Articles (2020)

hub⋅ba hub⋅ba [huhb-uh huhb-uh]: noun, slang

1. An exclamation of admiration, approval, or enthusiasm, used esp. by GIs of World War II as a shout in appreciation of a pretty girl. (Ex: Hubba-hubba, she’s a purdy one.)
2. Hurry up. (Ex. Hubba-hubba, drop and give me 20 now soldier.)

Hubba Hubba HP: noun, name

1. MSR’s lightweight version of their very popular Hubba Hubba 2P tent.

Introduction

The Hubba Hubba HP is Mountain Safety Research’s (MSR) lightest two-person free-standing tent. By the use of new strong yet lightweight materials, they have come up with a double-wall tent that has a trail weight of 3.85 pounds (1.75 kg), a savings of 8 ounces (227 g) over the standard Hubba Hubba 2P tent that it is based on. Even lighter options can be had by pitching in one of the freestanding tarp-shelter modes, with optional footprint or just the fly and poles alone. While not the lightest tent in its category, it may be the most capable. During the course of the testing, it was used in full-on winter conditions where it shone (even though the sun did not).

Specifications

Design and Features

The Hubba Hubba HP is based on MSR’s very popular Hubba Hubba. From what I can tell, it uses the same poles as the standard version. I am not sure what the HP stands for, but it’s most likely High Performance. Or maybe Heavy-duty Protection (or Habitat Perfection?). By switching to lighter fabrics they cut quite a bit of weight from the regular version, but it is the additions that shine more than the subtracted weight.

The DAC pole and hub system is comprised of twenty-two pole sections all joined together, which when assembled form a double-ended Y (or a headless stick man drawing) with a crossing pole at the center. For those that carry their poles separately, as I do, they make a package roughly 3 inches (7.5 cm) in diameter and 17 inches (43 cm) long. The ends of the poles plug into grommets at the four corners of the floor, and the crossing pole plugs into grommets at the top of each door. Then the body connects to the poles by means of eight nylon clips.

The body is mostly comprised of white, breathable nylon 66 that has a DWR application to fight both condensation that may drip from the fly or water blown past it. According to MSR, this fabric weighs 55 grams per square meter (which is the exact weight of the mesh used for the walls of the regular Hubba Hubba). Ventilation is enhanced by triangular areas of mesh at the upper portion of the two D-shaped doors and the ends of the tent. Another large diamond-shaped section of mesh is at the very top. A 0.7 oz (20 g) removable mesh gear loft hangs directly below this diamond. The gear loft does not inhibit air movement when empty and can assist in drying wet gear when used. More in-house storage is provided by long gear pockets that run along the ends of the HP just above the bath-tub floor.

Interestingly, the fly is made of the same fabric as the inner body, with the additions of 1000mm polyurethane and silicone coatings. The fly goes over the poles connecting at the corners and crossing pole ends with grommets also. A stake at the bottom of each vestibule pulls it away from the tent inner to create a protected space in front of each door. A nice touch is the fact that the vestibule may be staked out from either side, allowing you to open whichever side is the most protected from blowing wind, rain, and snow. Another nice touch is the protected zipper “garages” at the top of the two-way waterproof zippers that keep any water from finding its way in. The vestibules can be used for ventilation by either opening the top or bottom, plus there are two hooded vents at the ends of the HP that correspond to the mesh areas mentioned earlier. These vents use a strut to hold them open and can be adjusted from inside the vestibule.

The HP comes with eight red anodized aluminum needle stakes, in order to fully stake out the tent with two extra for use at guy points or to pull out the ends for greater ventilation. The square-bodied stakes come inside of a 0.3-ounce (9 g) stake sack. Sharing the sack are two lengths of guy line, two line tensioners, and a pole repair sleeve. A 0.6-ounce (17 g) pole sack is provided too, and the whole works fits in the 1.7-ounce (48 g) gold stuff sack. There is plenty of extra room in the sack to carry a footprint, although I do not have one. By carrying the poles separately, I can compress the stuffed tent to about 60% of the size seen below. I joked with my brother-in-law Dave that Henry Shires would have put the HP into a stuff sack 50% smaller (Tarptent joke, others move along…).

Speaking of tarps, MSR calls the lighter ways to pitch the HP its “freestanding tarp-shelter modes.” The HP can be set up using the poles and fly with the optional footprint in what I think of as a fast-fly set-up, weighing 2.75 pounds (1.25 kg). Or it can be done sans footprint with just the poles and fly for its lightest option, truly a tarp experience that comes in at 2.38 pounds (1.08 kg). I didn’t try the latter option, as I did not receive the footprint, and the weather I used the HP in did not facilitate sleeping on the ground/snow/mud. Regardless, they certainly are nice options to have.

Performance

I owned and used a MSR Mutha Hubba 3P tent for two years with my children Emma and Raymond. As the pole design and set-up of the Hubba Hubba HP is very similar to the many Big Agnes tents I have owned over the years, I found the set-up to be intuitive and quick. Having only eight clips to attach the body makes set-up quicker than the up to thirteen clips on some of the other tents of this size and style. That counts when I am rushing to get it up before the sun goes down like one winter afternoon in the snow covered San Bernardino Mountains, or to get it up during a break in the rain that we found ourselves dealing with on the Pacific Crest Trail near the Mexican border.

Because of the time of year that I started testing the Hubba Hubba HP, it saw a lot of bad weather. I had another tent that I was testing at the same time that is absolutely NOT a winter tent, so I left the HP behind whenever it seemed like the weather would be decent. I knew that I had stacked the deck against the HP and expected to be making excuses for it. Instead, I was completely taken by surprise at how well it did (and for what it’s worth, the poor other tent has only seen one nice day so far. Stay tuned…).

In late November, I used the HP in high winds at Buffalo River State Park in Minnesota (MN). It shrugged the weather off and of course had no condensation at all. One month later I was back at the same park, pictured above. It had been well below 0 F (-18 C) the week before I was there, and while it had warmed up to 9 F (-13 C), the ground was frozen hard. Two days earlier I was at the same location with a different tent that had big round aluminum stakes that bent trying to hammer them in, so I was delighted to see the MSR needle stakes actually go into the frozen ground well enough to hold it in place and with not a single one bent. As the wind just about always blows in MN, I again had no condensation to speak of, just a little frost around the hood opening of my bag.

The last day of January, I did not bring the needle stakes as the nearest ground, frozen or otherwise was seven feet (2 m) under the snow in the mountains of California. I did bring Jenn (ex-wife and still friend) to see how it would do with an extra body heating the space up and adding moisture inside. We were at 9,000 feet (2750 m) elevation with temperatures that got down to 17 F (-8 C). We had a little bit of wind early in the evening, which I wanted to take advantage of. Jenn boycotted that, saying it was too cold with the door open, so I buttoned the HP up but did have both end vents propped open. The wind stopped shortly after it got dark. I was amazed to find in the morning that not one bit of condensation had formed on the inner tent and there was no frost inside the fly. We both had very limited condensation around our faces, hers on the hood of her bag and me on my fleece balaclava and the edge of my Arc Expedition quilt.

The tent provided adequate room for both of us, although the packs had to stay in the vestibules. Fortunately the vestibules are big enough to stow the pack and still be able to go in and out of the tent with ease. When the snow is deep enough, I dig an entry pit in the vestibules that aids in getting in and out. It makes a great seat with a view too. Of course from where Jenn sat she just had a view of a great seat…

One last trip with it to Buffalo River State Park saw about a foot (30 cm) of snow. Once I stomped out a tent space, I was able to hammer the stakes into the frozen ground again. They only went in a little ways but held well. The next morning, though, they were so frozen in that I had a heck of a time getting them out. I did have some frost inside the fly in the morning, as for once there was no wind and the humidity was high.

Assessment

I came away from this test really liking the Hubba Hubba HP. While I have lighter tents, I don’t have any that are both lighter and as versatile in a range of conditions. In fact, over the past couple of months I have come to the decision that if I could have only one tent period, for all use, I would choose the HP. It has proven to be excellent at winter weather. I have used it right through the dead of winter in both Minnesota and California, and it has done as well as my four-season tents that weigh more. Now I did not experience any blizzard conditions, and I am not saying that this is a four-season tent (nor does MSR), but it easily pushes the boundaries for a three-season tent and does so well.

The solid fabric is a big contributor to how well the tent worked for me. It breathes extremely well, yet blocks all the blowing snow and dust that mesh lets through. The tent was also warmer, as the fabric kept the wind from blowing away residual heat trapped inside, and the color certainly made the inside bright. Jenn’s little Orbit lantern lit the tent up nicely as it reflected off the walls.

The ventilation has been the best I have seen so far this year. Condensation is almost non-existent in this tent, even with two in it. I am a very light sleeper and wake up each time I turn (about twice an hour). Each time I wake, I run my hand on the tent walls around my head to see what is happening condensation-wise. I never got a wet hand with the HP.

It is also quite roomy. Even with two of us, we had plenty of space to hang out on the long cold winter nights in the mountains. The crossing pole makes for plenty of headroom in the middle section of the tent all the way across, not just in the dead center.

From my limited use, largely on snow, it seems to be durable, but further use will see what wear and tear it gets. I like the Hubba Hubba HP so much that I just ordered a footprint for it and will try it in some other pitching modes later this year (testing schedule allowing). I would also like to try it with just the inner pitched, which is my favorite fair weather way to use a double-wall (the fly sits in the stuff sack, just in case). I may send in an addendum to this story later, sharing any new thoughts and findings I have.

After thinking about my personal feeling of the Hubba Hubba HP, I am guessing the HP stands for ‘Happy Packer.’

Dare to Compare

How does the Hubba Hubba HP stack up to the competition? Other tents that share common features like dual doors/vestibules and free-standing style, and limited winter worthiness are the Big Agnes Copper Spur UL2, Tarptent Scarp 2 (with crossing poles) and the REI Quarter Dome T2.

The Scarp 2 has the most inside space, but with the optional crossing poles, it weighs the most too. It is the only one that sets up while keeping the inside dry as the inner stays attached to the fly. The Copper Spur UL2 has the lowest weight and the most protected space-to-weight with its large vestibules. It does well in shoulder season weather too (I have one), but not as well as the HP. The Quarter Dome T2 is a stand-out at the price. The HP is the most expensive of the bunch. Maybe HP stands for ‘High Priced’…

Notes:

¹Manufacturer Trail Weight: The minimum weight as listed by the manufacturer. Different companies may include different components in this weight.

³Backpacking Light Trail Weight: The weight of tent, rain fly, poles, and stakes needed for basic set-up. It does not include stuffsacks, extra guylines, extra stakes, or repair kit.

⁴Dimensions: maximum Length x maximum Width x maximum Height (LxWxH) In the case of odd-shaped floor, a double measurement is given for head and foot (H/F). The numbers are as verified by BPL and may differ from the manufacturers’ stated dimensions.

⁵Floor Area/Trail Weight Ratio: The floor area divided by the trail weight.

⁶Protected Area/Trail Weight Ratio: The floor area plus vestibule area divided by the trail weight.

What’s Good

• Winter-worthy performance
• Plenty of room for two people
• Excellent ventilation
• Lots of interior space
• Very strong stakes

What’s Not So Good

• Price at the high end of the scale
• One of the heaviest tents in the lightweight two-person double-wall class

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.

Overview

We recently reviewed the New Balance MT875OR shoes which, while very light (385 g each), proved to have quite good life and performance. These MT910GT shoes go up-market from the MT875s with a more robust sole and a Gore-Tex ‘Extended Comfort Footwear’ lining. There is a weight increase with all this, with the reviewed pair (size 10, 4E) coming in at 424 g each. We will use the MT875s as a comparison point for parts of this review.

The new Gore-Tex ‘Extended Comfort Footwear’ lining appears to be the same old Gore-Tex membrane. The ‘extended comfort’ bit seems to mean that they don’t put a heavy leather cover over the shoe but use a breathable mesh instead. This should let the Gore-Tex membrane breathe a bit more.

New Balance have used a new last for the MT910GT shoes: the PL-1 replaces the SL-1 used in the 875s. According to New Balance: ‘With less forefoot volume and a more contoured fit through the heel and arch, the shoes built on this new performance last provide a comfortable, secure fit to help you be your best.’

