Articles (2020)

Editor’s Note: BackpackingLight has also reviewed the Terra Nova Laser Photon Elite and the Terra Nova Laser Competition Tents.

Introduction

The Laser, from Terra Nova Equipment, is the company’s lightest two-person tent. In fact it is one of the lightest two-person double-wall tents in the world. Updated in 2009 to include some “comfort” improvements, the Laser makes use of lightweight materials like its 1.34 oz/yd² (35 g/m²) silnylon fly to achieve a BPL measured trail weight* of 2.72 pounds (1.23 kg). How does the Laser do as a three-season backpacking tent? Let me shine a light on it…

*Note: Terra Nova’s trail weight is stated at a lower weight of 2.47 pounds (1.12 kg). As their trail weight does not include stakes, and my testing indicated that at least six are required for set-up, the BPL trail weight is higher.

Design and Features

The Laser is comprised of a solid breathable ripstop nylon inner tent that is pre-attached to its silnylon fly by means of toggle and loops. Set up is extremely fast. Just thread the single aluminum pole through the sleeve at the middle of the tent and attach each end through the metal grommet at ground level. Stake one end, pulling up the attached carbon fiber strut and then do the same at the other as you pull the hooped pole upright. Boom, it is now standing. From here you need to attach as few as four or as many as ten more stakes, to fully utilize all of the Laser’s space. Did I say “stakes”? The Laser actually comes with a dozen tiny titanium pegs that look like a very thin shepherd’s hook. At two grams each, they are without a doubt the lightest anchors I have ever used (more on them later). The stake loops on the Laser are made from elastic cord that stretches quite a bit. I never figured the reasoning behind the elastic rather than a more secure (tight) regular braided cord.

The carbon fiber struts at the ends can be removed to allow the Laser to be compressed, but I found it more of a pain putting them back so just left them in place. This does make for a long packed tent at 22 inches (56 cm), and it needed to be packed vertically in all my backpacks.

The Laser has no hooded vents. Ventilation is handled by opening the vestibule doors or by adjusting the height of the fly from the ground at the two ends. Terra Nova has an interesting way to adjust this height from inside the tent to keep from having to brave the elements for additional (or less) ventilation. Cords running into the tent go through a ring and grommet, making a pulley system that will allow the ends of the fly to lift when the yellow cord is pulled. Pulling the black cord closes it again. Like a kid with a new toy, I entertained myself for about ten minutes opening/closing, opening/closing (and repeat) the first time I set it up. To take advantage of the exposed air, a triangular mesh opening is found by pulling the Velcro-attached nylon covering it.

The Laser comes seam-sealed from the manufacturer, but the pole sleeve is not water-tight. A black waterproof pole cover is included that takes care of this problem, thankfully. Also included are storage sacks for the poles and stakes and the 1.0-ounce (29-g) stuff sack to put all of it in.

Specifications

Performance

I have to say up front that fall/winter/spring of 2009-2010 has been a doozy for testing tents. It has been one of the wettest that I can remember and both the states I bounce back and forth to each month (California and Minnesota) have received much heavier snow fall too.

When setting the Laser up for the first time in Minnesota, where the ground is clay, the stakes worked fine. The ventilation system worked smoothly and repeatedly with no problems. But on my first trip with it in California’s Cleveland National Forest, I had reality hit me in the face. Like most of the areas I hike, it was quite rocky, predominately granite. The stakes would either hit rock and immediately bend or, when I could find a clear path for them to go in, would just pull back out. As I was setting up in the rain, I got very frustrated. After bragging to my brother-in-law how fast the Laser sets up, imagine my chagrin when I finally had to give up and go in search of small boulders (which were scarce) to tie to the ends. This was the last time the tiny stakes accompanied me on a California trip.

