Articles (2020) - Page 88 of 144

Decision-Making and the Lightweight Pack

Carrying a lightweight pack has consequences, but they might not be what you think.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Make Your Own Gear: Wide-Brimmed Rain Hat

Complete instructions to construct a 2.8 ounce (size L), waterproof, wide-brimmed hat.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Track Notes Part 1: GR5 in France

Roger Caffin shares his notes on trekking the GR5 in France.

Background

Track Notes: GR5 in France - 1
The Mont Blanc massif, from le Brevent. (Note: le Brevent, not Mt. Brevent…don’t ask me why.)

The GR5 was one of the tracks my wife and I took during our three month walking trip of France in mid-2007. The gear we took was previously discussed in our gear list article. A special ‘feature’ of this trip was the very bad weather we experienced for the first two months: it was meant to be summer, but we had rain, hail, and snow. Coping with this bad weather for weeks on end with ultralight gear required some skill, but we managed. Another ‘feature’ of the trip was the significant change in altitude almost every day. We were yo-yoing from valleys at well below 1,000 m (3,000 ft) and cols and ridges around 2,500 m (8,000 ft). It kept us fit, but our appetites grew huge.

The name ‘GR’ stands for ‘Grande Randonnée’ (or ‘Great Walk’) in France. The French have lots of them, so obviously the GR5 was created a long time ago. It runs from the resort town of Thonon-les-Bains on the Lac Léman to the city of Nice on the Mediterranean, but we bypassed the last bit. Instead we took a spectacular high variation called the GR52 going from a little mountain village called St. Dalmas Valdeblore to Menton on the Mediterranean. These notes will cover the GR5 section only.

We arrived in Thonon by train. I highly recommend the French trains, especially the TGV or ‘Train a Grand Vitesse’ (high speed train). They are smooth and comfortable, but you need to book a seat some time in advance, or you may find yourself standing. We were in Thonon for a few days resting: we had already been walking for a month, and I had cracked an ankle bone just before we got there. At the time I thought it was just a sprain, but the length of time it took to heal showed otherwise. I could walk, but with some problems. In Thonon we stayed in a hotel called ‘The Red Count’ – named after some local lord who, hundreds of years ago, used to return from battle covered in his opponents’ red blood. Great stuff if you aren’t squeamish!

Before I start, I had better explain some terms I will be using and some local features:

French shops are mostly shut down between 1:00 pm and 4:00 pm for a siesta. Don’t ask me why. This strange and annoying custom made food shopping difficult at times.
Even small villages were likely to have a shop with enough of a range that we were able to buy what we needed for a couple of days. Fresh bread was almost always available – the French have a thing about fresh bread…and so did we.
Refuge, guarded: a mountain hut with staff providing dinner, bed, and breakfast, and usually cut lunches as well. May be run by an Alpine Club or the local town. If they are staffed, bedding is usually provided, but you bring your own towel and liner sheet/bag. Showers are normally coin-in-the-slot. Unfortunately, many also have car access for tourists.
Refuge, unguarded: a mountain hut without staff. Usually has mattresses and may have gas stoves, but bedding would be unusual, and there isn’t any food. Showers are unlikely.
Gite: usually a converted farmhouse, providing the same facilities as a guarded Refuge. Also may have car access for tourists.
Hotel: just that, but the smaller ones are used to wet, muddy walkers. Hot showers and towels were provided, and breakfast was sometimes included in the price.
Most lacs (lakes) exist because of a barrage (dam) at the end, built a long time ago for hydro power.
The French have a custom of making drinking water readily available from public ‘fonts’ or faucets in many places. Town water is almost always safe, so we used the fonts a lot.
Some National Parks and other areas are designated no camping, and I am told that the Rangers do patrol the place. However, tent sites were seen…
The local Topo-Guide books published by the Fédération Française de la Randonnée Pédestre (FFRP) are highly recommended. They don’t give distances, only the far more relevant heights and standard times for the sections. We usually managed just slightly better than the book.
Balcon: geological feature; a sort of high shelf running along the side of a valley for a long way.
Alpage: high open grassy pastures located up in the mountains above the forests. Lovely places.

Click a thumbnail to view the image gallery.

Tuesday 19 June 2007: Camp on a high saddle near Grand-Chesnay 1,414 meters.

Wednesday 20 June 2007: Lac d’Oche, 1,750 meters, scene for morning tea.

Thursday 21 June 2007: Camp just under Col de ChÈsary 1,992 meters, hoping for fine weather.

Friday 22 June 2007: Bad weather on Col de Coux 1,990 meters.

Saturday 23 June 2007: The cliffs and clouds around the bowl below the Col d’Anterne.

Saturday 23 June 2007: The Refuge Alfred Wills 1,808 meters in the bowl, late evening.

Sunday 24 June 2007: Climbing over Col d’Anterne 2,257 meters on névé.