Company marketing said the shoes run true to size, but we found that it was necessary to go down half a size to get the right fit. This was checked fairly carefully: the company sent both size 10.5 and size 10 shoes for testing. While I have happily worn size 10.5 and even size 11 with other shoes, I had to wear the size 10s in this model. Otherwise there does not seem to be much difference in the new last.

Product Details

A small problem we found with the MT875s was that the light sole had widely-spaced shallow lugs, which wore down a bit after two weeks in the Australian Alps and six weeks in the Swiss Alps. The foam layer was not all that thick either. I could feel the stones through the sole a bit by the end of the field testing. The sole on the MT910s is a bit more robust (with an internal hard PU layer) and the lugs are a bit deeper (about 4 mm) and a bit more densely packed. Vibram soles they are not, but they are a bit closer to that design. This means the sole is a bit stiffer too.

The uppers on the MT875 used a light mesh and some plastic strips sewn over the top. The mesh did get damaged after many weeks of rough terrain. The use of mesh and plastic strips has carried over to these NB910s, but the mesh seems more robust and is a double layer in places. The ‘plastic strips’ on the NB875s proved to be extremely tough stuff, and the same material seems to be used on the MT910s. Expect this stuff to last! The toe bumper on the MT910s is a lot more robust than on the MT875s: it is quite a solid construction. Whether that is necessary is debatable: the lighter construction on the MT875s lasted quite well in the field.

Field Testing

Both my wife and I have used the MT910s on walks over a wide range of terrain, include wading in some rivers. I have to report that the MT910s have worked very well. The new PL-1 last is not hugely different from the SL-1 last and it fitted me OK – but your feet will be different, so do check! The corners on the trim presented no problems at all, being well out of the way. All the holes and loops for the laces have survived very well, with no signs of stress. The potential leaky hole shown above (where the biro goes) did not seem to let any sand in at all when wading in rivers. The rolled-over top corners yielded to use and (more or less) straightened out enough. My feet still ended up like a wrinkled prune at the end of the day – Gore-Tex is not that breathable!

The orange PU can be seen at the sides of the shoe as well, especially around the arch region. I suspect it serves as the stiffening plate for the whole sole. Frankly, I felt that the stiffening was overdone. I would have preferred a slightly more flexible sole. However, the effect is not huge by any means: I am being a bit fussy here. I suspect the stiff sole might go quite well in the snow and on snow shoes.

While the shoes are very robust, this comes at a cost. I have just mentioned the sole – the sides of the shoe are also a bit stiff. The plastic trim at the sides adds to this stiffness. This did not worry me, but my wife found that the stiffness was a bit noticeable at the sides of the ball of the foot – by the big toe and the little toe, right where there is some of that heavy synthetic reinforcing. Her feet are a bit delicate just there (some old injuries), and she found the stiff side-walls just a bit aggravating at times, even though she was wearing a very wide EEEE fitting. If you don’t have this problem then you probably would not notice anything – if you have the right (i.e. wide enough) fitting.

Over all the rate of wear has been low, so I expect that these shoes will last quite a while.

Specifications

Manufacturer	New Balance
Year/Model	MT910GT / 2009
Country of Manufacture	China
Materials	Synthetic fabrics and rubbers, no leather
Last	PL-1
Sizes Available	7 – 13, 14, 15 in D, and EEEE fittings
Weight	Quoted 420 g (14.89 oz) each Measured 424 g (14.9 oz) for US size 10 EEEE (BPL measurement)
Colour	Grey with orange trim: what you see is what you get
MSRP	US$130

What’s Good

• A lowish weight
• A range of width fittings (including 4E)
• A flat inner sole and footbed (no ‘arch support’)
• Good friction (mostly) and fairly good lugs on the sole
• No leather or suede anywhere
• No air cushioning to destroy ‘ground-feel’

What’s Not So Good

• Sand might get into the shell between the layers
• The orange PU sole layer is too stiff
• The sides of the shoe are also a bit stiff
• The orange protrusions through the sole don’t help traction at all

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

Introduction

The lightest ultralight down jacket from Marmot is the Venus (the Zeus is the men’s version). The Venus Jacket barely meets our criteria for a three-season ultralight jacket: its insulated with high-loft down, has a lightweight shell with a DWR finish, has a minimal feature set (see the feature list in the specifications table at the bottom of this review), and weighs less than 14 ounces. It certainly is stylish and warm, but is it suited for backpacking?

Description

I tested only the Venus in size medium, and this review is restricted to that jacket. My jacket weighs 11.7 oz. I measured the jacket’s double-layer loft at 1.25 inches (single-layer 0.65 inch). Marmot does not specify the amount of down in the jacket. I looked at the men’s Zeus Jacket at a local outdoor store. It has wider horizontal quilting that doesn’t compress the down as much, and the men’s jacket clearly has more loft.

Performance

Since I am short (5 ft 2 in) with large hips, I needed to get a medium jacket to fit over my hips. This jacket extends about 2 inches below the widest point of my hips. With the size medium, the arms are too long, but that doesn’t bother me because I like withdrawing my hands into the sleeves. For me, the jacket is generously sized throughout except at the hips, where it is snug. The generous sizing allows me to wear extra clothes underneath. I found it fits well over the Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket and the combination is very warm.

In my field trials I found the jacket to be quite warm in the following situations:

• when actively hiking on cold days
• when in camp with a thick base-layer or thin jacket under it
• when snow camping with it worn as a midlayer under another insulated jacket
• when worn in my sleeping bag to extend the sleeping bag’s warmth

I found the Venus Jacket to have good wind resistance. The collar is snug around my neck and seals well. I found the cuffs and hem (without using the drawcord) to be adequately snug around my wrists and hips. The shell fabric is quite durable and does not snag easily. It’s also quite downproof (only an occasional feather came through).

Being that the jacket is snug in the hip area, I have no use for the bottom drawcord. Were I to tighten it, the jacket would just ride up to my waist. I felt it was overkill and not at all needed; in fact, it was in the way.

Comparisons

The following table compares specifications of jackets similar to the Marmot Venus. All jackets have premium down insulation, sewn-through construction, and a full-length front zipper. Manufacturer data shown are for a women’s size Medium.

Compared to similar jackets, the Marmot Venus Jacket is mainly competitive in cost. The feature set of all four jackets is similar and down quality is the same. All of the jackets listed have stylish quilting and an anatomical fit. The women’s Eddie Bauer First Ascent Downlight Sweater has larger rectangular quilting and it’s also quite a bit lighter.

Assessment

The shell and lining fabrics at 1.2 and 1.8 oz/yd² are heavy compared to other three-season down jackets, not nearly as light as the 0.8 oz/yd² fabrics in seriously lightweight jackets. Also, the feature set goes a little beyond minimal; the zippers have metal pull-tabs and the hem has a bulky elastic drawcord system typical of mountaineering jackets.

The Venus Jacket in size women’s Medium has a trim fit, as is typical of women’s jackets. It is clearly sized, styled, and fitted for women. In other words, it puts more emphasis on a trim fit and anatomical styling (women don’t want to look like a marshmallow!) than it does on warmth and performance. I have an issue with the women’s version of many lightweight down jackets. Because of their stylistic quilting, they are more about fashion than performance. The extensive quilting tends to compact the down more to make the jacket look trimmer, rather than let the down fully expand. The First Ascent Downlight Sweater is an exception, it’s styled and fitted but its larger down chambers do not suppress the down. My advice, if you want a jacket for warmth and performance in a backpacking situation, is to consider the men’s version first. Or look for a women’s jacket that puts function before fashion.

Bottom line, the Venus Jacket is a very nice jacket for day use, but I wouldn’t take it backpacking. Its heavier fabric, zippers, and hem drawcord simply make it weightier than other choices.

Specifications and Features

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

Introduction

For those who like to hike and camp in the snow, a lightweight footwear system that keeps feet dry and warm is essential, as explained in our three-part article: Lightweight Footwear Systems for Snow Travel. A pair of lightweight/warm down booties is an essential component of a winter camping kit to keep feet warm in camp and in a sleeping bag. Down booties abound, but most of them are just not warm enough, or don’t keep snow out well enough, by themselves for snow camping. I have tried several and find that I need to wear extra layers inside of them and overboots over them to keep my feet warm, which adds up the weight. The newly introduced (fall 2009) Western Mountaineering Expedition Down Bootie makes other down booties look like cabin slippers. These lightweight booties (8 ounces for size Medium) seem to be capable of shedding snow and keeping feet warm by themselves, without all the added layers, so are they the ultimate booties for snow camping?

Description

Western Mountaineering has two versions of this new bootie: a shorter Standard Bootie and a taller Expedition Bootie. The Standard version is a “regular” height (to about the bottom of the calf), and the Expedition version, which is insulated to about the same height and has a gaiter top that is almost knee high. The height of the size XL Expedition Booties I tested is 21 inches. The outer shell is different between the two versions: the Standard Bootie has a lightweight downproof nylon outer shell with DWR, and the Expedition Bootie has a Gore Windstopper outer shell for extra weather protection. Both booties have a 2-inch-high coated packcloth rand above the sole for extra abrasion resistance in this high wear area.

The lower 10.5 inches of the Expedition Bootie are insulated with 800 fill-power down, 1 ounce of down per bootie, which is actually quite a bit. The upper part is an incorporated gaiter that overlaps a pair of down pants to seal in the warmth and keep snow out (see top and bottom photos). There is a foam insole (about 0.5-inch thick) at the bottom of the bootie that is not removable. Also, there is a foam insert sewn in behind the heel. A really nice feature is an internal elastic cord around the ankle that holds the bootie in place and helps to seal in warmth.

Note that there are right and left booties, but they are not marked as such, so you have to look at the sole shape to determine which is which (see center photo below). WM plans to label them in the next production run.

Performance

I really liked the WM Expedition Down Booties from the first time I put them on. Cold feet are normally a problem for me while snow camping, so I have always worn several layers on my feet (heavy wool socks, Integral Designs Hot Socks, down booties, 40 Below Overboots) to keep my feet warm and dry, which adds up to quite a bit of weight and bulk. I found these booties to be surprisingly warm by themselves, wearing only a pair of thick dry socks inside. I got the booties in size XL so I would have room for extra layers inside, which I would likely need for sub-zero temperatures.

I also really like the booties’ Gore Windstopper shell fabric, which is lightweight, durable, and waterproof. The gaiter tops are also a real plus because they overlap my down pants (or eVENT pants that I often wear over down pants) very well, so I can wade through deep snow without getting any snow into the booties. Finally, the Toughtec rubber soles are truly non-slip as claimed; I did not slip on snow or bare ice at all (but watch out for smooth ice with a little fresh snow on it!).

Stability-wise, the booties stayed in place very well. In other booties I have tried, my feet slide off to the side, but that was not a problem with these. The sewn-in foam insole, elastic ankle band, and drawcord closure on the gaiter tops above the calf all help to hold them in place.

Another nice thing is snow does not stick to the Toughtec soles or Windstopper outer shell, so it is easy to exit my igloo or tent, walk in the snow outside, and then re-enter my sleeping bag with dry booties. All it takes is minimal wiping of the bottoms to make sure they are completely dry.

Wearing the booties inside my sleeping bag works out very well. Of course that depends on the size of the bag’s footbox, but wearing the booties inside my bag is really good insurance against cold feet.

Assessment

To be candid, there are few pieces of gear that I have reviewed that are perfect, with no flaws, and I have reviewed a lot of gear. This is one of the rare, perfect gems. I could not find anything not to like about the WM Expedition Down Booties. They may be overkill for three-season camping, but they really excel for winter camping when I want warm feet. Also, the design and construction of these booties allow me to take just one item to keep my feet warm instead of several layers. In camp I simply put on dry socks and put the booties on over them. In really frigid temperatures, an extra layer or two inside the booties would be needed.

Specifications and Features

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

Overview

There are many small upright canister stoves on the market with Western brands on them, and after a while one gets to recognise not just the basic designs used but also, in many cases, the Chinese or Korean factory the stove probably came out of. This stove is not one of those. It is made in Japan and the quality of the stove is uniformly high. The weight is at the lower end of the spectrum, the power output is good, and it has an integrated piezo-igniter system. Its chief claim to fame however is the unique ‘valve’ system used. It does not have the conventional needle valve: it has a miniature pressure regulator instead. We will review the various features in turn, with the pressure regulator given extensive coverage at the end.

