Articles (2020)

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review

We know plain air mats tend to be rather cold, but can this be alleviated by including a very thin layer of synthetic insulation inside the mat on one surface? This is what Pacific Outdoor Equipment have attempted to do with this very light Ether Elite 6 air mat.

Technical Details

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 1
Pacific Outdoor Equipment Ether Elite 6 Mat.

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.

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 2
The mat blown up in Will’s tent in the mountains.

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 Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 3
Loose insulation.

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.’

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 4
Blowing up a mat.

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

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 5
Condensation inside the mat.

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

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 6
Blue loops holding two mats together.

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.

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 7
Silicone stripes on the underside of the mat.

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.

POE Ether Elite 6 2/3 Length Air Mat Product Review - 8
R-values for the mat.

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

Dimensions (claimed) 51 x 122 x 6 cm
Dimensions (measured) 47 x 123 x 8 cm (but note comment!)
Weight (claimed) 306 g
Weight (measured) 307, 314, 373, 374 g (plus optional stuff sack and repair kit)
R-value (claimed) 2 – 4
R-value (measured) Over 4 (but depends hugely on effective thickness)
Colour Bright orange
MSRP approx $60

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.

MYOG Fleece Headgear

Come see the softer side of making your own cozy fleece items!

Hat

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 1
Wearing the hat at Lake Ozette on the Washington State Olympic Peninsula in the winter.

Call it a beanie, toque or watch cap: I have used this for years, sometimes down to 20 degrees F when I’m hiking, or with a hood when I’ve stopped hiking. It’s somewhat rain resistant – fleece retains its warmth when wet and dries fairly quickly. Fleece is stretchy, so it stays on my head under the windiest conditions.

The hat is a single layer of fleece, with the bottom rolled back to make two layers over my forehead and ears. Warmth is easily adjusted by the roll of it: rolled less for more coverage of my forehead and ears, rolled more for less coverage.

I sleep in a top bag with my head completely exposed, to keep breath moisture from getting into the bag, and I wear the cap to keep my head warm. The set-up is good down to about 35 degrees F, and the hat weighs two ounces.

Balaclava

This is the same idea as the watch cap, except it’s longer (all the way down to my neck) with a cut-out for essentials like breathing and seeing. It’s bigger around than the hat, so I can easily wear the hat layered inside.

I find the balaclava too restrictive for day use. I use it to keep my head warm when I’m sleeping. I wear the watch cap underneath, and the combination keep me warm to below freezing, maybe 25 degrees F. Below, that I use a polyester batting insulated hat.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 2
In my sleeping bag with watch cap and balaclava.

Pillowcase

A pillowcase, you may ask? I’ve tried plastic pillows and stuff sack pillows, but I don’t like those materials against my face. I like a pillowcase to absorb some moisture and be soft against my skin. My pillowcase only weighs 1.5 ounces, so it’s a luxury I can afford in my weight budget.

Currently, I use a simple rectangular block of foam as pillow, but you could use a plastic blow-up pillow or spare clothes. I kind of object to spare clothes, because I want to be able to wear all my clothes and still have a pillow.

I previously had a pillowcase with a folded bottom so the raw edge wasn’t exposed, but my current iteration has a raw edge – it just doesn’t matter with fleece, which doesn’t unravel, but sort of curls up a bit on the raw edge. The pillowcase is two inches longer than the pillow and stretches a bit to fit the pillow fully inside it.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 3
So soft and fluffy, it’s worth the (wee) weight penalty.

Getting Fleeced

You can find fleece at your local fabric store. Malden’s Polartec 200 would be a better (lighter) choice. I used black, but they make it in many colors (or patterns, if you want to support your favorite sports team). Some fleece has longer fiber (pile) on one side, but I prefer two-sided.

Mark the fleece with a white “dressmakers marking pencil” (found at the same fabric store). The fleece fibers don’t allow a very precise line, but it’s good enough, and the pencil mark will wash or wear off. Cut the fleece with regular scissors or sewing shears, and raw edges needn’t be protected.

Use a 2 mm stitch length, normal stitch, reverse the stitch direction at the beginning and end of a seam to lock the stitch. Unlocked stitches will slowly come out. Sometimes I do a second row of stitches, but it’s probably unnecessary.

The only thing I don’t like about fleece is that it’s heavy for the warmth you get. Roughly speaking, warmth is determined by insulation thickness. I crudely measured by placing the material on a flat surface, holding a straightedge over the top surface, and measuring the thickness with a ruler. I also measured some polyester batting insulation with light nylon on the top and bottom.

Fabric Thickness (inches) Weight (oz/yd)
Fleece 1/8 6
Polyester batting with lining ¾ 5

As you can see, the polyester batting is about six times thicker (warmer) for close to the same weight. This is a crude measurement, but however you calculate it, fleece is a lot heavier for the warmth.

Down provides even more warmth for the same weight, but for a small item like a hat, this doesn’t matter. I never have a large item of fleece clothing, like a jacket or pants, because of the excessive weight.

Detailed Instructions

Watch Cap

The trick is to have the hat loose enough to be comfortable (don’t cut off blood flow) and tight enough to stay on when it’s windy. Fleece is typically stretchier in one direction than the other. You want the stretchy direction to go around your head, not up and down.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 4
Cut a piece of fleece 26 inches wide in the stretchy direction by 14 inches long.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 5
Fold your fleece rectangle over so it’s half as wide. Sew it together half an inch from the edge, forming a tube or cylinder. Make sure the fabric is cut and sewn perfectly: you don’t want the cylinder wider at some places and narrower at others.

Now try the cylinder on your head and test for comfort and snugness. If it’s too loose, make another row of stitches closer in, making sure that the resultant cylinder is the same width all along its length. It’s easy to put in another row of stitches, but difficult to rip out a row if you make it too small, so don’t go too far in. The starting width should be big enough for even the biggest heads (like mine!). Don’t cut off the excess fleece until you’re all done. When you’re happy with the size, you can put in a second row of stitches for strength.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 6
Next, put a row of stitches in a curved shape to close up the top of the hat. The exact shape of the curve isn’t important, though the cap will look aesthetically better if it’s an even arc. From the top of the curve to the bottom (where it meets the side) should be about 3 inches.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 7
Cut off the excess fabric about 0.25 inch from the seam. The beauty of fleece is that the raw edge doesn’t unravel, so you don’t have anything else to do! (I have worn the hat shown for a few years, so it seems to have stretched out a bit at the bottom, and the width is no longer the same from top to bottom.)

Try the hat on. Fold up the bottom so it is double thickness over your forehead and ears and tweak, cutting some off the bottom to shorten it if needed.

Detailed Instructions

Balaclava

The balaclava is made much the same as the hat, except that it’s wider because it doesn’t have to be tight to stay on in the wind, and so it will fit over the hat. It’s also longer to cover your neck, and there’s a hole for your face.

Cut a piece of fleece, 30 inches wide and 18 inches long. Fold in half and sew together, half an inch from the edge. Try it on, while wearing your hat. It should fit loosely. If it’s too loose, you can sew the seam closer.

When you’re happy with the width, sew a curved top, just like the hat. Cut off the excess fabric, 0.25 inch away from the seam.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 8
Be careful cutting the face hole – fabric can’t be uncut. Make the hole on the side opposite the seam so that the seam of the balaclava runs up the back of your head. The exact shape isn’t critical. The measurements in the diagram below fit me, but you may want it a little different. You might want to try it on to determine where the hole should be in relation to important things like your eyes. Start with a very small hole, try it on, see which direction and how much bigger the hole should be, etc.

Detailed Instructions

Pillowcase

Start with a piece of fleece 10 inches wide (in the stretchy direction) and 20 inches long. This size works for my piece of foam (8.5 x 6.5 x 2 inches), which is only JUST big enough for comfort without being any bigger or heavier than necessary. You may prefer a different size, and if you simply stuff it with spare clothes, size isn’t that critical. If you have a plastic pillow, you will have to figure out your own dimensions.

MYOG Fleece Headgear - 9
Fold the fleece over in the long direction (this is opposite the two hats above). Sew on each side, half an inch from the edge, to form a rectangular sleeve. Try the pillowcase on for size and make it smaller if needed. Cut off the excess fabric 0.25 inch from the seam. Done and done!

My case weighs 1.38 ounces. The 8.5 x 6.5 x 2 inch piece of foam weighs 4.37 ounces. Total is 5.75 ounces, which is kind of a lot for a pillow, but it’s a luxury I choose to splurge on. Added bonus: the fleece is washable!

Reader Tips: Best Way to Pitch a Tarp with Fewest Stakes or Guylines

We asked, you answered! Responses to our solicitation for the best tarp pitch using the fewest poles, stakes, or guylines.

A while back, we asked readers for their best tarp pitches using the fewest poles or guylines. Presenting our favorites:

Jhaura Wachsman

The best way to pitch a tarp is with NO poles, six stakes, and only ONE guyline!

Reader Tips: Best Way to Pitch a Tarp with Fewest Stakes or Guylines - 1
I ran the ONE guyline from the front stake up through the poncho neck hole right to the overhanging tree branch. All the other corners are staked directly to the tarp. Fast, easy and the best!

William Golden

Reader Tips: Best Way to Pitch a Tarp with Fewest Stakes or Guylines - 2
Tarp Lean-to Shelter: A 9 x 12 foot tarp or plastic gives a 4-foot wide ground cloth under the single bed, a 3-foot wall, and a 5-foot awning. The reflector behind this fireplace is an inverted V of rocks as tall as you can easily roll into place. It also serves as a chimney to help channel smoke up, no matter which way the wind blows. By keeping the awning angled upward, it sheds rain off the back and doesn’t trap smoke.

It’s important to pick a site that will remain sheltered from later strong winds. A cross-pole, fallen log or tall rock behind tarp-wall provides a back-rest. Tarp size for a double bed is 9 x 18 feet. If biting insects are not a problem, I much prefer this to a tent. With a stack of firewood within reach, a back rest, and a view, it makes for a happy camp, rain or shine!

Weigh In

Got your own trick or tip? Post it in the forums below, or send it to us for possible publication. We want to hear what you have to say!

 

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review

This very lightweight wind shirt and pants are remarkably useful and versatile.

Introduction

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 1
The unisex hooded MontBell Tachyon Anorak (left) weighs just 2.4 ounces (68 g), and the Dynamo Pants (right) weigh 2.8 ounces (79 g).

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.

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 2
Front (left) and rear (right) views of the MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants.

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 3
Details of the Tachyon Anorak: The attached hood (top left) has a Velcro adjustment tab on the back. The hood is sculptured to fit the head well (bottom left) and has an extended brim. A lightweight hem drawcord (top right) has one adjustor. The front zipper closes up to the chin (bottom right), and there are two drawcord adjustors to snug the hood around the face.

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 4
Details of the Dynamo Wind Pants: The waist (left) has an elastic waist band and drawstring, plus a small inside key pocket. The cuffs (right) have 12-inch (30-cm) high ankle zips, large enough to get my size 12s through.

Performance

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 5
I tested the wind shirt and pants during the spring and summer of 2010 on numerous backpacking trips and day hikes. The Tachyon Anorak was just the ticket for hiking a 12,000-foot (3,659-m) windy ridge in early summer (left). I love to camp on the alpine tundra, such as this camp (right) at 12,600 feet (3,840 m) where it is typically windy or breezy; the Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Pants worn over an insulation layer makes life very comfortable.

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.

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 6
Carrying a backpack over the wind shirt (left), did not abrade the wind shirt at all. I wore the pants in camp with my hiking shorts worn over them (right) so I could sit on abrasive rocks and logs without damaging the pants, and my shorts provided pockets. I kneeled on the ground many times with the wind pants on and did not damage the knees at all (of course I was careful not to abuse them).

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.

MontBell Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants Review - 7
The anorak’s hood tends to balloon in a strong wind.

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

Manufacturer MontBell (http://www.montbell.us/)
Year/Model 2010 Tachyon Anorak and Dynamo Wind Pants
Sizes Available> Unisex anorak S to XL
Men’s pants S to XL
Style Hooded anorak
Pullover pants with ankle zippers
Fabrics Anorak is 7d Ballistic Airlight ripstop nylon
Pants are 12d Ballistic Airlight ripstop nylon
Both have Polkatex DWR finish
Features Anorak: attached hood with front drawcord and rear Velcro adjustment, 7.5-in (19-cm) front YKK 3 zipper, elastic cuffs, hem drawcord, stuff sack included
Pants: elastic waist with drawstring, inside key pocket, 11.8-in (30-cm) 3 zipper, elastic cuffs, hem drawcord, stuff sack included
Weight Size men’s Large tested.
Anorak Measured Weight: 2.4 oz (68 g)
Manufacturer Weight: 2.3 oz (65 g) size Medium
Pants Measured Weight: 2.8 oz (79 g)
Manufacturer Weight: 2.8 oz (79 g)
MSRP Anorak US$89, Pants US$69

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.

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review

The Power Lizard lays claim to the lightest two-person double-wall tent in the world, but does that make it the best one?

Introduction

The Power Lizard UL is Vaude’s lightest tent. At 2 pounds 5.4 ounces (1060 g) measured total weight, it’s also the lightest two-person double-wall tent to be found anywhere, beating the Terra Nova Laser by nearly a half pound. As a matter of fact, the Power Lizard UL is strikingly similar to the Terra Nova Laser, which was recently reviewed by Backpacking Light. So how does the Power Lizard match up to the Laser?

Further, many superlight tents (like the Laser) achieve their low weight by downsizing the tent; so how does the Power Lizard stack up as far as roominess and comfort for two people? And how did they come up with that name?

Specifications

Year/Manufacturer/Model 2010 Vaude Power Lizard UL (vaude.com)
Style Three-season, two-person, double-wall, non-freestanding tent with floor and one side entry door with vestibule
Included Tent body and fly, 3 aluminum poles with sack, 8 stakes with sack, storage bag
Fabrics Fly is 20d ripstop nylon silicone coated two sides, 3000 mm, seam taped; inner tent is 15d polyester fine mesh; floor is laminated ripstop nylon, 10,000 mm
Poles and Stakes One aluminum center hoop pole and 2 aluminum end struts, DAC Featherlite 7.5 mm 7001 T6 aluminum; stakes are 6 in (15 cm) titanium shepherd hook
Floor Dimensions and Inside Height Measured dimensions: 89 in (226 cm) long x 45 in (114 cm) wide at head end x 36 in (91 cm) wide at foot end; center height 35 in (89 cm), end height 18 in (46 cm)
Features Lightweight fabrics, side entry door with vestibule, 2 mesh storage pockets, two end vents
Packed Size 16 in x 5.5 in (41 cm x 14 cm)
Total Weight Measured weight 2 lb 5.4 oz (1.06 kg), manufacturer specification 2 lb 5 oz (1.05 kg)
Trail Weight Measured weight 2 lb 4.5 oz (1.04 kg), manufacturer specification not available (excludes stuff sacks)
Protected Area Floor area 23.8 ft2 (2.21 m2), vestibule area 5.2 ft2 (0.48 m2), total protected area 29 ft2 (2.69 m2)
Protected Area/Trail Weight Ratio 12.7 ft2/lb (2.6 m2/kg)
MSRP US$400

Design and Features

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review - 1
Vaude Power Lizard double-wall two-person tent on a cold windy early summer morning at 12,600 feet (3,840 m) in the southern Rockies.

The Vaude Power Lizard UL is a two-person double-wall tent with one side entry door and one vestibule. The inner tent and fly are connected and set up as a unit, which simplifies setup and keeps the interior of the tent dry when setting up in the rain. The tent is supported by one lightweight aluminum center hoop pole and a 21-inch (53-cm) vertical strut on each end. The poles are DAC Featherlite 7.5 mm 7001 T6 aluminum, which are very strong. This tent design minimizes the number and length of poles required to support the tent, while still resulting in an easy to set up taut tent that has excellent wind and storm resistance.

The Power Lizard incorporates some notable innovations and advances. The fly is silicone coated on both sides, which is an advancement because heretofore larger companies have been reluctant to use silnylon because of its flammability. The siliconized fly is claimed to have 6-12 times more tear strength compared to a PU-coated fabric and 3-4 times more UV resistance. And the fly is seam taped on the inside using Vaude’s own process of ultrasonic welding, which is the first use of seam tape on silnylon that I know of. Finally, the floor is a very lightweight laminate, with a very high hydrostatic head.

As noted, the Terra Nova Laser tent utilizes the same basic design, as does the Tarptent Scarp 1 and 2 (double-wall) and Tarptent Moment (a single-wall tent). After I have fully described the Power Lizard and commented on its performance, I will relate it to the Terra Nova Laser and Tarptent Scarp and Moment tents for some interesting comparisons.