Sunday 24 June 2007: Climbing the snow banks on the back of le Brevent 2,526 meters.

Sunday 25 June 2007: Camp by a small tarn near le Brevent in front of Mont Blanc.

Monday 26 June 2007: L’Aiguille du Goûter from our tent in the morning, ‘smoking’.

Tuesday 27 June 2007: The Nant Torr and a tributary, in flood, with silt.

Tuesday 27 June 2007: Bridge over limestone gorge – anyone got an airmat?

Wednesday 28 June 2007: Climbing up to Col du Bonhomme 2,329 meters in ‘suspect’ weather.

Wednesday 29 June 2007: The Guardian and head cook at the CAF Refuge at Col du Croix du Bonhomme 2,483 meters.

Tuesday 19 June 2007

We were up early at 5:20 am in Thonon (431 m) and away through the very pretty Forêt de Thonon, then over a few ridges. Much of the day was spent getting clear of the outlying car commuter suburbs of Thonon, but eventually we headed up into the mountains of the Dents d’Oche to camp on a high saddle near the chalet Grand-Chesnay (1,414 m). The chalet had an excellent font, which we used. The saddle seemed to be devoid of cows…it was clean (unlike some other paddocks). It was quite exposed, with excellent views of the mountains, but fortunately the weather was fine. I checked the nearby pine forest for sheltered sites, but it was full of flies and midges! No, thank you.

Wednesday 20 June 2007

We were again up at 5:20 am, away by 6:45 am, up the spur to the high limestone region under the Dents d’Oche. We contoured around small peaks to very nice Lac d’Oche (1,750 m) for morning tea. Furry marmots scurried for cover as we passed. Up and down over many small cols – around here, height changes of a few hundred meters just don’t count.

Finally a long descent down through the forest to la Chapelle d’Abondance in the next valley – a very tourist town (1,021 m). No camping grounds nearby and intensive farming all around, so we had to find a Gite. The tourist hotels were all rather expensive, of course. We found Gite Le Feto next to the all important food shop – the name Le Feto means cheese cellar. The Gite was very nice, but empty of other walkers, as the weather had been very wet.

Thursday 21 June 2007

There was a big electrical storm during the night and filthy weather in the morning. We packed slowly, hoping the weather would clear. It did, briefly, so we headed off. However the rest of the day was quite wet, and we even had a hail storm while lunching on the sheltered veranda of an empty chalet. We were grateful for the small mercy of timely shelter.

It cleared a little later in the afternoon as we approached the Col de Chésary (1,992 m), which would take us briefly into Switzerland. Gambling on having reasonable weather overnight, we camped in a flat bowl just below the col. It was a bit exposed, but the grass was soft and there was a clean tarn nearby.

Friday 22 June 2007

Happily, there was no storm during the night, so we were up and away by 7:00 am. A violent hail storm hit fifteen minutes later as we went over the col, and all we had on were our Taslan pants and shells and our lightweight silnylon ponchos, but the ponchos kept us warm, so long as we were moving. We headed to the Refuge de Chésary but found it closed, as the owner was sick. We continued on down in bad weather to the Refuge de Chaux-Palin (1,843 m) where we bought hot tea and cocoa, which we happily consumed inside, out of the storm.

The Refuge was empty, again because of the bad weather. Funny thing: only us foreigners go walking in this kind of weather; the locals stay home. From here we climbed over the Col de Coux (1,990 m) back into France in more fog, rain, and wind, down to the Terres Maudites (evil lands) – so named because it was peppered by falling rocks from the cliffs above, I suspect. Finally we headed downhill to the town of Samoëns (703 m) in the valley. Being low, Samoëns was fine, sunny, and full of car tourists and tourist shops. It was late enough, so after food shopping we stopped for the night at the camping grounds on the edge of the town and enjoyed hot showers.

Saturday 23 June 2007

Despite lots of rain over night, the morning was sunny, so we headed off through the limestone Ravine de Tinée – up steel ladders in a limestone canyon, along a narrow track across a steep face, then back down. I guess you could just follow the road around the whole lot if you wanted. The weather cleared up as we started a long climb up into a huge bowl in the National Park (no camping) below the Col d’Anterne – very beautiful country. The cliffs around the bowl were immense, although the weather was still very uncertain with clouds swirling around.

The Refuge Alfred Wills (1,808 m) was here, so we asked the Guardian whether we could camp nearby. We received an enthusiastic “Sure, anywhere, no charge!” We camped near the Refuge and bought huge mushroom omelettes for dinner. The French do make good omelettes. After dinner, the Refuge Guardian gave me some of his homebrew – dangerously smooth, pleasant stuff with a high percentage of alcohol. Wow! He was pleased with my reaction and assured us that we would have no snow problems at the Col d’Anterne above.

