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.

Technical Details

Self-inflating foam-filled mats are either very thin or quite heavy. An air-filled mat can be much thicker and lighter, but the design usually suffers from internal air circulation, which can make it a cold mat to sleep on. Pacific Outdoor Equipment have attacked this problem by affixing strips of a thin layer of synthetic insulation (which they call ‘Zonal Air Loft Thermo insulation’) to the inside of the top surface. The theory is that there will be enough of a thermal gradient across the insulation that the cooling due to air circulation will not be significant.

In order to minimise the weight of the mat, they have only applied the insulation to a (large) central diamond region, as seen in the photo here. As that is the area where most of your torso lies, the idea is reasonable.

We tried to measure the thickness of the insulation layer with a micrometer, but this was not really successful. It came out to about 0.6 mm (0.024") – but that was fully compressed by the micrometer and not a really meaningful result. (The fabric itself came out to 0.3 mm thick for the two layers, which is quite thin!) When the mat is in use and the top surface warms up, it seems that the insulation layer does relax a bit and fluff out. You can actually feel it fluffed up. That is normal – but even so the layer looks very thin. POE do not specify the width of the insulation strips, and we did notice some variation in this width between mats. The variation was not large enough to worry anyone, however.

POE claim a size of 51 x 122 x 6 cm for the 2/3 mat; we measured it as being 47 x 123 x 8 cm inflated fully, but this was with no load on the tubes. You will not get this thickness when you lie on the mat! The reduction in width is due to the way the tubes blow up: it is a bit wider at lower inflations. At reasonable inflation we found that a thickness of about 44 mm was a very generous estimate over a broad area. Blow the mat up too hard (to get greater thickness), and it gets a bit uncomfortable. Measure the clearance between your hips and the ground at a comfortable pressure and it will be much less. Even so, it is thicker than the average layer of foam.

We ended up with four mats between us (see below as to why), although one was supposed to be a hand-made prototype. The dry weights were 307 g, 317, 374 g and 371 g. POE claim 306 g on their web site. POE explained that it was probably due to a mistake in the factory: they have two very similar fabrics, with the lighter one meant to be used for these air mats and the heavier one for Dry Bags. They think the wrong roll of fabric was used in this case. This means you might want to check the weight of the mat when you are buying it to see what you are getting.

The mats seem quite air-tight: one was inflated fairly hard and left for a week indoors. There was little or no apparent loss of pressure.

Field Testing

Testing this mat was a little involved at first. Three samples were provided by POE for testing: two went to Roger Caffin and his wife Sue, and the third went to Will Rietveld. Preliminary testing of the first mat received by Roger showed up a problem: when the mat was deflated, folded lengthwise as recommended, and then rolled up, some of the insulation started to come loose inside the mat. It was being sheared by the rolling action.

POE was contacted and they claimed the mat was a hand-made prototype of less quality than the production units, and they replaced it. I have to say that the first mat did not look like a hand-made one, but who knows. I agree that the other mats did not seem to have as much of this loose insulation problem – although signs of it were still visible. Will saw a small amount of this problem on his mat as well.

Yes, the mats were taken on a number of walking trips by all concerned. Roger and Sue had some issues with theirs (we’ll get to those shortly), but they did find the mats rather comfortable on flat surfaces. On one trip Roger and Sue took one POE mat and one self-inflating Therm-a-Rest Prolite and swapped mats each night. We both agreed that the POE Ether Elite mat was ‘rather comfortable.’

A problem Sue noticed concerned blowing the mat up in the evening – that is normally her job while I stake out the guy ropes. The trip this photo was taken on was a rather hard one, and Sue was tired at the end of each day. Blowing up a mat tends to make one a bit dizzy. But this is a problem for most air mats which are not foam-filled and self-inflating.

Our previous review of the MSR NeoAir mats with its cross-ways tubes found that you could easily roll off the sides. The lengthwise tubes on the POE Ether Elite mat proved to be a lot more stable, with little or no tendency for rolling off. Will commented ‘the lengthwise tubes help to cradle the body,’ which is a fair description.