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review - 2
Views of the Vaude Power Lizard UL. The tent has one center hoop pole that provides the main support for the tent (top left). Each end (top right) is supported by one vertical external pole that fits tightly in a sleeve at the top and a grommet at the bottom. There is a protected vent at each end. The top view (bottom left) shows the shape of the tent. Entry is through a zippered door to the left of the center pole, and is protected by a vestibule (bottom right).

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review - 3
Outside features. The poles and stakes provided with the Power Lizard (top left) are quite light. The three aluminum poles weigh just 6.9 ounces (196 g), and the eight titanium shepherd hook stakes weigh just 1.5 ounces (42.5 g). I added the Easton tubular stakes to better secure the ends of the tent. The tent body attaches to the hoop pole with some strong clips (top right) that grasp and hold; they don’t slide once they are clipped on. The entry vestibule (bottom left) is 18 inches (46 cm) wide at the center. Here’s a close up view of one of the end vents and strut pole (bottom right).

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review - 4
Inside features. The outer door ties back with a loop and toggle, and the inner door rolls to the left and secures with a loop and toggle (top left). The tent is extra long (89 inches/226 cm), so the best way to utilize interior space and maximize headroom, is to sleep with feet all the way to one end. Doing that provides about 24 inches (61 cm) of storage space at the head end of the tent (top right), which is to the right of the entry. The floor is just barely wide enough to fit two standard width sleeping pads side by side (bottom right) and still be able to zip the door closed. The tent has two side by side mesh storage pockets at the head end (bottom left).

Performance

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review - 5
I tested the Power Lizard on several solo backpacking trips where I camped at high altitudes (12,600 to 12,700 ft/3,840 to 3,871 m) in early summer (left, and first photo at the top of the review) and experienced some strong winds at night, with gusts up to about 30 mph (48.3 kph). My wife and I also slept in the Power Lizard several nights while volunteering on the Hardrock 100 endurance race near Silverton, Colorado (right). I also used it on some summer backpacks where I got caught in some torrential downpours.

The Power Lizard is average for ease of set-up. The tent and fly are attached to each other and set up as a unit, which is good. The set-up process is to spread the tent out on the ground, insert the end poles, attach the center hoop pole, stake one end, then extend the tent and stake the other end, and finally stake out the corners and guylines. The end poles fit tightly in their grommets and require some muscle. Similarly, the clips fit very tightly on the hoop pole and require some muscle to put them on and get them off (I think they’re over-engineered a bit!). The whole process takes about five minutes.

As a solo tent, the Power Lizard is luxurious. It has more than enough room inside the tent and in the vestibule for me and my gear. I am 6 feet (1.83 m) tall, and found the inside headroom (claimed to be 37 inches/94 cm, measured to be 35 inches/89 cm) to be adequate if I slept with my feet to one end, placing my head closer to the center of the tent.

On two windy nights at high elevation, I tensioned the tent at bedtime, but it still flapped quite a bit during the night and was fairly noisy. The flapping came from the unsupported canopy to each side of the center hoop pole. Outside of the flapping, I still found the Power Lizard to be very wind stable; its tapered shape handles wind quite well.

In the southwestern US, we have something we call the summer monsoons, which is afternoon thunderstorms with strong wind gusts and very heavy rain. I experienced two torrential events while testing the Power Lizard. Again, the tent flapped a lot in the wind, but it held steady. Since the fly is silnylon, the tent sags a lot when it gets wet, to the point where the fly is contacting the inner tent. After re-tensioning, the tent stays tauter, but it’s hard to get out and do that during a thunderstorm!

So, how does the Power Lizard accommodate two sleepers? As mentioned, the tent has only one entry door, so you know what that means – the person in the back has to step over the person in front in order to enter/exit the tent. The first time my wife saw the Power Lizard set up, she said something like: “Oh my God, are both of us going to fit in there?” Actually we did, but it helped that my wife is short. It also helps for one person to enter the tent and get settled before the other person comes in, and it further helps to leave the inner door open to provide a little extra elbow room. In summary, space is very limited, including headroom, but it’s workable for two people who are close friends.

It’s notable that the inner tent is made of a thin fabric rather than no-see-um mesh, so the Power Lizard retains heat fairly well if the inner door is closed at night. With two people in the tent on a chilly night, I measured a temperature difference of 12-15 F (7-8 C) between the inside of the tent and outside.

Vaude Power Lizard UL Tent Review - 6
Finally, I note that the Power Lizard has reasonably good ventilation, so there is little condensation when there is some air movement. However, on one calm night with a large temperature drop down to about 25 F (-4 C, with the inner tent door open and vestibule zipped shut), we had so much condensation on the inside of the fly that it was dripping down on us. The amount of condensation was equivalent to a single-wall tent. Also, note the amount of sagging when the tent is wet.

Comparisons

The following table compares the Vaude Power Lizard UL with tents of a similar design.

Tent Floor Area ft2 (m2) Vestibule Area ft2 ( m2) Ventilation Mfr.Weight oz (g) Cost US$
Vaude Power Lizard 23.8 (2.21) 5.2 (0.48) 2 end vents 37 (1050) 400
Terra Nova Laser 20.8 (1.93) 7.0 (0.65) 2 end vents inside the fly 43.7 (1239 ) 509 (as of 7/24/10)
Tarptent Scarp 1+* 19.0 (1.77) 12.5 (1.16) 2 top vents plus raised side walls 44 (1250) 295
Tarptent Scarp 2 31.0 (2.9) 12.0 (1.11) 2 top vents plus raised side walls 54 (1530) 325
Tarptent Moment** 18 (1.67 ) 6.6 (0.61) 2 top vents, 2 end vents, mesh perimeter 28.8 (810) 215
*The Tarptent Scarp 1 is a one-person double-wall tent with two doors and vestibules.
**The Tarptent Moment is a one-person single-wall tent, but it shares the same design as the other tents.

Some highlights and observations from the comparison table:

  • The Vaude Power Lizard UL is 6.7 ounces (190 g) lighter (based on manufacturer data) than the Terra Nova Laser, granting it claim to the lightest two-person double-wall tent in the world.
  • The Power Lizard costs US$109 less than the Laser, and it comes with “real” stakes – eight titanium shepherd hook stakes to be exact.
  • The Power Lizard also has a little more floor area than the Laser, but the Laser has two entry doors, while the Power Lizard only has one.
  • The Power Lizard has better ventilation than the Laser, but neither tent has really good ventilation. Neither has a top vent, and the fly extends to the ground on both tents.
  • The Tarptent Scarp 1+ is a one-person double-wall tent that has nearly as much floor space as the European two-person tents, and twice the vestibule area. It weighs a little more than the Power Lizard, but it has two doors, much better ventilation and costs US$105 less.
  • The Tarptent Scarp 2 has much more floor and vestibule area for two people and costs US$75 less, but it weighs a pound more than the Power Lizard.
  • For comparison, the Tarptent Moment, a single-wall tent with the same design, has nearly the same protected area as the European tents (two-person!), weighs 8-15 ounces (227-425 g) less, and costs half as much as the European tents. However, it has similar condensation problems.

Assessment

When you read my experience with two people sleeping in the Power Lizard, and Ray Estrella’s similar account for the Terra Nova Laser, you quickly realize that these tents are miniaturized to lay claim to the honor of “lightest two-person double-wall tent in the world.” (Either that or Europeans are very small people!) From a PR standpoint, that’s quite an accomplishment, but from a user’s standpoint it’s only meaningful for two very small people who are good friends. For the rest of us, these amount to fairly roomy one-person tents, and pricey ones at that.

For someone who wants a double-wall one-person tent, the Power Lizard is a good candidate. Some of the design details are better than the Terra Nova Laser, and one door is enough for one person. But, as the comparison table above shows, the Tarptent Scarp 2 has much more room inside, is a better value, and has much better ventilation, albeit a pound heavier. It is also easier to enter, has more usable space, and has better headroom. Further, the Tarptent Scarp 1+ (a one-person single-wall tent) nearly equals the Power Lizard for floor and vestibule space, has the other advantages mentioned for the Scarp tents, and weighs a half pound less.

Bottom line, the Vaude Power Lizard UL can claim its record for lightest two-person double-wall tent, but it’s not a very roomy or convenient two-person tent (unless you’re an exhausted adventure racer and you don’t care). It’s much more suitable as a one-person tent, but that said, there are better options on the market.

What’s Good

  • At 37 ounces (1049 g), it’s the lightest two-person double-wall tent available
  • Side entry protected by a vestibule
  • Strong aluminum alloy poles and titanium stakes
  • Two functional end vents
  • Two mesh storage pockets
  • Gear in the entry vestibule can easily be reached from inside the tent
  • Extra long length will accommodate tall hikers (but headroom is limited)
  • Very wind stable and storm worthy
  • Plenty of space for one person plus gear

What’s Not So Good

  • Only one entry door
  • Too little space to comfortably accommodate two people
  • Limited headroom
  • Canopy flaps in the wind
  • Expensive
  • Clips are difficult to attach and remove from the pole

Recommendations for Improvement

  • Add top vents
  • Use lighter and easier to attach clips

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.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report

Nearly 40 years after his first visit, Tom brought his son’s Troop to experience the magic of Philmont – and the magic of lighter packs!

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 1
In high places: Crew 613-K on the summit of Mt. Phillips (11,736 ft). Mt. Baldy in the background.

A long time ago, at a Scout ranch far far away…

In the summer of 1972, when I was 16, my father put me on the Greyhound bus that would take me from Lewiston, Idaho to Cimarron, New Mexico, home of Philmont Scout Ranch, a place about which I knew almost nothing, my attendance owing only to an unclaimed scholarship offered by our local Scout council. I didn’t really want to go. I was traveling by myself, dressed in the full Scout uniform my father insisted that I wear for the duration of the bus trip. In 1972 the Vietnam War was still raging, and my generation, or part of it, was still raging against authority. Anyone in a uniform was suspect, and dressed as I was, I could only be taken as someone whose allegiance was to The Man. Talk about being self conscious. The bus trip was to take almost three days, with stops at almost every wide spot in the road. Forward progress was hard to discern, and at some point I began to feel, as one sometimes does on long unpleasant trips, that my entire life had been spent on this interminable voyage.

When I finally did arrive at Philmont, any embarrassment about being seen in a Scout uniform was quickly dispelled. Everyone, and there were a lot of people milling about camp headquarters, was in uniform, all wearing neckerchiefs and patches that advertised their home council. It was a flurry of activity and color, and above this scene were the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, and the Tooth of Time. I met my Ranger and the rest of my crew. The scholarship I had claimed was for a program called Kit Carson Men, a precursor to the current Rayado program. We would trek for sixteen days and cover Philmont south to north. The highlight would be a side trip into the Latirs where we would climb Wheeler Peak, and try, unsuccessfully, to signal to the Scouts we imagined to be on the summit of Mt. Baldy, the high point on the Ranch. In all we hiked about 135 miles, a modest trek by KCM standards. However, to that point in my life it was the hardest thing I had ever done. I was always hungry, my equipment was inadequate, and I was, at times, almost overcome by self doubt. Completing my trek and successfully shouldering my share of our crew’s responsibilities were among the proudest moments of my young life, and in time I came to realize that those brief weeks were as important a formative experience as I have had.

I arrived without a backpack, but did bring a kapok sleeping bag from the Lewiston Army Navy store, a heavy Scout issue jacket in bright red wool, a pair of department store “wafflestompers," a plastic poncho, and a steel GI mess kit. I also brought one of my prized possessions, a Buck knife, the Folding Hunter, in a black leather sheath. At my father’s insistence, I wore a Scout issue campaign hat in dark green felt, like the one Smokey The Bear wears. I suppose that such a ridiculous thing may find a place in a Scout’s ceremonial wardrobe, but it proved wholly unsuitable as a backpacking hat. It was unwearable while carrying a pack, owing to the fact that the flat circumferential brim continuously bumped into the back of my pack, forcing my head down, and denying me a view of the terrain ahead. In the end I carried the thing in my hands most of the length of our trek. At the trading post I purchased a Philmont belt, along with the iconic bronze Philmont buckle. At that time, there was a tradition that you were supposed to wear the belt and buckle upside down until you had climbed the Tooth of Time. I bought a belt that was a little too long, but that was a choice that proved foresighted in the long run since I can still (barely) wear it today.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 3
In Tent City: crew members make final preparations for their trek.

There was other paraphernalia, but that’s what jumps out at me these many years later. I had as yet no notion that backpacking could be anything but uncomfortable. I had never used a hip belt or a Nalgene bottle, steel canteens being de rigueur in my experience. I was vaguely aware of a book called The Complete Walker, written by a man named Colin Fletcher, which advocated Kelty Packs, and walking sticks that would “convert an insecure biped into a confident triped.” But for that, the backpacking revolution in my neck of the woods had gotten no further than the Lewiston public library.

Back in the Day

My Ranger chose for me a canvas Camp Trails frame pack from camp stores and advised me to outfit it with a hip belt, an unpadded version of which was available for purchase at the Philmont trading post. For his part, my Ranger was equipped with a dark green Kelty D4, a nylon mummy bag stuffed with goose down, and a pair of svelte Pivetta hiking shoes. Even now, it is hard to call them boots. They reminded me of nothing so much as hiking slippers. Instead of a water bottle he favored a leather bota bag. His name was Jeff Dias, and I suppose he was then in his early twenties.

I had never used a backpacking stove, and, indeed, during that portion of our trek which was on Ranch property we cooked over open fires, after first rubbing down the outside of our pots with a paste made from powdered soap and water to prevent soot from sticking. I believe the brand of soap used for this and all other cleaning purposes was “Tetrox," and there was a running (pardon me) joke about the “Tetrox trots,” which you would contract if you did not rinse your cookware thoroughly enough. (Although Tetrox appears to be long gone, the condition it sometimes caused yet abides, now known to one Philmont Ranger as the “butt pees.” Our Scouts loved this expression. Excretory humor is never wasted on a 15-year-old. ) However, when we ventured into the Latirs, my crew used what was then called a “bluet” stove, later rebranded as “gaz.” I had never seen anything like it and was amazed that a heat source so small and light could accommodate a crew of seven people.

Coming Full Circle

After returning from Philmont, I was anxious to apply all I had learned about backpacking and to equip myself in a fashion that would allow me to travel comfortably in the wild. Among my first purchases was a red Kelty B4 pack, a purchase which I have never regretted. Thirty-eight years later, I am still carrying that red pack, although the packsack is now so sun rotted as to make me reluctant to pack it too tightly. Backpacking became a passion and ultimately came to include a summer hiking the Washington and Oregon sections of the PCT.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 4
My partners in crime, Joe and Todd, take a break at Rayado.

However, marriage, small children and the demands of my profession caused me to take a break from backpacking until my son, now 15, joined Scouts. I, in turn, joined the Troop committee and participated in planning activities for the boys including backpacking trips into the Sawtooths and Owyhees. I began to sense that during my hiatus from backpacking, things had again changed. I didn’t pay much attention to the lightweight movement, still satisfied with my Kelty and an MSR Hubba, which I had acquired for Scout outings. As an aside, I found that as I reached middle age, I no longer desired to have a tent mate, particularly one of the same gender. My sleep was much more restful if I slept in a solo tent, using earplugs to drown out the snoring neighbors situated around me.

About a year ago, a fellow Scouter suggested that the Troop apply for a Philmont trek. She had staffed at Philmont in the 80s and had the same halcyon memories of her time there as I did. We applied for a trek and were told by those in the know that it might take as long as three years to get a slot. However, the Great Recession evidently tempered demand, and in the fall of 2009 we were contacted by Philmont and asked if we would be interested in a trek for 6/12/10 – 6/25/10. We accepted and began planning. Our roster filled quickly, our crew consisting of three adult Scouters – Todd Swanstrom, Joe Williams and myself – and nine Scouts. I accepted the responsibility to be adult advisor for our crew and began to obsess about how to make this as great an experience for our Scouts as my Philmont trek had been for me.

Rules & Regs

Where to start? My cursory searches on the internet about Philmont suggested something rather ominous, later confirmed by the first mailings we received from the Ranch in the fall of 2009; Philmont has become a place of rules, adherence to which is not optional. I know my temperament, and I recognized that it might prove difficult for me to accede to regulations that ran counter to my own experience. The best advice I received about returning to Philmont was from one of Doug Prosser’s articles. He advocated going with the flow, even though the rule in question might seem arbitrary, or even slightly ridiculous. Months in advance, I got my mind right and resolved that I would flow like water. (After arriving at our first campsite, and after our Ranger had watched me erect the thing, I was asked to move my tent eight (eight!) paces so that all crew tents would fit within some radius visible only to him. I smiled and did as I was asked.) To anyone contemplating a Philmont trip, especially experienced backpackers who think they know a thing or two, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Doug’s advice. You will have a lot more fun if you knuckle under and do it their way, because there really isn’t any other way. By the way, their way works!

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 5
They like things cozy here: Scouts, tents, and Ranger huddling within the invisible radius.

