Hello, L!). This time (with normal weight) I used them for the entire trip with no problems.

The last way I use the Treks are as camp shoes. Once my camp is set up for the evening I like to go jump in a lake. Literally. Or a creek, river, or other water source. Wearing the Treks ensures I am not going to injure my feet if I step on a fishing hook or piece of glass (many areas in Minnesota can be reached by boat, and hooks/glass can be a real problem). Water drains from the nylon between the toes quickly, and they are comfortable to wear around camp until sack-time.

While I have not put a lot of distance on them, they have spent a lot of time getting soaked and drying back out. I have only washed them one time so far. They are still in great shape and have never developed any foot funk. I often wore Injinji socks or short liners with the Treks, though you can skip a sock in this footwear. My purpose was primarily to keep ticks off my feet as I used permetherin treated socks. I really like the Treks and plan to keep taking them on most of my three-season trips. I will leave you with a shot of me tiptoeing through the tulips. Well, packing through the poison oak.

What’s Good

• Comfortable
• Good for backpacking in areas that are not too rocky
• Excellent for crossing fast moving water
• Drain water quickly

What’s Not so Good

• Can get bruised feet on some terrain
• Toes are foreign matter collection devices

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.

Editor’s Suggested Related Reading

Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2010: Minimalist Footwear – Is It Ready for Backpackers? by Damien Tougas. Depending on how tuned-in you are to current running trends, you may have noticed that there is a new movement starting to gain traction among runners: barefoot running and minimalist footwear.

Introduction

GoLite has revised its UltraLite frameless backpack line for spring 2010. The Ion pack was replaced by the new Peak, and the Jam (no longer the Jam 2) and Pinnacle have received a few upgrades.

The Peak pack (which is the focus of this review) was a new model for spring 2010. Its specified 2200 cubic inch (36 L, size Medium) volume is on the small side, even for ultralight backpacking. It has the same volume as the Gossamer Gear Murmur pack (7.9 ounces/224 g), which is considered a super-ultralight backpack for hikers who carry an extremely low base weight and low volume. So, is the Peak a day pack, a capable ultralight backpack, or both?

Specifications

Description

The Peak backpack is built to last – the body is 210 denier Dyneema Gridstop, and the pockets are durable stretch nylon. It’s also full-featured, with a total of five pockets and numerous other features (see Specifications). It has a removable stiff closed-cell foam backpanel insert (weight is about 1.5 oz/43 g, depending on pack size), and the hipbelt wings are also removable. Removing these items reduces pack weight by about 6.3 ounces (179 g), to about 20 ounces (567 g) for size Medium, but most users would probably not do so because it would eliminate the hipbelt pockets and vertical rigidity.

The previous Jam 2 and Pinnacle packs had a water-resistant zipper on the front pocket and no storm flap. The curved WR zipper was a bit stiff to operate. The revised packs and new Peak now have a regular zipper with two pulls, plus a storm flap, which operates more smoothly.

Note that the Peak does not have a torso length adjustment, so it’s important to measure your torso length and choose the correct pack size. The only pack fit adjustment is the shoulder strap length; the pack does not have load lifter straps or hipbelt stabilizer straps.

Performance

We used the Peak pack as both a day pack and backpack during ten months of testing. Janet used it as a backpack the most because size Small fits her well, and it’s sized well for the approximate 15-pound (6.8-kg) load she normally carries. Will used the Peak a lot as a day pack on a variety of trips, but less as a backpack because he usually requires a pack with more volume to carry shared gear. Toward the end of our testing period, Will used the Peak on a couple of solo backpacking trips to evaluate how well the Peak performed with an ultralight low volume gear kit.

We found the Peak to be versatile as both a day pack and as a backpack using ultralight gear. Several readers have inquired about backpacks that are nearly waterproof; the Peak is one we would recommend. Due to its design and materials, the Peak is very water-resistant, making it a good choice for wet conditions. The larger Jam and Pinnacle are a good choice for winter trips, as long as the carry weight is reasonable.

We especially liked the Peak’s hipbelt pockets, which are big enough to hold a digital camera or an assortment of smaller items, as well as the large zippered front pocket that provides convenient access to everything we need on the trail.

For Will, the Peak became an immediate favorite for cool and cold weather day trips. It has plenty of volume to carry the clothing needed to adjust layers throughout the day. It performs especially well for backcountry skiing – clothing, food, and thermos inside, smaller items easily accessible in the large front pocket, and skins in one of the stretch side pockets.

The Peak became a favorite backpack for Janet because it’s available in a size Small which fits her well, and it has the right volume for the amount of gear and weight she carries. As mentioned, the Peak is too small for Will when he carries all the shared gear (shelter, stove, fuel, food), so he opts for the Jam (as shown in the photo below) because it is right-sized and capable of carrying the weight.

Finally, to answer the question – is the Peak a capable ultralight backpack? – the answer is a resounding yes! Solo hiking with the Peak loaded with ultralight gear weighing 16 pounds (7.3 kg) – including food, water, and fuel for two days – the Peak easily carried the volume and the weight. I used the size Large Peak, which has a volume of 38 liters, and everything fit into the main pack body plus pockets. It’s about the same size as the old GoLite Breeze. I did not need the extension collar, but hikers carrying a size Small or Medium Peak may need it to hold all their gear.

The Peak carries a load remarkably well owing to its padded shoulder harness, hip-hugging hipbelt wings, and its stiff closed-cell foam backpanel insert which gives the pack some vertical rigidity. It transfers weight to the hips well and the backpanel hugs my back. In my opinion, the maximum comfortable carry load for the Peak is 20 pounds, but that figure will depend on how strong your shoulders are.

Our overall impressions of the Peak are as follows:

• The pack volume is perfect for ultralight backpacking. It has the right amount of room for an ultralight gear kit, plus food, water, and fuel for up to four days.
• The pack is well designed, made of durable materials, and has loads of features.
• We love the pack’s large zippered front pocket; it provides convenient access to most items needed on the trail without having to enter the main body of the pack.
• It’s also a plus that the pack is available in three sizes to make it easier to get a proper fit. The pack does not have any torso adjustment, so choosing the correct pack size is important.
• The stretch nylon hipbelt pockets are some of the best to be found.
• The stretch nylon side pockets will stretch out and hold a lot of gear, and they’re very durable. For hikers who carry water bottles, these pockets hold water bottles well, and bottles are reachable with the pack on.
• The closed-cell foam backpanel insert provides good padding with little added weight, and increases the vertical rigidity of the pack.
• Using a hydration bladder in the hydration sleeve works well on day trips, but for backpacking it’s hard to refill the bladder without partially unloading the pack.
• The Peak functions as well as a daypack as it does as a backpack.
• The hipbelt wings hug the hips well, help to support heavier loads, and are easily removed for light loads (but you lose the hipbelt pockets).
• The revised Jam is a bigger version of the same pack. The hipbelt wings are more substantial and are not removable.
• The revised Pinnacle pack is a larger version of the Jam; it has loads of volume and excels for higher volume/moderate weight loads.

Assessment

It’s hard to compare apples to apples when it comes to frameless backpacks because they vary so much in design, materials, and sizing. Although the new GoLite Peak and revised Jam and Pinnacle are a bit on the heavy side for frameless backpacks, they compensate for the extra weight in their durability, fit, comfort, and load-carrying capacity. For example, I found the frameless Jam pack will comfortably carry the same load as the Gossamer Gear Gorilla pack with its lightweight stay. The shoulder harness, fit, padding, and wide hipbelt wings enable the Peak to comfortably carry a little more weight than a similar-sized Spartan pack.

In addition to its comfort and weight carrying capacity, the distinctive attributes we like about the Peak are: its versatility (it can be used as a day pack as well as a backpack), its large front zippered fabric pocket, and its excellent hipbelt pockets. It’s also very water-resistant (except for the side pockets), so it can be carried in snow or rain without getting the contents wet. Overall, the Peak is very likable, and it’s a good value at US$125.

What’s Good

• Highly versatile – equally usable as a day pack or backpack
• Three pack sizes to fit most hikers
• Removable backpanel padding and hipbelt
• Durable fabrics and mesh
• Excellent hipbelt pockets
• Large zippered fabric front pocket for convenient access to items needed on the trail
• Stretch nylon side pockets are very durable and stretch easily to hold a lot of gear
• Fits well (if you choose the correct size)
• Comfortably carries moderate loads

What’s Not So Good

• Heavier than other packs with the same volume

Recommendations For Improvement

• None

Introduction

The relatively new Six Moon Designs Traveler is a panel loading version of their popular (and proven) Starlite backpack. It’s designed to perform double duty as a lightweight travel bag and backpack. The volume of the main pack body is the same as the Starlite, as are the side mesh pockets, removable stays, sleeping pad pocket on the backpanel, and the suspension system. The difference is the panel-loading system, where you lay the pack flat and access the contents through a front panel. The pack has a zippered top pocket instead of the extension collar and roll-down top closure on the Starlite. The front of the pack has a zippered mesh pocket and two compression straps, compared to a large open mesh pocket and a drawcord compression system on the front of the Starlite.

Backpacking Light published a review of the Starlite back in 2004 and found it to have the highest comfortable load carrying capacity of all the frameless backpacks we tested. Does the Traveler perform as well as its seasoned older brother?