The piezo-igniter seems well made. The interesting bit is that the insulated high voltage wire goes up the inside of the burner column to emerge at the top of the burner. You can see a small, bright, pointy bit right at the top of the burner head: that’s the spark gap. This means that the wire and spark gap are well protected from damage. The metal housing around the piezo mechanism itself seems tight and compact. How long the spring mechanism inside the housing and behind the button will last – that I do not know.

It has been claimed that a piezo-igniter (any brand) will only work up to 2,000 – 2,500 meters (6,000 – 8,000 feet). Part of the reason for this is that there is only so much energy in the spark, and if the air and the gas is very cold, the spark may not be able to ionise the gas and break the molecules down. Whether or not this is strictly correct, there is no denying that it might be a smart move to always have a spare lighter (or two) at any altitude.

In use the stove has to be operated slightly differently from other stoves. With a conventional needle valve, you turn the valve off by screwing it in until it comes to a firm stop. With the pressure regulator, there is no firm stop. Instead, you screw the valve in until the flame goes out, then just a little bit further. To start a needle-valve stove, you open the valve from its easily-sensed closed position by a fraction of a turn. With this pressure regulator valve, you have to start winding the valve open and use the piezo many times as you go. Since you can overshoot on the shutting off (no hard stop, remember), it may take a turn or two before gas comes out. This can be rather alarming the first time you experience it (help, it isn’t working!), but it’s something you get used to after a few starts. For the rest of the control range, there is no real difference in behaviour.

The power output is claimed to be up to 3,260 W. I think that may be possible with a new canister on a warm day (when the canister pressure is high). Many other canister stoves claim similar power output – but need the same caveat. The claim by Soto that the stove will continue to perform just fine at -5 C (23 F) is seriously misleading however. The claim only works if the canister has an iso-butane/propane mix. If your canister does, then most any upright stove will perform just the same.

Not all brands of canister contain iso-butane: many contain n-butane instead. If your canister has n-butane then, just like any other upright stove on a new canister, it may work at -5 C (23 F) for a while – until the propane in the canister has been almost all used up. Then this stove will die, just like any other upright stove, leaving a canister two-thirds full of n-butane. The claim that owing to the regulator the Soto stove will boil water faster than any other upright stove at -5 C (23 F) flies in the face of basic physics and can be dismissed as marketing spin.

The pot supports are rather cute. You have to slide them up and down to open them out and lock them in position. There is even the word ‘SLIDE’ with a bidirectional arrow stamped on each arm to remind you. The sliding mechanism seems to work just fine. However, I do wish they held the pot a bit further from the burner, because of the CO emission.

The CO emission spikes very high at start-up: almost 300 ppm when measured in the test system we have used for the CO series. It decays steadily, but even after a long time, it is still sitting over 100 ppm. The problem is the usual one of inadequate clearance between the burner and the base of the pot. Vendors often minimise this clearance in order to get slightly higher power output: marketing drive versus customer safety. The graph here shows that CO emission can be reduced by increasing this clearance.

It is worth looking at this problem in slightly more depth. A high level of CO means not enough oxygen (or air) is getting to the flame. Normally most of this air is sucked in through the air holes in the burner column by the high-speed jet of fuel coming out of the jet. The more powerful the jet, the more air gets sucked in. In most stoves the jet is quite small, allowing a high inner pressure P (see next section) to get the right amount of gas coming out – at high speed. But in this case it seems the range for the inner pressure P is lower, owing to design requirement of having the regulator work down to a low canister pressure. The lower pressure drop across the jet requires a large jet hole to get the needed gas flow, which means the jet speed is lower, which means that less air is dragged in through the air holes. To cut a long story short, the design decision to use a fixed regulator with a low output pressure range seems to have resulted in a slightly inadequate amount of air being sucked in, and a higher CO emission.

The instructions do mention The stove can produce carbon monoxide which has no odor and may cause death. The instructions do warn against using the stove in an enclosed space: a warning which should be heeded I think.

The instructions also say NEVER cover the stove with rocks and a windscreen while in use and NEVER surround the unit with wind shields. There is a diagram of the stove with a windshield half way around it and a big cross. I am not sure what ‘cover’ means, but any stove which cannot be used with a windscreen is pretty much useless in the field. I smell lawyers…

The Pressure Regulator – Reviewed

The novel pressure regulator used as the control valve is interesting. This regulator works well as a control valve, but there has been a lot of misleading marketing spin put about by various distributors selling this stove. The claims seem to be based on the marketing claims made by the Soto company – claims which, while not false, do tend to confuse reality. A lack of knowledge at the distributor end has compounded the problem. We will examine what is really going on here.

Inside the canister, there is gas pressure, which is a function of the composition of the fuel and the temperature of the canister. This pressure is far too high to go direct into any stove jet: it has to be reduced. This is normally done by the (needle) valve which presents a huge restriction on the gas flow, creating a pressure drop (down to ‘P’). The greater the restriction or pressure drop at the valve, the less pressure there is left to push the gas through the jet, and so the less power comes out of the stove.

In other words, there are two places where the pressure is dropped between the canister and the outer face of the jet (which is at atmospheric pressure): across the control valve and across the jet. If there is a lot of pressure drop across the valve there is little pressure drop across the jet. If there is little pressure across the fixed-size jet there is little flow through it. It is identical to having two resistors in series or two taps on a hose.

It is crucial to understand here that the details of how the pressure is reduced (to P) by the control valve simply do not matter. All that matters is how much pressure is across the jet. A conventional needle valve varies the restriction or pressure drop across itself by varying the area of the hole around the needle in the valve, but this is not the only way this can be done. A more sophisticated diaphragm arrangement can be used for this: one which actually is designed to control the output pressure P per se. This latter is what is done in the Soto stove.

The marketing claim made by Soto is that the stove can maintain a constant power output as the canister pressure varies, and this is technically correct up to a point. The pressure P is regulated, and the flow through the jet depends directly on P. The claims made by some retailers and reviewers imply that the regulator will maintain a constant power output no matter what the pressure in the canister falls to, and this is seriously misleading (or false). The pressure regulator will only work while the canister pressure is high enough: it has to be a fair bit above P to be able to regulate. At this higher canister pressure, it does not matter whether a needle valve or a pressure regulator is used to get P. Below that, canister pressure the power output WILL fall.

The big difference is that using a pressure regulator rather than a needle valve means that P, and hence the flow of gas through the jet, and hence the power output, will be fairly constant despite a falling canister pressure. When using a needle valve, the intermediate P and hence the power output will vary. What the marketing claims do not examine is whether this constant power output matters in practice. I don’t think it matters at all.

If I want high power (to bring water to the boil for instance) I open the valve so the stove is roaring away. If the power output varies a bit – who cares? If I am simmering, I turn the stove right down, but any small variations don’t worry me either because I am usually monitoring dinner fairly closely and may be varying the power output as I go. To be sure, if I was running the stove for half an hour straight there might be some significant changes in the power output which might need correcting – but I never run the stove for that length of time.

Summary

The bottom line then is that the stove is nicely built, the piezo igniter works well, and the pressure regulator valve works very smoothly, but the CO emission is a bit higher than I am really comfortable with. The performance in the field does not show any special advantage to the unique pressure regulator valve.

Specifications and Features

What’s Good

• Well made
• Light
• Compact

What’s Not So Good

• High CO emission
• Excessive and misleading marketing spin

 

Introduction

Active Engineering LLC, a Washington based company, manufactures the JakPak that it describes as a jacket with a 3 season tent and sleeping bag. A more accurate description of the JakPak is a raincoat weighed down with:

1. A half-length bivouac (which combines with the jacket to form a full length shelter);
2. A tarp with mosquito netting;
3. A suspension system.

The suspension system ensures that the JakPak rides comfortably. The suspension system consists of two 1.5-inch wide elastic suspender straps. These straps connect to the interior of the jacket near the shoulder blade. The suspenders have clasps at the end for connecting to one’s waistband. There are also sliding buckles for tightening and loosening the suspension system (see first photo).

Specifications

During the month of October 2009 I tested a yellow, medium size JakPak in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, which straddles the border of Montana and Idaho.

October had typical fall weather with cool temperatures and mild precipitation (for exact temperatures and weather descriptions see the Analysis & Testing section). Activities included trekking and manual labor, like fencing and construction.

Quantitative Gear Rating

I contrasted the JakPak with the traditional combination of tent and rain coat. In this case, the tent used was the 2009 Black Diamond First Light, and the raincoat was a 2004 Marmot Precip.

The JakPak and the First Light/Precip were evaluated according to ten specific items critical to quality, or CTQ. Each CTQ was assigned an importance value. Importance values are from 1 to 3, where 1 indicates low importance and 3 indicates high importance. Then the JakPak and the First Light/Precip were rated on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 indicates poor and 5 indicates excellent. The rating was then multiplied by the importance, thereby yielding a final score. The importance, ratings, and scores for the JakPak and the First Light/Precip are presented below.

 

Analysis & Testing

Analysis

The rating values assigned to each CTQ for the JakPak were formulated while using the JakPak for approximately one month. Presented below is the qualitative reasoning for the ratings assigned. The testing is detailed later on in this section.

1. Weight: The yellow JakPak weighs 3.5 lbs. This is not overly heavy or super light so it received an average rating of 3. However the JakPak should probably be lighter considering that the First Light is a two person tent, and it only weighs 3.3 lbs.
2. Durability: The polyester material is tough, but the elastic suspenders have already started to snag and fray after one month of use, which is most likely the start of rapid progression to catastrophic failure. This is clearly a below average performance and warrants the rating of 2.
3. Breathability: There is no breathability with polyester – as anyone who has ever purchased a thrift store seventies garment can confirm => rating of 1.
4. Water Resistance: The JakPak with polyester material and urethane coating is waterproof, thus a high rating of 5.
5. Storage: The JakPak has ample pocket/storage space. It has a large waterproof pocket for valuable items and easy access kangaroo pockets in the front. The easy access kangaroo pockets with their flapped covers are especially desirable in that they securely house items without frustrating zipper fiddling.
6. Fit: The JakPak does not fit well. A jacket that needs suspenders to adjust fit inherently will not fit well. The weight of the bivy and the tarp hang heavy on the back of the JakPak so that the front zipper winds up gouging into the larynx. To remedy the situation, a pair of poor quality suspenders, which are extremely frustrating to adjust, are provided => rating of 1.
7. Shelter Comfort: It’s average, so rated a 3. It’s warm, but cramped and damp, and you can’t even comfort yourself in that you are saving on weight.
8. Appearance: Horrendous. Every time I put it on I felt like I was about to get rescued by the Coast Guard, and all my friends loved to rip on me about it (see below). It really deserves a score of 0 for appearance.


Playing JakPak.

9. Ease of Use: Fairly easy to use, and it comes with instructions on the interior, near the waterproof pocket => a rating of 4.
10. Cost: The JakPak, including shipping, costs approximately $199.00. This is a modest sum that compares favorably to the $420.00 for the First Light and the Precip. However the price is not a “deal” either, so it received a rating of 3.

Testing

As mentioned previously, testing occurred in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness. The two primary tests were a:

1. Two-day, 26-mile trip up the Selway River
2. Three-day, 45-mile loop to North Moose Creek and Isaac Lake

Tango Creek camp is located right along the Selway River at approximately mile 18 of the trip. The night I spent there it rained/drizzled intermittently. I was concerned that the JakPak would not hold up to the weather, so I set up the JakPak beneath a large grand fir tree and also erected the BD First Light in case I had to bail on the JakPak. Fortunately, the JakPak performed well in the rain, and the First Light was not needed. The only major problem was a gap between the waist of the jacket and the top of the bivy where the rain soaked into the sleeping bag. Minus the wet patch in the sleeping bag and rattlesnakes, the JakPak experience at Tango Creek surpassed my expectations.

The following morning was damp, so I continued to wear the JakPak for the hike. With the tarp removed, the JakPak is relatively comfortable with a pack. However, it quickly had to be stowed because the zero-percent-breathability had me sweating bullets.

The first camp was located in a small stand of large cedars at the confluence of North Moose Creek and Rhoda Creek. It was damp and rainy at Rhoda Creek Camp, and the JakPak again performed favorably, keeping me warm and relatively dry. The second camp was at Isaac Lake, where wolves joined our camp. The wolves put up two good howling sessions around 3:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. I wished at that point for some sort of clear plastic window in the tarp so I could watch. Instead there was only the glow of yellow neon that magically is still visible in the dead of night.