The night in Cleveland NF was very cold and rainy. It had snowed much of the day above 4000 feet, so I stayed at 3600 feet and only saw sporadic snow, but lots of rain. The temperature was 42 F (6 C) when I set up the Laser, and it dropped to 31 F (-1 C) during the night. Condensation was already building up under the fly before I even turned in for the night. As I added my body heat, it even got worse. There was no wind to speak of, and by 3:00 a.m. the inside of the inner tent was collecting water on top, which was seeping through. I believe that this night just took the record for most condensation in one spot for me.

A trip to the Santa Rosa Mountains saw 25 F (-4 C) with mild winds. I brought a dozen regular titanium hook stakes and the tent went up great with them. I had minimal condensation in the form of some frost at the top of the fly. Twenty-five miles (40 km) of trekking south found me a few thousand feet lower in elevation and in some very strong winds. I had a tough time setting up the tent. I used eleven Ti shepherd-hook stakes trying to strengthen the Laser with guylines. The wind really caught on all the flat areas of the tent. I watched the elastic stake loops stretch back and forth with each gust. The sides flexed so much that the guyline stakes were getting pulled out of the ground. Again I resorted to using rocks to help, but this time there were plenty to be had, lucky me…

A trip to the Angeles National Forest saw me once more unable to get where I wanted due to snow, so I stealth camped at a lake I wasn’t supposed to be at (do Rangers read this? Uh oh…). The damp sand actually worked OK to hold my stakes once I pushed them deep into it with my foot. I could not pull the ventilation cords but that was OK. I kept the fly open and was completely dry inside, although there was some moisture inside the fly from all the humidity from the wet sand and the lake right there.

A last trip to Fisherman’s Camp in the Northern Cleveland NF saw the Laser’s first truly nice evening (can I get busted for tent-abuse?).

Assessment

The Laser has been a bit of a mixed bag for me. I like the idea of it much more than the reality of it. I know that the conditions were certainly not the best, and I spread this test out as long as I could to try to place it in nicer spots.

The dimensions listed are not correct. As seen in the table above, they are off all the way around, but it still worked fine for me. I only used the Laser as a solo shelter. I would need to really, really like the person I was with to use it for two.

There was plenty of length for my pad and one of the two quilts I used with it over the course of the past four months. When elevated by my pad, my size eleven feet were OK at the ends, and I had room to sit up without scraping the top of the inner tent.

The ventilation could be better. In heavy rain, you can’t open the vestibule door to get any kind of draw going, and the lifted ends just don’t seem to be able to do it themselves.

I really like the size of the Laser as a fast solo tent. During the course of testing this, I was asked to plan a trip around Washington States Wonderland Trail. After talking to locals who told me the mandatory camp sites have excellent staking terrain, I decided that the Laser would be the tent I took so as to have a fast set-up that keeps the inside dry. However, for my Sierra Nevada and local mountains, I think I will grab something else.

Dare to Compare

In terms of comparisons, the Laser compares to the Big Agnes Fly Creek UL2 and the MSR Carbon Reflex 2. The Laser sets up more quickly than either tent and weighs less than the Carbon Reflex, which costs the same as the Laser in US dollars. The Carbon Reflex does give more room for its extra weight. The Fly Creek is not only lighter weight than the Laser, it has the most room of the bunch and costs much less.

Notes:

¹Manufacturer Trail Weight – This is the minimum weight as listed by the manufacturer. Different companies may include different components in this weight.
³Backpacking Light Trail Weight – This is 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 manufacturer’s stated dimensions.
⁵Floor Area/Trail Weight Ratio – This is the floor area divided by the trail weight.
⁶Protected Area/Trail Weight Ratio – This is the floor area plus vestibule area divided by the trail weight.

What’s Good

• Light weight
• Quick set up
• Small packed size
• Green color nice for stealth/blending

What’s Not So Good

• Stakes do not work well in rocky areas
• Condensation problems
• Very difficult to put two people in it
• Listed dimensions not correct

Recommendations for Improvement

• Send bigger stakes
• Add a high vent

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.