Specifications

Description

At 3800 cubic inches (62 L), the Traveler is a larger volume frameless backpack. It’s designed with long distance hikers in mind, as a translation of the company’s name implies – six months (moons) on the trail. Long distance hikers need a pack that will carry higher volume and weight when needed, like after a re-supply, yet will compress down to accommodate diminishing loads as well. According to the manufacturer, the Traveler is designed to do just that and double as a secure travel bag, but does it deliver on all accounts?

The key design element of the Traveler (and Starlite) is the combination of a backpanel sleeping pad pocket and removable stays. A folded ¾-length closed-cell foam pad (like a Z-Rest or RidgeRest) inserted in the pad sleeve gives the pack substantial vertical rigidity, so this is a frameless backpack that will comfortably carry a substantial load. With the stays inserted, the pack will comfortably carry even more weight and more effectively transfer weight to the hips.

Performance

I tested the Traveler on four backpacking trips, ranging from a winter backcountry ski trip to a mountain cabin to multi-day spring and summer mountain backpacking. I carried loads ranging from 18 to 22.5 pounds (8.2 to 10.2 kg), with and without the stays for extra support, and with different sleeping pads in the pad sleeve. To test it at heavier weights, I loaded it up at home with heavier gear plus bottles of water to attain pack weights up to 32.5 pounds (14.7 kg).

The Traveler’s performance strongly depends on the user’s needs, and it clearly performs best under a particular set of conditions. To reiterate, the Traveler is designed to serve both as a travel bag and long distance backpack. It’s a larger volume pack, and the user must have a need for that volume. It will also serve lightweight backpackers well, if their gear will fill up the pack and weight is in the 25 to 30 pound (11.3 to13.6 kg) range.

For me, the Traveler is a bit of a conundrum for ultralight backpacking. The pack has too much volume for my gear kit, so I load my sleeping bag and down jacket unstuffed in the pack to fill up the volume. The pack’s two front compression straps do little to reduce the volume of the pack for smaller loads, so the pack size stays about the same regardless of the load.

Secondly, the pack will indeed comfortably carry higher volume and weighty loads, but its dependent on having a folded ¾-length closed cell foam sleeping pad (like a Z-Rest or RidgeRest) in the sleeping pad sleeve in order to do that, plus the stays for heavier pack weights. The problem for me is I rarely sleep on a closed-cell foam pad anymore, so I don’t really need the foam pad other than as a pack stiffener. An inflatable sleeping pad or thin foam pad (like the Gossamer Gear NightLight) does little to stiffen the Traveler for carrying heavier loads.

I also like to use a hydration system. It weighs a little more than a couple of soda bottles or a Platy flask, but it’s more convenient and I drink more. It’s noteworthy that the Traveler does not have a hydration sleeve, but it does have a hose port from the top pocket. The choices for using a hydration system are to put the reservoir in the top pocket or put it in the tall side pocket on the left side of the pack (as shown in the photos). The latter actually works well because it is easy to refill. I pack some heavier items on the opposite side of the pack to balance the weight.

The main point of this discussion is the Traveler is not very versatile in terms of its ability to adjust to different volumes and weights. It is best suited for a person who carries a moderate volume/weight load, like a lightweight backpacker, a long distance hiker, and of course a traveler/hiker. An ultralight backpacker will be happier with a backpack in the 3000 to 3500 cubic inch (49 to 57 L) range that compresses and expands well to accommodate different size loads.

So, what is the weight carrying capacity of the Traveler? The short answer is it’s about the same as the Starlite, which is around 30 pounds (13.6 kg). In my carry weight testing, with the optional stays inserted the Traveler carried 32.5 pounds (14.7 kg) of backpacking gear with reasonable comfort, which is remarkable for a frameless backpack. The key design element is the pack’s sleeping pad pocket which confines a ¾-length closed cell foam pad between the user’s back and the stays. The stays and folded pad create a virtual frame much stiffer than is possible with a pad coiled inside the main pack bag. The caveat here is this performance is dependent on a folded ¾-length closed cell foam pad confined in the pad sleeve; without it, or with a thinner foam pad or inflatable pad, the pack’s weight carrying capacity drops considerably.

The Traveler can be used without the stays for lighter loads, or with the stays for extra support and weight transfer when carrying heavier loads. But it’s not a true internal frame backpack because the stays are not anchored to the hipbelt, although the load leveler straps are anchored to the tops of the stays. The stays act as a pack stiffener, working in conjunction with a rigid foam pad to create an “enhanced virtual frame,” but they do not provide the same support and weight transfer as a backpack with a built-in internal frame.

A folded sleeping pad as described is about 3 inches (7.6 cm) thick when compressed against the back, so it pushes the pack’s center of gravity outward. Consequently it’s important to load the pack so heavier items are against the pack’s backpanel, preferably in the center of the pack. Since the pack’s volume can’t be reduced very much, the Traveler performs best when the pack is fully expanded with a full load of gear.

Comparisons

The following table compares packs currently available that have removable stays, allowing the pack to be used either frameless or with the stays inserted for extra support. Note: information is manufacturer data for a size Medium pack.

The Six Moon Designs Starlite has a little more volume than the Traveler because it is a top loader with an extension collar, otherwise the packs’ dimensions, suspension system, and weight are very similar. The Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus has similar volume to the Traveler and weighs 6.7 ounces (190 g) less, but its comfortable load carry capacity is less. The Gossamer Gear Gorilla is a smaller pack, so it is not a very close comparison.

Assessment

The Six Moon Designs Traveler and Starlite have the same suspension system and are basically the same size pack. The difference is the Traveler is a panel loader and the Starlite is a top loader. The only real reasons for getting the Traveler instead of the Starlite would be: 1) use as a travel pack, and 2) a preference for a panel loading design. As a travel pack, the Traveler’s dimensions are too large to qualify as carry-on baggage on most airlines, and the side pockets are not zippered to make sure things don’t fall out.

For use strictly as a backpack, I would personally prefer the Starlite over the Traveler. The Starlite is a conventional top loader and has a little more compression capability than the Traveler, but it still does not have enough compression to reduce pack volume adequately for smaller loads.

To get the best performance from a frameless backpack (including when optional stays are inserted), its important to use a closed cell foam pad, either coiled around the circumference of the pack bag or folded against the backpanel to create a virtual frame to stiffen the pack and transfer weight to the hips. It’s also important to completely fill the pack so it’s a firm, solid unit. That is accomplished by purchasing a pack that has a volume close to the volume of your normal gear kit and using the pack’s volume adjustment and extension collar to handle smaller and larger loads. Applying these principles to the Traveler and Starlite runs into some potential obstacles: 1) if you use an inflatable sleeping pad, the pack’s weight carrying capacity is significantly reduced, and 2) the Traveler is a larger volume frameless backpack and it has limited volume reduction capability to accommodate smaller loads.

Overall, the Traveler’s (and Starlite’s) stellar performance is limited to a particular set of conditions (higher volume and weight, use of the optional stays, and a folded ¾-length closed cell foam sleeping pad). If that is your situation most of the time, this is your pack, especially if you travel a lot. However, if you use an inflatable sleeping pad, your gear kit is a smaller volume, and you don’t intend to travel with the pack, you would be better served with a smaller top-loading frameless backpack. If you consistently carry loads heavier than 30 pounds (13.6 kg), I recommend getting a an internal frame backpack rather than a pack with removable stays

What’s Good

• Serves as both a travel pack and lightweight backpack
• Pack volume is just right for lightweight backpacking and long distance backpacking
• Adjustable torso length
• Three hipbelt sizes and two shoulder strap lengths to fit most hikers
• Removable stays provide extra stiffening and better weight transfer for heavier loads
• Hipbelt and sternum strap are removable, allowing some weight reduction
• Durable fabrics and mesh
• Outside mesh pockets hold a lot of gear
• Higher comfortable load carrying capacity than other frameless backpacks

What’s Not So Good

• Too much pack volume for ultralight backpacking
• Minimal compression capability, so the pack does not accommodate smaller volume loads very well
• No hydration sleeve, so a hydration bladder must be placed in the top pocket or a side mesh pocket
• Stays do not anchor to the hipbelt, so they function as a pack stiffener rather than a true internal frame

What’s Unique

The combination of a backpanel sleeping pad sleeve containing a folded ¾-length rigid foam pad and removable flat aluminum stays create an “enhanced virtual frame” that allows the Traveler to comfortably carry more weight compared to other frameless backpacks.

Recommendations For Improvement

• Develop an improved compression system that will allow the pack to better contain smaller volume loads
• Offer a stiff plastic framesheet that can be inserted in the pad sleeve to achieve better weight transfer when an inflatable sleeping pad is used

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 new 1.6 oz (44 g) Highgear ATF8 puts a lot of features in a small, compact package. As part of the company’s Summit Series of products it is made with the outdoors person in mind. How does it work for backpacking?

Design & Features

The High Gear ATF8 is based on the company’s Alterra Multi-function watch. What’s the most noticeable difference? They lost the watch band. The ATF8 is made to be carried, not worn. It has a carabiner-style attachment for hanging from a loop or strap on a backpack. The carabiner can also fold into a groove in the back of the unit to make for a compact pocket carry. The carabiner ratchets as it closes and can be stopped in various positions to allow it to sit on display. A coin slot in the back lets the ATF8’s CR2032 coin-style battery be accessed.