Some people have complained that with thicker air mats they notice the drop-off at the end of the mat where their feet hang over. None of our testers had any problem with this. Provided that you don’t inflate the mat hard, the ends do seem to give a bit, enough to avoid a hard feeling there.

Other issues follow.

Condensation

This is a problem which many people will have noticed with blow-up mats. Your breath carries water vapour, and when the ambient air is cold this water vapour condenses inside the mat. This photo was take the day after we got home from a four-day trip. You can see the water inside the mat – it’s the darker area. We got rid of the water by hanging the mat up on the clothes line in the sun for a day with the open valve at the bottom. This worked OK.

However, it must be said that this condensation problem will strike any mat which the user has to blow up himself. It is not unique to POE. Note that using a small pump solves this problem – but the pump will have a weight.

Sliding Around

A very annoying problem we noticed was that the mats slide something awful on a silnylon groundsheet. Tying two mats together with big loops around them did help once we got the mats into the right positions, but that only works when there are two of you. You can see one of the blue tape loops in the photo here: the other one is at the other end of the mats.

If the floor was tilted sideways at all, then things got worse. The mats would slide sideways and the side which hit the wall would then curl up in the air. There was one night in dark rainforest when the site was quite tilted – it was nearly dark before I found anything usable for the tent and I was grateful for it! That night we did slide sideways. I checked in the middle of the night and Sue’s mat had at least 2 tubes curled up the wall of the tent. She was sleeping half on mine. I didn’t mind: it was a bit cold that night anyhow, but the sliding around is a problem.

This problem can be solved in the usual manner with some thin stripes of silicone sealant run down the lengths of the tubes, as shown here. I wish vendors would do this for us – but they don’t. Do it yourself – don’t hesitate! I just run the tube down the length of the mat and let the nozzle do the spread – I don’t even get silicone on my fingers.

R-Value

I mentioned that the mats were comfortable. That includes being reasonably warm. Will commented "I found the pad to be warm down to about freezing when using a 30 degree bag," and Roger and Sue had similar experiences. Now POE have a strange claim for the R-value of this mat: they claim an R-value of ‘2 – 4’. What does this mean? We suspect that they are claiming a value of 4 for the regions where there is insulation, but only 2 for the other regions.

Initially I thought that the claimed R-value of 4 was a bit high. However, we measured the R-value of the mat at various degrees of inflation, as shown in the graph here. The numbers on the horizontal axis show the separation of the measurement surfaces (ie top and bottom) in the insulation tester, in millimetres. Indeed, in a still horizontal test the R-value over the insulated section was above 4. For most of the cases here the insulation was on the top surface, as recommended.

You will see that as the mat is deflated and the thickness decreases (from 44 mm down to 14 mm) the R-value decreases. This is as expected. Comparing these results with actual field performance suggests however that all the values may be a little higher than would be experienced in the field. For a start, the gap under your shoulders and hip is going to be quite low – probably as low as or less than 24 mm if you have the mat inflated only to a ‘comfortable’ level. In fact, it isn’t hard to actually feel the ground under your hips if you try. But also, when you are sleeping on the mat you do move around, and this stirs the air up a bit. Moving air will be colder. All the same, the insulation layer does seem to be effective.

The bar labelled ’44 inv’ is an interesting case. Roger had noticed that the mat seemed colder when used upside down, so this test was at the ‘full’ inflation level but with the mat inverted: insulation face downwards. The R-value was lower, but not by much. Again, the still air in the mat while it was in the measurement system seems to have played a part here.

Summary

There is always a trade-off between weight and durability, and POE have made their choice. There is however a bit of a concern as to what is the ‘normal’ weight. There are also concerns about condensation collecting inside, the mat sliding around (which can be fixed), and some apparent fragility of the insulation strips. Apart from that, all testers found the mats nicely comfortable when inflated to a soft level, and useful down to about freezing.