It was much colder at Isaac Lake, by approximately 20 to 25 F degrees. At these lower temperatures, the JakPak/0 degree bag combination kept me from freezing, but I was not warm. Chilled, I woke several times and had to burrow deep into the bag for greater warmth.

During the nights out with the JakPak the following details were recorded:

1. Morning and evening temperatures
2. Weather description
3. Qualitative reaction

JakPak Performance Appraisal

All other impressions for deciding ratings for the JakPak were garnered from experience using it as a rain coat on the trail. As a rain coat, the JakPak works fairly well simple because one stays dry, but it is stiff, has zero breathability, and is heavy and bulky because the bivy cannot be removed like the tarp. The weight and bulkiness restricts movement, which proves frustrating with active jobs like fencing and construction. The ratings for the First Light/Precip were determined from approximately 70 days of use in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness.

What I Liked

The worst part about the JakPak is also the best part: the bivy. The JakPak is not well suited for backpacking because of the weight, fit, and breathability issues discussed above. However it is advantageous for hunting. The weight and fit issues are not as prominent when hunting, and it is great to have a bivy that you can easily unfurl from your jacket when spending the pre-dawn hours sitting in cold snow. It keeps water out and warm air near the body. The tarp and netting, which sit close to the ground, also helped keep warm air near the body. They also kept rain off your head and were easy to setup, but the best part about was that they could be detached, thereby relieving some of the weight and fit issues. Overall, the bivy and tarp combo, minus the lack of breathability, performed quite well. At times, however, there was a gap between the bivy and the jacket. This was irritating in that it let in some rain that left a wet patch on the sleeping bag – this wet patch, however, was barely discernable from the dampness caused by the captured moisture.

The JakPak pocket system is praiseworthy. I liked its design for the simplicity. On the front of the jacket are two kangaroo pockets located at the easily accessible belly region. These pockets were designed with a pocket flap that keeps articles secure without an irritating zipper. For items that absolutely have to remain dry and secure, there is an internal waterproof pocket with a large zipper that is easy to grasp and operate.

What I Disliked

The primary problems with the JakPak are the excessive weight and the fit. Even when the tarp and netting is removed, the JakPak is excessively heavy, weighing in at 2.5 pounds, which is huge when compared against a typical backpacking raincoat that weighs approximately 12 ounces. This weight could be tolerated if it at least rested comfortably on the body’s frame… but it doesn’t. Much of the JakPak’s weight is due to the bivy that hangs heavy on the back, and this causes the collar and jacket zipper to dig into your neck – which is extremely uncomfortable. Granted there is a suspension system to help the JakPak ride comfortably, but the suspension system is of low quality. The suspenders are hard to adjust, the clasps on the suspenders readily and constantly detach, and the elastic material is shoddy. After only one month of use, the suspenders have already started to fray. The JakPak’s fit is further aggravated by the fact that it is entirely made of polyester, making it stiff and bulky. (Note that the blue or camo JakPaks may not have this problem, since they are made of nylon.)

It is unfortunate that the extra weight and poor fit are primarily due to the bivy, considering that it’s the bivy that’s the JakPak’s main selling point. If the bivy was made of some lightweight rip-stop material, like a tent or traditional bivy, perhaps the weight and fit issues would be alleviated. If the weight and fit issues were improved, the JakPak could be a highly desirable product for backpacking. Hopefully Active Engineering remedies these problems with subsequent JakPak models.

The other major gripe with the yellow JakPak is the complete lack of breathability. A heavy and non-breathable material like polyester is an extremely poor material choice for backpacking gear. Each night spent in the JakPak started out well because I was so pleased with the speedy set-up time, but in the morning, when I found my sleeping bag sopping with captured moisture, only frustration and irritation remained. Again, perhaps the blue and camo JakPaks have better breathability since they are made of nylon.

Final Comments

The JakPak is not designed for backpacking – at least I don’t think it was designed with backpacking in mind. It is a product more suited to disaster relief or a handy item to have under an airplane seat in the case of a crash. It might also prove popular as a shell for sports fans watching games in tundra-like country such as Lambeau Field and Buffalo, NY. Hunting is the only outdoor recreation activity for which I’d recommend the JakPak. It’s great to have a bivy in your jacket that you can slide into while hunkered down in wet snow, waiting for the sun to rise. However, make sure to purchase the camouflage JakPak – otherwise you’ll wind up a gleaming yellow beacon on the hillside.

For backpacking, the JakPak is like the baseball hat that comes with an umbrella. It’s a reasonable idea in conversation, but when it reaches the product stage, you realize it was best left as a conversation. Its functionality is mediocre, its fit is terrible, and the appearance is atrocious. It’s that camping item you buy at Walmart because it combines two critical needs and saves on cost, but only proves non-functional in both areas and winds up costing you more money when you buy the right tools for the job.

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

Introduction

Eddie Bauer was not on my radar screen to find lightweight performance outdoor clothing. That changed with the introduction of their First Ascent line, in concert with a successful Everest expedition in May 2009. Their experienced climbing team provided a lot of input into the garments’ design, which is evident in the Downlight Sweater. This jacket has an excellent balance of light weight and essential features, it’s very warm, and it’s a great value.

Description

The Downlight Sweater meets our requirements for ultralight three-season backpacking: it’s insulated with high-loft down (800 fill-power), has a lightweight shell with a DWR finish, has a minimal feature set (see the feature list in the specifications table at the bottom of this review), and weighs less than 14 ounces (397 g). A special edition of this jacket insulated with 900 fill-power down is available for a limited time. A hooded version is not available.* (*Editor’s note: a hooded version became available in late 2010.)

The shell fabric is 1.1 oz/yd² ripstop polyester, which is more water resistant than nylon and nearly as strong. Actually, modern polyesters are essentially equivalent to nylon for strength and durability.

Eddie Bauer claims that the features of garments within the First Ascent line are designed to be compatible when worn together, including body sizing and length, location of pockets and zippers, sleeve length, need for a hood, etc. I have not personally tested this.

Performance

The Downlight Sweater in size Large has a roomy fit on me (6 feet, 167 pounds, 37-inch chest, 34-inch arms), with enough room inside to wear several thin layers or another jacket or vest. Its 27.5-inch (70-cm) body extends below the hips (see photos). The tall version’s body is 2 inches (5 cm) longer and sleeves are 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) longer.

I measured the jacket’s double-layer loft at 1.75 inches (0.9 inches single layer / 4.4 cm double, 2.3 cm single), which is good. Eddie Bauer does not specify the amount of down in the jacket. In my field trials I found the jacket to be quite warm when worn while hiking on cold days, worn as a midlayer under a shell while backcountry skiing on cold days, worn as a midlayer under another insulated jacket while snow camping, and worn in my sleeping bag to extend its warmth.

The jacket’s water resistance is excellent; although the outside surface of the shell wetted somewhat with prolonged exposure to water, no water soaked through to wet the down or enter the inside of the jacket. This suggests that the surface DWR could stand some improvement, but fabric and seam resistance to water penetration is excellent. From my testing experience, only the Rab Microlight Jacket has better water resistance; in that case the shell fabric did not wet out and no water passed through the seams.

I also found the Downlight Sweater to have good wind resistance. The elastic cuffs and hem seal well, but the neck is loose. While hiking into the wind on a cold day in Arches National Park (top photos) I felt a cold draft around my neck, but when I put my chin inside the collar, it sealed better.

Lastly, I did not have any problems with the shell fabric snagging easily, as I have seen with a few jackets. Overall, the shell fabric is very soft, adequately durable with reasonable care, mostly downproof (only an occasional feather came through), and very water resistant.

Comparisons

The following table compares specifications of jackets similar to the Eddie Bauer First Ascent Downlight Sweater. All jackets have premium down insulation, sewn-through construction, and a full-height front zipper. Manufacturer data for size men’s medium are shown.

*The Patagonia Down Sweater has been upgraded since BPL reviewed it in 2005. Data in the table (except loft) are for the current version.

** The actual weight for size Large is 12.6 ounces (357 grams).

The Eddie Bauer Downlight Sweater compares favorably with similar jackets in terms of down quality, loft, and cost. The closest comparison is the Montbell Alpine Light Down Jacket which has a little more loft, weighs about 1.5 ounces (43 g) less, and costs a little less. The Western Mountaineering Flash Jacket has similar loft and features, weighs about 3 ounces (85 g) less (and has a hood), but it costs $90 more.

Assessment

The Downlight Sweater has become one of my favorite ultralight down jackets. It’s an excellent balance of light weight, basic features, warmth, and cost. It is sized well for layering under it, and the fleece-lined pockets are appreciated on cold days. Its water and wind resistance are excellent. I can personally do without the pocket zippers to save a little weight, but that feature gets down to personal preference.

Overall, the Downlight Sweater is well designed and sized, it’s lofty and warm, and a great value. It’s quite light weight, but not the lightest. It’s an excellent choice when you realize that the lightest jackets with comparable warmth cost about $100 more. I noticed the Downlight Sweater on sale in late 2009 at $139, which is an outstanding value.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Eddie Bauer (http://www.eddiebauer.com/)
Year/Model	2009 First Ascent Downlight Sweater
Sizes Available	Men’s regular and tall S to XXL Women’s regular, petite, tall S to XXL
Style	Hoodless jacket with full front zip
Fabrics	Shell is 1.06 oz/yd2 (36 g/m2) ripstop polyester with DWR Lining is 1.3 oz/yd2 (45 g/m2) nylon taffeta
Insulation	800 fill-power down
Construction	Sewn through with 2.5-in (6-cm) horizontal quilting (men’s), 4-in (10-cm) rectangular quilting (women’s); set-in sleeves
Loft	Measured two-layer loft is 1.75 in (4.5 cm)
Features	Down-filled stand up collar, full height #5CNs YKK reverse coil zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, two fleece-lined zippered side pockets, two interior drop pockets, elastic cuffs and hem (no drawcord), 1.5 in (3.8 cm) dropped tail, chamois chin guard, stuffs into left hand pocket
Weight	Size men’s Large tested Measured weight: 12.6 oz (357 g) Manufacturer specified average weight: 13.4 oz (380 g)
MSRP	US$169

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

Introduction

My preference for an ultralight sleeping system that will handle occasional unexpectedly cold nights is a 30 F rated mummy-style down sleeping bag with enough girth so I can wear extra clothing inside to extend its warmth when needed. Backpacking Light will publish a series of three articles in spring 2010 covering the insulated components of an ultralight three-season sleeping system for colder temperatures. This review is a separate evaluation of the Sierra Designs Nitro 30 sleeping bag.

When selecting sleeping bags to include in my upcoming state of the market article on ultralight three-season down mummy-style sleeping bags, I at first rejected the Sierra Designs Nitro 30 because it weighs 26 ounces. The lightest bags in this category weigh in at 19 to 23 ounces. Then I noticed that the Nitro 30 (size Regular) contains 12 ounces of down, while the lighter bags contain 10 ounces of similar quality down. That’s 20% more, which should translate to more loft and more warmth. The Nitro 30 has some other features that also should contribute to warmth, so how does the slightly heavier Nitro 30 stack up compared to the lightest 30 F (-1 C) rated sleeping bags?

Description

Sierra Designs’ Partial Stretch technology is similar to MontBell’s Super Stretch Down Hugger technology, in which a proprietary elastic thread is used in the seams to provide enough elasticity to draw the bag up so it gently hugs the sleeper’s body. Sierra Designs puts the flex in the location where it is most needed – the widest part of the bag (shoulders to hips) – where excess volume requires more body heat to warm it up. To be specific, there are 7 inches of flex in the top of the bag from your chin down to your knees, so the shoulder girth expands from 53 to 60 inches and the hip girth expands from 50 to 57 inches.

Performance

I measured the loft of the Nitro 30 to be 6 inches (double-layer; single-layer loft is 3 inches). That’s one-third more than the lightest sleeping bags with the same temperature rating. Obviously, not all 30 F rated sleeping bags are created equal! Additionally, the bag has continuous baffles, so it’s possible to shift more of the down to the topside, if desired.

According to our table of estimated temperature ratings based on measured loft (read our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings), 1.8 inches of single-layer loft translates to a 30 F (-1 C) rating and the Nitro 30’s 3 inches of single-layer loft translates to a 0 F rating. Please read the referenced article and Ryan Jordan’s article entitled Sleeping by Faith: Bag Temperature Ratings and realize that sleeping bag warmth depends on a number of factors.