The ATF8 has a slew of functions. It has dual time zones, compass, altimeter, barometer, standard chronograph, special ski chronograph, dual alarms and data logs for the chronograph and altimeter. I won’t get into all those – I didn’t use many! – but you can scan the company’s online manual for some light reading to acquaint yourself with all those bells and whistles.

S1 Key:

• Changes view in time, barometer, altimeter, altimeter log, and chronograph log modes
• Start/Stop information storage in altimeter mode
• Advances variable in setting mode
• Start/Lap/Split action in chronograph mode
• Starts ski chrono
• Turns daily alarm on/off

S2 Key:

• View/Select Time 1/Time 2 in time of day mode
• View Select C/F and inHg/mbar in barometer mode
• View/Select ft/m in altimeter mode
• Scroll through altitude log files
• Turn altimeter alarm on/off
• Stop chronograph/save chronograph files
• Scroll through chronograph log files
• Store base altitude in ski chronograph
• Select alarm 1 or 2

S3 Key

• Activate EL backlight system

S4 Key

• Advances display through the various operational modes
• Selects variables in setting mode

S5 Key

• Enter/Exit setting mode for each function
• Clear chronograph and altimeter memories

The ATF8 is equipped with a Swiss-made barometric sensor. The barometer measures the Absolute Barometric Pressure and calculates the Barometric Pressure corrected to Mean Sea Level. Once calibrated, the barometer tracks changes in pressure and will give a “weather forecast” in the form of a little icon in the upper right-hand area of the screen. The main temperature screen is found in barometer mode.

The altimeter function works with the barometer. When climbing or descending (and again, after calibrating the unit to your known elevation first) the unit uses the change in pressure to calculate the change in elevation. While in this mode, an altitude alarm can be set to alert one of reaching a desired elevation.

The last function I really use is the digital magnetic compass. It shows the current heading in quarter cardinal points (so the center one is your heading) and the current heading in degrees at the bottom of the screen. In the picture above, I am just one degree off straight north.

Performance & Assessment

I received the ATF8 in January 2010 and have brought it on every backpacking trip since. Looking at my log, I have carried it for 621 miles (1000 km) to date. Most use has been in the Sierra Nevada of California, the rest in northern Minnesota.

Unless testing something else, I have been carrying one of the company’s AltiTech 2 carabiner-style units for the past six years. I like the ATF8 much better. I carry it attached to the shoulder or sternum strap of my backpack at all times. While I have tested watches, I do not care for anything on my wrist so I really like this style of carrying.

The main function that I use with any of these multi-function devices is the altimeter. As most of my backpacking is on trail and in mountainous terrain, I find that a good altimeter is easier and faster to track where I am on a map than with a compass.

I make a point to calibrate the unit at known locations, usually at the top of a pass. If I know beforehand where I am going to stop for the night, I will write that spot’s altitude on my map and recalibrate it when I get into camp too. Calibrating is easy to do, although having owned other of the company’s products helped I am sure. The ATF8 has done very well in its accuracy between calibration spots. It is normal to see a difference of around 20 ft (6 m) after a day that saw 4000 ft (1220 m) or more of elevation gain and loss. On one torture test I calibrated it on the top of Mt. San Gorgonio (11,499 ft/3505 m), drove back home to sea level for five days, and took it to Mt. San Jacinto (10,835 ft/3303 m) the next weekend. After all the time and elevation and pressure changes it was 120 ft (36.5 m) off.

Once in camp I set it to barometer mode and use it to track the temperature and the pressure/weather. The thermometer is very accurate but equalizes quite slowly. I checked it against a certified thermometer and it was dead on, after sitting for about five minutes. With a range of only 14 to 122 F (-10 to 50 C) I can’t rely on it for all my trips. In the Sespe Wilderness I was reading 119.5 F (48.6 C) in the shade at 3:30 pm, so it was probably hotter on the hike in. And more recently I was on the North Country Trail in northern Minnesota where I woke up to a reading in my tent of 19.8 F (-6.8 C) at 7:00 am. In another week or so I will be out of its range for lows. I would like to see a greater range.

The forecasting icons work well, but in the mountains the building thunderheads often tell me the same thing. ;-) On a recent trip in the Sierra I noticed the icon change to “rain” and told my brother-in-law that it seemed weird as it was pretty nice out. As we crested the next pass to start our descent to the trailhead we were treated to the sight of clouds which continued to build. By the time we got down it was raining. How dare I question the ATF8?

While I don’t need a compass to orient by (and if I did, I would bring a true map-reading analog model) I do use one often to check heading to make sure I am on the correct trail. In flat Minnesota, the woods can be so thick that often the heading of the trail and lakes I pass are the only way to keep track of where I am. The digital compass of the ATF8 works great for this. And since I have been bouncing back and forth between California and Minnesota, the ease of recalibrating the compass and resetting the declination is a blessing. It takes me about a minute to set it for each state once I get there. From what I can tell the accuracy is spot on when compared to my two Rangers.

The alarm is very faint. I have used it only two times. Once to alert me to a turn-around time as I needed to go back to my camp before it got dark, the other an early wake-up. I heard the alarm when it went off while the ATF8 was hanging on my pack. I never heard it go off in my tent. This has been true of the AltiTech units too. It must be noted that my ears do not register high sounds well when background noise (like wind) is present, due to too much powder actuated tool (think guns) use when I was younger.

The unit is said to be water resistant to 5 ATM. High Gear says that it “is designed to be water resistant to a static pressure of 5 ATM and can be worn while showering and light swimming.” As I wrecked one of the AltiTechs by dropping it in 3 inches (7.5 cm) of water in a tiny creek along the Pacific Crest Trail, I did not put the swimming claim to the test. I did carry it in the rainiest backpacking I have ever experienced this spring in California, where many records for rainfall were set in 2010. I clearly remember three days of PCT hiking that it rained all day long. I left the ATF8 on my pack through it all, and it did fine. My rain gear, on the other hand, failed miserably. Well, I was miserable, that was for sure.

Because of where I carry the ATF8, it has seen its share of hard knocks when my pack falls over. As can be seen in some of the pictures, it is getting scratched up a bit but has proven quite durable so far. I am still on the original battery and even in the cold of the last trip it is showing no sign of wearing down. (When battery gets low, the display fades during use.) The blue EL backlight works well but I usually just use my headlamp to check it during the night.

If there was one thing I could change about the ATF8 it would be a way to disable the functions that I do not want or use so that I did not have to waste time scrolling back through them all to get to the ones I do use. My Kestrel lets me remove any functions I don’t need.

A way to scroll backwards would be even better. When I stop to take a quick heading with the compass, I just have to push one button. But to get back to where I to the time mode I have to push eight more, traveling forward through all the functions.

All told I am very satisfied with the ATF8, so much so that I gave my AltiTech 2 away. I look forward to many more trips with it feeding me my backcountry data.

What’s Good

• Accurate functions.
• Easy to calibrate.
• Long battery life.
• Don’t have to wear it on my wrist!

What’s Not So Good

• No way to remove unwanted functions.
• Forced to scroll through everything to get where I want.
• Too-faint alarm chime.

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 to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.

Introduction

Black Diamond introduced their Infinity and Innova backpacks in spring 2010. These are dedicated backpacking packs, not climbing packs. A much expanded line of backpacks of all types will be introduced in spring 2011.

By lightweight standards, the Infinity/Innova packs at 3.75 pounds (1.7 kg, size Medium) are just above our upper weight limit of 3.5 pounds (1.6 kg), but they are still lightweight considering the technologies they incorporate. What is remarkable, and why we decided to review the new Black Diamond backpacks, is their ergoACTIV suspension system. According to Black Diamond: most backpack manufacturers have now incorporated lighter weight materials and ventilated backpanels into their backpack line; the next innovation needs to be freedom of movement. In the ergoACTIV suspension system, the frame, shoulder straps, and hipbelt pivot and twist in concert with the hiker, allowing the backpacker to move unrestricted in any direction. The obvious questions from our standpoint are: does it really work, are the benefits useful, and if so, do they justify the weight of the technology?

Specifications

Suspension System and Features

The Infinity and Innova backpacks have a unique ergoACTIV suspension system that provides freedom of movement. It consists of three design elements: an ergoACTIV hipbelt connected to a pivot hub on the backpanel that allows the hipbelt to swivel, SwingArm Shoulder Straps that are connected to each other by a cable and housing that allow the shoulder straps to move from side to side in tandem with the hipbelt, and a V-Motion Frame that transfers weight to the hipbelt. These three components working together allow the backpack to freely move from side to side and twist to the right and left with the user.

The pack’s frame consists of a HDPE framesheet and attached peripheral curved aluminum tubing to create a very supportive unit in the vertical direction while providing some horizontal and torsional flexibility to conform to and move with the user’s back. The frame unit is bendable to create a customized anatomical contour to match the user.

Field Testing

Our first time experience with the ergoACTIV suspension was: “Whoa, this pack is looser than a goose!” We are accustomed to backpacks that “stick” to our back, so the freedom of motion feature feels strange at first and requires some getting used to. The pack leans sideways with you, and twists as you twist. This freedom of movement is nice, but I wondered if it’s really needed for ordinary on-trail backpacking. After all, I am basically satisfied with a typical internal frame backpack that “sticks” to my back and allows me to comfortably carry a load down the trail.