Early in my preparations I stumbled on the Backpacking Light website and discovered that a number of Scouters have given a good deal of thought to how to do Philmont in a lightweight style that accommodates the constraints of established trek architecture. I am particularly indebted to Doug Prosser and Al Geist for their tested insights on gear and practices that made our Philmont trek more enjoyable. After reviewing these and other materials, I personally resolved to go as light as possible and to craft gear lists that would lighten the packs of all our Scouts. Particular attention was devoted to selecting crew gear.

Troop Gear

My gear list was disseminated to Scouts and their parents several months before our departure date. With total Philmont costs and associated travel expenses hovering around $875 per Scout, I recognized that it was not reasonable to ask Scouts to replace their current equipment with lightweight gear as I planned on doing, so I focused on getting them to select from their current gear, and when in doubt leave it out. Here my list is reprinted, unchanged from my original email:

  • Backpack with hip belt. You all have one of these.
  • Rain cover for backpack.
  • Sleeping bag. Light summer bag is better. Light summer down bag is best.
  • Sleeping clothes; synthetic t-shirt, boxer shorts or light (Capilene) long john bottom.
  • Sleeping pad.
  • Rain jacket. Philmont will not allow a poncho for some reason.
  • Rain pants.
  • Hiking shoes. Many recent trekkers recommend lightweight breathable hikers or trail running shoes. Avoid heavy leather boots. I’m told that most of the Philmont trails are smooth and there isn’t a lot of off trail scrambling required. Some may also want to bring pair of low gaiters.
  • Two or maybe three pairs of mid-weight synthetic or wool socks, inclusive of the pair you start hiking in. Some may also want to use a liner sock. Wear one pair of socks and wash the other for the next day. Repeat.
  • One set of underwear, i.e., the set you’re wearing.
  • One pair nylon pants and one pair hiking shorts, or one pair of zip off pants (best).
  • One short-sleeve wicking t shirt, or one long-sleeve nylon trekking shirt, such as the ones we used for Kandersteg last summer.
  • Hat with brim.
  • Insulating layer, e.g., fleece jacket, lightweight down sweater. Avoid heavy windproof fleece. The idea is to take a pure insulating garment, one whose only purpose is to create dead air space. Any wind blocking that needs to be done can be done by donning your rain jacket over your insulating layer.
  • Bowl.
  • Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 6
    The Phillips brand.

  • Cup.
  • Spoon.
  • Container(s) in which to carry 3 L of water.
  • Sunglasses.
  • Lip balm.
  • Small knife.
  • Flashlight (LED headlamp is best).
  • Butane lighter.
  • $10-$20 in small bills for the trail.
  • Bandanna (trip neckerchief being created by Dr. Williams may substitute for this).
  • Compass.
  • (very) Small synthetic towel.
  • Philmont map, available at trading post.
  • Toothbrush and baking soda, dental floss.
  • Small container biodegradable soap, e.g., Campsuds.
  • Stuff sacks and two or three one-gallon Ziploc bags.
  • Tent. Philmont requires that two- or three-person tents be used. One-man tents are not allowed. We will use Troop tents, footprints, and stakes.
  • Trekking poles, if you use them.
  • Camera, if you are so inclined.
  • Class A shirt for travel and first day at Base Camp.
  • Compass.
  • Any medications you need.
  • Lightweight beanie if you sleep cold, or to wear on chilly morning.

Prior to our departure, I required all Scouts to produce their packs for inspection and announced that a prize would be awarded to the lightest pack that met all of the above requirements. It was an interesting exercise in winnowing, and I’m glad we did it, or all kinds of unnecessary gear would have been lugged from Idaho to New Mexico. As I remember, the prize went to the son of the Scouter responsible for reinvigorating our Troop as a backpacking Troop. His pack weighed in at 17 pounds exclusive of food, water, and crew gear.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 21
Out of the fiery furnace; crew members play around with wrought iron at Rayado.

My Gear

Backpack

For my part, although I seriously considered taking my Kelty as a kind of homage to another era, the thought of having to sew the thing up with dental floss and duct tape should it fail left me with an excuse to acquire another pack. I considered several packs, including a GoLite Jam, a Granite Gear Vapor Trail, and an REI Flash 65 before finally settling on a Granite Gear Meridian Nimbus, at 3800 cubic inches, slightly smaller than my Kelty. This is the first internal frame pack I have owned, and it proved very comfortable, but really not any more comfortable than my Kelty. I did not find it to be any hotter than my frame pack, and I appreciated the expandability afforded by the extension collar. Without this, I would never have been able to accommodate my share of Philfood following our two resupplies. Water bottle pockets were nice and deep, but accessible without taking off the pack. I purchased a Granite Gear shoulder strap pocket in which I carried a small Zeiss monocular, and on the other strap I mounted my camera case, which kept my Canon G10 close at hand.

The floating lid provided good access to small items, although I did begin to tire of readjusting it as my load shrank or grew. Since this was my first experience with an internal frame pack, I did have a couple of head scratching moments that probably seem funny to anyone who is a longtime internal frame pack user. For example, what do you do with the thing when you take it off? When I take off my external frame pack, I stand it upright on the frame ends, and prop it up with a trekking pole. The packsack, shoulder straps and hip belt never come close to touching the ground. The internal frame pack is not so handy. Since Philmont does not want you to tie or hang anything from a tree, you have to throw your pack down in the dust. I decided that I should have brought a 3 x 4-foot sheet of Tyvek that I could lay on the ground before lowering my brand new pack. Alas, I made do with a garbage bag.

Sleeping Bag & Pad

I took a Feathered Friends sleeping bag, the Swift model, rated by the manufacturer as a 20 degree F bag. At 34 oz, it proved more than adequate for conditions in early June. My coldest night was at Carson Meadows, where the temperature briefly dipped below freezing. Even so, this was the only night I had to zip the bag all the way up.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 8
Descending Mt. Phillips towards Cypher’s Mine camp.

Philmont requires that all crew members bring separate sleep clothes to be worn nowhere except inside the tent. The logic is that the clothes a Scout wears during the day will inevitably carry traces of food, Gatorade, or suntan lotion, all of which might cause a bear to investigate the sleeping Scout’s tent. I took a Patagonia Capilene t-shirt (4.3 oz) and a pair of Patagonia Capilene boxers (4 oz) for this purpose.

Like many middle aged backpackers, the ground feels much harder to me now than it did twenty years ago. A few years ago I purchased an Exped Downmat pad and have slept soundly ever since. However, at 41 ounces, I deemed it too heavy and too bulky to bring on this trip. Instead, I opted for a Therm-A-Rest NeoAir, at 14 ounces. This mattress is just as long as the Exped (72 in), but only 20 inches wide. When inflated, it is 2.5 inches thick, versus 2.8 for the Exped. It looked extremely fragile though, and I very carefully prepared my sleeping surface every night before laying down on the thing. However, it worked as advertised, and I experienced no leaks during our trek. I found it pretty easy to inflate, and very comfortable, though it was easy to roll off the 20-inch-wide pad in the night.

Shelter

As I have explained, it is my preference to use a solo tent on Scout outings. This view was shared by Joe and Todd, each of whom brought a solo tent on our trek. I had planned to take my Tarptent Contrail on this trip. At 24.5 ounces, it provides a great deal of space for a single adult, along with excellent bug protection and ventilation. It erects with a single trekking pole which can be angled to give unobstructed access to the tent. However, as I studied the materials sent by Philmont, I noted that Philmont does not allow single person tents, just as it does not allow clotheslines or hammocks.

These restrictions puzzled me for awhile, until I learned that in the course of a summer Philmont will run up to 30,000 Scouts through the Ranch. Yet Philmont looks just as lovely today as it did thirty-eight years ago. The Scouts have taken good care of the generous gift made by Waite Phillips in 1938. Every Scout who visits the Ranch is instructed in Leave No Trace practices and is expected to apply these rules during his trek. These rules receive reinforcement during the first three days of a trek while each crew is accompanied by a Philmont Ranger.

Philmont looks so good because use has been concentrated. Travel is limited to existing trails, and camping is restricted to designated campsites containing a fire ring and a grey water sump. Tents must be pitched in a tight group, on durable surfaces. In practice, the area in which a group of tents may be located at a particular campsite is limited, and owing to the heavy traffic at Philmont, these areas are pretty quickly reduced to mineral soil. After a few days without rain, the campsites become quite dusty. However inconvenient this may be for the individual, it has proven to be a necessary tradeoff if the natural beauty of the Ranch is to be preserved.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 9
Strange colors in the sky portend more good weather.

Getting back to our tent issue, several months before we left I decided that if Philmont could be expected to insist that only multi-person tents could be used, I needed to have a fallback position for the three adult Scouters on our trek. I eventually settled on a Mountain Laurel Designs Super Mid, in silnylon, which I ordered in March, and received (as promised) just a week before our intended departure date. It is a pyramidal tent without a floor and is billed as cozy for four. It weighs just 24 ounces. If the rule against solo tents was not negotiable, the three adults would share the Super Mid.

On the day of our arrival at Philmont, we were met by our assigned Ranger, a great young man on loan to Philmont for the summer by the U.S. Naval Academy. He possessed the kind of quiet self assurance that you would hope to see in a future naval officer, and in him Philmont’s expectations of visitors were fully internalized. I took a deep breath and told him that the three adults on our trek were prepared to sleep in one tent, but would probably be at each other’s throats within a week. Did he want to be responsible for that? He considered this for a moment and told me that it would be OK if all adults slept solo. This was no small kindness, and it left me with palatial quarters in the Super Mid, which I did not have to share with anyone. The Super Mid weighed less than my Tarptent, and allowed me to stand up inside. I should also say that the workmanship on the Super Mid is impeccable. You can tell that it is lovingly put together by a small shop and that product quality is of paramount importance.

Still, if I had it to do over again, I might have taken the Tarptent, only because it was difficult to keep gear and clothes clean in the Super Mid, due to omnipresent dust in combination with a floorless shelter. I used a mylar space blanket for a ground cloth, and I had to be very careful about how I laid it out in order to avoid kicking up the fine powder. Of course, the Super Mid did not provide 100% bug protection. However, as I thought back on my trip thirty-eight years ago, I did not remember bugs being a significant problem. Even so, I took along a head net which would protect my exposed face once I was fully cocooned in my bag. As it turned out, we were troubled by mosquitoes on only one night, and even then, I had pitched the Super Mid low enough to the ground that I had no problems. In all I recommend the Super Mid very highly to anyone in need of elbow room.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 16
Nowhere to go but up: a crew member pushes the limits at Cimarroncito.

The Super Mid can be erected with one trekking pole, so long as one uses the MLD supplied pole extender. Since I use two trekking poles, I elected to leave the extender at home and figure out some way of joining my poles together to achieve the necessary height. My solution, though not particularly elegant, worked very well for the twelve days of our trek, even during a windy night at Carson Meadows. I joined the poles tip to tip with about a foot and a half of overlap. To handle the vertical load I wound a two-foot length of Kelty Triptease line around the poles where they overlapped. Each end of the line had a small loop tied in it, which I slipped over the tip of each pole. To keep the poles bound together, I employed two six-inch lengths of double sided Velcro tape, which proved sufficiently strong and durable to keep the poles rigidly in line for the duration of our trek. Every morning, as I prepared to get on the trail, I separated the poles and wound both the Velcro tape and the line around one of the poles for use again that evening.

Clothing

I took one pair of Mountain Hardwear Matterhorn convertible pants at 14 ounces, a pant that I have used for several years and like a great deal. I did not take any other pants or shorts. We had showers available to us on days two and eight of our trek. I rinsed the pants out during my shower, and they were dry in thirty minutes. I chose a long-sleeve Cloudveil Classic Cool nylon shirt for my one top. I liked the shirt for its two deep zippered chest pockets, which I could get to easily even while wearing my pack. Any time we had water in a camp, I would rinse it out and put it back on. It, too, was dry in thirty minutes. If you are disciplined to take advantage of opportunities to wash your clothes, there is no reason to be burdened with extras in the dry Philmont climate

I took a pair of Salomon XT Wing trail running shoes and was generally pleased with their performance, although the toe cap of one shoe began to delaminate during our trek. A little more ankle support would have been appreciated, the trails being slightly less buffed than I had been led to believe, particularly,the ascent of Mt. Phillips and the descent from Shaefers Peak to the Tooth of Time. My most significant complaint about the shoes was, strangely enough, their breathability, or, to be more precise, their porosity. The uppers are constructed of a nylon mesh which is porous enough to admit the fines that are kicked up on the trail. At the end of the day my feet and socks were black. This could have been ameliorated by staying well in front of, or behind, our gaggle of foot dragging 15-year-olds, but for another Philmont regulation.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 7
Working on the dirt tan. Fastidious they were not.

To keep crews from getting separated, to lessen the chances of bear and mountain lion encounters, and to make passing other groups somewhat less problematic, Philmont requires that a crew hike as a group. During the first part of our trek, our Ranger took us through a little exercise to demonstrate the appropriate interval between crew members while hiking. It turns out to be about eight to ten feet, and they are pretty serious about it too; on day five of our trek, we spent an hour at Crooked Creek camp, which is staffed by Rangers who play the part of a family of 1840s homesteaders. It’s a pretty good show, and the staff has it down to a T, affecting period attire, accents, and mannerisms. As we left Crooked Creek, a few of us who were low on water backtracked several hundred yards to a spring. The rest soldiered on, leaving a quarter mile gap in our midst. The manner of our departure was evidently noted by at least one keen-eyed staffer, who radioed ahead to Clear Creek camp, our next staffed camp, with a tale of our misdeeds. The next day, as Todd, Joe, and I were walking past the Clear Creek staff cabin, we were surprised to be stopped by several Rangers who gently chided us for allowing our crew to become separated. Lesson learned: the woods have eyes. Thereafter, we stuck together.

On a recommendation from Backpacking Light, I took two pairs of Darn Tough Vermont socks. I also used a Coolmax liner sock. The Darn Toughs were great, and I would recommend them without reservation. I had to wash a pair every day, but once you get into this routine, it is not a hassle. In keeping with Philmont protocol, I did my wash in a Ziploc bag at the end of the day, and poured wash water down our campsite sump. Our Scouts, as well, were encouraged to wash their clothes and socks when the opportunity arose. Of course, they would not do this without some prodding. Left alone, I do not doubt that they would have been most content to ignore soap and water for the duration of our trek.

I have always used gaiters on backpack trips, mostly to keep pebbles out of my shoes and trail dust off my socks. On this trip I took a pair of Integral Designs Shortie gaiters in eVent fabric, weighing in at 2.5 oz. They work well with low top shoes and are equipped with a replaceable instep cord. The most notable thing about these gaiters is the lack of a zipper. You pull them on before you put your boots on, and then snug them down on your boot using the elastic instep cord and the front hook. I took them off only once during our descent from Mt. Phillips to Cypher’s Mine camp, when mid-day temperatures were high enough to cause me to want a little more air flowing around my feet.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 17
Waite Phillips’ favorite view: a crew member on Window Rock.

For an insulating layer I took a Patagonia Nano Puff pullover. If I hadn’t taken this on a shakedown trip into southern Idaho’s Owyhee mountains in May, I would never have believed that this silky, bulkless garment could offer significant warmth. However, it was all I needed and more on chilly mornings. At 10.2 ounces, it disappeared in my pack. Under a shell, I am sure that it would have kept me comfortable in any conditions we might reasonably have expected to encounter at Philmont in the month of June.

The funny thing was that June was as nice as June can be. In twelve days of trekking we saw nary a drop of rain. Only at Zastrow did we hear distant thunder one evening, though the next day was clear and cloudless. Against the chance of Philmont weather at its worst (I remember the August monsoon from my 1972 trek), I took a Mountain Hardware Cohesion jacket in Conduit fabric (14 oz), and a pair of Marmot PreCip rain pants at 11 ounces. Both of these were a little bit of overkill, and I could have gone lighter with a Mountain Hardwear Quark jacket at 10 ounces. The Cohesion jacket has a nice slim fit and mated well with the Nano Puff jacket. At any rate, it never left the bottom of my pack.

For headwear, I took a Patagonia Bimini cap, a baseball style cap with a wrap around cape to protect the back and sides of the neck. Others have complained about the fact that the cape is not detachable, but I did not find this to be a problem. The fabric is so sheer that the cape can easily be tucked inside the hat when not wanted. I thought this was a great piece of gear, and I felt like a French Legionnaire while wearing it. With a little sunscreen on my nose and cheeks, I was good to go.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 10
AWOL from the French Foreign Legion: the author and his son atop the Tooth of Time.

Miscellaneous

I took prescription sunglasses along with my regular specs. I considered taking a Photon Micro-Light II as a backup flashlight to my Petzl headlamp until I used the Photon on a shakedown trip, decided to make it my only light, and found it filled this role admirably. Especially useful was the clip attachment for the brim of my hat, which made night time reading/writing very easy. I highly recommend this light as your only light for around camp activities after dark.