So, how warm is the Nitro 30? I would hesitate to sleep in it on a 0 F (-18 C) night, but I had no problem staying warm down to 28 F (-2 C), wearing microfleece long johns and sleeping in a single-wall solo tent with a Therm-a-Rest NeoAir pad and RidgeRest foam pad under me. This is the first sleeping bag I have tested that actually exceeds its claimed temperature rating!

Next I wore a lightweight down jacket and pants (plus appropriate headwear and footwear) inside the Nitro 30 to see how much I could extend its warmth, and stayed warm down into the single digits (3 and 6 F / -16 and -14 C) on two occasions, and 15 and 19 F (-9 and -7 C) on other nights (yes, as explained in the above referenced articles, sleeping bag warmth is affected by a lot of variables). That’s remarkable for a 30 F rated sleeping bag! You are probably wondering what clothing I wore inside the bag, but that’s the subject of an upcoming article, so I will save that information for later.

One disappointment with the Nitro 30 is the bag length is shorter than expected. Sierra Designs specifies that size Regular fits a person up to 6 feet tall; I am 6 feet tall and I press against both ends of the bag. I was able to “get by” with a size Regular, but it was less than comfortable, and I constantly wished for a couple of extra inches in length for a better fit. Notice in the hood photo above that there is a gap under my chin. That resulted from the bag being too short for me; when I extend my legs the gap opens up, but when I bend my legs the gap closes and the hood seals around my mouth.

The bag’s girth, regardless of its stretch technology, is on the slender side. Note in the specifications table that the extended shoulder girth is 60 inches, which is the same as the Mountain Hardwear Phantom 32 and less than the Marmot Hydrogen’s 62-inch girth. I found the girth to be perfect (for me) when wearing light sleeping clothing, but snug when wearing additional down clothing.

My fall-winter testing period for the Nitro 30 did not provide an opportunity for me to test the bag’s foot vent, but I assume it works well to compensate for the half zipper on warm nights. I personally don’t have a need for additional features like a zippered foot vent, but some people do.

The bag’s pad attachment straps are useful for a back sleeper or hammock sleeper. As I’m a side sleeper, I had no use for the pad attachment straps because I want the bag to turn with me.

Comparisons

The following table compares the Sierra Designs Nitro 30 with some popular 30-32 F (-1 to 0 C) rated ultralight mummy style down sleeping bags. All of the bags have baffled construction, and all data are manufacturer specifications for a size Regular bag.

*Note: A size Regular MontBell bag fits to 5 feet 10 inches, while the other bags fit a 6 foot tall person.

Interpreting the data, the Nitro 30 has 2 extra ounces (57 g) of down compared to the lightest bags, giving it exceptional loft, though it weighs a bit more too. Its US$289 cost makes it a good value (considering its extra warmth) compared to the other bags, but the MontBell Spiral Down Hugger at US$229 remains the best value despite it being less warm.

Assessment

The Sierra Designs Nitro 30 is warm!! The bag has 20% more down than a typical 30 F rated sleeping bag, giving it a full 6 inches (15 cm) of double-layer loft, one-third more than many other bags. Factors that contribute to the bag’s warmth are its extra down, flex technology that eliminates extra inside volume to keep warm, half zipper with a large down-filled draft tube, and jacket-style hood. For comparison, the MontBell Spiral Down Hugger #3 does not have a down-filled draft tube, has 2 ounces (57 g) less down, and lighter shell and lining fabric, which reduce weight, but the MontBell bag is clearly less warm, although it has the same temperature rating.

That extra warmth comes with some extra weight, 4 to 7 ounces (113 to 198 g) more than to the lightest bags. Two ounces (57 g) of the extra weight is the additional down insulation. The half zipper saves weight, but its Snag-Free Zipper Guard uses a heavier webbing-like material on both sides of the zipper, which adds weight. There is also extra fat in the bag’s foot vent, sleeping pad attachment straps (but they’re removable, saving 0.3 ounce), and 1.0 oz/yd² shell and lining fabrics.

Overall, the Nitro 30 is an excellent choice for hikers who want to have an extra measure of warmth and for three-season camping in colder climates where a warmer sleeping bag is needed. Another way to look at the Nitro 30 is that its loft and warmth are equivalent to many bags that have a claimed rating of 15 F, so one might say it’s a very light and less expensive 15 F rated bag.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Sierra Designs (https://www.sierradesigns.com/)
Year/Model	2009 Nitro 30
Style	Hooded mummy with half-length zipper
What’s Included	Sleeping bag, stuff sack, cotton storage bag
Fill	800 fill-power down, 12 oz (340 g) size Regular, 14 oz (397 g) size Long
Construction	5.5 in (14 cm) straight wall continuous baffles, flex technology in upper half of bag, ergonomically shaped footbox, six-chamber jacket hood
Measured Loft	6 in (15 cm) average double-layer loft Manufacturer specification not available
Manufacturer Claimed Temperature Rating	30 F (-1 C)
Stuffed Size	17 x 7 in (43 x 18 cm)
Weight	Size Regular tested, measured weight: 1 lb 9.6 oz (726 g) Manufacturer specification: 1 lb 10 oz (737 g)
Dimensions (Shoulder/Hip)	Regular 53-60/50–57/35 in (135-152/127–145/89 cm) Long 55-62/52–59/37 in (140-157/132–150/94 cm) Measurements are relaxed-extended
Sizes	Regular fits to 6 ft (1.83 m) Long fits to 6 ft 6 in (1.98 m)
Fabrics	Shell is 22 denier 1.0 oz/yd2 (35 g/m2) ripstop polyester with DWR Lining is 22 denier 1.0 oz/yd2 (35 g/m2) ripstop polyester
Features	Half-length zipper with one pull, anatomical footbox, continuous baffles, large down-filled draft tube, snag-free zipper track, jacket hood, partial flex, zippered footbox vent
MSRP	Regular US$290 Long US$309

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

Introduction

With the 3.8-pound Quarter Dome, REI did some thinking outside of the box, or rather outside of the tent, to come up with an interesting pole design that cuts weight while increasing interior space. The result is one of the lightest and roomiest two-person tents they have ever sold under their own name. I found that it is quite strong as well, shrugging off high winds and precipitation. Its low retail price makes this fine tent an even more attractive, providing a lot of bang-for-the-buck in the lightweight double-wall category.

Specifications

Design and Features

The REI Quarter Dome T2 is a complete redesign of the company’s Quarter Dome UL tent, and from where this guy writes, it was a success. Utilizing DAC poles and swivel hubs, they came up with a smart design called "Tension Truss" architecture that gives structural integrity while adding headroom. It also keeps the sides steeper to give more move-around room in the tent.

A fellow BackpackingLight member and friend of mine said she can’t stand poles that are all connected like the Seedhouse SL2 she saw me using in Yosemite. Well, L, you really won’t care for this one. The Quarter Dome uses twenty-four sections of shock-corded aluminum and two swivel hubs to make three poles. The longest pole (silver) runs at an angle from one corner to the other, where it plugs into grommets in color-coded silver straps. The two shorter orange poles start at their own orange corner locations and curve across the silver pole to end at a grommet above each of the doors. The length of orange pole that goes past the silver one creates a cantilevered truss, hence the name so familiar to those of us in the construction industry.

Once the poles are in place, the mesh walled inside tent attaches with clips, a welcome departure from the pole sleeves in the old version. The fly has attachment points at the ends of the truss poles and adjustable straps at the corners to give a strong, tight pitch. The two vestibules are formed by pulling the fly away from the doors and securing with a single stake at each one.

While the walls of the inner have been changed to full mesh (compared to the partial solid nylon of the old model), REI wisely left solid material on the very top of the Quarter Dome T2. This keeps condensation from dripping from the fly to the mesh and raining down as mist.

One of my favorite things about the Quarter Dome is its teardrop-shaped doors. As they have full double zippers, the doors can be completely tucked away into a small mesh pocket above each one. More pockets for gear storage may be found lower at each corner inside the tent.

On each side of the fly a good sized vent provides extra air movement. The vents have tethered struts to hold them open and can be adjusted from inside the tent without the need to open the vestibule doors.

The Quarter Dome comes with a large stuff sack that has a carrying strap and two compression straps. It weighs 2.6 oz (74 g). It also comes with a 0.6-oz (17-g) pole sack and a 0.4-oz (11-g) stake sack.

REI did not send a footprint with the tent, but the 23.9-oz (678-g) fly and 15.3-oz (434-g) poles can be used with one to cut the weight of your shelter if bugs are not a concern. As the only weight I can find for a footprint says “about 13 oz” and the inner weighs just 20.8 oz (590 g), it is only a savings of 7.8 oz (221 g).

Performance

I got to use the Quarter Dome in the mountains of California and quite a bit in northwestern Minnesota. Once I set it up a couple of times, I got used to the poles. The color coding helps. Over half of my trips with it were in temps at or below freezing, and I am happy to say that it is easy to set up with gloves on.

The pole design works as well as REI says, giving the Quarter Dome a lot more room to move around in than most tents of the same dimensions. I was able to sit up with plenty of clearance. Being 6′ 3” (1.91 m) tall, I found that the length was fine when using my quilt, but once I had the big winter bags inside they hit both ends of the tent. REI addresses this with a T2 Plus version that is longer; of course, it weighs more too.

The heavy-duty aluminum stakes that REI provides worked great in both the rocky terrain of California’s mountains and the clay of Minnesota, though they sat down and said “no way” once the ground froze. While trying to stake down the Quarter Dome in Minnesota’s Buffalo River State Park in November, they not only would not go in more than a half inch, they bent! A month later after a spell of temps down to -29 F (-34 C), I had to substitute six hardened steel screwdrivers to set it up in anticipation of a snow storm that I wanted to ride out in it. (Yeah, we testers are weird…)

Speaking of storms, the Quarter Dome did an excellent job of weathering them. The symmetrical shape lends itself well to shedding wind. There are really no flat areas for the wind to catch.

The wind does blow snow and sand inside the tent through the mesh walls. This occurred when I was in just 4 to 6 inches (10-15 cm) of snow, and I was a bit concerned the night I spent in the storm. I needn’t have worried, as the falling snow slid down the sides and eventually blocked the openings at the bottom of the tent, though that killed a lot of my air movement as far as ventilation went. As it was 0 F (-18 C), I did not need the wind-chill – I mean, air movement – that much. I had no problems with condensation inside the tent proper except for the area of my bag around my face and my balaclava, but the next morning the entire inside of the fly was coated with ice crystals. The humidity was at 74% in the morning when I split.

That was the only condensation I experienced in the Quarter Dome, as the two vents work very well. Opening the bottom of the vestibule door lets you add draw during inclement weather while still keeping the inner dry. There are two loops at the bottom of the fly on the sides that will allow the fly to be pulled out further to do the same thing.

Assessment

I came away quite impressed with the REI Quarter Dome. I found the design to be brilliant. It really works! It has plenty of room for two people and the steep sides add to the comfort. If it was as wide as they say it is supposed to be it would be even better. No matter how I pulled the corners out I could never get more than 48 inches (122 cm) from side to side.

While not the lightest tent in its category, its strength overcomes much of the weight penalty. I would not hesitate to take the Quarter Dome on any trip that I thought bad weather was possible. One thing I learned was to get the poles all put together before taking the body out during bad weather. I had snow go into the tent as I was setting it up, which is not so bad as I can shake it out before staking it down. However, setting up during a downpour will result in a wet floor inside no matter what. Better to lessen the exposure as much as possible.

I am a fan of setting up mesh walled tents without the fly to be able to feel more in touch with nature, without nature being able to touch (or bite) me back. I also spend so much time at rocky camp sites that a free-standing tent is almost imperative. The Quarter Dome shines for both scenarios.

One thing that I was sad to see go away was the partial-height solid walls of the Quarter Dome UL. I think that the new version would benefit from even the bottom third being lightweight breathable nylon, which would block much of the blown in debris. Plus, a lot of newer fabrics are as light as the mesh or near to it.

The Quarter Dome has been durable as far as I can see. The floor is still in good shape after the abrasive rock in the mountains, and the fly is in good shape through all the weather woes of windy, stormy Minnesota.