On a solo trip, I carried a lighter load (24 lb/10.9 kg) in the Infinity 60 while hiking off-trail and found the freedom of movement feature more beneficial. When negotiating rougher terrain, it is helpful to carry a pack that moves with me, rather than restricts my movements. My conclusion is the ergoACTIV suspension performs well and is useful in situations where the extra agility is really needed, with the caveat of carrying a lighter load. A heavier load can throw me off balance when I’m in an awkward position, and the freedom of movement feature can work against me.

The heaviest load I carried with the Infinity 60 was 32 pounds (14.5 kg) while climbing a steady grade on-trail to gain 3000 feet (914 m) of elevation over 6 miles (9.7 km). With this heavier load (not all that heavy by conventional backpacking standards), I felt the pack weight concentrated on the pivot hub at the back of the lumbar pad, which caused some lower back fatigue by the end of the day. Also, the weight bearing down on one point at the back of the sternum pad caused the hipbelt to lever and press into my stomach, which was also uncomfortable. The problem was exacerbated by my tightening the hipbelt more to carry the heavier load on my hips. Note that most internal frame backpacks are designed to transfer and distribute weight to a much broader region of the hipbelt, rather than to a single point.

On a subsequent trip, carrying 28 pounds (12.7 kg) on secondary trails, I did not experience the problem, so there appears to be a threshold where pack weight concentrated on a single point (the pivot hub on the back of the sternum pad) causes discomfort. Overall, for me, the Infinity 60 carries loads up to about 30 pounds (13.6 kg) quite comfortably, but above that the concentrated weight on the pivot hub creates some less comfortable dynamics. For many lightweight backpackers, who carry loads in the 25-to 30-pound (11.3- to 13.6-kg) range, this should not be much of an issue.

Janet never really tested the upper load carrying limits of the Innova 50 pack, mainly because she has me to be the pack mule! She completely filled the Innova with bulky loads in the 15- to 18-pound (6.8- to 8.2-kg) range and was very pleased with the pack’s fit and comfort.

Assessment

Overall, aside from the issue described above, the Black Diamond men’s Infinity and women’s Innova are very nice backpacks. They are exceptionally well designed and constructed to fill the needs of most lightweight backpackers. We especially liked the packs’ fit, contoured backpanel, anatomical hipbelt, comfort, large front kango pocket, large floating top pocket, and reachable side pockets. We would prefer two hipbelt pockets, rather than one, and a larger capacity to more easily hold a digital camera. For a new pack model, the Infinity/Innova gets most of the details right.

However, the ergoACTIV suspension is a mixed bag. It delivers freedom of motion quite well and remains comfortable (for me) up to around 30-pound (13.6-kg) loads, but with heavier loads, the concentrated weight on the pivot hub creates uncomfortable leverage on the hipbelt. This effectively limits the comfortable load carrying capacity of the pack to around 30 pounds (13.6 kg).

We are neutral on the benefits of the freedom of movement feature while hiking on a good trail. It’s nice, but it doesn’t make the load any lighter or easier to carry. However, the freedom of movement feature is appreciated much more while carrying light to moderate loads over rougher terrain. Also, it very likely will make a difference for traveling on skis or snowshoes, but we did not have an opportunity to test that out.

Weight-wise, the Infinity 60 compares favorably with similar backpacks. The current Osprey Aether 60 now weighs 4 pounds 14 ounces (2.2 kg) for size Medium, so the Infinity 60 is a full pound lighter, based on manufacturer data for size Medium. However, there are lighter similar-sized internal frame backpacks to be found, as covered in Roger Caffin’s state-of-the-market series on Lightweight Internal Frame Backpacks.

What’s Good

• Innovative ergoACTIV suspension provides freedom of motion
• OpenAir backpanel is contoured to fit the back and provides good ventilation
• Adjustable torso length
• Lightweight durable fabrics and frame materials
• Large front kango pocket is very handy for stuffing a jacket or carrying a wet shelter
• Numerous pockets for organizing and convenient access
• Fits well; women’s model is sized and contoured to fit a woman
• Comfortably carries moderate loads

What’s Not So Good

• With heavier loads, weight concentrated on the pivot hub leverages the hipbelt causing discomfort
• Only one hipbelt pocket

Recommendations For Improvement

• Provide two larger hipbelt pockets
• Revise the pivot hub and hipbelt so they distribute weight better

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.

Version Two of SPOT Delivers the Potential of their Technology

As we reported at the Press Release of SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger (SPOT2) at the 2009 Outdoor Retailer Summer Market, the folks at SPOT addressed many of our suggested improvements to the original SPOT1 in the Generation Two: SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger.

Now, after 80 days (750 hours) of field-testing of the new SPOT2 on three continents, we report improvement in three significant areas:

• Lighter and Smaller: 43% lighter (4.16 oz vs. 7.33 oz) and 45% smaller.
• Improved Reliability: 100% delivery of all OK messages for 80 days. Near 100% delivery of Tracking Point messages in “typical” mountain conditions, e.g. the Sierras and Andes. And daily delivery of ~90% (or better) of Tracking Point messages in deep canyons or when bushwhacking (vegetation cover).
• Improved Operation: Dedicated button and status light for each function and safety covers for Help and SOS buttons make for intuitive operation and easily understood operational status.

In the field, the SPOT2 is easier to use and delivers a much higher proportion of Tracking Point messages than its predecessor. In addition, the Web-based software that supports SPOT is also better and now has a separate social networking site, SPOT Adventures, to share your adventures/data with others. In summary, the combination of the physical SPOT2 unit and supporting software is beginning to look more like a mature technology.

What impressed us most about the SPOT2 was its performance in a difficult transmission situation, a “typical” southern Utah canyon system. On a five-day slickrock canyon backpacking trip, the SPOT2 successfully delivered a daily average of ~90% of Tracking Point messages. Every OK message made it out. We saw similar message delivery performance on bushwhacking days in Alaska.

Basic Specifications – SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger (SPOT2)

SPOT2 Improvements Summary

• 43% lighter – 4.17 oz vs. 7.33 oz, BPL measured with batteries.
• 45% smaller 93 x 65 x 25 mm (3.7 x 2.6 x 1.0 inches) vs. 110 x 70 x 36 mm (4.3 x 2.8 x 1.4 in) 3 AAA batteries decrease size & weight, but operating time is less. BPL field measured Tracking mode 5.0 to 5.8 days (120 to 140 hours). Manufacturer reported Tracking mode, 3.5 to 7 days depending on percentage of sky view.
• Improved GPS performance.
  • GPS upgrade to uBlox AMY-5M chipset. Similar to SiRF and other high performance GPS chips.
  • Advanced GPS capabilities – Time-to-First-Fix (TTFF) usually seconds instead of minutes.
  • New antenna improves performance in foliage and canopied environments. (BPL note: also deep canyons)
  • New Rogers material antenna (Gen 1 was ceramic material).
  • Gen 2 increases performance at the horizon. Power same as Gen 1 (.16 Watt) using a proprietary Global Star tuning pattern and spread spectrum.
• Improved user interface.
  • Message-sending LED indicator.
  • GPS acquisition LED indicator.
  • New separate Tracking button.
  • New extra “Custom Message” button that works the same as OK but with different message content and its own email notification list. The addition of the new message improves your ability to communicate your status and intentions to people monitoring your trip.
  • New backlit message function buttons blink when the specific function is engaged.
  • Safety covers over the SOS and Help buttons.
  • Universal communications symbols on buttons.
  • Short SOS instruction placard on the back of the SPOT.
  • Comes with more detailed instructions (Quick Reference Guide) printed on a 2 x 3.5 inch fanfold plasticized card stock.

SPOT Concept of Operation – General Overview

For those unfamiliar with how SPOT operates, please see our review of the original SPOT1, SPOT Satellite Personal Tracker – Full Review.

Field Test of SPOT2

Message Delivery Reliability

As we reported at the press release on SPOT 2:

Of all Gen 2’s improvements… the GPS chipset and improved antenna/transmission matter the most. Only these have the potential to improve the reliability of SPOT’s message delivery, especially in areas with tree cover or in deep canyons… It will take some time and field-testing to determine if Gen 2 has significantly improved message delivery reliability over Gen 1.

We are happy to report that the SPOT2 has made significant improvements.

In our field testing, the SPOT2 has improved the reliability of Tracking Point message delivery – probably our single greatest gripe with the original SPOT1. While not tested as extensively, the increased reliability in Tracking Points we measured should also translate into a higher reliability in transmitting the OK, Custom, Help, and SOS messages. We had 100% success of transmitting OK messages in our 80 days of testing.

The increased message reliably for SPOT2 is probably due to (listed in order of greatest contribution):

1. A better antenna and antenna tuning pattern,
2. Queuing of the last three Tracking Point locations (even if two Tracking Points are unsent, if the SPOT2 successfully transmits a third Tracking Point, the previous two will also be sent), and
3. An improved GPS chip set.

In “typical” mountain conditions (the Sierras, Andes, and Pyrenees, and the Talkeetnas in Alaska), the SPOT2 had a Tracking Point message reliability approaching 100%.