Shortly after we arrived at Philmont, our crew leader and I reviewed our itinerary with an Itinerary Planner from Logistic Services. This was very informative, and we learned a great deal about the current conditions at each of our camps, the location of our two resupply points, and how we would have to arrange our hiking schedule to accommodate the programs we hoped to take in. We learned that we had no dry camps, though we did have two stretches of trail that would probably require humping some extra water. With this in mind we made sure that each Scout took at least two Nalgene bottles, or the equivalent, down from the three I originally recommended. A lot of our Scouts prefer two- or three-liter bladders. For my part, I took a one-liter bottle and also carried a three-liter MSR Dromedary, which I would usually fill with about half a liter of water. Our last day was a thirteen-mile hike including the obligatory hike down Tooth Ridge, all of which is dry. As chance would have it, this was also our hottest day. I filled the Dromedary and my bottle at the spring at Shaefers pass and was glad to have done so. This was the only day I had to dispense water to a few Scouts who underestimated the distance remaining to Headquarters.

I was prepared to use Philmont-supplied water purification tabs every time I filled up. However, the use of these tablets turned out to be the exception, rather than the rule. Most of the camps we stayed at had potable water on tap. When we did use the tablets, I was pleasantly surprised to find that they did not impart a terribly disagreeable chemical taste. I was happy to have left my filter at headquarters.

Of course, I suffer from doodad creep as much as any backpacker. There is always a shiny gadget that serves no vital purpose, yet demands to be taken. I was able to restrict myself to bringing only my Kindle, with some summertime reading on board. All I usually need to send me into a sound slumber is a few pages of words in a row, and my reading for this trip was Justin Cronin’s thriller, The Passage. It must have made an impression on me, since one night I had a dream about vampire bears hanging from the trees surrounding our tents.

Crew Gear

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 12
At Wild Horse camp crew members busy themselves with cooking.

Philmont will provide all crew gear you may require. However, as others have noted, it is heavy and somewhat battered. I saw some bear bag ropes at Philmont that should have been retired long ago, and I don’t even want to think about the stuff I saw stuck to the Frisbee filter that I was offered at camp stores. Of the myriad items that Philmont is prepared to lend a crew, we took only the Philmont bear bags. All other crew gear we brought with us after considering the advice of those who have given careful thought reducing weight.

Stove and Cookware

I read that butane canisters are now offered for sale at trail commissaries. We had three opportunities to obtain butane canisters after we started our trek. This led us to forego white gas stoves in favor of butane stoves. I also read that good luck had been reported with MSR WindPro stoves. We elected to carry one of these and one MSR Pocket Rocket. Of the two, I much preferred the WindPro, at 6.5 ounces. The Pocket Rocket burner sits on top of the fuel canister and makes balancing a pot on top of this set-up somewhat precarious, and we lost at least one pot of boiling water to an errant foot while using this stove. It is also hard to come up with an effective wind screen, the height of the burner again making things somewhat difficult. The remote burner of the WindPro sits on the ground, connected to the canister by a flexible fuel line. Others have reported that crews of twelve have gotten away with using only six cartridges during their twelve-day trek. Knowing that we could resupply en route made us a little lazy about being as efficient as possible in our daily water heating. We used seven eight-ounce canisters, and we had plenty of hot water for cooking, cleaning, and coffee.

We brought two three-liter aluminum pots with lids and found these entirely adequate for our needs. We also brought one hot pot lifter. We took neither crew spoons nor spatulas. A plastic measuring cup was used to dip hot water from the pot. The real trick was to get the Scouts not to set it down in the dust after having used it to measure and dispense hot water.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 13
Todd demonstrates our rehydration technique, complete with cozy.

Grey Water Treatment

As part of its bear protocol and also in furtherance of its Leave No Trace policy, Philmont has equipped all campsites with grey water sumps. These are lengths of PVC pipe, approximately 5 to 6 inches in diameter, which are driven into the ground to an undetermined depth such that only 8 or 9 inches of the pipe protrudes from the ground. A coarse wire screen is affixed to the open end of the pipe with a hose clamp. In addition, every crew is issued the dreaded Frisbee, which turns out to be an actual Frisbee, into which a number of small holes have been drilled. This is the first stage filter that is to be used when getting rid of grey water. It is placed over the sump, concave side up, and waste water is strained through it. At the end of the process, anything that has not made it through the filter is picked off the Frisbee and put in the crew “yuck” sack for transport with the rest of the Troop’s packaging waste.

In doing things this way, very little is left above ground that might attract bears, and grey water is disposed of in a way that does not contaminate surface water. All very laudable, if a little unsavory, particularly if you are the one carrying the Frisbee. Others have given thought as to how this process might be improved. At Doug Prosser’s recommendation we took four one-gallon paint strainer bags, purchased at Home Depot for a few cents and weighing next to nothing. On arrival at a campsite, we simply stretched the elasticized bottom of one of these bags over the sump and poured all waste water through it for the duration of our stay. The weave of the paint strainer bag is much finer than the holes drilled in the frisbie, but since the bag is a mesh, you can actually move a higher volume of water through it than you can the frisbie. Because of the cooking method we used, we did not generate a significant amount of suspended food in our cleaning and rinse water, but we nevertheless switched out the paint strainer bags every three days. The use of paint strainer bags met with the approval of our Ranger and is a great improvement over the status quo. My advice is to come equipped to (politely) decline the Frisbee.

The Question of Rehydration

Of all the things that caused me to scratch my head during our months of preparation, none caused more perplexity than cooking, or to be more precise, rehydration, lest real cooking be given a bad name. I read with great interest about all of the methods devised by inventive Scouters to deal with this task. Every method had its champion, and I saw a few of these demonstrated during our trek. At Clear Creek camp, I caught a glimpse of a turkey bag from which a dinner entrée had been incompletely decanted several days before. There were things growing in it! I suppressed a shiver and moved on. During our planning we considered rehydrating via turkey bag, until I read an article by Al Geist which discussed a rehydration procedure that struck me as being very much in the spirit of Leave No Trace. Geist advocated conducting rehydration in a way that made use of resources at hand and generated neither dirty dishes nor grey water for the sump. This procedure is familiar to anyone who has used Mountain House, Packit Gourmet or Backpackers Pantry products: in-the-pouch cooking means all you dirty is a spoon. Since all of the Philfood we saw called only for rehydration with hot water, pouch cooking would seem much the preferable route to go. The devil, as they say, is in the details.

All Philfood meals come packaged for two people. However, some of the individual meal items are individual servings and some, such as the dinner entrees, are packaged to serve two people. If one were to rehydrate the dinner entrée in the pouch in which it was packaged, you would still have to split the entrée up so each Scout could have a serving. What do you put the other half of the entrée into if you are striving not to dirty a bowl? Geist advocated mining the packaging debris from other meal components for foil pouches that can be reused to rehydrate a portion of an entrée and serve as a simple bowl. For example, one of our dinners included one two-person serving of Mountain House Chili Mac. In that same meal one finds two foil packages of “Kreamy” crackers. Geist proposed that the cracker bags be carefully slit along their long dimension and the crackers put into a Ziploc bag for later consumption. Next he proposed that the contents of the Chili Mac pouch be equally distributed between the two empty cracker pouches. Boiling water would then be carefully measured and introduced into the cracker bags to rehydrate the entrée. Because the cracker bags are somewhat flimsy, the wonderfully obsessive Geist made little foam “cozies” for his crew, which would provide both support and insulation for the foil cracker pouches that were never intended to be used in this fashion.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 14
Joe samples a canned meat product.

You can make this work, although it requires practice and a certain amount of forethought not normally found in a 15-year-old. We elected to try it out. We made cozies out of an aluminized bubble wrap that I think is used in HVAC applications. This material provided rigidity and insulation. As the Scouts tried to make this method work, they discovered a hybrid approach that seemed to satisfy everyone. The entrée pouch was put in the cozy and rehydrated. After enough time had passed, half of the entrée would be poured/spooned into an empty foil pouch resting in a cozy. One Scout would eat directly from the entrée pouch and one Scout would eat from the salvaged foil pouch. We also used an alternate method, which was preferred by some of the Scouts. Because our itinerary called for a chuckwagon dinner at Clark’s Fork camp, each Scout carried a 16-ounce Tupperware container with a snap lid. Some Scouts preferred to use this as the container in which to pour their half of the rehydrated entrée. At the very most then, we had only six containers and twelve spoons to clean after the evening meal.

My mess mate Todd Swanstrom and I did not dirty anything but a spoon apiece during our entire trek, and we became pretty adept at Geist’s process after awhile. However, we remarked more than once how all this agonizing about food and cooking could be avoided if Philmont would simply mandate of its suppliers that all foods requiring rehydration be individually packaged. That way each Scout has his own pouch in which to rehydrate his food and out of which to eat. Although this would generate a little more packaging waste, fuel would be saved, and the tedious necessity of cleaning dishes and filtering grey water avoided.

As to the quality of the food itself, any adult with a modestly refined palate will find a lot to complain about in Philfood. (Again, get your mind right! Whose trip is this anyway, yours or your Scouts’?) However, I think the boys in our crew were generally pretty happy with the fare. It’s nice to get Oreos and Nutter Butter cookies in your meal, particularly when you can wash them down with limitless volumes of Gatorade! They did not want for sugar. The breakfasts and lunches are “bar heavy," but Philmont seems to try to mix things up so the food does not become too monotonous. Ritz and Saltine crackers and canned and pouched meat products all figure prominently in the lunch menu. For the peanut averse, Philmont has substituted sunflower butter in squeeze packets. Oatmeal and granola are well represented in the breakfast menu. Gatorade powder makes up a surprisingly large percentage, by weight, of the meals. Of all the food, the dinner entrees were probably the least offensive to me. This year, Mountain House and Richmoor products were found in the dinner bags, and they seemed to be of the same quality that you would find at REI, albeit in cheaper packaging. One treat that I was particularly fond of was the freeze dried cherries that appeared in one meal. They were extremely tart and crunchy, sort of like an organic SweetTart. Fortunately, these did not seem too popular; I found all I wanted in the swap box at Cypher’s Mine camp.

Coffee

Finally, I consider the vexing problem of caffeine delivery to have been solved once and for all with the introduction of Starbucks Via instant coffee. Each adult took 24 packets, which provided each of us with two cups of coffee per day. If you have just a few quiet moments in the morning to contemplate what the day might bring over a cup of decent coffee, you can get through about anything.

Bear Bag Hanging

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 15
The crew hoists the first bear bags of the trek at Olympia camp.

Our Ranger advised that 200 bears and an undetermined number of mountain lions make Philmont their home on any given day. That makes roughly one bear per square mile. Philmont has devoted a great deal of energy to preventing or minimizing the chances for Scout/bear interactions. In addition to Leave No Trace, this is one of the main drivers of Philmont regulations. Every camp is equipped with a number of bear bag cables strung between two trees. The cables are, on average, about 25 feet off the ground. It is over these steel cables that Scouts are expected to hoist their crew bear bags with rope that each crew carries. Philmont will supply a crew with two 150-foot lengths of heavy, typically quite worn, nylon rope for this purpose. In lieu thereof, we took two 150-foot lengths of Amsteel Blue rope with a diameter of 7/64 inch and a breaking strength of 1600 pounds, made of Dyneema SK75 fiber. The best price I could find was $.20/foot, or $60.00 for 300 feet. Its small diameter also makes it somewhat hard to hold onto while hoisting bear bags, particularly after a resupply. After it gets a little dirty, it becomes less slippery. Three hundred feet of this rope, plus two carabiners, two mini carabiners, and two small stuff sacks weighed 21.6 ounces.

The first of the two ropes is for the main bear bags, and these items should be hoisted as soon as the crew arrives in camp. To prepare this rope, a loop is tied in the rope at its midpoint using a butterfly knot. A carabiner is clipped to this loop. With the carabiner clipped to the belt of the thrower, the two ends of the rope are coiled and thrown over the bear cable. Snarls are inevitable. My solution, and the only refinement I can offer to Al Geist’s treatment of this issue, is to employ a rescue bag, something that has been a safety mainstay in whitewater rafting and kayaking for some years: Find a small stuff sack that will hold all 150 feet of the rope. It needs to have a small loop sewn into the bottom of the bag. Into this loop clip a mini carabiner. Tie loops in both ends of the rope and clip these ends into the mini carabiner. Then, stuff all the rope into the bag, leaving only the midpoint carabiner sticking out of the sack. It can be clipped onto the stuff sack drawstring to keep it outside the sack.

When you are ready to hoist the bear bags, clip the midpoint carabiner to your belt, loosen the drawstring of the stuff sack and pull out eight or nine feet of slack. Throw the sack over the bear cable. Because of the way you have loaded the sack, the rope will spool out without snarls. The rope ends can then be unclipped from the stuff sack, and the bear bags tied to the rope using lark’s head hitches. Next, the second rope, which has been similarly prepared, is threaded through the midpoint carabiner of the main rope. Finally the bear bags are hoisted and each end of the rope is tied off to a separate tree, per Philmont protocol. The second rope, which has been threaded through the first, is dangling within reach. When you are ready to put up the “oops” bag later in the evening, it will be attached to the midpoint carabiner of the oops bag rope and hoisted up to join the other bags, using the bear bag rope carabiner as a pulley. This worked very well for us, and I know that other crews were envious of our minimalist setup. After hoisting bags for two weeks, the Amsteel Blue showed no noticeable wear.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 20
A remembered landscape; Lower ‘Cito, Hidden Valley, Window Rock, Cathedral Rock and Mt. Baldy as viewed from Shaefers Peak.

Dining Fly

Philmont requires that each crew take a dining fly and offers to supply a 12 x 12-foot tarp and poles. The crew is expected to bring its own guy lines. Packs and other gear are stored under the fly at night, and the fly serves as a kitchen or group refuge in inclement weather. Interestingly, Philmont will not let Scouts sleep under this or any other tarp. A tent is required. I don’t know whether this requirement is related to bear safety or privacy issues. The Philmont fly is made of coated nylon and weighs about four pounds. I did not get a look at the poles. In lieu of the Philmont tarp we took a Granite Gear 10 x 12-foot silnylon tarp, weighing in at 23 ounces. Instead of dedicated poles, we erected it in a variety of configurations using two, four, or six trekking poles. It worked really well and pitched very taut, owing to its slight catenary cut. However, because we did not encounter any foul weather, I can’t comment on its storm worthiness.

Miscellaneous

Aside from TP, a scrub pad, hand sanitizer, and liquid soap, we took no other Philmont gear. We took no extra accessory cord since all our tents and tarp were pre-strung, as it were. We left the spade at Headquarters, since all camps we were to stay at were equipped with scenic Philmont latrines. We took one communal 8-ounce tube of 30 SPF sunscreen, which we used religiously. It was still about one quarter full when we got home, and we had no cases of sunburn. We also took a communal tube of Ultrathon insect repellent at 2 ounces, and I don’t think we got into it except for one night at Wild Horse camp.

Preparatory to our trek, Todd Swanstrom and I took the 16-hour wilderness first aid training course offered to Scouters by the Red Cross. Philmont now requires that each crew have at least one, and preferably two, adults with this training. However, Todd and I didn’t have to worry ourselves with things medical since Joe Williams, our third companion, is a Boise M.D. Joe graciously offered to oversee the collection and safekeeping of the all important medical forms, without which you do not pass go. We had one Scout with us who has a strong allergy to all things equine. There was a possibility that he would go into anaphylactic shock should we camp or hike around horses, so we were all instructed in the use of the Epi-Pens Joe brought. This issue ultimately informed our choice of itineraries, and we were able to avoid all horse activities with the exception of the chuckwagon dinner at Clark’s Fork camp. Joe assembled our medical kit and dutifully tended to the boys as needed, but drew the line at working on their feet. He would, however, talk them through a blister repair from a safe distance. Fortunately, we had no significant blister problems, although we came equipped with tincture of benzoin and Leukotape P.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 18
Leaving ‘Cito for greener pastures.

In all, I was very pleased with the equipment choices we made as a group, although these choices were not tested by bad weather. We were all happier for having parsed the over-inclusive Philmont equipment lists, bringing only what was essential, and making appropriate substitutions where there was a superior and lighter alternative. For myself, were I to leave tomorrow for another trek, I would bring a pair of briefs in lieu of the Capilene boxers I wore, and I might opt for a slightly sturdier shoe. I would leave the 16-ounce Tupperware bowl at home and make do with something else for our chuckwagon dinner, like a gallon Ziploc bag. Although I was pleased with the comfort of my new pack, I can’t say that it performed any better than my Kelty, and in some areas the external frame pack clearly excels, such as ease of loading. They weigh nearly the same, at 4.2 pounds for the Granite Gear and 4.4 pounds for the Kelty. To my mind, and I appreciate that mine is a minority view, the modest improvements offered by internal frame packs don’t seem to justify the extinction of the external frame pack.