Field Testing

I was a long-term wearer of another well-known brand of thick woollen socks for many years before I met these – in a gear test in fact. I was impressed as soon as I put them on: they felt thick and robust – and I have known many socks in my life. My wife, who is sometimes just a shade suspicious about my gear enthusiasms, took to them as well, and with the same enthusiasm. As a former research scientist in a textile physics / wool research laboratory, I also knew a bit about socks from the technical side of things.

Many months later, having abused the ever-loving-daylights out of them on tracks, on scree, walking in sandy rivers, walking in the snow, and so on, in light to very light footwear, I was still wearing my first pair. In fact it was several YEARS before that pair finally developed a small hole in one heel and were discarded. Basically, I had been deliberately wearing that one pair for all my walking, just to see how long they would last. The photo here shows the sock I had been wearing after about a year beside a new unused one. The used one has shrunk slightly, but still looks pretty good.

Because I was a bit curious, I had some correspondence with the manufacturer about the socks. You see, while (almost) everyone knows that the loop pile found on the inside of thick socks comes from the knitting process, few know much about the technical details of sock knitting machines. The loops are there to add bulk to the sock, but long floppy loops made from thick yarn do not remain very effective for long: they get compacted. The secret to the Darn Tough Vermont socks lies in both the special knitting machines they use and the yarn. The yarn is a good wool blend and finer than average, but the knitting is much finer as well. This would produce a thinner sock, except that the knitting machines are set to do a multi-layer knitting in the regions around the foot. The end result costs more to make, but the ‘floppy loops’ are smaller and tighter, the sock is thicker, and it stays thick for a very long time.

Since knitting machines are automated, they can be programmed to produce a wide range of socks, in shape and thickness and style and size and cuff length… and also in colour pattern. While this Review is about the one model of sock which I use, I should point out that there are a horde of other models available, varying in thickness, cuff length, and fibre content. Each model comes in a range of colours and sizes: this one model comes in four sizes from Small to Medium to Large to X-large. But that’s not all: they come in a range of coloured patterns as well – in this case about five. So … I have two colours in this model and my wife has two different colours. Now we know whose socks are whose.

The range of models, sizes, and colours Darn Tough makes has created a problem for the company in one way. Shelf space at the retailers is always at a premium, and for a long while it was hard, or even impossible, to find a retail shop which carried the exact model, size, and colour I wanted. I resorted to buying them from the factory (which has been in Vermont for thirty years), although the company was not originally set up for web sales. I am pleased to report that it seems that most of the range is now available over the web (from Amazon) at a good price – slightly better than the average retailer in fact.

I will make a real endorsement here. Sure, my first pair of socks was free, part of a gear test. But after that I actually bought the next few pairs for myself and my wife! Yes, I actually paid cold hard cash.

I mentioned that both my wife and I wear these socks now, in all sorts of conditions. The left-hand photo here shows my wife river-walking in the wilds of Wollemi National Park (Australia) – trust me, it’s easier to walk in the river than fight the scrub on the banks. The middle photo was taken in ‘poor weather’ (sadly rather common) while snow shoeing in Kosciusko National Park (Australia) at about 1,800 meters (5,900 feet). The right-hand photo was taken on the rather steep Pas de Mont Colombe on the way to Lac de Merveilles on a variant of the GR5 in France, at the end of a three-month walking holiday there.

Specifications

Manufacturer	Cabot Hosiery Mills Inc
Web Site	www.darntough.com
Year/Model	2008, Boot Sock Full-Cushion • 1405
Material	62% Merino Wool, 34% Nylon, 4% Lycra® Spandex
Sizes	Small, Medium, Large, X-large
Weight (measured)	108 g (3.8 oz) / pair Medium
MSRP	US$17.96 (Amazon)

What’s Good

• Thick
• Durable
• Long-lasting

What’s Not So Good

• Hard to get from retailers

Recommendations for Improvement

• Web store (partly done – Amazon)

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.

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.