But what really impressed us about the SPOT2 was its performance in a difficult transmission situation, a “typical” southern Utah canyon system. On a five-day backpacking trip, even in a deep canyon with significant vegetation at times, the SPOT2 successfully delivered 88% of expected Tracking Points (best day was 98%). Every OK message made it out. Even on its worst day, it delivered 83% of Tracking Points. This is more than adequate for your emergency contacts to accurately track your trip.

Prior to using the SPOT2 in the Utah, I had warned my emergency contacts to not expect much in the way of Tracking Points due to the depth of the canyons we’d be traveling in. To all our surprise, it was easy to track our progress via the SPOT2 Tracking Points, even in the deep and narrow sections. After this experience, I have confidence that with a little intelligence on selecting a location, that the SPOT2 would successfully get HELP and SOS messages out of many popular southwest canyon backpacking destinations (but probably not very deep slots like Buckskin Gulch).

In Alaska, we averaged more than 90% of the Tracking Points on our bushwhacking days – also not the easiest transmission conditions due to frequently dense vegetation cover.

This canyon and bushwhacking data is a bit more impressive because in our field testing we didn’t bother to be particularly careful about SPOT2 use:

• We used a lazy person’s mounting method: just hanging the SPOT2 vertically off the back of a backpack. (With a fully upward facing mounting method, the SPOT might have delivered a greater percentage of Tracking Points.)
• We weren’t particularly fastidious about using the SPOT2, e.g. at rest stops we sometimes put our packs down in a way that partially blocked the SPOT2’s sky view for transmission.
• Sometimes we turned the SPOT2 off for a few minutes at a rest stop but didn’t record doing this. Thus, at the end of the day, there are a few “missed” Tracking Points that aren’t really missed.

The combination of a very deep canyon WITH heavy tree cover was the only time we had significant gaps in Tracking Point transmission. On a three-day trip in coastal California, the SPOT2 had two Tracking Point gaps of approximately an hour. Both were from the bottom of a ~2000 feet deep, narrow canyon with trees. Even so, we had similar daily tracking percentages as on the southern Utah canyon trip, around 90%. Daily tracking percentages on the worst day (the day with the two gaps) was 82% and still more than sufficient to track the trip. Other days it was 90% or better.

Operation

SPOT2 is a significant improvement in the ease of operation over its predecessor and addresses the majority of our operational gripes with the original SPOT1. Most operations are fairly intuitive and the operational status of the unit easily understood. Each function has its own button, as well as its own status LED. There are also status LEDs for “GPS Fix” and “Message Sending.” There is a short SOS/basic instruction placard on the back of the SPOT2, and it ships with more detailed instructions (Quick Reference Guide) printed on a 2 x 3.5 inch fanfold plasticized card stock that is easily carried on the trail. With a new and much faster GPS chipset (acquisition in seconds rather than minutes), the SPOT2 gains a fix much faster and therefore operates much faster than its predecessor. In summary, both Amy and I are satisfied with the basic operation of the SPOT2.

A few functional observations:

Battery Life

Battery Life Lithium Claimed by SPOT

Utilizing fully charged Energizer Ultimate 8x AAA Lithium batteries under the specified usage environments, the following guidelines apply to the anticipated battery life of the SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger:

Testing of SPOT under common usage environments has shown that battery performance can be degraded in operating environments where SPOT’s GPS must take a longer time to acquire your GPS location, such as trying to send a message indoors or under extreme canopies. For optimal performance, please try and utilize SPOT in locations with a clear view of the sky with the logo side up. SPOT also recommends that you carry extra Energizer Ultimate 8x AAA Lithium batteries.

Battery Life – BPL Field Testing

Battery Life Lithium – BPL Field Testing

In warm to hot weather in the Pyrenees, one new set of lithium batteries lasted twelve days for a total of 120 hours in Tracking mode, plus twelve OK messages, in total approximately five days of operation. This is right between the minimum and maximum operation time claimed by SPOT. Almost perfect delivery of six data points per hour was consistent until the unit shut down completely. The red low-battery warning came on after about nine days (90 hours), however, the unit continued to transmit data successfully until the batteries were completely dead.

In a combination of field testing in Peru finished up with testing outside Alan’s home (fairly benign transmission conditions) the SPOT2 lasted approximately 140 hours in Tracking mode until exhausted (including two OK messages per hiking day). In combined use in Alaska and a southern Utah canyon system, with a new set of lithium batteries, the red low-battery warning came on after about 100 hours of operation.

Battery Life Alkaline – BPL Field Testing (not a Manufacturer approved use!)

SPOT clearly specifies to only use lithium batteries. However, on a long walk where battery resupply is from small shops (for example on the Haute Route Pyrenee), lithium batteries are not available. As such, Amy used four sets of alkaline batteries over 31 days.

On average, the alkaline batteries gave approximately 40 hours of reliable delivery (at or near six data points per hour) followed by approximately 40 hours of degraded delivery, degrading to as low as 50% success. The red low-battery warning light came on after about 40 hours of use, roughly concurrent with the start of the degraded delivery. When delivery rates were low, the delivery pattern was often to show a couple of hours of data points at ten minute intervals, followed by a couple of hours with no data points. We cannot substantiate this speculation, but the pattern in the data suggests that when the alkaline batteries were low, delivery would fail if any conditions were not optimal (for example if the device had slipped into a vertical orientation, had less than perfect sky view, or less than optimal satellite configuration), but if the conditions were optimal, then delivery would still be consistently successful. Note: The battery expiry date/freshness was unknown as they were bought from tiny shops in fairly remote locations.

Mounting SPOT2 on a Backpack

The manufacturer recommends a horizontal position for the most reliable message delivery. But the SPOT2 does not come with an effective “out of the box” method to mount the unit horizontally on a backpack. Most attempts to mount the SPOT2 with the manufacturer supplied mounting hardware (armband strap, or biner-clip), or just stuffing the SPOT2 in a pack pocket, result in the unit hanging vertically. While this is not the optimal transmission orientation, it turns out to be less of a problem for SPOT2 than the original SPOT1. Even with a “lazy person’s” vertical mounting, we had a high percentage of successful deliveries from SPOT2 even in difficult situations.

Amy’s under the roll top is only one solution for horizontal mounting on a backpack. We are certain that user ingenuity will devise many more methods for horizontal mounting.

Protocols for Our Use – Use and Meaning of SPOT2 Messages

Note: The following use of SPOT2 messages and their meaning is only used as an example. Readers are obviously free to use and interpret SPOT2 messages as they see fit. Alan carries a satellite phone and Amy does not. Therefore, there are some differences in our protocols.

Amy and I have been emergency contacts for each other’s trips since well before the advent of the original SPOT1. We both use the SPOT2 and have agreed upon the following interpretations for the four types of SPOT2 messages. Note that we use the Custom Message, Help Message, and SOS Message to indicate increasing severity of problems.

Meaning of SPOT2 messages

OK = We are OK and just checking in. Will generally do this starting hiking for the day at the end of the day when we make camp. We may occasionally send an OK at lunch, a summit, or significant point of interest. Also used to indicate that a significant deviation from route or schedules is “OK,” and to not worry.

Alan’s Custom Message = There is something up but it does not require rescue at this point. Start to closely monitor your phones (including mobile), email, trip blog, etc. Somebody is feeling ill, we have an orthopedic issue, terrible weather has set in, or we have significantly changed route or itinerary under duress, etc.

Amy’s Custom Message = There is something up, but it does not require rescue at this point. Monitor our SPOT locations and messages closely. Illness, injury, bad weather, unexpected ground conditions, etc.

Help = We have a problem we cannot solve and require rescue in 24-72 hours. Possible reasons include being lost or non-life-threatening illness/injury that is serious enough that the ailing person should not be left alone while the other goes for help. We are safe and this is not urgent, but we need assistance.

911 = We have a major problem that requires immediate rescue. Although you won’t receive this message, you are on the list to be contacted if it is sent out. (See below). We will not send this message unless we believe there is a serious threat to life or limb.

SPOT2 goes dead (no more messages)

Alan carries a sat phone, and his protocol is this: Start to closely monitor your phones (including mobile), email, trip blog, etc. for messages, calls, and voice mails from our sat phone. Absence of messages from both SPOT2 and sat phone for 24 hours indicates a significant problem, since it is unlikely that both the SPOT2 and the sat phone will fail and that we haven’t managed to move into a good transmission area to send out some sort of message.

Amy does not carry a satellite phone, and her protocol is this: If there are no tracks or SPOT2 messages, it does NOT mean that we have a problem. It could be one of many reasons, but you should NOT worry about it. (dead battery, device lost or damaged, etc). In this case revert to protocols used before we started carrying SPOT2: assume all is well until 24 hours after our expected trip completion time, at which point Responsible Party should notify the appropriate agency to initiate SAR.

If the track shows regular progress and/or there are daily OK messages, assume that all is well, even if hikers are off course or out past their planned trip completion time. This would be a normal scenario if a trip is delayed or rerouted due to weather, unexpected on-the-ground conditions, or minor injury/illness.