Redux

Thirty-eight years ago I stood on the summit of Mt. Baldy and concentrated on fixing the 360-degree view in my mind, confident that I would never return to the spot, and I haven’t yet. To the south I could make out Mt. Phillips, the second highest peak on the Ranch. This summer my son and I stood on the summit of Mt. Phillips and contemplated the not-too-distant summit of Mt. Baldy away to the north. I suggested that he, too, should take a good look around since this might be the last time he would ever visit this particular vantage point. He considered this for about two seconds before busying himself with lunch on the windswept summit, lunch including, among other things, yet another squeeze packet of the (by now) much reviled “Sunbutter.” I suppose that it’s asking too much of a 15-year-old to imagine that there will ever come a time when opportunity is foreclosed by age or infirmity. When you are 15, there is always another day.

We finished our trek on the afternoon of 6/24/10. We turned in our bear bags, which ended up being the only bit of Philmont-issued gear we carried, and the boys quickly repaired to the snack bar and trading post. I showered and completed my last journal entry before getting ready for the closing campfire, at which we would receive our arrowhead patches for successfully completing our trek. As I review that journal now, I am struck by one wish I expressed while we were at Cimarroncito, a large staffed camp northwest of the Tooth of Time, and adjacent to Hidden Valley, a place that I had visited in 1972 and still remembered. There were a lot of crews at ‘cito, and the dust was roiling. I briefly longed for a landscape vacant of Scouts, vacant of people. Philmont is no longer a wilderness, notwithstanding that the BSA has been a good steward of the property. There are just too many people using the small portion of the Ranch designated as durable surface. So be it. The activities at the staffed camps are great, the staffers are friendly, knowledgeable, and engaged, and at Philmont the Scout Oath and the Scout Law are taken seriously. Philmont’s experience and dedication to making everything click is visible everywhere. Thirty-eight years after last setting foot on the Ranch, Philmont still strikes me as the embodiment of Scouting at its very best.

Philmont Redux: A Returning Scouter’s Report - 22
Last rest stop of the trek. Headquarters and snack bar in view.

ULA Epic Pack Review

This improved pack handles heavy or awkward loads with ease, for your Epic adventures.

Introduction

ULA recently introduced the Epic, an updated version of the Backpacking Light Arctic Ultra pack. The Arctic Ultra was originally created in 2006 for the 1000+ mile epic journey undertaken by Roman Dial, Jason Geck, and BPL’s own Ryan Jordan. The pack was a dry bag harness designed by Roman and built for the adventure by ULA.

ULA Epic Pack Review - 1
Left: The ULA Epic shown loaded with a full 65-liter dry bag. Right: Fully loaded back view of the Epic shows room for additional gear on the top or at the bottom compression straps.

After the adventure, the pack design was refined and offered in a limited supply through Backpacking Light. I purchased one of the Arctic Ultras for a trip that ended up falling through. I used the pack some, but in typical gear head fashion later decided I didn’t really need it and sold it. A few months later, I was kicking myself for selling the pack and ordered another one. This one happened to be the last large Arctic Ultra that BPL had.

Long story short, after using the pack for a number of trips and going with smaller packs for most trips and larger packs for backpack hunting trips, I again sold the Arctic Ultra. As every gear head knows, shortly after you get rid of something, you wish you hadn’t. So when ULA, now under new ownership introduced the Epic, I knew I had to have one.

Pack Design and Uses

The Epic and its predecessor were designed for use with a dry bag or similar storage bag. There is no pack bag per se on the Epic. This allows for use of bags of varying capacity as well as packing bulky loads such as pack rafts. This pack design excels for long, self supported journeys and pack raft adventures. For shorter trips or thru hikes with frequent re-supply there are better pack choices.

Differences in the Epic and Arctic Ultra

The biggest difference in the two packs is the attachment of the shoulder suspension to the hipbelt. The Arctic Ultra attaches directly to the slots in a POE Pneumo dry bag while the Epic attaches directly to the hipbelt. More discussion on the pros and cons of this below.

Both packs have a vertical mesh zippered front pocket. The Epic’s pocket is a bellows design, which makes it much more useful when carrying a full dry bag. Spacious hipbelt pockets are similar in both packs. Suspension appears unchanged. The suspension consists of a foam back panel and two removable aluminum stays.

The Arctic Ultra came with two POE Pneumo dry bags, a 50L and a 65L. When the Epic was first introduced, it came without a dry bag, but now includes a Sea to Summit 65L Big River Dry Sack and two removable 1L side pockets that attach to the compression straps. The pack reviewed for this article did not have either the Big River Dry Sack or the side pockets.

What Works

  • The Epic was comfortable with loads well exceeding the recommended weight limit.
  • Bellows front pocket is a lot more useful than the previous flat pocket.
  • Spacious hipbelt pockets keep essentials close at hand.
  • D-rings on shoulder harness are convenient for binoculars or cameras.

ULA Epic Pack Review - 2
Right: The bellows design of the mesh front pocket allows easy access even with a full dry bag. Left: The spacious twin hipbelt pockets easily held a camera, snacks, and other essentials.

What Doesn’t Work

  • The daisy chain on the back side of the compression panel would be much more useful if it were on the backpanel instead.
  • Lack of a haul strap on the top of the pack.

Features

  • Internal frame
  • Beavertail style compression panel
  • Contoured shoulder straps
  • Zippered mesh bellow front pocket
  • Quad buckle hipbelt with reverse pull tensioning
  • Dual hipbelt pockets
  • Compression straps, two on each side, one on top
  • Dyneema gridstop fabric
  • Removable aluminum stays
  • Bottom compression straps for packraft, tent or sleeping pad
  • Daisy chain on back side of compression panel
  • D-rings on shoulder harness
  • Shoulder strap bungee system for bear spray or water bottle

ULA Epic Pack Review - 3
Right: The daisy chain on the pack’s compression panel would be more useful if relocated to the backpanel. Left: Bungees located on the shoulder harness allow for water or bear spray to be right at hand.

Specifications

Year/Model 2010 ULA Epic
Style Dry Bag Harness Style Pack
Fabric Dyneema Gridstop
Frame Internal foam frame sheet and two removable aluminum stays
Pack Volume Total Volume: 38-82 liters
Main Body: 30-75 liters
Front Mesh Pocket: 6.5 liters
Hipbelt Pockets: 1.5 liters.
Removable Side Pockets: None included as reviewed. Pack now comes with two 1L Side Pockets.
Recommended Loads Base Load: 20 lbs or less
Maximum Load
: 40 lbs or less
Pack Weight Large Frame (tested) Measured Weight: 38 oz (1077 g)
Medium Frame Manufacturer’s Specification: 32.5 oz (921 g)
No Manufacture’s Specification for Large Frame
Weight of Aluminum Stays Measured Weight: 2.4 oz (68)
Manufacturer’s Specification (Regular): 2.25 oz (63.8 g) each
Frame Sizing Medium fits 18-21 inches
Large fits 21-23 inches
Hipbelt Sizing One size fits most. Will not fit waist smaller than 25 inches
Dry Bags Included? None included as reviewed. Present pack includes a 65L Sea to Summit Big River Dry Sack
Compression Straps Horizontal: 2 per side
Top: 1
MSRP $275
Options Trailname Embroidery: $15

Performance:

The Epic is rated at 40 pounds max load, and it handled that weight with ease. I had carried up to 60 pounds in the BPL Arctic Ultra, so I tried that weight in the Epic as well. It carried 60 pounds as comfortably as any pack I have used at that weight. While higher than the recommended maximum, I see no reason the Epic wouldn’t hold up to occasional loads this heavy.

The hipbelt snugged up tightly with good weight transfer to the hips. The wide hipbelt provided good support and comfort. Shoulder straps were padded enough, but not too much, and the load lifters kept the weight off the trapezius muscles.

ULA Epic Pack Review - 4
The quad buckle design allows for a complete wrap of the hips, and the reverse pull tensioning provides maximum leverage.

The aluminum stays are removable, but there’s little reason to remove them other than to bend for a custom fit. This isn’t a pack I would choose for a 15- to 20-pound load, and for anything above 20 pounds, the stays provide a lot of support.

The workmanship was excellent on the Epic and the design changes were positive. One problem I ran into with the Arctic Ultra was in the shoulder strap attaching to the dry bag rather than the hipbelt. This was done to achieve a more dynamic suspension for navigating rough terrain, but I found that with a full dry bag, I had little or no shoulder strap adjustment. I actually made extensions for my Arctic Ultra shoulder straps. The Epic straps are sewn directly to the hipbelt, have plenty of length, and I encountered no problems. Another advantage of the new design is the ability to secure awkward loads without using a dry bag. I often use a shelter that is heated with a wood stove and the Epic allows gathering firewood more easily than the Arctic Ultra did.

ULA Epic Pack Review - 5
The Epic has the shoulder harness directly attached to the hipbelt providing plenty of adjustment.

The spacious twin hipbelt pockets easily held a camera, snacks and other essentials. The bungees on the shoulder straps worked well to secure a can of bear spray or a smaller water bottle. When I tried a 28-ounce bottle, the bungees needed to be pulled to the max or else they would let go.

Recommendations for Improvement

Other than adding a haul loop on the top of the pack and relocating the daisy chain to the back panel from the back of the compression panel, I saw little need for change. This is an improved version of a proven design.

Ex-Officio Give-N-Go Briefs Review

Most of us (males) want to wear something under our trousers, but what? Ordinary cotton underpants have several disadvantages: the waist band often conflicts with the hip-belt on the pack, and when they get wet they can take a very long time to dry. The Ex-Officio Give-N-Go Briefs largely solve those two problems.

Technical Details

Ex-Officio Give-N-Go Briefs Review - 1
Ex-Officio Give-N-Go Briefs.

I should start by explaining that the photo here is a stock photo from Ex-Officio. My arms are not that hairy. OK.

Ex-Officio make two similar models of briefs: the Briefs shown here and some Sport Briefs. The latter are shorter in the waist, but otherwise identical as far as I can see. I will focus on the Briefs because I find them much better for walking.

Incidentally, Ex-Officio actually call them "Brief," in the singular. This is the same as talking about "trouser" – I can see the logic, but I can’t do it.

The company claims that the fabric "air-dries within hours" and is "extremely breathable, moisture-wicking, odor resistant finish." I can confirm the fast drying bit. I would say ‘fairly breathable’ as they do get just a little sweaty during a hot Sydney summer day of 35 C and 80% RH – but so does the rest of me. I can neither confirm nor deny the ‘odor-resistant’ bit.

Frankly, the fabric alone is not enough to justify them. But look at the photo here of a range of (Australian) underpants. On the right you can see the Ex-Officio ones compared to two other sorts. There is a big difference in the bulk of the waistbands. On the left we have some (Australian) underpants with similar flat waist bands – but look at how the elastic has curled up during use. The Ex-Officio waist band does not curl up.

Ex-Officio Give-N-Go Briefs Review - 2
Comparing waistbands.

The third feature I like is the design. The Briefs are taller in the waist region than many other (Australian) underpants. But the other ones seem to fight many hipbelts, getting either pushed down (most often) or pulled up. Neither is satisfactory. The waist region of the Ex-Officio Briefs is flat enough that they seem to stay nicely in position on my waist despite the movement of the hipbelt.

Field Testing

Ex-Officio Give-N-Go Briefs Review - 3
Drying socks on the pack.

These Ex-Officio Briefs have been my choice for a three-month long walk through France in 2007 and a two-month long high-altitude walk through Switzerland in 2009. They have also been used for pretty well all my other walks in Australia in that time – walks typically under seven days, but up to nine or ten days occasionally.

In Australia I usually don’t bother with a spare pair, so maybe the odor-resistant bit has some truth to it. But in Europe we often wash our socks and underwear every few days – depending on opportunity. Sometimes it took a couple of days for our wool socks to dry properly, but the Ex-Officio Briefs seemed to dry within a few hours in the sun – strung across our packs.

I should add that the pair of Briefs I took to France in 2007 also went to Switzerland in 2009 and are still in current use. To say ‘long-life’ seems appropriate.

Specifications

Manufacturer Ex-Officio
Web Site www.exofficio.com
Model Give-N-Go Briefs
Main Material Body Fabric: 94% Nylon/6% Spandex
Waist band Elastic webbing 32 mm (1.25") wide
Colours Black, white, green, blue, charcoal
Sizes S to XXL
Weight (measured) Medium: ~60 g (2.1 oz)
MSRP US$18

What’s Good

  • Comfortable
  • Quick drying
  • Long life
  • Stay up

What’s Not So Good

  • Nothing really comes to mind

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.

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review

The Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 has the lowest trail weight of all the company’s two-person double-wall tents at 3.44 pounds (1.56 kg). An interesting pole design adds room to make it more livable inside. Will the Vapor Light be one we want to share, or will it turn out to be Vapor Ware?

Introduction

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 1

The Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 has the lowest trail weight of all the company’s two-person double-wall tents at 3.44 pounds (1.56 kg). An interesting pole design adds room to make it more livable inside. Will the Vapor Light be one we want to share, or will it turn out to be Vapor Ware?

Design and Features

The Sierra Designs Vapor Light is a single-door, front entry tent that uses a hubbed pole system, ala the Big Agnes Seedhouse tents which I have years of experience with. But the Vapor Light adds something to the recipe with its trademarked Spider Hub. This Spider Hub, which is at the front of the tent, has a couple of short poles angling back towards the center of the tent. The ends of these poles clip to the inner tent body, holding the sides out to create steeper sides and more room inside.

Like many tents these days Sierra Designs has opted to use the DAC Jake’s Foot anchoring system with the Vapor Light. The poles snap into the Feet at each corner of the tent. Then the body clips to the poles with five pole-clips and a single H-clip under the Spider Hub. One thing I discovered while using the Vapor Light is that the optional footprint is easiest to clip to the Jake’s Feet before placing the tent on my desired spot, as the ends of the footprint have to be snapped on the bottoms of the Feet. This is the first time I have used a footprint with a Jake’s Foot tent.

The rain fly sits on top of the poles and hooks to the Jake’s Feet. Straps at the ends allow the fly to be tensioned after set-up. Hook-and-loop tabs inside the fly attach to the poles at the guy-points to add strength.

Two stakes are used to pull the vestibule out. The vestibule has a good sized door which makes entering and exiting a breeze, rather than an exercise in contortion.

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 2
Top: The 3.4-lb (1.54-kg) Vapor Light proved stable in gusty winds in the Angeles National Forest. Bottom: The mesh walls of the Vapor Light are held out by the Spider Hub poles, which angle back. This gives it more room than tents with a similar style. Two standard width pads almost fit, just overlapping a bit in the very back.

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 3
Top Left: The DAC J stakes work quite well. Here, one holds down a Jake’s Foot anchor system. The pole snaps into the Foot and the fly strap clips onto the Foot. Top Right: A nice sized storage pocket is found on each side of the tent to keep things neat and close to hand. Bottom: When using a footprint with the Jakes Foot, it is easiest to clip it to the tent body before placing the tent.

There are no vents on the Vapor Light’s rain fly. Pullouts on the side allow quite a bit of ventilation, and the top of the vestibule door can be opened to create draw. But it needs to be closed in rain, as it does not leave the inside protected.

Sierra Designs sends just enough stakes to hold the four corners and the vestibule. While it does send two guy-lines that can be used, you must bring a couple more stakes of your own…

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 4
Top Left: All the pieces of the Vapor Light, including a pole storage sack that is twice as long as the poles are. Top Right: Even with the poles inside there is a lot of extra room in the stuff sack. Carrying the 17-in (43-cm) poles separately lets it be compressed quite a bit.

Performance

I used the Vapor Trail four nights in California and one in Minnesota. I had beautiful weather for all the trips, which is unfortunate as I like to get them in a storm or two. I did get to have it in some strong winds in both the Angeles National Forest and in the San Gorgonio Wilderness where I was set up on eight to ten feet (3 m) of snow at 9,230 feet (2,813 m) elevation.

The trip in the snow was close to being a disaster due to me not reading the information from Sierra Designs well enough. The rep had asked me if I would like a footprint. Knowing that the upcoming climb was supposed to be clear of storms I said “Sure, I will set up with just the footprint and fly in the snow.” I like to set up this way when there are no bugs to bother me. The night before the trip, I decided to take the as yet unpacked footprint out of its stuff sack. Thank goodness I did! This is when I noticed that the footprint clips to the Jake’s Foot that is attached to the tent. I almost went up the mountain with a fly, footprint and poles, none of which could attach to each other. I will not bother with footprints for any other Jake’s Foot equipped tents.

With all the parts of the tent along, the Vapor Light was great at our base camp at High Creek. It only got down to 23 F (-5 C), but the wind blew pretty well during the night and again as the sun came up. I did not have a bit of condensation build up in the tent.