Possible Improvements

• Silicone stripes on the underside to stop it sliding around are deemed essential!
• Making the insulation less prone to shearing off during packing is desirable.
• A ‘zero’ mass pump to keep condensation out would also be nice.
• Limiting the mat’s tendency to curl up one side would be nice.
• A small reduction in the weight would be nice – ie lighter fabric.

Specifications for 2/3 length mat

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

Introduction

I have tested other wind shirts, but I strayed away from them because they are often too hot to wear while hiking and because I can save some weight by wearing my lightweight rain jacket and pants if I really need wind protection. Then I had the opportunity to test the new MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants and rediscovered how useful a wind shirt (and pants) can be. These are super-light, so they have little impact on my pack weight. Is there really a place for a wind shirt and wind pants in an ultralight backpacking kit?

Description

The spring 2010 MontBell Tachyon Anorak is made of their 7-denier Ballistic Airlight ripstop nylon with Polkatex DWR finish, which is the same superb fabric they use for the shell of their X-Light Down Jacket. It has a 7.5-inch (19-cm) lightweight #3 zipper, an attached adjustable hood, elastic cuffs, and a drawcord hem. It’s hard to believe the weight is just 2.4 ounces (68 g, measured for size Large)!

The Dynamo Wind Pants are made of slightly heavier 12-denier Ballistic Airlight ripstop nylon with Polkatex DWR finish. They have an elastic waist with drawstring, a small key pocket inside, and 12-inch (30-cm) ankle zippers.

Both garments have a basic feature set to make them user friendly, while still keeping weight to a minimum.

Performance

For me (6 ft/1.83 m, 170 lbs/77 kg), the Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Pants in size Large are a perfect fit. The sleeves and legs are just the right length, and both garments are roomy enough to wear over a thin insulation layer.

I found both garments to be especially useful. I wore the Anorak a lot during the day whenever the weather turned chilly, breezy, or downright windy. For me, the wind shirt worn over a baselayer while hiking is a dynamite combination, and I wear that combination a lot in the mountains where it is frequently cool and breezy.

The main difference between wearing a very lightweight wind shirt while hiking when it’s cool and breezy compared to using a lightweight rain jacket as windwear is that the wind shirt has a much broader comfort range. I can wear the Tachyon while hiking uphill carrying a backpack and stay comfortable much longer than I can with a lightweight polyurethane laminate rain jacket. The Tachyon completely blocks the wind and breathes well enough to stay comfortable, most of the time. However, when the breeze stops and the sun comes out, the anorak gets too warm and I have to take it off.

I did not wear the Dynamo Wind Pants as much as the Tachyon Anorak while hiking during the day. My legs don’t get cold as easily as my torso, so I simply wear them less. However, they really come in handy when I’m wearing hiking shorts and an icy wind suddenly comes up, or a shower. The pants (and anorak) will shed a short duration light rain or shower quite well – MontBell’s Polkatex DWR is excellent – but they will soak through eventually. When kneeling on wet ground, the knee area of the pants will readily wet through.

Assessment

As I said at the beginning of this review, I had forgotten how useful and versatile windwear is until I tried these. The Tachyon Anorak, especially, is so lightweight, yet so effective and durable, that I don’t go on a trip anymore without it. Many readers in hot humid climates are probably wondering what I am talking about, so I better qualify that. Most of my hiking and backpacking is in the mountains from spring to fall, and in canyon country in fall to spring. The ideal conditions for a wind shirt are when there is some combination of cloudy, cool, and windy; and that occurs a lot where I hike.

The sweet spot for a wind shirt is to wear it over a baselayer. That combination is remarkably warm and comfortable over a wide range of conditions while hiking. The type and thickness of the wind shirt can be adjusted for the season and expected conditions. I find that a very thin wind shirt, like the Tachyon, is best because it is comfortable to wear over a wider range of conditions. I previously used a Montane Microlight wind shirt, which is a little heavier, and it is simply too hot to wear much of the time.

Overall, I am very pleased with the light weight, minimal and useful features, fit, durability, wind resistance, water resistance, and versatility of the Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants.

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.