In the SPOT2 account, the text for the 911 (SOS) message includes the following information:

• Names (and optional – Passport Numbers).
• Ages, medical conditions, allergies, medications.
• “Will initiate 911 (SOS) message only when there is a perceived threat to life or limb for ourselves or somebody we encounter on the trail. (Note: we will NOT initiate 911 for non-urgent request for help.)”
• Planned itinerary and dates.
• Local emergency phone numbers or the area were hiking: Forest Service, Park Service, BLM, local Search and Rescue Organization, local sheriff, etc.
• Full contact information for the Responsible Parties/Emergency Contacts (names, addresses, cell/work/home phone numbers, email addresses).

The SPOT2 user leaves their login/password information with the Responsible Party/Emergency Contact, in case there are any problems with the account.

Pre-trip, the SPOT2 user sends tests for all four types of messages, OK, Tracking, Custom, and Help to all Responsible Parties/Emergency Contacts and makes sure they receive all email and text notifications, and that all messages show up on the Web tracking page.

Suggestions for Improvement

• We’re still waiting for some sort of display on a SPOT2. We’d love to at least get our GPS coordinates from the unit. And while the new status LEDs are an improvement, even a one line alpha-numeric LCD display would give greater understating of the unit’s operational status.
• Increase the queue of Tracking Points to six – a full hours worth. This would be useful for SPOT2 units operated in canyons and/or heavy tree cover.
• Smart management of Tracking Points when going from OK back to Tracking mode: Usually the first OK message attempt is successful, but the SPOT2 continues in OK mode for another 20 minutes before returning to tracking mode. This usually leaves a 20 minute or so gap between OK and the next Tracking Point. The Web interface could convert subsequent OK points, sent in the 20 minutes after the first OK delivery, into Tracking Points.
• Devise a simple and reliable way to mount the SPOT2 horizontally on a backpack.
• To be a bit greener, we’d like to see the SPOT2 have the option to be compatible with NiMH rechargeable batteries, even if the operational life with NiMH batteries was a bit shorter than lithium batteries.

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

Introduction

Introduced in 2009, MontBell’s Spiral technology is an alternative way to create a stretchy sleeping bag and save some weight to boot. The Spiral technology is best described in their own words: “By integrating a woven fabric ‘cut on the bias’ and orienting the fabric’s warp and weft threads at 45 degrees to major seam lines, the sleeping bag becomes more fluid or elastic in nature. Additionally, ‘spring like’ crimped fibers are used in the weave of the fabric to capitalize on their inherent stretch properties.” Rather than the traditional horizontal or vertical orientation of the down tubes, they are oriented on a 45 degree angle and appear to spiral around the sleeping bag.

For 2010, MontBell has extended their Spiral Stretch technology to their entire line of sleeping bags. Thus the former “UL Super Stretch Down Hugger #3” is now the “UL Super Spiral Down Hugger #3.” That’s a mouthful, but it is descriptive. Whereas the previously reviewed MontBell UL Spiral Down Hugger #3 uses only the Spiral Stretch technology, the MontBell UL Super Spiral Down Hugger #3 (reviewed here) is a combination of the new Spiral Stretch technology plus the original Super Stretch technology (elastic stitching in the seams to create small “gathers” in the quilting), which allows the bag to contract and expand even more. So what are the differences between these two bags, and are these differences meaningful for backpacking?

Description

The Spiral Down Hugger and Super Spiral Down Hugger share MontBell’s new 12 denier Ballistic Airlight sleeping bag fabric. Switching from 15 to 12 denier fabric plus spiral construction reduces the weight of a sleeping bag by about 2 ounces (57 g). In the Super Spiral series, that weight is added back due to the elastic stitching and slightly different bag lengths.

The common features of Spiral Down Hugger #3 and Super Spiral Down Hugger #3 are: 10 ounces (283 g) of 800 fill power down, 30 F (-1 C) temperature rating, spiral construction, 12 denier Ballistic Airlight nylon shell with Polkatex DWR, sculptured hood, and YKK #5 CN auto-locking zipper. The Super Spiral Down Hugger #3 no longer has a footbox drawcord to snug the bag around the feet, or shorten the bag.

The following table summarizes the differences between the two bags for size Regular.

I have always been impressed with MontBell’s Ballistic Airlight nylon shell fabrics and Polkatex DWR finish, but the new 12 denier shell on the Spiral Down Hugger is truly remarkable. It’s the softest sleeping bag fabric I have seen, and it sheds water like a duck’s back.

Performance

MontBell has revised bag sizing in the Super Spiral series to conform with most other manufacturers; size Regular now fits to 6 feet (183c m) and size Long fits to 6 feet 6 inches (198 cm). I tested a size Regular and found it perfect for my 6-foot/170-pound (183 cm/77 kg) frame. There is all the room you could ever want inside to wear extra clothing to extend the bag’s warmth.

The Super Spiral Down Hugger (and the Spiral Down Hugger) has a simple and lightweight zipper track (see photo above) that works. I experienced very few instances of zipper snagging in my testing. Rather than a puffy down filled draft tube along the zipper, MontBell uses a thinly insulated flap, much like the storm flap on a jacket. Although I did not feel any drafts or cold spots along the zipper, it quite likely does not insulate as well a down-filled draft tube.

I measured the bag’s average double-layer loft at 4.4 inches (11.2 cm), which gives a single-layer loft of 2.2 inches (5.6 cm). From our table of estimated temperature ratings based on measured loft (read our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings), 2.2 inches (5.6 cm) of single-layer loft translates to about a 20 F (-7 C) rating, so the Spiral Down Hugger #3 appears to be conservatively rated (please take the time to read the referenced article and note that sleeping bag warmth depends on a number of factors).

The Spiral Down Hugger #3, is not the loftiest bag around with a 30-32 F (-1 to 0 C) temperature rating (see comparison table below). I found its warmth to be “average.” In my field testing, my methodology was to wear my basic sleepwear (dry wool socks plus microfleece top, bottom, and cap) inside the bag initially, then add insulated clothing later in the night if I got cold, noting the time and temperature when I got chilly. On nights when the temperature dropped down to freezing just before sunrise, I started getting chilly around 4:00 a.m. when the temperature was around 35 F (2 C). After donning my insulated clothing (or better yet putting it on the evening before), I was able to stay warm in the Spiral Down Hugger down to 25 F (-4 C).

Comparisons

The following table compares the MontBell UL Super Spiral Down Hugger #3 with some popular 30-32 F (-1 to 0 C) rated ultralight mummy style down sleeping bags. All of the bags have baffled construction, and the data are manufacturer specifications for a size Regular bag.

By the numbers, the MontBell UL Super Spiral Down Hugger compares favorably with other bags in terms of down quality, fill weight, loft, weight, and cost.

Assessment

I really like the Super Spiral Down Hugger’s soft lightweight shell fabric, fit/roominess, non-snagging zipper, hood, and low weight. It’s an excellent choice for an ultralight 30 F (-1 C) rated sleeping bag. It is not quite as warm as the Marmot Hydrogen and Sierra Designs Nitro 30, but it is not as heavy either. I have not personally tested the Western Mountaineering SummerLite, so I can’t comment on how well it compares in warmth.

The MontBell UL Super Spiral Down Hugger #3 stands out for its variable girth feature, superb shell fabric, nearly snagless zipper, easy to operate hood closure, and exceptionally light weight. This bag “hugs” your body as claimed, yet it easily expands as needed to accommodate different size people, varying amounts of clothing worn inside the bag, and different sleeping positions. Although the bag’s warmth is only average among its peers, that is not a particular problem for me since I typically wear my camp clothes (wool socks, insulated jacket and pants, fleece cap) in my sleeping bag anyway. The colder it gets, the more clothing I put on, so I typically have no problem staying warm down in a 30 F (-1 C) rated sleeping bag down into the mid 20s F (-7 to -1 C).

How does the Super Spiral compare with the Spiral Down Hugger? It provides a wider range of shoulder and hip stretch and has a longer zipper. The sizing for sizes Regular and Long are slightly different. Since I am a slender person, I would personally opt for the Spiral Down Hugger and save US$30 and 2 ounces (57 g). However, the Super Spiral Down Hugger would be a better choice for a larger person.

Specifications and Features

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.

Design & Materials

Viewed from most angles, the Haven is a typical mummy bag, sans zipper. Flip the Haven over, however, and you’re greeted by an elastic-edged opening that to me looks like a plant’s stoma as viewed through a botany class microscope. This partial underside puts the Haven in the top-bag category, but the design seems unique (because it has a hood and doesn’t open flat, the Haven is not a quilt). The opening extends from about the shoulders to mid-thigh and, as noted, is stretchy. Rather than use a fabric sleeve to attach a pad or mattress, the Haven has two straps that attach to strap loops at each end of the opening. Each 1-inch strap has an adjustable snap buckle closure and can be removed in seconds if not needed.

The full hood has a simple drawstring perimeter closure with thin cord and a tiny cord lock. A small snap-closure pocket, just below the hood opening to the right, is big enough for a watch, small flashlight, etc., but not glasses. With no zipper, there’s no draft tube, nor is there a draft collar.