I asked my brother to meet me on a trip to Sawmill Campground, in order to test the tent with two people. He did not respond in time, so I went alone. The afternoon and evening were very windy, and I had to add a guy-line to the side of the Vapor Light that the wind was clobbering. As I only had the six stakes that Sierra Designs provided, I made do with a stick I pounded into the ground with a rock. After the sun went down, clouds moved in, completely blanketing the campground with fog at 5,200 feet (1,585 m). It stayed foggy until I drove out of it the next day. I was reading 91% humidity during the early morning hours, but with the top of the vestibule door opened and the wind, I again stayed completely dry inside.

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 5
Top: The Vapor Light at our High Creek base camp on a trip to climb Mount San Gorgonio. Bottom Left: I had plenty of room for my over-size custom Kooka Bay down pad. Bottom Right: I thought I was going to get to sleep without the fly here, but high winds and clouds moving in forced me cover up.

A last trip to Lake Morena County Park for the Annual Day Zero PCT Kick Off saw me set up near the lake the day after a rain, sleet, and hail storm. While the day was gorgeous, the humidity that night was horrendous. I had to leave the Kickoff early Saturday morning to meet my brother-in-law for a hike further north on the PCT. At 4:00 AM, a fog hung over the lake and all the campers, and the Vapor Light was completely soaked inside and out. As even my backpack, which was sitting in the vestibule, was coated with moisture, I can’t fault the venting system of the Vapor Light. I heard later that the single-wall tent users got creamed. Thank you, double-wall! The wet night was worth it to be able to meet so many of our BPL members. Hi, guys. (Of course most won’t read this until after they finish their 2,650-mile goal.)

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 6
Camping next to Lake Morena at the 2010 PCT Kickoff. While here, the Vapor Trail encountered massive condensation.

Assessment

The Vapor Light is a solid performer. I found that the Spider Hub pole design works as advertised. It does add room inside making it more comfortable to sit up and maneuver in the tent. The floor space is a bit cramped for two sleepers though, and the single front door would make it difficult for one person to exit in the night without disturbing the other person.

I feel that the Vapor Light would really benefit from a top vent on the fly as the vestibule cannot be used for this purpose in rain or snow. The other – weightier – option would to extend the vestibule so that when opened at the top, the inner tent is still protected from falling precip.

Dare to Compare

Other single-door, front entry tents that compare to the Vapor Light are the Fly Creek SL2, Seedhouse 2 and Seedhouse SL2 from Big Agnes, and the Nemo Espri 2. While the Vapor Light’s pole design makes it roomier than all the Big Agnes tents, the Espri 2 is roomier yet. The Espri has the best ventilation of them too. The Vapor Light weighs less than the Seedhouse and Espri, but is heavier than the Seedhouse SL2 and much heavier than the Fly Creek SL2. For durability, it looks to me that the Vapor Light and Espri are tied as they have pretty robust material and are made for wet weather (at least, more so than the others).

What’s Good

  • Spider Hub pole design adds noticeable roominess
  • Minimal clips make for fast set-up
  • Handles wind better than most of this style

What’s Not So Good

  • A bit cramped for two people
  • Inner tent not protected from rain when vestibule door is open at top
  • Can’t be set up in fly only mode

Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2 Tent Review - 7
The Vapor Light at Sawmill Campground in the Angeles National Forest.

Specifications

Year/Manufacturer/Model 2010 Sierra Designs Vapor Light 2, Two Person Tent
Style Three-season, two-person, double-wall tent.
Fabrics Body: 20d nylon mesh
Floor: 3000mm 70d nylon polyurethane coated
Fly:
1500mm 40d HT nylon
Poles and Stakes Poles: 8.5 mm DAC Featherlite NSL poles, total weight 13.4 oz (380 g)
Stakes:
6x 6.25 in (15.9 cm) DAC aluminum J stakes, total weight 2.4 oz (68 g)
Dimensions Length Listed: 83 in (211 cm)
Width Listed:
39/49 in (99/124 cm)
Inside Height Listed:
38 in (97 cm)
BPL Verified Accurate
Packed Size 6 x 18 in (15 x 46 cm)
Total Weight Listed Weight: 3.93 lb (1.78 kg)
BPL Measured Weight:
3.74 lb (1.70 kg)
BPL Trail Weight 3.44 lb (1.56 kg)
Protected Area Floor Area: 25.5 ft2 (2.37 m2)
Vestibule Area:
8 ft2 (0.74m2)
Protected Area/Trail Weight Ratio 9.74 ft2/lb (2 m2/kg)
MSRP US $299.95
Options Footprint
Website www.sierradesigns.com

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

SteriPEN Opti Review

The SteriPEN UV wands have been through several generations of development, reaching a very satisfactory state with this SteriPEN Opti unit.

SteriPEN Opti Review - 1
The SteriPEN Adventurer Opti.

There are many ways used to ensure water is safe to drink. The principle ones are boiling, chemical treatment, filtration and UV irradiation. Boiling uses lots of fuel and gives you very hot water; chemicals usually leave a nasty taste and can takes ages to work, while not managing to hit all protozoa; filtration is faster but quite heavy, and (with one expensive exception) is not able to deal with viruses. UV treatment manages to deal with all biological nasties, uses no chemicals, and is fast. The SteriPEN UV wands have been through several generations of development, reaching a very satisfactory state with this SteriPEN Opti unit.

Technical Details

It would seem from comparing the outside of the SteriPEN Opti and the SteriPEN Adventurer that much of the Opti is the same. So It may be worth while reading our in depth Review of the Adventurer first. Here we will focus mainly on the changes (hopefully improvements) brought to us with the Opti.

To use the Opti all you have to do is uncap the UV lamp, press the button (once for 1 L, twice for 0.5 L), wait until the white LED starts to flash, then insert the lamp end into the water. This is illustrated in the second photo, where I tried, fairly unsuccessfully, to capture the illumination of the white LED. Stir gently for 90 seconds (for 1 L) until the UV lamp goes out and the white LED stops flashing, and you are done. In point of fact, this is also how you use the Adventurer, so one might ask where are the upgrades? Well, there are several.

First of all, many of the older Adventurer units had a rather high ‘off-state’ current drain, of about 600 micro-amps. This meant that storing the unit with the batteries in place for a few weeks could make a bit of a dent in the battery capacity. It was not unknown for people to go to use their Adventurer during a trip only to find that the batteries were flat. It turns out (according to Hydro-Photon, the makers), that the ‘off-state’ current drain was never meant to be anywhere near that high: it should have been only a tenth of that.

Smart users took to removing the batteries from the Adventurer while it was not in use, and only inserting them briefly when they needed to treat water. Well, that worked, but it was a bit of a hassle putting the batteries in and taking them out. Compounding that hassle was the flat thumbscrew used to hold the battery lid in place: it was quite awkward to remove. The hassles caused by the flat thumbscrew even led to an MYOG Thumbscrew article being published!

SteriPEN Opti Review - 2
SteriPEN Adventurer Opti in use.

The circuitry inside the Opti has been upgraded to have an ‘off-state’ current drain of only about 60 micro-amps. This is low enough that you can afford to put the batteries in at the start of a trip and leave them there for the duration. Believe me, this simple change makes the Opti so much easier to use in the field! In addition, the old black protective cap over the UV lamp was always hard to remove. I went so far as to slightly machine the detents on the black cap to make it easier to remove. Well, the clear plastic cap on the Opti has modified detents, such that it is now much easier to remove the cap. It does not fall off by any means, but it does come off smoothly.

The third obvious difference is in the mandatory water sensing system. When using a UV system like this there must be a safety circuit to turn the UV lamp off if it is removed from the water – otherwise all sorts of damage could be done to your eyes for instance. The older Adventurer uses a conductivity sensor with little metal plates on either side of the housing near the lamp. There have been reports of people having problems with the sensor, although I have never experienced any myself. Well, the conductivity sensor has been replaced in the Opti by an optical sensor: a flashing white LED. When the LED is immersed in water, the back-scatter of light is altered and this change is detected internally. The system works very smoothly.

On a minor technical point: the Opti comes with a small plastic battery isolating strip under the battery lid. This actually fits rather neatly into the lid. I preserved this when I took it out, so I could re-use it after the trip. It is very convenient as it means I can store the batteries in the unit.

It may be worth noting that the UV treatment works just the same no matter what the temperature of the water – unlike the huge slow-down you get with chemicals. It does help to keep the batteries above freezing, but this is not hard. Once in use the batteries do get warm.

You will find that the marketing literature mentions that if you press the on-switch for a few seconds the white LED will act as a small torch. True, but not high on my list of essential features. I gather that there was a little spare room in the ROM space of the microprocessor – so they added a feature…

Field Testing

I have used the SteriPEN Adventurer for a number of years, including a two-month trip through Switzerland in 2009, not to mention many shorter trips in Australia. I have been quite happy with the performance, although the battery business was always a slight hassle.

SteriPEN Opti Review - 3
Camp on soft grass under snow gums.

I took the Opti on a nine-day high speed trip across the Australian Alps in March 2010, just a few days after I received it. The difference in ease of use was remarkable! In comparison with the Adventurer, the Opti was a dream to use. I would pour a bottle of water into my cooking pot, whip the Opti out of its (MYOG silnylon) carry bag, flip the cap off, push the button, insert into water and stir. It was just so easy.

The supplied set of two primary batteries (ie not rechargeable) lasted the nine days very easily. I would have treated a bottle or two of water most nights. (The rest of our water got boiled as part of our cooking.) The batteries are not dead yet by any means – they should last for quite a few more trips. The company suggests that a set of good-quality CR123 batteries could handle up to 50 L, so that is consistent.

Specifications

Manufacturer Hydro-photon, USA
Web Site www.steripen.com
Model Opti or Adventurer Opti
Size 160 x 40 x 23 mm (6.2 x 1.5 x 0.9 in)
Weight (quoted) 103 g (3.6 oz) with supplied batteries
Weight (measured) 101 g (3.6 oz) with supplied batteries
MSRP Not quoted, but about US$100 in some large stores

What’s Good

  • Effective against all bugs (independent test lab results)
  • Lightweight (well, compared to a filter)
  • Very easy to use
  • Immediate results
  • No chemicals, no taste

What’s Not So Good

  • Battery consumption is significant
  • No effect on industrial/agricultural chemicals

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.

Patagonia Down Sweater Review

This popular jacket has been around and evolved over the years. We love the sizing and fit, but how does it stack up for backpacking?

Introduction

This separate review provides additional descriptive and performance information on the Patagonia Down Sweater. Read our article Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010 for a state-of-the-market analysis and comparative specifications and performance for a range of ultralight down jackets.

Patagonia Down Sweater Review - 1
Patagonia Down Sweater women’s version (left) and men’s version (right).

The popular Patagonia Down Sweater has been around for awhile and has evolved somewhat over the years. When Backpacking Light reviewed the Patagonia Down Sweater in 2005 it was insulated with 700 fill power down, giving it 0.9 inch (2.3 cm) of single-layer loft, the shell was 1.3 oz/yd2 (44 g/m2) 20 denier triple ripstop polyester shell with DWR, and the only features were a full-height front zipper, a single zippered chest pocket, drawcord hem, and elastic cuffs. It weighed 11.1 oz/315 g for men’s size Large and the MSRP was $165.

Since the Patagonia Down Sweater is one of the early ones on the market, it is interesting to compare the present version with the old one, and also look at it in comparison with the numerous lightweight three-season down jackets on the market today.

Description

Patagonia has put a lot of emphasis on recycled content in their garments, so the current Down Sweater’s shell and lining are 22d 1.4 oz/yd2 (47.5 g/m2) ripstop 100% recycled polyester with DWR, which is slightly heavier than older versions. The fabrics have a very soft hand and are wind and water resistant.

The jacket is insulated with 3 ounces (85 g) of 800 fill power down, giving it a measured single-layer loft of 0.7 inch (1.9 cm), which is low.

Patagonia Down Sweater Review - 2
Front and rear views of the Patagonia Down Sweater, women’s version.

Patagonia Down Sweater Review - 3
There are three pockets on the Patagonia Down Sweater, two zippered hand pockets (left) and an inside zippered stretch mesh pocket (right) that also serves as a stuff bag for the jacket.

Patagonia Down Sweater Review - 4
In fall 2010 Patagonia will be releasing a limited edition of the Patagonia Down Sweater that features 900 fill power down (3 ounces/85 g) and a 0.8 oz/yd2 (27 g/m2) mini-ripstop nylon shell with DWR (half the weight of the shell in the standard jacket). Otherwise the design and features of the jacket are the same as the standard Down Sweater. The special edition will be available for a short time until they are sold out.

Performance

I found the Down Sweater’s fit very much to my liking, as shown in the photos. Many outdoor jackets are designed for more slender people and are too tight in the hips for other women like me. The Patagonia Down Sweater is sized to fit a “wider” range of people (pun intended).

Patagonia Down Sweater Review - 5
I wore the Patagonia Down Sweater on numerous snowshoeing and backcountry skiing day trips and one hut trip where we skied nine miles (14.5 km) to a mountain cabin and then skied around the area (in snowy weather) for several days.

The features on the Down Sweater are fairly standard (see the list below in the specifications table). I never use a hem drawcord – the jacket fits snugly around my hips without it – so I can do without that feature. The jacket has a large zippered stretch mesh pocket on the inside, which the jacket will stuff into. It’s handy, but the opening is small, which makes it more difficult to put things in and take them out. I would prefer to have a pair of drop pockets on the inside.

In my field testing, I found the jacket to be only moderately warm. That agrees with results from our jacket warmth testing we did for the state-of-the-market article cited at the beginning of this article. The Patagonia Down Sweater contains only 3 ounces (85 g) of down, which is low.

Patagonia Down Sweater Review - 6
I wore the jacket while backcountry skiing on snowy days and found it to be very water and wind-resistant. I followed up my field observations with a one-hour indoor “puddle test” on both the standard and special edition Down Sweater. The standard jacket did not leak through, but the shell fabric did absorb some moisture. However, about one-third of the water penetrated the seams of the special edition jacket and collected on a tray I put inside the jacket.

Comparisons

Our article Ultralight Three-Season Down Jackets State of the Market Report 2010 provides complete specifications and ratings for the Patagonia Down Sweater in comparison to a range of other lightweight down jackets. The jackets most similar to this one are the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Downlight Sweater, Marmot Venus Jacket, Isis Slipstream Jacket, and GoLite Demaree Canyon Jacket and Anorak.

Assessment

Although the Patagonia Down Sweater has been around a long time and is very popular, its shell, warmth, features, and value are only average or less compared to similar jackets. Its best attributes are its sizing and fit. This is not a jacket I would take backpacking because it doesn’t have a lot of warmth for its weight. It is a nice jacket for day outings and trips to town in cool weather.

The limited edition Down Sweater is a different story. It’s a puffier jacket with more loft, has a very thin shell fabric, and weighs just 9.3 ounces (264 g) in size Medium. It’s lofty, warm, and very light, and definitely well suited for backpacking. It’s the Down Sweater we would really like to see from Patagonia.

Specifications and Features – Patagonia Down Sweater

Manufacturer Patagonia (http://www.patagonia.com/)
Year/Model 2010 Down Sweater
Style Hoodless insulated jacket with full height front zipper
Fabrics Shell and lining are 22d 1.4 oz/yd2 (47.5 g/m2) ripstop 100% recycled polyester with DWR
Insulation 800 fill power down, 3 oz (85 g)
Construction Sewn through with 1.9-in (4.8-cm) horizontal quilting, set-in sleeves
Loft Measured two-layer loft is 1.4 in (3.6 cm), single-layer loft is 0.7 in (1.8 cm)
Features Down-filled stand up collar, full height #45C YKK zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, two zippered side pockets (not fleece lined), elastic cuffs, inside zippered stretch mesh pocket (doubles as jacket stuff sack), chin guard, drawcord hem with one adjustor
Weight Size women’s Medium tested
Measured Weight: 10.8 oz (306 g)
Manufacturer Specified Average Weight: 11.3 oz (320 g)
MSRP US$200

Specifications and Features – Patagonia Special Edition Down Sweater

Manufacturer Patagonia (http://www.patagonia.com/)
Year/Model Fall 2010 Special Edition Down Sweater
Style Hoodless insulated jacket with full height front zipper
Fabrics Shell and lining are 0.8 oz/yd2 (27 g/m2) mini-ripstop nylon with DWR
Insulation 900 fill power down, 3 oz (85 g)
Construction Sewn through with 1.9-in (4.8-cm) horizontal quilting, set-in sleeves
Loft Measured two-layer loft is 1.8 in (4.6 cm), single-layer loft is 0.9 in (2.3 cm)
Features Down-filled stand up collar, full height #45C YKK zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, two zippered side pockets (not fleece lined), elastic cuffs, inside zippered stretch mesh pocket (doubles as jacket stuff sack), chin guard on men’s version, drawcord hem with one adjustor
Weight Size men’s Medium tested
Measured Weight: 9.3 oz (264 g)
Manufacturer Specified Average Weight: 9.5 oz (269 g)
MSRP US$275

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.