Dare to Compare

In terms of comparisons, I believe that the Quarter Dome’s closest competitors that share the same design attributes are the MSR Hubba Hubba HP, and the Sierra Designs Lightning XT. I also threw in Big Sky’s Revolution for another choice in the same category. The Quarter Dome comes in at a lower weight than the Hubba Hubba and Lightning, but it sacrifices both interior and vestibule space to do so. The Revolution really beats it in all space and weight comparisons, but the heftier fabrics used in the Quarter Dome should handle prolonged bad weather better. The ventilation of the Quarter Dome is as good as I have seen, although the Revolution and Hubba Hubba HP are no slouches in that regard. The Quarter Dome represents a better value in price.

Notes:

*Manufacturer Trail Weight: This is the minimum weight as listed by the manufacturer. Different companies may include different components in this weight.

**Backpacking Light Trail Weight: This is the weight of tent, rain fly, poles, and stakes needed for basic setup. It does not include stuff sacks, extra guylines, extra stakes, or repair kit.

***Dimensions: maximum Length x maximum Width x maximum Height (LxWxH). In the case of oddly-shaped floor, a double measurement is given for head and foot (H/F). The numbers are as verified by BPL and may differ from the manufacturer’s stated dimensions.

****Floor Area/Trail Weight ratio: This is the floor area divided by the trail weight.

*****Protected Area/Trail Weight ratio: This is the floor area plus vestibule area divided by the trail weight.

What’s Good

• Structurally sound
• Plenty of room for two people
• Lots of interior space
• Good value for the price

What’s Not So Good

• Stakes are soft and bend easily
• Mesh walls let in blowing sand and snow

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

Introduction

A good way for some women to save weight on a sleeping bag is to purchase a size Short, which usually fits a person up to 5 feet 6 inches. However, only a few manufacturers of ultralight sleeping bags offer a size Short; PHD Mountain Software, a small company in Stalybridge UK, is one of them. Being a small company that manufacturers their bags themselves, PHD (which stands for Peter Hutchinson Designs) offers customers a variety of options (at extra cost).

I don’t need a sleeping bag with a lot of features. I just want to be WARM. So the basic zipperless hooded Minim 400 suits me just fine. To further reduce weight, I opted for their MX Microfiber shell fabric, which is their lightest (comes in black rather than red). I chose and tested a size Short (I’m 5 feet 2 inches) hooded and zipperless down sleeping bag rated at 23 F (-5 C) with a measured weight of just 22 ounces. I’m very pleased with the Minim 400’s weight and performance, as I report in this review.

Description

The Minim 400 is a member of PHD’s ultralight series of sleeping bags. The basic bag is a hooded mummy-style, and it’s zipperless to save weight. If you desire a zipper, you can add a full-length zipper on either side of the bag for £25.

The beauty of working with a small company like PHD that makes each bag to order is that you can get exactly what you want. Rather than choose a specific model on their website, you can design your own sleeping bag from scratch. This gives you the opportunity to choose the length and girth (slender, standard, wide) you want, shell and lining fabrics, down quality and quantity, zipper length and position, and other options to satisfy your needs.

I chose to test the Minim 400 sleeping bag with minimal options. It’s a mummy-style bag with no zipper and insulated with 800 fill-power down. Rather than the standard microfiber shell fabric, I chose their lightest shell fabric, which is 0.88 oz/yd² (30 g/m²) MX Microfiber. This fabric is calendared on both sides (more on the inside) to make it stronger and downproof, and it has a DWR finish. Since this is a minimalist down bag, there is not much else to describe.

Performance

I live in southwest Colorado and backpack in the summertime in our local mountains, where nighttime temperatures often drop down into the 30s F(-1s C). In the fall I camp and hike in the southern Utah canyon country, where nighttime temperatures range from 35 to 50 F (2 to 10 C). To test the bag’s lower temperature limit, I slept on our back porch on a late fall night where the nighttime temperatures dropped to 19 F (-7 C).

The Minim 400 in the Standard size contains 400 grams of down. I measured my size Short bag’s double-layer loft to be an average of 5.25 inches/13.3 centimeters (2.6 in/6.6 cm of single-layer loft). From Backpacking Light’s table of estimated temperature ratings based on measured loft (read our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings), 2.6 inches of single-layer loft translates to about a 10 F (-12 C) temperature rating, so the Minim 400’s 23 F (-5 C) rating appears to be very conservative. Please take the time to read the referenced article and note that sleeping bag warmth depends on a number of factors.

Although many backpackers may prefer a zippered sleeping bag for the versatility it provides, I do not have any problems with sleeping in a bag without a zipper. I’m normally a cold sleeper, so I rarely have a problem with being too warm. Quite the contrary, I often wear my camp clothes inside my sleeping bag to provide extra warmth. The warmest night I spent in the Minim 400 was at Lake Powell in southern Utah, where it only got down to 50 F (10 C), and I slept comfortably with the top of the bag open and my body partly out of the bag. I have used a zipperless sleeping bag before (GoLite FeatherLite, 40 F/4 C), so I am familiar with the experience, and it doesn’t present me with any problems.

On my coldest night of testing (19 F/-7 C), I slept warm in the Minim 400 with baselayer and light insulated clothing until 4:00 a.m., when I noted the temperature to be 24 F (-4 C). I put on heavy insulated camp clothing I had stashed next to me. It took about thirty minutes to warm up the cold clothing, but then I was warm the rest of the night. Note that the Minim 400 has continuous baffles, so some of the down can be moved from the bottom of the bag to the topside to make the bag even warmer (this assumes you have a sleeping pad under the bag that provides adequate bottomside insulation).

In my field testing, the ends of the bag came into contact with condensation inside a single wall tent. The bag’s shell easily shed that small amount of water, and water did not enter the bag through the seams. I did not test the bag in rainy conditions to see if the bag absorbed moisture from moist humid air. From my tests, I conclude that the bag’s DWR treatment on the shell and lining provides adequate water-repellency to keep moisture from entering the bag and wetting the down under normal conditions, but water will penetrate the seams. This performance is comparable to most other sleeping bags with a DWR treatment on the shell, and the Minim 400 has a DWR treatment on the lining as well.

I didn’t notice the drawcord problem before using the bag. As it got colder on the first night, I cinched the hood, the knot slipped out, and I couldn’t get it back in. To tighten the cord, I needed to pull just one of two cords through the cord lock. After becoming aware of this problem, I learned to keep the knot centered inside the channel by pulling both sides of the cord evenly through the cordlock. Another aspect of this problem was that when the lump came out of the channel, it pulled the unfinished hem out of one side of the opening of the channel as seen in the lower right quadrant of the photo. In my opinion, this design is not durable enough for the long term, and a redesign could readily solve the two problems (cord coming out and unfinished hem being exposed).

Overall, from my testing, I found the Minim 400’s temperature rating of 23 F (-5 C) to be realistic. Note that since I am a cold sleeper, I always need to wear extra insulation to stay warm at a bag’s temperature rating. This Minim 400 bag is adequately roomy to wear extra clothing inside to extend its warmth. The zipperless design is not a problem if you are a person who wants to save weight and rarely experience situations where it’s warmer than about 50 to 60 F (10 to 16 C) at night. For a short person, getting a size Short sleeping bag is an excellent way to save weight and stay warmer, because there is less bag to warm up.

Comparisons

The hooded zipperless PHD Minim 400 is in a class of its own. The best comparison is with other 20-30 F (-7 to -1 C) rated ultralight mummy style down sleeping bags that are available in a size Short. All of the bags have baffled construction, and all data are manufacturer specifications for a size Regular bag. All bags have a zipper, except the Minim 400.

Note: all bags in this table are available in a size Short, though these specs are for a size Regular.

The Nunatak Alpinist at 21 ounces is the lightest bag in this comparison, and the most expensive. The Sierra Designs Spark 30 is rated at 30 F (-1 C), and has the most loft of all the bags listed and the lowest cost, as well as a half-length zipper. Because of the low current (late 2009) exchange rate between the US dollar and the British pound, the PHD Minim 400 is expensive, and the Sierra Designs Spark 30 is perhaps a better value (about US $100 less). Note that buyers outside the UK do not pay Value Added Tax (VAT), so 17.5% is deducted from the price when purchased. However, when the dollar is strong, the Minim 400 is a much better value.

Assessment

I personally like the PHD Minim 400 because of its simplicity, high loft, and high warmth-to-weight ratio. I don’t mind the bag not having a zipper, because it keeps the bag simpler and lighter. I realize, however, that many people prefer having a zipper for personal convenience and to increase a bag’s versatility. The Minim is available with a full-length zipper option, which bumps up the weight and cost. For a zippered bag, the Sierra Designs Spark 30 (men’s version is the Nitro 30) is a standout. It has the most loft of all the bags listed, which suggests its 30 F (-1 C) rating is very conservative. It’s also the best value.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	PHD Mountain Software (http://phdesigns.co.uk/)
Year/Model	2009 Minim 400
Style	Zipperless hooded mummy (optional zipper available)
What’s Included	Sleeping bag, stuff sack, mesh storage bag
Fill	800 fill-power down, 14.1 oz (400 g) size Standard
Construction	4 in (10 cm) boxed wall baffles, continuous
Measured Loft	5.25 in (13.3 cm) average double-layer loft, manufacturer specification not available
Manufacturer Claimed Temperature Rating	23 F (-5 C)
Stuffed Size	12 x 6.5 in (30 x 17 cm)
Weight	Size Short tested Measured weight: 1 lb 6 oz (624 g) Manufacturer specification: 1 lb 8 oz (680 g) size Standard
Measurements	Size Standard: Shoulder/hip/foot: 67/58/39 in (170/148/98 cm)
Sizes	XShort fits to 5 ft 1 in (1.55 m) Short fits to 5 ft 6 in (1.68 m) Standard fits to 6 ft (1.83 m) Long fits to 6 ft 7 in (2.01 m) XLong fits to 7 ft (2.13 m)
Fabrics	Optional MX outer shell (tested) is 0.88 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2) mini-ripstop nylon, calendared both sides, DWR finish; standard M1 shell is 40 g/m2; lining is MX Microfiber
Features	Seven-panel baffled hood with braided drawcord and cordlock
MSRP	Short and Standard £235 (approximately US$382), Long +7.5%

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

Introduction

Petzl has been busy upgrading the Tikka-Zipka line, and as part of this suite of six new headlamps gives us two versions of the old Tikka XP: the Tikka Plus2 and the Tikka XP2. Physically, the new Plus2 and XP2 have more similarities than differences and each includes the following:

• Single, high-output, white, collimated LED
• Small, red, 5mm LED
• Single control switch, mounted top-center
• Ratcheted angle adjustment
• Hinged battery compartment
• Wraparound elastic headband

The headlamp shells are similar in shape and incorporate the same materials – a combination of crystal clear and gray translucent plastics. Each is powered by three AAAs and, new to the 2-series, take any battery formulation: alkaline, NiMH, NiCd and yes, disposable lithium. Their switch control sequences are identical and both sport an IPX4 water resistance rating (“limited ingress of water sprayed from any direction”). Like the previous Tikkas, neither new light has current regulation, and both have battery life meters.

There are differences: The XP2 has a diffuser lens and head strap whistle and, importantly, is much brighter. The XP2 body is a bit deeper to accommodate the diffuser and has a slightly larger switch and collimator. The Plus2 weighs 5 grams less and costs $15 less.

A Bit of History

Four years ago, Petzl expanded the popular Tikka series of small LED headlamps with the XP, their first AAA-powered Luxeon (1-watt hyperbright LED) headlamp. Compared to the other Tikkas, with their floody 5 mm white LED arrays, the XP provided a bright pencil beam with much longer throw and very good battery life. Then, to tame that narrow beam into a wide flood Petzl added an optical diffuser lens that simply slides in front of the LED. At a bit over 3 ounces with batteries, the XP competed with the best from other headlamp makers in nearly every way, but with two exceptions: no current regulation and no use of disposable lithium cells. These XP descendants correct one of those shortcomings, add several new features, and shave a bit of weight.

Battery Options

Many BPL readers will be primarily interested in the restoration of lithium cells to Petzl’s list of approved batteries (across the entire Tikka/Zipka line, but not brand-wide). There is no documentation as to what changes Petzl made that renders them safe to use, and I don’t know whether the deletion of the old XP’s boost mode is somehow related. It’s likely fresh lithium cells (capable of high-current draw well beyond what alkaline or NiMH cells can eke out) were overdriving the older LEDs to premature failure. Since a major appeal of LED flashlights is their effectively limitless service life compared to incandescents, a cautious approach is understandable if there is a chronic weakness.