Haven specs list 11.6 oz (332 g) of 700 cubic inch goose down fill for the size long, 20 denier nylon ripstop shell with DWR finish and 30 denier calendared nylon taffeta lining. Heavier than some makers’ 10 denier and 15 denier shells, the Haven shell is also less delicate. Therm-a-Rest calls the fabric’s gray color “pewter” but in reality it’s a lot darker than, well, pewter. Call it “ouzel” and know that with this bag you’ll be able to blend invisibly with basalt should you so choose. While perhaps lacking a positive colorful impact on campsite cheer, it’s hard to imagine a more dirt-concealing color.

The down chambers are fully baffled including side baffles, so there’s no shifting the down between top and bottom to respond to the temperature (not too relevant in a top bag). The elastic around the bottom opening stretches wide, affording considerable mid-bag expandability.

The Haven’s materials and design place it in the mid-grade down bag category, which the price basically reflects.

Fitting a Pad

Performance

Measurements

The size large Haven tested weighs 25.2 ounces (714 g), including the 1.2-oz removable pad straps. Subtracting the manufacturer’s fill weight of 11.6 oz, the Haven shell sans straps is 12.4 ounces (352 g), or a bit more than half the bag’s weight. Some credit for the overall low weight can be chalked up to the lack of a zipper or draft tube, and the simple single-closure hood.

My length measurement essentially confirmed the 76-inch (193 cm) spec. It’s not meaningful to measure the top two girth dimensions because with the Haven’s design, one simply stretches the opening until the dimensions match. But how much stretch is too much? Empty and unstretched, the bag closes up and the hip and shoulder girth dimensions are well under the 60-inch (152-cm) spec. Because of this property it’s not very revealing to compare the Haven’s width specs to those of a standard mummy bag – the stretchy opening makes it perhaps more comparable to expandable bags such as those from MontBell and Sierra Designs. The non-stretchy footbox measures about 38 inches (97 cm) compared to the 40-inch spec (but it’s difficult to guess where to take this measurement in the tapered foot area).

Room and Comfort

Per the specs, the regular Haven fits those up to 5’10” and the large up to 6’4”. Girth is said to be the same for the two sizes. At 6’ and 175 pounds I find the large Haven roomy in all dimensions, including my feet, leaving ample space to wear insulated clothing from head to toe without excessive compression of the loft. By comparison, a slender mummy bag like my 20 F Western Mountaineering UltraLite (size long, 60/52/38) constricts insulated clothing, especially at the hips and legs. The UltraLite is also bulkier and larger than the Haven. My 20 F Feathered Friends Swift (64/58/40) matches the Haven for room, but is heavier and bulkier still.

The Haven’s simple hood is nicely contoured and warm. It closes from the side using the single cord and cord lock and requires two hands to adjust. The hood is reasonably comfortable and snug around my noggin on cold nights, although when I turn, it doesn’t always turn with me.

Fill and Temperature Rating

Therm-a-Rest has adopted the EN 13537 European rating system and for the Haven claims a “comfort” rating of 30 F (-1 C), a “comfort limit” rating of 20 F (-7 C) and an “extreme” rating of -10 F (-23 C). The standard roughly translates as follows: a standard woman (sleeping in a “relaxed” position) should be comfortable to 30, a standard man (sleeping eight hours in a curled position) should be comfortable to 20 and at 10 below, the “standard woman can remain for six hours without risk of death from hypothermia.” Frankly, if I ever find myself at -10 in this bag, I need to hire a trip planner or a life coach.

Ah yes, per EN 13537, “standard man” is 25 years old, 173 cm (~5’8”) tall and weighs 73 kg (161 lbs); “standard woman” is likewise 25, 160 cm (5’3”) tall weighing 60 kg (132 lbs).

Measuring the Haven’s loft is tricky. I found a rough average of four inches (10 cm) total loft where there are both a top and bottom layer and about two inches (5 cm) of loft atop the bottom opening, where there is but a single (top) layer. The handy BPL estimated temperature rating chart indicates the Haven falls between a 30 F and 20 F bag, which is consistent with my experience.

Down chambers are evenly filled, but not stuffed “fat” in the fashion of the best bags. I don’t note any insulation gaps examining the bag with strong back-lighting.

Pads

At home I paired several pads with the Haven, including a full-length Big Agnes Insulated Air Core, a small NeoAir and the small ProLite self-inflator. I didn’t find any problems with these combinations. I typically use a short pad and pillow, and that’s what I field-tested. After trying the short ProLite and NeoAir, I settled on the NeoAir as my top choice-comfort is excellent, warmth is sufficient, and it’s my smallest, lightest pad. While the NeoAir inside the bag blocks drafts more effectively than strapped outside, the somewhat rubbery fabric isn’t terribly comfortable against my skin, so I prefer it outside. (By contrast the ProLite fabric is more comfortable against the skin and lends itself more to use inside the bag.) The Haven straps encircle the pad and do a decent job keeping it in place and centered, thereby reducing drafts through the bag opening.

Ingress/Egress

The Haven design merits extra attention to entry and exit. In theory there are two ways-through the bottom and through the hood-but in practice the hood opening is so tight the bottom opening is much more practical (endomorphs and contortionists can perhaps ignore my observations). Naturally, bottom access is quick and easy when no pad is attached but trickier with the pad strapped on. My routine is to slide my legs in first, scoot down to the end, then pull the top over my head. Once inside I adjust the pad and ensure the bag opening is pulled snug. After some practice this has become second nature. Ease of entry is also affected by the shelter used – low, tight quarters like a tunnel-style tent make it more of a challenge.

Sleeping in the Haven

Especially because I’m a top-bag newbie, the Haven forced some habit adjustments. The biggest challenge is turning inside the bag to sleep on my side, rather than turning the bag with me as usual. If I turn the Haven sideways, the pad turns on its side too, and then I’m sleeping right on the ground. Turning sideways while leaving the bag in place sometimes has my face planted inside the hood.

The other challenge is ensuring the bottom opening remains covered by the pad, fending off drafts. This is mostly a finesse issue, because the Haven’s stretchy opening tends to stay somewhat closed – not completely – but normally enough to overlap the pad edges.

On the coldest nights I wore long underwear top and bottoms and a knit cap and was sufficiently comfortable to conclude the Haven is a legitimate 25 F bag for my metabolism. The challenge is scrupulously keeping the bottom opening blocked by the pad, and here’s where having the pad inside might be better, as per Cascade Designs instructions, as opposed to my preference for strapping it outside. Whenever the opening is exposed, it’s announced by a blast of cold air, and as experience grew I got better at minimizing those moments. The key seems to be some combination of pad placement, pad strap tension and turning slowly rather than abruptly.

Fabrics & Wear Performance

The liner fabric is pleasingly soft and the ripstop shell is reasonably water-repellant. In a one-hour leak-through test using a cup of water, none made it through to the tray beneath. Although the shell fabric did become wet, it dried quickly once the water was poured off. In the field, the bag fended off dripping tent condensation, but my test didn’t include any hard rain or spindrift. While the liner proved downproof, the shell regularly leaks small feathers, represented by a flurry appearing in the tent each morning. Since calendaring is skipped in the shell-perhaps to enhance breathability-minor down loss appears to be a tradeoff here. It’s no goosey blizzard, so I’m not concerned about actual loss of loft, but I’m also not accustomed to seeing so much, so routinely.

Market Comparisons

The bag closet to the Haven we could find is the Rab Neutrino SL top bag (20.5 oz, $225-250). It’s significantly more slender at 55/41/32 (140/104/82 cm) and Rab does not provide a temperature rating. It does, however, spec desirable 800 ci down and uses bits of Primaloft in strategic spots. It also has a short zipper. Two quilts roughly within the Haven’s specs and price range are the GoLite UltraLite 3-Season Quilt (27 oz, $295) and the Jacks ‘R’ Better Sierra Sniveller (23 oz, $270). Neither has a hood and both spec better down. The Sierra Sniveller adds versatility, being wearable as a sort of parka.

Many more-expensive options exist in the 20 F down bag/quilt category. (Comparison against quilts may be a bit off-target, since the Haven is basically a hooded mummy bag with a hole in the bottom.)

Some 20 F high-end mummy bags:

• Western Mountaineering UltraLite. Long. 60/52/38. 31 oz/17 oz fill, 850 ci. $400
• Western Mountaineering Alpinlite. Long. 64/56/39. 33 oz/21 oz fill, 850 ci. $440
• Feathered Friends Swift. Long. 64/58/40. 36 oz/18 oz fill, 850 ci. $389

Some 20 F top bags/quilts:

• Nunatak Arc Alpinist hoodless quilt. Long. 55/45/38. 22-25 oz, depending on fabric/11 oz fill, 850 ci. $464
• Big Agnes Horse Thief hoodless top bag. Long. 72.5/69/44. 25 oz/12 oz fill, 800 ci. $320
• Big Agnes Tumble Mountain top bag. Long. 72.5/69/44. 51 oz/17 oz fill, 720 ci. $310
• Big Agnes Zirkel SL. Long top bag. 72.5/69/44. 34 oz/14 oz fill, 800 ci. $360

Assessment

The Haven is attractively priced at $240 (regular) and $250 (large). The scant few top-bag/quilt competitors are spec’d with higher-loft down and generally thinner fabrics and most are much more expensive. Haven “penalties” for its lower price are greater weight and packed bulk – it weighs more than it would with higher loft down and a thinner shell, but then it wouldn’t hit this price point. Detangling the EN 13537 ratings is tricky, as it’s murky as to whether I’m reviewing a 30 F bag or a 20 F bag. Whatever the claims, a 20 F rating seems optimistic for my metabolism in the testing conditions encountered. At the least, the Haven is not as warm as my 20 F standard mummy bags, which routinely take me past that temperature milestone wearing only boxers and a T-shirt to bed. Such is the challenge of comparing similarly spec’d bags among different makers. The Haven is easily a 30 F bag and for me, is comfortable at 25 F, as noted above.