Crux AK47 and Crux AK57 Packs (UK)

Mini-review for the 2010 State of the Market Report on Internal Frame Backpacks.

These two packs were designed by Carol McDermott, a New Zealand climber now in Europe, and must be seen as alpine climbing packs for Europe, not as mainstream American walking packs. This has greatly influenced their design: they are made of some extremely tough fabric and are almost entirely lacking in all the frills normally found on American packs. Why? Because they have to take being hauled up cliff faces on the end of a rope. The weather in Europe (and especially the UK) is never as reliable as in America either – unless you count a very high probability of wet weather as being ‘reliable.’ So in addition to being made of tough waterproof fabric, the majority of the seams and fittings on the back of the packs are welded and sometimes taped, not sewn.

The harness consists of an 8.0-mm diameter 7001-T6 aluminium alloy U-shaped rod, the same as is used on the Lightwave packs (Lightwave is a sister company), plus a very firm foam back. The hip belt is simple, with 50-mm (2-in) webbing and buckles. Even the draw cords on the light waterproof nylon throat are climbing-oriented: they are 4-mm Rivory-Joanny accessory cord and can be used in an emergency as abseil slings. Despite all this strength – or perhaps because of it – Crux do not quote a recommended load for these packs. I guess if a climber can get the gear in, he’ll carry it?

The clean exterior means no mesh pockets on the sides or the back and no bulging back pocket. The outer surface is essentially a smooth tube of almost indestructible Kevlar/Cordura fabric, the lid is of the same fabric, and the base is a double layer. Anchor points are reinforced with bonded patches (for sliding over the rock). The insides of the attachment points are all waterproofed. There are ‘side pockets,’ but they are low-cut and designed to take tent poles and glacier wands. They are not big enough to actually hold gear. The website claims the side pockets are ‘stretch,’ but the only stretch is the elastic binding along the top edges. They do have grommetted drain holes. The throat is light, waterproof nylon, but is hidden under the lid and not exposed. I know some American packs boast about their strong fabric, but this combination is in a class of its own.

Internally the frame consists an 8.0-mm diameter 7001-T6 aluminium alloy U-shaped rod frame. It looks like Easton tent pole material, but lacks the brand and is a bit more bendable. Getting it out is a bit of a wrestle, but quite doable. You don’t need to get it out to alter the tilt at the base though. The back has a good slab of Lycra-covered moulded foam, but no sheet of hard plastic. The lack of a plastic sheet does not seem to be a problem, however: the foam is quite solid. The shoulder straps are not wide, but seem quite adequate with well-padded edges. The hip belt has wiggles in it to try to conform to waist lines and is only 70 mm (2.75 in) wide. The webbing and buckle are 50 mm (2 in) wide.

There is a bladder sleeve inside the main bag. The lid has fully-taped seams and a pocket with a solid waterproof zip – but then, it does rain in the UK. There is a key hook inside the pocket and a not-hugely-obvious zipped security pocket on the underside of the lid. The lid is removable and can be raised up above the nylon throat on its straps should you wish to tuck a tent or a rope under it. There are two ice axe attachments on the back of each pack.

The measured values for weight and volume for both the AK47 and the AK57 came out very close to specification – close enough to make no difference.

These are not packs for the casual walker of easy trails: they just wouldn’t make sense. But for anyone looking for a serious alpine pack, or a pack for some very serious arguments with sabre-toothed jungle, these are very good. You might need to pay more attention to picking the appropriate torso length than you would otherwise expect, of course, and it would be best to try one on and check the length before you buy. We have included them in this survey because they meet the selection criteria, and it is always interesting to see the opposite end of the spectrum from the silnylon creations.

Crux AK47 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
AK47 Above average Very rugged alpine pack

We found this pack to be very small in torso length, which caused us a bit of a problem until we understood what was going on, and our trouble was compounded by the selection of a Size 1 version – essentially a Small. The torso length is short compared to most other packs because it is designed to have the hip belt up around your waist, leaving room for a full climbing harness around your hips below the pack. Once you adapt to this, it all makes sense. However, a size #1 is probably a bit small for most people, except for serious climbing.

Crux AK47 and Crux AK57 Packs (UK) - 1
Crux AK47, 1.17 kg (2.58 lb), 45 L (2800 cuin), #1, #2, #3

The hip belt seemed quite adequate – except that it did not really sit down on Sue’s waist very well, and was marginal on mine. The attachment points for the load lifters seemed a bit close to the pack as well. Both of these problems are entirely due to the size of the pack, as described above. When used as a climbing pack (ie with a harness below the pack) it started to work much better, although I would still prefer a size #2 if I needed to carry a lot of gear. However, it may be noted that I was able to get the full load of Test Gear into the pack, despite the apparently small size.

Both packs include two ice axe attachments. The top straps for these are partially covered by the lid straps when not in use, but I don’t think this matters in practice. What is nice is that the bottom loops are well clear of the bottom of the pack, so the ice axe head does not dig holes in a wooden floor when you put the pack down.

Crux AK57 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
AK57 Above average Very rugged alpine pack

This is the big brother to the AK47 – and we tested a size #2 rather than a size #1 just to be sure. With the larger size, the torso length was fine, and the hip belt sat on my hips and Sue’s hips rather better. The load lifters also worked much better. Quite definitely all this was a result of getting the right torso length. The bag swallowed the Test Gear quite easily too, even though the measured volume was not that great. I think the shape of the bag was better able to handle the lumps. There was nothing put in the lid pocket, although there is quite a bit of room available there – about 3 litres, in fact.

Crux AK47 and Crux AK57 Packs (UK) - 2
Crux AK57, 1.30 kg (2.87 lb), 52 (3200 cuin), #2, #3

This larger unit has an extra feature over the AK47. There are what look like extremely tough ‘panic handles’ at the bottom on each side. You can see them in the right hand photo, especially the one on the right hand side of the pack. No, they are not really for panic :-), they are for holding skis. You drop the ski into this loop and use the top of the compression strap on the side of the pack to hold the top end of the ski. This is easy to do because the top end of the strap is attached with a side-release buckle (just visible in the other two photos). The loops are tough because skis do often have metal bits and edges which can rub, although I doubt skis could do much damage to this pack fabric. The loops are not shown in the company photo at the left: I suspect they may be a recent addition to the design.

The middle photos for both packs show the haulage loop. This is wide – wide enough that one person holding the pack can easily pass it up to a second person to grab. Function drives design.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
  • Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
  • Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
  • Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Elemental Horizons Northern Lite Pack

Mini-review for the 2010 State of the Market Report on Internal Frame Backpacks.

This is a small start-up ‘cottage industry’ company. They supplied one pack, almost custom made, as they were not yet into full production mode. They sought comment on this pack and also sought our assessment on a second frameless pack not listed here. The owner of the company was willing to listen and act on preliminary feedback, which is always encouraging.

Elemental Horizons Northern Lite Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Northern Lite Average Light, but still in development

The sample pack received was made using the optional silicone coated 1.9-oz fabric; stock packs are normally made with urethane-coated 1.9-oz fabric. (The 1.9-oz silnylon is heavier than the common 1.1-oz silnylon used on tarps and tents.) The design as reviewed features a roll-top rather than a lid, but a lid may become an option later. The hip belt features small pockets. The frame consists of a narrow U-shaped aluminium rod sewn to a fairly stiff but thin layer of closed cell foam. The slightly startling feature is the back mesh pocket: unlike on most packs this one is huge! The photos here suggest this fairly well, and a more graphic photo of it was shown under Pack Volume measurements in Part 1. The side pockets are also pretty big and have bungee cord across the top.

Elemental Horizons Northern Lite Pack - 1
The Northern Lite, 1.23 kg (2.72 lb), 52 L (3100 cuin), Small, Medium, Large.

The pack is quoted as holding 58 L and was measured at 52 L for the main bag, but the main bag swallowed up the Test Gear without any trouble at all. In fact, the roll-top was left a bit below the top of the frame, as can be seen from the photos here. As mentioned in Part 1A, it may well be that I could have squeezed the full 58 L in if I had tried, so a fair bit of uncompressed gear could go in this one. In fact, it is possible to fill this pack so the top of the roll-top towers above your head. I suggest this might be unwise if you are on tricky ground, but it should be OK on easy trails. However, if you choose to do this, be aware that the fabric is quite light: you don’t want to shred the pack from overload.

The bottom of the pack is sensibly square, so that if it is packed reasonably it can stand upright. There are some criss-crossed compressions straps which can be used to cinch the whole main bag in if the load is small (or to help the silnylon cope?). I suggest it may be best to lie the pack down on the harness face when tightening the compression straps. The prototype unit tested had a single strap and buckle covering both the back pocket and roll top. I think there should be two straps here – or at least two buckles – and told the owner of the company this. This change may happen on the production version.

The shoulder straps worked fine, but I did have some trouble with the tips of the straps. They are rather solid on the unit sent to me and poked me in the ribs, but on reporting this to the manufacturer was assured he would correct the problem. The haulage loop at the top was sewn in place with the ends very close: this was quite uncomfortable when picking up a full load. The owner assured me he would fix this as well. Clearly, some details of the design were still evolving when the sample pack was sent to me, and you should check on the status of these changes before buying. It may be that in the early stages of production, you could specify some of these details.

The hip belt was wide enough and long enough to suit me, but not too big. It fitted around my hips quite well. Note that in addition to having three torso sizes for the pack, there are three hip belt sizes available. Yes, you can mix and match. There are big zipped mesh hip belt pockets, but being mesh, they are not waterproof of course. I am not sure what I could safely put in them. There was some mismatch in the webbing: the hip belt webbing was generous; the shoulder strap webbing was very long, but the sternum strap was almost too short for little me. (The short sternum strap was a recurrent theme with many packs.) Check this with the owner of the company too.

The target market for this pack has to be the more experienced lightweight long-distance walker. The fabric is unlikely to cope with a novice or school kid.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
  • Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
  • Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
  • Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Lightwave UltraHike 60, Lightwave Fastpack 50, and Lightwave Wildtrek 55w Packs (UK)

Mini-review for the 2010 State of the Market Report on Internal Frame Backpacks.

We tested three Lightwave packs from the UK, and while the three clearly come from the same stable, they have some noticeable differences from American packs. The biggest difference is a reflection of the weather in the UK hills – sometimes raining, other times worse. These packs feature very serious waterproofing: waterproof fabric, taped or welded seams and waterproof zips. Where there seems to be a hole in the fabric (eg for an ice axe attachments point) you find that the inside of the hole is fully taped over. The attachment points for webbing are sealed on the inside, and the logos are done by bonding extra fabric onto the fabric of the bag, rather than by embroidery through the fabric. The exception to this extreme proofing are the seams down the corners of the harness face – perhaps their experience is that these seams don’t get as much water on them. These seams are sewn with tape over the selvage.

The fabric on all three packs is the same: 420 denier Dynatech fabric on the back panel and structural areas, 300 denier micro-ripstop polyester on the main front areas, and 40 denier ripstop nylon for internal fabrics. Never mind the fancy names – it’s good fabric. ‘Airmesh’ is used “on all body contact areas,” which means the foam is covered with something like a light Lycra. It tends to grip nicely on clothing. The pockets are a light stretch Lycra, but with solid elasticated edge bindings.

The harness system on all three packs is similar to that on the Crux packs: an aluminium tube bent into a sort of U-shape (or M-shape) on the inside and a solid slab of foam down the back. None of the packs have hard plastic sheets across the back, but this did not seem to be a problem for any of them. The shoulder straps were quite curved, but the sternum strap is meant to help hold that curve. That generally worked OK. The straps were suitably padded on the face and at the edges. The hip belts were novel and will be discussed separately under each pack.

All three Lightwave packs took the Test Gear quite well, with a little room to spare. You will notice that our volume measurements were all quite close to the manufacturer-claimed volumes. Perhaps this is just as well, as the packs do not have a lot of overflow capacity in the form of external pockets. But, it is nice to see the honest match on volumes.

The packs do have provision for hydration bladders. You can see the exit port for the hose between the shoulder straps: a sort of oval black rubber grommet. The red haulage loop obscures it in two of the photos. Hopefully it will help keep rain out.

One target market for these packs would be walkers who have to deal with a lot of bad weather – those welded seams are waterproof (that figures of course, coming from the UK!). They are a bit expensive for novices and school kids, but I think all the rest of the market would find these quite suitable.

Lightwave UltraHike 60 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
UltraHike 60 Recommended For those needing waterproof

This pack has a hip belt very different from other brands. For a start, the hip belt is effectively split, as shown in the middle photo. In addition some control of the angle of tilt of the hip belt is possible, with top and bottom adjustment straps which work separately. Finally the hip belt is reinforced with a backing of flexible sheet plastic. The end result works very well, even if it is a shade complex.

Lightwave UltraHike 60, Lightwave Fastpack 50, and Lightwave Wildtrek 55w Packs (UK) - 1
Lightwave UltraHike 60, 1.20 kg (2.65 lb), 55 L (3400 cuin), m2 & M3. *I think m2 and M3 mean Men’s Medium and Men’s Large.

The main bag itself is clean, like its alpine cousin the Crux. There are fittings for two ice axes and short stretch pockets at the sides for tent poles and glacier wands. You wouldn’t try to actually store any other sort of gear in these pockets. The throat is silnylon but a little short. Curiously the top draw cord runs in a huge tunnel, far wider than I think is needed. There is a deep narrow bladder sleeve inside the pack which could serve as a sort of security pocket – there are no other security pockets on the pack unfortunately. The lid straps start low down on the back, so the lid can adjust over a wide range. The lid itself is not huge, but it does have elasticated sides which make it adapt to whatever (within limits) is under it.

There are some stretch side pockets. They aren’t high, but they would take a wet poncho or similar quite happily. They have elasticated top edges so small items should not fall out easily. There is no back pocket of any sort. Part of me wants to cheer this, but the other part regrets that there is nowhere to store flat sit mats on the back. A small omission.

The fabric pattern on the main bag makes it look as though the bottom of the bag sags down, but this is mainly an optical illusion in my opinion. There are a number of small tape attachment loops scattered over the bag, big enough to take 2-mm or 3-mm bungee cord. You could use these to hold crampons or other small things. There are number of these tape loops down the sides of the bag, carrying light climbing cord which serves as a compression system.

Lightwave Fastpack 50 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Fastpack 50 Above average For those needing waterproof

It might be easiest to simply describe this pack as a slightly smaller and slightly simpler version of the Ultrahike 60. Really, that does describe it quite well.

However, it has an interesting feature. Instead of lots of zig-zags of cord up the sides as compression straps, it has just a few zigzags of webbing – visible in the photos. The top connection on the webbing is an adjustable side release buckle rather than a simple ladder lock. Right at the bottom of the side of the pack there is another compression strap with a curious looped strip of tough fabric inside it. These features are just visible in the photos, especially the right hand one.

Lightwave UltraHike 60, Lightwave Fastpack 50, and Lightwave Wildtrek 55w Packs (UK) - 2
Lightwave Fastpack 50, 1.19 kg (2.61 lb), 48 L (2900 cuin).

At first glance this bottom fabric strip makes no sense, the position of the webbing strap near the bottom does not seem all that useful either, and the side release buckle at the top seems superfluous. Ah, but try mounting a pair of skis on the sides of this pack, and all will become clear. The bottom strap, the tough loop of fabric there, and the side release buckle at the top are all for holding skis! And they do that very nicely too.

The pack may not be large enough for a long ski trip using tents, but it certainly could handle a bit of ski touring if you can keep the volume of your gear down to a minimum. Alternately, the pack could handle hut-based skiing very well, with plenty of room for emergency gear. OK, not everyone wants to do this, but it is nice to see a pack which is suitably equipped for it.

Lightwave Wildtrek 55w Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Wildtrek 55w Average For those needing waterproof

The ‘w’ at the end of the name of this denotes a Women’s pack, although I can’t see why a man could not use this equally well. Just tweak the curvature of the struts near the bottom a little, to suit.

This pack is a bit different from the previous two, although the superficial appearance is very similar. An up-market version maybe? The biggest difference is probably the waterproof zip around the bottom edge, between the red and the grey in the left-hand photo. Inside there is a ‘sealed’ nylon bag attached to the zip. My previous comments about how useful such an arrangement would be for me stand: I can see no use for it. Fortunately the nylon bag which makes the bottom compartment is loose and can be squashed down flat at the bottom of the pack: you can have your cake and eat it too.