As a refresher, disposable lithium batteries provide more stable output as they discharge compared to alkaline cells and, as noted, tolerate higher current draw. They also perform better than alkalines in the cold and are much lighter. These benefits come at considerable cost, since lithium AAAs run at or above $2 each, nearly ten times the price of quality alkalines bought in bulk. While I’ve almost completely switched over to NiMH rechargeables for everything but long-duration hikes (especially since we now have low self-discharge cells), the ability to load up the new Tikkas with lithiums is welcome indeed for longer trips and very cold locations.

Design, Construction, Controls

You can see from the photo that the Plus2 and XP2 bodies differ from the XP. The new shell plastic feels slicker and the shape is a departure, although overall dimensions and weights are roughly comparable. The old XP has a fully removable (and potentially losable) battery cover, while the new models have a secure hinged lid with thumb tab opening that’s much easier to use. Interestingly, the new battery compartment is not sealed against the elements like the old model, which seems at odds with the IPX4 rating. However, through the clear body a seal can be spotted protecting the electronics. It appears Petzl doesn’t consider keeping water and fine grit out of the battery compartment to be an issue, but instead has gasketed just the electronics against intrusion. This may be in consideration of the fact that lithium cells can off-gas in use and require venting, a potential problem in sealed battery compartments. However, I caution folks in salt environments to take note of the new Tikkas’ unsealed battery compartments – anybody who uses one in the wet should dry it out when they can. If exposed to salt water or airborne grit, first rinse the battery compartment with fresh water.

As a certified klutz, I am qualified to say both lights are tough. I’ve dropped them plenty with no damage or failures. They seem reasonably sturdy, although I defer to spelunkers to weigh in on just how sturdy. The collimator, red LED, and battery meter are protected by a clear shield, and the XP2 diffuser offers a second protective layer.

The old XP diffuser slides sideways while the XP2’s slides vertically, a minor change that makes operation a bit easier. The new diffuser design also uses a larger tab for notably easier gloved operation and a spring assist helps return it to its hiding spot. The diffuser portion only covers the white LED and does not affect the red LED beam. The XP2 diffused beam is a bit narrower than the XP’s, but is still quite wide and even.

Both 2-series lights have a large single switch in a depression that should reduce accidental switch-on, but cannot eliminate it. I recommend stowing the light on red mode in case it does get turned on in your pack, because red mode won’t drain the batteries like white mode will. Compared to the old XP’s miniscule buttons, these new switches are a breeze to operate – a definite advance.

Operation

The operation of both 2-series Tikkas is identical. The lone switch controls all LED functions as follows. From off, a brief press switches the light on, while a long press switches between the red and white modes. Following initial power-on, each brief press cycles through the mode states in sequence.

• White mode has three states: high, low and flash, in that order from off.
• Red mode has two states: steady and flash, in that order from off.

Once the desired mode and state have been selected and the switch is unused for a few seconds, the next quick press switches the headlamp off. A long press will alternate the color mode without turning the light off. Regardless of this wordy description, the control sequence is easy to learn and use!

By comparison, the old XP has three continuous levels plus flash. It also has a boost mode accessed via a second button that gives a short burst of very high output. Boost is heat-limited and shuts off automatically if the button isn’t released first. This happens in less than one minute (for more on boost mode, see the Petzl MYO XP Review).

For me, the most important control advance in the Plus2 and XP2 is the color mode memory. They switch on to the last mode used, whether red or white. I would prefer that they also recalled which white level the light was last in (i.e., low was retained) but red mode recall is very helpful in retaining night vision by not inadvertently blasting my eyes with high-intensity white light. Star party folks, feel free to rejoice.

Beam

Tikka Plus2 and XP2 beam patterns are similar, but not identical. The Plus2 beam is more even and has no obvious artifacts (beam unevenness or odd shape and coloration). The XP2 beam is more center-weighted and has a couple of shadow artifacts. These differences are notable projected against a white wall, but undetectable in the field. Both lights are very different from the old XP, which uses both a collimator behind and a Fresnel lens in front of the LED, a rather sophisticated control scheme that gives it a superior beam pattern in my opinion. The new models use only a bare collimator, which seems to control the beam less completely. The XP2 diffuser spreads the beam wide and evenly, dropping intensity by a factor of about ten. The Plus2 doesn’t have this option, of course.

Why the diffuser feature isn’t slavishly copied by others is a mystery; instead they’re seemingly content to load up their hybrid lights with auxiliary banks of white 5 mm LEDs, rather than simply lensing their superbright main light. The costs to this approach, of course, are complexity and weight. (Conceptually, a red LED is better than a red lens [filter] in front of a white light source. A filter subtracts light, creating inefficiency compared using a red LED’s full output.)

Color

Tikka Plus2 beam is cool white, while the XP2 is a warmer white. When not compared side-by-side, the difference isn’t noticeable, but in my experience, warmer light is a little easier on the eyes over extended periods.

Fit and Aiming

Petzl uses very good quality headband material – soft with a reassuring amount of stretch. The new headbands are a bit longer than before – good news for helmet wearers and my fellow melonheads. The buckles don’t loosen in use. Helmet users can also investigate Petzl’s ADAPT system for mounting the headlamps without the headband. For all, the headband removes easily for cleaning. The whistle, added to one of the XP2 buckles, was a pleasant surprise and packing an XP2 takes care of two of the “ten essentials.” Its quite high frequency is the bane of dogs everywhere.

The headlamps aim slightly downward when set to the highest angle and the ratcheted adjustment allows roughly an additional 45 degrees of downward tilt. Anyone wanting to angle the light upwards (e.g., for bear-bagging) can simply flip it over, since there’s no top strap. I find the angle setting holds securely, although the ratchet mechanism is looser than my old XP. I’m not a trail runner, so I can’t verify that these new lights hold their position while pounding dirt through the dark, but they haven’t slipped in my use. The curved base is mostly padded by the strap and is comfortable on my forehead for extended stints. Petzl has been a leader in headlamp comfort for as long as I’ve used the brand (going back as far as the Zoom).

Performance in the Lab

Intensity

At the starting gate (fresh alkalines, initial reading) the Plus2 delivered 800 lux at 2 feet, while the XP2 achieved 1,800 lux, a whopping 225% brighter – a surprise given Petzl’s specs showing the XP2 putting out just 20% more lumens than the Plus2*. The Tikka XP2 also exceeded the old XP by roughly 80% (the XP measured about 1,050 lux), while the Plus2 was moderately dimmer. The original XP has a trick in its bag, however; an astonishing 2,500 lux in boost (albeit for less than a minute at a shot). (Please note: none of the lights holds the measured high value reported in the specifications for long, regardless of batteries used. A comparison of the values after at least half an hour is more valid.)

Output Over Time

It’s plain from the alkaline results that these headlights are unregulated. The graphs plunge over the first hour then, after stabilizing for a bit, continue their downward slope, never settling into an extended period of flat output. The results show an odd “bounce” that may be heat-related (more on this later). Some, but not all, regulated lights can hold a steady output for quite awhile on alkalines.

NiMH rechargeable results show the same initial drop as the alkalines, then have a lengthy period of steady output before quickly dimming to the point that they must be changed. The performance of both Tikka models with NiMH is better than alkalines starting at about hour two and staying higher until they drop steeply at around four and a half hours. Most surprising to me is that the XP2 results essentially trace the lithium response through about hour four. Especially in view of the NiMH base cell voltage of 1.2V, this performance is laudable. Setting battery weight aside and considering the typically good NiMH cold performance, it’s hard to make an argument for lithium cells except for the most extreme pursuits. The performance and frugality of today’s NiMH cells are both indisputable and heartening, and we eagerly await the forthcoming nickel-zinc rechargeables to see if they can up the ante further. Reliable field-recharging is perhaps the final hurdle.

Lithiums were only tested in the XP2, and it proved an excellent pairing. Following the predictable initial drop, the output achieved a steady and very bright level for nearly five hours. The minor oscillation displayed on the graph up to hour five is likely battery-heat related and of no consequence in the field. The XP2 effectively mimics a regulated light throughout this period, perhaps signaling Petzl’s intent that this light really should be powered with lithuim (or NiMH) batteries in demanding uses. The observed drop beginning at hour five is little different from a regulated headlamp dropping out of regulation as battery voltage declines. XP2 output dropped quickly after that point, as is typical of flashlights with lithium cells. Lithiums don’t have more capacity than alkalines, but as noted are better able to endure high current draw, yielding results like we observe here (this is also why alkaline batteries work so poorly in digital cameras).

We did not measure red mode battery life on either light, but suffice to say it will be very, very long – probably days – with all battery types. Red mode performance should be identical in both Tikkas.

XP2 vs. Plus2 Measured Performance Verdict

From the start, the Tikka XP2 completely mopped the floor with the Plus2. It generally emitted twice the light and there was never a penalty at the back end – some point where the output curves would cross, and the Plus2 proved to be the frugal cousin over the long haul. The results beg the question, why the performance difference between the Plus2 and XP2? It’s clear the XP2 LED is simply more efficient – extracting more light from a like amount of current. If the other electronics are the same (a reasonable presumption in the absence of regulation), then it probably boils down to what “bin” the two LEDs are sourced from. Suffice to say the XP2’s LED is much more competent than the Plus2’s, so its bin was probably fur-lined.

I’m obliged to note that the XP2’s best performance – with lithium cells – is mimicked by the Princeton Tec Eos I tested a full five years ago. It’s hard to believe after five years of LED advances they’re so similar.

Temperature

Backpackers and other outdoor enthusiasts stress a lot over battery temperature, and rightly so, but they tend to look at it from just one perspective – the cold. There’s no arguing that very cold temperatures diminish battery capacity and performance, and that some formulas respond better than others (partly explaining the zeal for lithium cells). It’s generally considered a good idea to keep batteries from freezing, going so far as to use remote battery cases tucked in our clothing in harsh weather. But what about heat? Lights such as these Tikkas that combine the battery compartment with the works can get surprisingly warm, so much so I believe they sometimes become warm enough to negatively affect performance. If you look at the XP2 lithium graph you’ll see a jump in output at 2:15. This occurred after I opened the battery compartment and allowed the very warm cells to cool in the air while running. I’ve puzzled over this apparent contradiction ever since testing the PT Eos, when I got better performance from alkalines keeping the light in a refrigerator than I did keeping it at room temperature (the fridge Eos stayed warm to the touch despite the near-freezing environment). I’ll leave it to the smart folks to determine when taking steps to cool your headlamp might be advantageous.

All measurements for this test were performed at room temperature (about 68 F). I am hesitant to record the high initial outputs because they’re so fleeting, but feel it represents an achievable target when LED and battery technology mature sufficiently, so I think of these levels as goals tantalizing today’s flashlight and battery designers.

Dimming and RFI

Dimming of these new Petzls appears to be through pulse control modulation (PCM). Set on low, they visibly strobe when swung in the dark (but not when on full power) and would even blank out when I photographed them with relatively high shutter speeds. The old XP either uses another dimming scheme or the PCM frequency is too fast to notice. I can’t hear any high-frequency noise, as with some PCM lights, but these new Petzls do create a small amount of longwave AM radio interference when near a receiver. Petzl notes the following:

“Conforms to the requirements of the 89/336/CEE directive on electromagnetic compatibility.”

“Warning, when your lamp is lit and in close proximity to an avalanche beacon in receive (find) mode, it can interfere with the operation of the beacon. In case of interference (indicated by static noise from the beacon), move the beacon away from the lamp until the noise stops, or switch off the lamp.”

Performance In the Field

Red Mode

The little 5mm red LED is moderately focused, neither floodlight nor narrow spot. Red performance (intensity) is virtually the same on both models (Plus2 beam is a bit wider, probably due to LED variation) and is reasonably bright for simple navigation and camp chores. Ability to read by red light depends on one’s eyes; I’ve found it’s generally possible (making out colored detail on maps a notable exception). Importantly, red is bright enough for unwanted midnight trips to the bushes while conserving night vision. White low is, of course, much brighter than red.

White Modes

As noted previously, the new lights only have high and low levels, dropping the old XP’s mid. Anecdotally, flashlight makers are dropping the mid level (Petzl isn’t the only one) because their research tells them folks use just high or low and skip what’s in between. I don’t know whether that’s true, but when I’m night hiking I prefer more, rather than fewer options to help me maintain the minimum amount of light required by the situation, and no more. A valid counter-argument is fewer redundant button presses is better. Anybody who owns a headlamp with a six- or seven-mode cycle will understand the sentiment.