With its relatively tough shell and liner fabrics and lacking a zipper, there’s nothing dainty about the Haven – it demands no special care and presuming the shell and stitching hold up, it should provide the long life typical of down bags (decades, in my experience). I can find no wear or damage to the test bag despite treating it sans kid gloves (other than ditching the too-tight stuff sack). Being zipperless, the Haven is simpler and lighter but perhaps at the cost of less flexibility in warmer conditions and added difficulty entering and exiting.

So the Haven is roomy, warm, inexpensive, and lighter than competing full mummy bags. Therm-a-Rest’s take on the top bag is a conservative one with respect to how much of a traditional sleeping bag they’ve retained, but for those who find quilts and the competing top-bags expensive, fussy, or drafty, this design may work for you.

Specifications

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 Big Sky International Mirage 1P is a one-person hybrid free-standing tent. What’s a hybrid tent? Well, we used to simply call them a single-wall tent, but technically the vestibule sides of the tent are double-wall and the ceiling of the tent is single-wall, so it’s now called a hybrid. If you want to simply call it a single-wall tent, that’s just fine.

What is unique about the Big Sky Mirage is its external X-configuration poles, which make it free-standing. The tent attaches to the poles with clips, so it can be set up in about a minute, conveniently. Some people would argue that the external poles and clip attachment is a weaker design in terms of wind stability and storm protection, so how well does it perform in the wind and rain? Also, how does the Mirage 1P compare with other lightweight solo tents?

Specifications

Specifications provided below are for a basic complete tent with one door. On their website, Big Sky sells their tents a la carte, meaning you get to choose the number of doors (one or two), tent fabric, poles, stakes, carry sack, guylines, and accessories you want. Note that numerous options are available to create a tent lighter than the configuration specified. This is discussed further below.

Design and Features

The Mirage 1P is a single-wall tent (or hybrid if you look at the vestibule sides as double-wall) for one person (a two-person version, the Mirage 2P, is available). As with most Big Sky tents, the Mirage 1P is based on two poles in an X-configuration, making the tent free-standing. What’s unique about the Mirage is that the poles are external and the tent body is simply clipped onto the poles, which is the ultimate in convenience.

The Mirage 1P has a vestibule on each side of the tent. The basic tent has a zippered vestibule and zippered mesh entry wall on one side; the vestibule on the other side is only accessible from the outside. With the two-door option (adds 2.6 oz/74 g and US$50), the vestibules on both sides of the tent are zippered and there are two mesh entry doors. It may sound redundant for a solo tent to have two entries, but read on to understand the benefits.

The Mirage 1P is available with three different “skins” (shell fabrics), and I had the opportunity to test all three of them. Big Sky does not provide a specific description of their proprietary tent fabrics, but does provide some comparative properties in relation to generic silnylon and spinnaker fabric as follows:

• SuprSil is Big Sky’s basic shell fabric. It’s a silicone-impregnated ripstop nylon similar to generic silnylon in weight, but claimed to be two times more waterproof and have four times more tear strength.
• SuprSil UL is a lighter weight version using a mini-ripstop nylon. The weight is similar to spinnaker fabric, but claimed to be four times more waterproof and tearproof.
• Let-It-Por II is a Cuben Fiber weighing about 0.6 oz/yd2 (20.3 g/m2, my estimation).
• Additionally, Big Sky now uses SuprSil HD for their floor fabric. The weight is about the same as generic silnylon but it’s three times more waterproof and four times more tearproof.

Performance

Set-up is very fast, about one minute. Simply spread the tent on the ground, stake the four corners, connect the poles to corner grommets, attach the tent’s clips to the poles, and stake out the vestibules. It doesn’t get any easier than that.

While testing the basic one-door Mirage 1P, I liked the fast set-up, protected side entry, and roomy interior. I did not find the back vestibule very useful because it can only be accessed from outside the tent by sliding things under the bottom edge. With its aluminum poles, the tent is quite stable in moderate winds, but I recommend using four guylines in heavy winds. It’s also very storm worthy, and kept me dry during numerous thunderstorms. The top vent will close to prevent wind-driven rain from entering the tent.

The superlight version arrived in early summer 2010. This one has two doors, SuprSil UL shell fabric, SuprSil HD floor fabric, and DuraLite poles – the latest version. I took it on several summer backpacking trips to test it out, and managed to catch a few good thunderstorms with some good wind gusts.

The superlight version of the Mirage 1P withstood heavy downpours with aplomb. The tent stayed bone dry inside; there was no leakage through the open top vents. It’s notable that Big Sky silnylon tents do not require seam sealing by the user. I inquired about how they accomplish that, and got the usual answer: it’s proprietary.

The DuraLite composite poles are clearly stronger than the Fibraplex poles previously sold by Big Sky. They deflect in strong wind gusts, but not as much as the Fibraplex poles. They perform well in “normal” conditions, meaning occasional moderate winds and wind gusts associated with thunderstorms, but I would definitely add four guylines to the tent to protect my investment. However, be aware that the DuraLite poles are more flexible than aluminum poles, which allows the tent to deflect (lean) substantially in a strong wind gust, which can be scary at times, and they could fail in really serious wind. They also cost US$100 to save 3 ounces (85 g), so they are not very cost effective, and they really don’t save any weight when you consider the additional need for guylines.

I fell in love with the two-door version of the Mirage 1P. I am always trying to reconcile added weight with added functionality and benefits. For me, the second door is worth the 2.6 ounces (74 g) of additional weight. It’s actually a package, as when buying a car. The two-door option also gives you two top vents instead of one and four mesh storage pockets instead of two. It adds up to a lot better ventilation, roominess, and convenience. Going to the SuprSil UL shell fabric (saves 2 oz/57 g and adds US$35) offsets the weight of the second door. The SuprSil UL fabric is my personal choice, it’s softer than generic silnylon and appears to be just as strong.

Through my testing, I realized that the Mirage 1P is strictly a three-season tent. It will handle cold temperatures, rain, and wind just fine, but no more than a dusting of snow.

Comparisons

The following table compares the basic one-door Mirage 1P with similar one-person single-wall tents with poles. The table does not include solo double-wall tents or solo single-wall tents that use trekking poles for support, because they are not a valid comparison.

Some highlights and observations from the comparison table are as follows:

• The Big Sky Mirage 1P is significantly more expensive compared to the other tents.
• The Tarptent Moment is significantly lighter, less expensive, and its floor area is comparable to the other tents. However, a recent Backpacking Light review of the Moment reported that its ventilation is only average and condensation is a major issue. It sets up as quickly as the Mirage 1P.
• The Tarptent Rainbow is a similar design to the Mirage 1P, with more floor area and lower cost, but it is not free-standing (unless you attach trekking poles).

Assessment

My personal choice for the Big Sky Mirage 1P is the two-door version with aluminum poles and the SuprSil UL shell fabric. The tent sets up exceptionally fast, has great ventilation, lots of usable space inside, and is very storm worthy and wind stable. However, the cost for that configuration adds up to US$360, which is a lot of gold for a single-wall solo tent.

Among the comparable tents, the Tarptent Moment is hard to ignore. It also sets up very quickly, weighs less, and costs much less. The drawbacks are that it’s not free-standing, it has higher than average condensation, and it does not have nearly as much usable space inside as the Mirage 1P. The ends of the Moment taper down to about 18 inches (46 cm) and are usable only as foot space and gear storage. In contrast, all of the interior space in the Mirage 1P is usable.

Another consideration is the weight of the poles – all of the tents in the table above require a dedicated poleset, which weighs 11.4 ounces (323 g) for the Mirage 1P. An alternative is to consider a solo tent that utilizes trekking poles for support, which reduces the tent weight considerably. The lightest trekking pole supported single-wall solo tent is the Gossamer Gear One, which is made of spinnaker fabric and weighs about 18 ounces (510 g) with stakes and stuff sack.

The bottom line – especially if you don’t use trekking poles, or don’t want to use trekking poles to support a tent, and you do want a free-standing solo tent that sets up fast and has loads of interior usable space – is there’s nothing that directly compares with the Mirage 1P.

What’s Good

• Two-pound one-person single-wall tent
• Free-standing
• Side entry protected by a vestibule
• Two vestibules
• Top vent (two top vents on the two-door version)
• All of the interior space is usable
• Two mesh storage pockets (four on the two-door version)
• Gear in the entry vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent (both vestibules on the two-door version)
• Great ventilation and condensation resistance
• Numerous customization and weight saving options
• Very wind stable and storm worthy
• Plenty of space for one person plus gear, or one hiker plus a dog

What’s Not So Good

• Expensive
• Clips at pole junction are too loose
• Big Sky’s website is not very user friendly

Recommendations for Improvement

• Revise the fasteners at the pole junction so they tension the tent better

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