Lightwave UltraHike 60, Lightwave Fastpack 50, and Lightwave Wildtrek 55w Packs (UK) - 3
Lightwave Wildtrek 55w, 1.46 kg (3.21 lb), 49 L (3000 cuin), W1, W2

The foam back felt very firm at the start when we took it out for a day trip, but we got used to that very quickly. In fact, it rode very comfortably on both our backs and hips. Part of this is due to the good profile of the back foam, but another part may be due to the more complex hip belt adjustment on this pack. As you can see in the insert at the bottom left of the composite photo, there are top and bottom adjustment straps on the hip belt (both sides). These allow you to alter the cant (tilt) of the hip belt – a bit anyhow. I think it works somewhat; whether it is really worth all the extra complexity is another matter. I honestly don’t know.

Also in that insert to the right of the buckles is an innocent-looking bit of grey nylon. You might think it is just part of the hip belt adjustment, but it is far more than that. Concealed behind the surface fabric is a zipped security pocket and overlaying it another security pocket closed with hook&loop tape. You can’t get much in there, but you certainly could conceal various plastic cards, car keys and paper money. Few would think to look there.

This pack has the strap across the bottom edge and the side release buckle at the top of the compression webbing, like the Fastpack, but it does not have the fabric reinforcing strip. Obviously it too can carry skis, although it wasn’t meant for this. It would be nice if they added the bit of fabric to the bottom strap because as it stands, the ski will rub across the waterproof zip.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
  • Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
  • Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
  • Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Granite Gear Escape AC 60, Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki, and Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone Packs

Mini-review for the 2010 State of the Market Report on Internal Frame Backpacks.

Granite Gear makes packs, bags, duffel bags, etc: things to put gear in. The company has recently changed hands, so we were dealing with an enthusiastic new owner. Like many other small companies, the packs have a distinctive appearance. We gathered that some packs are being upgraded and may have changed slightly or be about to change from what we have tested. However, I doubt that there will be huge differences.

Granite Gear Escape AC 60 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Escape AC 60 Above average Adjustable torso length

The design of this pack’s bag part is not that out of the ordinary, but the harness is very interesting, so we’ll deal with that part first. In short, it has an adjustable harness based on a tough, moulded sheet of plastic. The adjustment for torso length is done by unhooking the shoulder strap from one slot and hooking it into another slot. It’s sufficiently novel that I have included a detail shot of the adjustment mechanism in the photos. In the photo the right hand shoulder strap has been unhooked and you can see the metal buckle which acts as the anchor.

Getting to this adjustment is not easy, but once you figure out that the top of the plastic sheet is concealed by some fabric held in place by hook&loop fastening, you are on your way. You do have to disconnect quite a few straps along the way – the first one or two times anyhow. You also probably need to remove the floating lid, which is an exercise in itself. Once you have access to the panel, you can set the torso length to a number of values, as determined by the slots you can see. Just what the top slots (set wide apart) are for I am not sure – someone the size of a grizzly bear maybe! Having moved the metal buckle into the next slot, you then have to reassemble the harness system. It isn’t that hard to do, and the ability to match the torso length to your body is good. It would help if they included an instruction sheet with each pack though.

Granite Gear Escape AC 60, Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki, and Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone Packs - 1
Granite Gear Escape AC 60, 1.48 kg (3.26 lb), 49 L (3000 cuin), Short, Regular. *In addition, there are interchangeable Men’s and Women’s hip belts in sizes Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large.

The padding on the back looks like some Doctor Scholes massage foot bed foam covered by someone’s black see-through negligee – but the mesh is actually quite strong and the padding is comfortable. The shoulder straps and hip belt are quite comfortable too. Note that there is a range of hip belts sizes and you can exchange them. The adjustment straps on the shoulder straps are long… very long. The sternum strap is long enough too – and you will need to use it with this pack. There is no stupid whistle on the sternum strap. The load-lifter straps work well, and have excellent thumb loops at the ends. You can see how I am ‘resting’ my arms using them. I like doing this, and it does help a bit with the balance of any pack.

Now for the bag part. This too is a little odd-ball. The bag itself is fairly standard, but all the bits around it are different. Where most packs have webbing straps, the Escape AC 60 has cord, with cord adjusters and buckles. Yes, the cord can be adjusted the same as webbing. Does the use of cord cut any weight? I doubt it very much. It works about the same, but I would be just as happy with light grosgrain myself. Anyhow, there are quite a few of these bits of cord around the pack.

What’s not obvious is that the bottom of the bag can expand a bit, so you need to pack carefully to make sure the bottom end is filled up. Since the capacity is rather less than claimed, you need to use every bit of space there. The throat is of medium length – certainly adequate. There is a conventional webbing strap to go over the throat under the lid. There is a zipped sleeve for a hydration system inside – the hose has to go through a hole at the top of the sleeve. The sleeve would be useful for reserve maps maybe, or as a deep security pocket.

The pack does have two ice axe loops at the bottom, but no dedicated straps at the top to hold the shaft. Perhaps you could wind the lid straps (cords) around the shaft to hold it up. There are several other attachment points scattered around the body of the pack as well.

There is a back pocket with a central vertical waterproof zip. Exactly why it has to be waterproof is not clear, as the black sides of the back pocket are stretch mesh. Why the zip has to be vertical is not clear either: it does mean things can fall out when you undo the zip fully. It’s quite a large back pocket too. More curious is the little pocket below the back pocket. It too has a zip closure, but the zip is at the bottom of the pocket. Surely an invitation to disaster – things would fall out? It turns out that this little pocket, which has a key-clip inside, is meant for holding a pack-cover (an optional extra). Not so curious after all! The side pockets are a double layer affair: there is a fabric pocket with a light mesh one outside it. The opening of the mesh pocket is tilted forwards: ‘quick-draw water bottles’ maybe. The fabric pockets seem capacious when the main bag is empty, but there is little room left once the main bag is full. Why manufacturers even bother with these flat side pockets puzzles me.

In keeping with the central zip on the back pocket, the lid also has a central zip, right on top. Fortunately it is a waterproof zip (if you trust such things) as there is no cover over it. The position on top does make some sense though: you get good access inside the pocket without things falling out. There is a key clip in there, but no security pocket.

The pack held all the Test Gear load in the main bag, but it was close to full. I was also able to get most of my gear for a (real) Wollemi trip into it except for 40 m of rope and slings, but it is not a big pack by any means. The pack rode fine in the field, once I got the torso length set and all the other adjustments to suit me.

Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Vapor Flash Ki Average Neat, but heavy

This Vapor Flash Ki is a Women’s pack: the Vapor Flash is a Men’s pack, slightly larger in volume. The website claims a 48 L capacity for the Short model, which is what we tested. The hip belt comes in four sizes: Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large.

No doubt about it: this pack looks neat. The strips of tougher fabric down each back corner, combined with the compression straps, provide very useful strengthening. The colour was also rather nice. The torso length is fixed, but the hip belt is removable, although that is not obvious at first. Removing the hip belt is easy once you realise the padding on each wing sort of locks the hip belt in place. That ‘lock’ is reinforced by webbing and buckles at the sides.

Granite Gear Escape AC 60, Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki, and Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone Packs - 2
Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki, 1.38 kg (3.03 lb) , 37 L (2200 cuin), Short, Regular.

We were able to get most of the Test Gear inside the main bag provided the rolled-up mat was strapped on the outside. In other words, the volume is rather small: we measured just 37 L in the main bag and lid. There is no back pocket. Well, if you are travelling ultralight it may well have enough capacity, but an ordinary lightweight walker might have some trouble.

The floating lid is a bit strange. It could go up a bit if you really filled the throat section of the main bag, but it is threaded onto the load-lifter straps, and it can’t be raised very far unless you unthread it from those straps. Doing so looked impossible at first, as the ends of the straps seem to have a strip of hook&loop fastening tape sewn across the webbing. That simply would not go through the buckles. However, eventually I found out that the hook&loop tape is double-sided and could be unstuck from the webbing. A bit confusing at first! Why was the hook&loop tape there anyhow? It lets you roll the excess webbing at the end of the straps up into a little ball and secure it. Um… frankly, why bother? Anyhow, if you do unthread the lid from the load-lifter straps you can raise the lid a bit – but it perches rather precariously on top, and I don’t think this is a good arrangement. It’s a nice looking pack, except that the lid design is not so hot when you want to fill the bag right up. Less than full – fine.

We tested a Short version. I found it too short for me, and Sue found it “not very long.” I think the Regular version might have suited both of us better. This meant both of us found the ‘carry’ less than optimal: it was hard to get the pack onto the hip belt. However, in this case I think that this was due to the short torso length. It would suit a really petite woman, or better still a young girl. The colour scheme should appeal to either. Most people might find the Medium a better fit.

Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Nimbus Ozone Above average Adjustable torso length

You would have to say this is a bit like a big brother to the Vapor Flash Ki – but without a lid. The back padding is similar, and so is the hip belt, except for a slightly different curvature. The difference will be due to the former being a Women’s pack while this is not – the website says “Women’s belts are sculpted to fit the increased angle of women’s hips.” You have to burrow under the bottom of the pack to undo the hook&loop flap covering the big screw which anchors the hip belt. Yes, this one uses engineering stuff!

Granite Gear Escape AC 60, Granite Gear Vapor Flash Ki, and Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone Packs - 3
Granite Gear Nimbus Ozone, 1.48 kg (3.26 lb) , 53 L (3200 cuin), Short. *The only size is called Short, but it didn’t really seem that way to me. In addition, there are Men’s and Women’s hip belts in sizes Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large, plus shoulder straps in Small, Medium, Large, and Extra-Large.

The torso length is adjustable over a range of 100 mm (4 in), with the aid of a screwdriver. The straps are bolted to a plastic back panel. The mechanism for adjusting is a bit complex, but you shouldn’t have to adjust it more than once or twice. In addition, while you are adjusting the torso length, you can also exchange the shoulder straps themselves. When you make an adjustment you have to move a horizontal padded reinforcing bar which sits behind the plastic back panel. How you could lose this bar I don’t know, but the company sells spares! Having an adjustable torso length gets brownie points, but whether the different shoulder straps are really required is something I don’t know. I guess they wouldn’t sell them if they didn’t find them useful or popular.

With all the straps and screws involved in adjusting this pack, you are going to need an Owner’s Manual to work out how to drive it all. In this case the pack does come with a twenty-page Owners Manual, with good explanations and pictures. OK, some of the pages are about other packs in the range, but there are a solid twelve pages of technical stuff here for this pack!

The back is reinforced with a pretty solid plastic panel. If you didn’t know better, you might think the top edge had metal reinforcing as well, but it’s just plastic. While the bag fabric is quite light, there is some weight and stiffness in this harness. It showed however in the carry: it felt light.

Without a lid, this pack has to rely on a roll-top. The length is generous. The light fabric used is reinforced with those two blue stripes down the back and a number of webbing compression straps which can actually go right around from back panel to back panel, in three sections. There are two ice axe loops at the bottom of the pack, and the upper side compression straps are held with side-release buckles: they can hold the shafts in place.

There are large side-pockets of stretch-mesh, and a compression strap across the middle of each one. They should hold medium sized things and tent poles well, but don’t put tiny things in them – there are little ‘drain’ holes at the bottom. The holes may be for letting water out. There’s a short bladder pocket inside which will have to do for a security pocket, and a key clip at the top of the frame. No hip belt pockets are fitted, although there’s webbing on the hip belt for attachment, and no stupid whistle on the sternum strap.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
  • Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
  • Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
  • Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.

Osprey Exos 46 and Osprey Exos 58 Packs

Mini-review for the 2010 State of the Market Report on Internal Frame Backpacks.

Osprey make a lot of packs: these are from their ‘Superlite Ventilated’ range. Sadly, we have to report that all the other models were just too heavy to be included in this survey. But these Exos packs are quite radical in their harness design. I will quote Osprey here first: “AirSpeedSuspension, which teams a 6061-T6 Aluminum frame with a 3D tensioned mesh backpanel and side crescent ventilation. The AirSpeed suspension works in tandem with the supportive and ventilated Bio-Stretch harness and hipbelt…”

What does this mean? Imagine a rim of white aluminium tubing (Easton tent pole type) twisted into a very fat inverted T shape, like distorting a large bicycle tyre. The vertical part of the T goes to the top of the harness, while the cross-bar at the bottom forms part of the hip-belt wings. Add a couple of thin reinforcing wires across the middle. Now stretch tough non-stretch nylon mesh over that frame. That’s what Osprey have done: you can see the taut mesh in the middle photos, with bits of the white tubing at the edges.

But what about the lumbar pad? Well, there isn’t one. Nothing there at all in fact. Very strange. The whole thing rides on the tension in the mesh across your back. Does it work? Indeed, it does, and the Exos design is quite popular. I suspect it might prove a little cool or even drafty in the snow, but in summer time it sure provides lots of ventilation.

The Exos range is another user of narrow webbing and matching buckles. The range also has some rather innovative shoulder straps. They seem to be nothing more than strips of perforated foam covered in a light mesh. Actually, I think most of the strength of the shoulder straps (and the hip belt) comes from the innocent-looking binding running down the edges. Anyhow, the shoulder straps work fine.

While the pack weights are fairly close to the mark, we have to point out that the measured volumes are significantly less than the claimed volumes. This is a pity.

Osprey Exos 46 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Exos 46 Recommended A bit small, but very light

We let this pack sneak in when it was only 46 L, below our threshold of 50 L, but the measured volume is way below the claimed volume. Ah well. Doubtless for a fully-fledged UL walker in summer this might be adequate volume even so. However, I found it made an excellent pack for a serious day walk, shown in the right hand photo. It had plenty of room for all our gear, leaving my wife with nothing to carry. That was a novel experience for her! The pack rode quite well.

Osprey Exos 46 and Osprey Exos 58 Packs - 1
Osprey Exos 46, 1.05 kg (2.32 lb), 40 L (2400 cuin), S, M, L.

The back of the pack has fairly common open pocket on it, made of stretch fabric and held up by a buckle. That much is obvious. What is less obvious is that there is a vertical pocket behind the open one, with a vertical zip. You can just see the pull on the slider next to the buckle on the lid in the left hand photo. That is all very well, but try getting something into this pocket when the main bag is full. It is rather unlikely. Perhaps you could slip a small poncho in there, but it had better be dry as there are no drain holes.

The lid pocket has a key clip inside it and there is a zipped mesh security pocket under the lid. I suggest that anything you store in the mesh pocket should be in a waterproof bag. The lid pocket itself has reasonable capacity for a lid pocket.

Osprey Exos 58 Pack

Pack Rating Qualifications
Exos 58 Recommended Fair volume, carries well

Having already described the Exos 46, there is little new left to say about the Exos 58. It is bigger of course, and it has two concealed back pockets with vertical zips rather than the one on the Exos 46. Curiously, while the left and right pockets are separate, there is a mouse hole between them right at the bottom. Very odd. You can’t get much in either one when the main bag is full. The novel shoulder straps were described above. It was noticeable that they were quite comfortable. The hip belt was quite comfortable too. There are zipped mesh pockets on the hip belt, but I found them of little use myself.

Osprey Exos 46 and Osprey Exos 58 Packs - 2
Osprey Exos 58, 1.19 kg (2.61 lb), 50 L (3000 cuin)

The lack of a lumbar pad did not worry me, but Sue was able to feel the aluminium frame tube running across the bottom of the harness on this Exos 58 pack, but less so on the Exos 46. Somewhat curiously, this bottom tube was well curved on the Exos 46 but less so on the Exos 58. Why this is so I do not know. On the other hand, the slightly greater curvature on the Exos 46 meant that the tube in the wings was closer to the sides of Sue’s hips, and was slightly intrusive there – but not badly. Perhaps one could fine-tune the curvature in the tubular frame, but I am not sure how much of that the high-tensile aluminium tubing would take. Perhaps this is a design more suited to men than to women?

The photo on the right shows the Exos 58 in the Australia Alps, on a nine-day trip in autumn. No, I did not get food for the full nine days in there: we had a posted food drop half-way along. Cheating of course. With only half the food, the pack was still pretty full, but we were carrying some winter gear in all that. You can just see a trace of blue under the lid: that was my tent, sitting on top of the throat and under the lid. The single strap under the lid held it in place well enough. Why am I squinting like that? Because there was a howling gale blowing across the plains at the time!

I got most of the gear inside the main bag for this trip. I think I had my poncho in one of the zipped back pockets – that’s all. Our blue foam sit-mats went in the open back pocket, the same as you can see in the right hand photo of the Exos 46 above. That worked fine. Over all the pack rode well on this trip, and I was quite happy with it.

This is a mini-review in the 2010 Lightweight Internal Frame Pack State of the Market Report. The articles in this series are as follows (mini-reviews can be found in Part 2), and a subscription to our site is needed to read them.

  • Part 1A covers the very basics and lists all the packs in the survey.
  • Part 1B covers the frame and harness which carry the pack itself.
  • Part 1C covers the main bag and all the other pockets, plus the all-important question of comfort.
  • Part 2 in this series covers the individual packs tested.