Regardless, we have two white settings with these lights, so two it shall be. The XP2’s diffuser effectively doubles the settings, because it greatly reduces intensity as it spreads the beam. Nighttime navigation is typically a task for a pencil beam, and the beams of both are narrow and fairly even with some spill. I don’t find much real-world difference between the Plus2 and XP2 beams other than intensity and there, the XP2 throw distance is clearly superior, whether trying to find a trail fifty yards ahead or spotting a high tree branch to target for bear bagging.

On the trail, I generally start out in red mode. I can usually follow very distinct paths that lack tripping hazards, but if not, I switch to low white mode, which is bright enough for decent trails. Here, the difference between the two lights shows, since the XP2 low mode is twice as bright. When technical bits of navigation arise, I switch to high setting, frequently needed on typical Sierra trails that are indistinct, gravel and rubble-strewn, eroded yards wide by pack animals or disrupted by blowdowns. The XP2 can prove almost too bright with fresh batteries, so the diffuser helps knock down the intensity and preserve night vision. It’s interesting to me how much I used the high setting the same way I use the old XP boost.

In camp, the XP2’s diffused beam is great. With it I can perform most of my chores without playing swivelhead and without a hotspot seared into my retinas. Reading, including maps, is another obvious application. It’s primarily the diffuser that has kept the XP in my backpack the last few years, instead of the competition and even despite the lack of regulation and lithium batteries. What finally displaces it is this new XP2. The Plus2 is a nice little light that also delivers on the trail and in camp, but its lack of key features and reduced performance instantly make me miss the XP2.

Stealthiness and Glare

If one of your nighttime goals is not being spotted from the side whilst wearing a headlamp, you might not want one of these new Tikkas. The clear/translucent bezel spills noticeable incidental light. This quality could come in handy if you were part of a team spread out some distance – the side spill could help team members keep track of one another’s location. It also increases the lights’ usefulness as location markers. I’ve used flashing lights to mark a location that I want to return to, such as my hammock in a stand of woods, while I’m wandering the area after dark without a light (an actual use for flash mode!). The wider the light source, the easier it is to spot from a distance.

I don’t mind the spill, but noted both lights create some glare on eyeglasses, more than the old XP, perhaps because they’re shorter and spill incidental light downward on the lenses. Some headlamps do this more than others, so glasses wearers should to test beforehand to see whether glare might be a problem. When I wear contacts or wear the light over a cap, there’s no glare.

Battery Meter

The Petzl website describes their battery meter as follows: “flashing green: ok, flashing orange: remaining charge <30%, flashing red: remaining charge <10%.” The owner’s manual says this: “When the red battery discharge indicator comes on, 50% of the original battery life remains for proximity lighting.” Contradictions aside, I have only noticed the meter in the red indicator mode once the batteries were well drained, and I suspect it’s not easy to notice when either light is still operating brightly.

Battery Swap

The tabbed battery compartment is easy to pop open, and unlike the old XP, there’s no chance of losing the cover. It opens wide for full access, but I need bare fingers to retrieve and replace the tiny AAAs. Polarity is marked inside and on the cover (not easy to read in dim light) and the asymmetrical contacts also hint as to correct battery alignment. The cover snaps shut readily and distinctly.

Recommendations for Improvement

In a high-tech and competitive marketplace like LED headlamps, everything can be made better, by upgrading technology such as selecting more efficient LEDs, by adding (or deleting) features and by rethinking the physical form. With the Tikka Plus2 and XP2, Petzl has done all three.

Current regulation is an obvious area that Petzl eschews in the Tikka line (and to be fair, their main competition uses it in only a few models). I’m one of the evidently rare users who occasionally calls upon the middle brightness setting, and I’d prefer that it be restored, especially considering the huge brightness gulf between the XP2’s two modes. I’d include intensity in mode memory; I’d like a switch lock; I’d prefer that the battery compartment be gasketed (and if need be, vented via a valve). I find Petzl took a small step backward in pencil beam quality from the XP, possibly when deleting the Fresnel lens.

Ultimately, I would be interested in an XP2 variant powered by two AA batteries, regulated and stepped up to operating voltage. To my knowledge, nobody makes my dream light, so I can’t demerit Petzl for not reading my mind while designing the Tikka Plus2 and XP2. As it is, they’ve taken my favorite headlamp, the XP, and improved it in several regards with the XP2. The Plus2 is a nice enough light, but it doesn’t stand out amongst the competition and frankly, isn’t even as good as the old XP. Its much higher output and diffuser put the XP2 into a completely different league and certainly place it among the best lightweight, high-performance headlamps today. Spend the extra fifteen bucks.

Specifications

What’s Good

• True red and white modes
• Mode memory
• IPX4 water resistance
• Operable wearing gloves
• Take lithium cells
• Easy battery access
• Plus2: Small, lightweight, moderately bright and efficient
• XP2: Small, lightweight, bright and efficient
• XP2: Diffuser lens
• XP2: Rescue whistle

What’s Not So Good

• No current regulation
• Unsealed battery compartment
• No mid output level
• XP2: Beam artifacts
• Plus2: Significantly less power than the XP2 and original XP

*BPL measures intensity (in lux) but not total light output (in lumens). The two values are not directly comparable and should not be substituted for one another.

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

Introduction

PHD (Peter Hutchinson Designs) Mountain Software is a small company in Stalybridge UK that manufactures sleeping bags and garments “from the lightest in the world to the ultimate in extreme expedition protection.” Their garments are offered in standard or custom sizing, plus options for added fill or features at additional cost. All products are sewn in their small factory after the order is placed. This review covers their new Ultra Down Pullover, which is designed to provide maximum warmth with minimal weight. Is this the ultimate down jacket for ultralight backpacking and lightweight cold weather pursuits?

Description

The PHD Ultra Down Pullover features 900 fill-power down, which PHD tests on-site to be sure it meets or exceeds their specifications. One ounce of down of this quality expands to 900 cubic inches, so a relatively small weight of down produces a very puffy jacket. The jacket has sewn-through construction and 3.5-inch down chambers. I measured the jacket’s double-layer loft at 2.5 inches (single-layer: 1.25 inches), which is exceptional for a jacket that weighs just 8 ounces.

The loftiest down available is enclosed in PHD’s MX superfine nylon ripstop, which at 0.88 oz/yd² (30 g/m²) is one of the lightest shell fabrics currently available. MX is calendared on both sides (more on the inside) to increase strength, wind resistance, and downproofness. The fabric weight is equivalent to that used in the Western Mountaineering Flash and Flight Jackets and slightly heavier than MontBell’s 7 denier Ballistic Airlight fabric 0.73 oz/yd² (25 g/m²) used in their Ex Light Down Jacket. The latter fabrics are calendared as well. Calendaring increases fabric strength, wind-resistance, and downproofness, at the expense of some breathability.

As expected, the Ultra Down Pullover has a very Spartan feature set to keep weight to a minimum. The front YKK #3 coil zipper is twelve inches long. The cuffs have a simple elastic binding, and the hem has elastic at the sides rather than all the way around. Thankfully, the jacket has one front pocket, and it’s a good one – a full-width reach-through pocket with loads of room inside to hold an assortment of items.

Performance

I tested the PHD Ultra Down Pullover on a number of summer and fall backpacks in the southern Colorado Rockies and southern Utah desert over a five-month period. I also used it while backcountry skiing in late November. Nighttime temperatures ranged from 25-50 F (-4 to 10 C). I typically wore the jacket in camp and in my sleeping bag on colder nights.

I normally wear a men’s size large and found the sizing of the Ultra Down Pullover to be perfect. It’s roomy enough inside to wear over a baselayer plus a microfleece top, and the sleeves are extra long. The fit at the neck, wrists, and hem are snug, but not tight. The dropped tail covers the rear somewhat (see photos above) but the jacket is not extra long in the body.

One trip with this jacket is all it took to convince me that it is the ultimate down jacket for ultralight three-season backpacking in the mountains, winter backpacking in the desert, or cold (but not frigid) weather pursuits of any kind. For just 8 ounces of weight (9.1 ounces in size large tested), the Ultra Down Pullover has loads of loft and warmth. For hikers who prefer a hooded jacket, e.g., as part of their sleeping system, a hood is available as an option.

For cold weather camping, a dynamite combination is the PHD Ultra Down Pullover paired with a lightweight down pant – like the Western Mountaineering Flash Pant (7 oz), PHD Minimus Down Trouser (8 oz), or MontBell Down Inner Pant (6.8 oz). I am testing the mentioned pants for a future article, and find that the combination – scarcely adding up to one pound – not only provides plenty of comfort in camp but also extends the warmth of an ultralight sleeping bag by ten to fifteen degrees. I have found that wearing an ultralight rain jacket and pants over my insulating layers really increases their warmth in camp, and have been known to wear my raingear inside my sleeping bag on really cold nights to stay warm.

PHD’s MX fabric is super-light and is also quite durable and downproof. Worn alone, it’s very wind resistant, owing to the fabric being calendared inside and out.

From my tests, I conclude that the jacket’s seams readily transmit water, but when the jacket is worn, it sheds water fairly well. The DWR treatment on the MX fabric is sufficient to repel a brief shower, but it is nothing exceptional – good, but not excellent. Compared to other jackets I have tested, e.g., the Rab Microlight Jacket which completely sheds water, the PHD Ultra Down Pullover has only moderate water resistance.

Comparisons

The following table compares specifications of jackets similar to the PHD Ultra Down Pullover. All jackets have ultralight shell fabric and premium down insulation. Manufacturer data for size medium are shown. All jackets have sewn-through construction except the Nunatak Skaha, which is baffled.

There are numerous high quality ultralight down jackets to choose from. The closest competitor to the PHD Ultra Down Pullover is the Nunatak Skaha Pullover, which is baffled and has more loft. Because of the low current (late 2009) valuation of the US dollar versus the British pound, the Ultra Down Pullover is a bit pricey, and the Nunatak Skaha Pullover is perhaps a better value (about 60US$ more. Also note that buyers outside the UK do not pay VAT, so 15% is deducted from the price when purchased). However, when the dollar is strong, the Ultra Down Pullover is an excellent value.

Assessment

Based on its fit and exceptional loft and warmth for its weight, the PHD Ultra Down Pullover is my new favorite jacket. This is the jacket I will pack when I’m expecting nighttime temperatures to drop down to freezing or lower. It’s rated at 23 F (-5 C), and I would say that’s a fair rating. For spring and fall backpacking in the mountains, the Ultra Down Pullover gives me the extra warmth I need. I would also use it for summertime backpacking when I expect to camp above 12,000 feet. A jacket like this will also perform well for many wintertime activities, like backcountry skiing and snowshoeing, but would be too warm for extended climbs, unless it is really cold and/or windy. Finally, I prefer to wear the Ultra Down Pullover as a midlayer with a light shell over it to keep it dry and protect it from branch stubs and other things that might puncture it.

For an ultralight jacket, the Ultra Down Pullover is at the warm end of the scale, equivalent to the warmth of many jackets that weigh 14 ounces or more, but not as warm as the Nunatak Skaha and Western Mountaineering Flight. Some hikers may want to extend this jacket’s warmth a little more by ordering it with overfill and a hood so they can use it for winter camping. And some hikers may need less warmth, so a thinner jacket like the Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket or Western Mountaineering Flash may suffice. Of course, there is always the option of owning more than one jacket so you can match your insulation to the expected conditions.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	PHD Mountain Software (http://www.phdesigns.co.uk/)
Year/Model	2009 Ultra Down Pullover
Style	Half zip pullover
Fabrics	Outer shell and lining are 0.88 oz/yd2 (30 g/m2) MX Microfiber mini-ripstop nylon, calendared both sides, DWR finish
Insulation	900 fill-power down
Loft	Measured two-layer loft is 2.5 in (6 cm)
Features	Sewn through construction with 3.5-in (9-cm) horizontal quilting, down filled stand up collar, half length front #3 YKK coil zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, reach through front pocket with zippered security pocket inside, elastic cuffs and hem, 2-inch (5-cm) dropped tail, stuff sack included
Weight	Measured weight, size large tested: 9.1 oz (258 g) Manufacturer specified average weight: 8 oz (227 g)
MSRP	£169 (approx. US$284) Price includes VAT; if the item is to be delivered outside the EU, VAT does not apply, and 15% is deducted from the price

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.