Sunday 24 June 2007

A clear sky overnight for a change – which meant it was only 3 °C (37 °F) in the morning. We were up at 5:20 am and away by 7:05, long before the sun hit and the ‘Refugees’ awoke. Up to the Lac d’Anterne and the Col d’Anterne (2,257 m) over a fair bit of névé. So much for the Guardian’s assurances – although the snow was really no problem. We just stomped along making fair use of Sue’s lone trekking pole and my Helix UL ice axe.

Down to Refuge de Moëde d’Anterne – this looked fine on the map, but it had car access, so there were lots of tourists. We passed on without stopping, heading down a rather rough track into the rough and remote Doise valley over a very remote Pont d’Arlevé – an antique bridge (1,597 m). The Guide book says the bridge is removed in the autumn and replaced in the spring because of the violent spring thaw. The flow was still pretty violent from all the recent rain when we were there. Then there was a long traversing ascent, past the site of the ancient chalets d’Arlevé. A bill of sale for the chalets from the 17th century referenced the original title from 1443 – only slightly older than me. Finally we reached the Col du Brévent (2,368 m), right in front of the entire Mont Blanc massif. There had beena fair bit of climbing that day!

There were big névé banks at the Col and up towards the peak of le Brévent, but they weren’t a problem. We had lunch at the Col, watching people glissading down the slope and playing games, then climbed up to le Brévent (2,526 m) for more fine views of the Mont Blanc massif. On the way down, I rolled my injured ankle and expected big problems, but all that seemed to have happened was that I tore any attachments loose, and the ankle felt freer and hurt less. Ah, well.

The Refuge Bel Lachat on the edge of the top plateau had some spectacular views of Mont Blanc from its exposed veranda, but we passed on and took a side track to a small tarn on the edge of the plateau, out of sight of 99% of walkers, and camped there. The tarn was quite shallow and actually warm! The view was magnificent – apart from the clouds and fog. We pitched the tent carefully, as the position was very exposed on the edge of the plateau at 2,100 meters. The inevitable storm (with hail) hit immediately after we moved in, but the tent was well-guyed, and we enjoyed our dinner with a view.

Monday 25 June 2007

The storm went on for most of the night, but we were warm and dry inside. The weather in the morning was slightly better, but Mont Blanc was ‘smoking’ (streaming cloud), which is never a good sign for the forecast. A family of ibex were grazing nearby, ignoring us. Hunting has been banned here for some time, so the ibex don’t worry about walkers much. We set off over the edge, down the steep side of the plateau and through a ravine where the creek was roaring. The rain had started up again. There were handrails around some of the worst bits of rock, which was reassuring in the rain, as the hillside was a trifle steep.

The forest below was much more sheltered and the track was gentle. We rolled into the ski village of Les Houches (1,008 m) and sought accommodation – no camping grounds, the Gite was full of car tourists (and expensive anyhow), and the hotels were not cheap, as the village is next door to the major ski resort of Chamonix. Still, we needed food, and I had to buy some new shoes as my old ones were dying. The shops were shut for lunch, so we had to wait until the late afternoon. We indulged in a hotel, and I visited a laundromat with almost all our clothing. We later visited the biggest sporting goods store for shoes, only to find they were closed to take stock. However, the staff were more than obliging when I explained my need, and our mission was accomplished!

Tuesday 26 June 2007

Once again the weather was not fine, though it was not actually raining. We started with a steep climb up to Col de Voza (1,653 m) where there is a little cog railway going further up the Mont Blanc massif. It was (much) too cold for ice cream, so we headed down the other side towards Les Contamines. We had considered doing a high level variant for this section, but it was actually closed due to snow depth. Down in the valley the river Nant Torr was roaring. There was a lot of suspended silt in the water, and a side creek had a different color silt – the merging waters and colors were striking.

We passed Les Contamines and went up the valley to an old church, Notre Dame de la Gorge. Here the track started to climb steeply, up to the edge of the first alpage layer. At the steep edge of the alpage there was bridge over the creek, which had turned into a savage limestone gorge. A sturdy airmat would not survive the experience – let alone a passenger. The bridge is said to date back to Roman times.

We passed one Gite and kept climbing. The area is a National Park so the ‘no camping’ rule is in force (in theory), but ‘they’ have made two authorized camping grounds before the Col. We stopped at the second, near Gite la Balme, where ‘they’ have even built a public toilet for the campers. We put the tent up just as the inevitable storm hit. Actually, tents are not meant to go up until 7:00 pm, but that’s a stupid rule and seldom obeyed. You could die of cold and wet waiting for that hour. We got some condensation on the inside of our silnylon tent while cooking dinner, which was hardly surprising as our clothing was all wet, and the tent was a bit closed down to stop the wind. A quick wipe and it was OK. We were warm in our thermals and Cocoons.

Wednesday 27 June 2007

Up at 5:10 am, away at 6:50. I registered 2 °C (36 °F) inside in the morning, and the peaks around us were showing fresh snow from the storm – hum, interesting. As we reached the snow line, we were passed by two endurance runners wearing ski pants and jackets and carrying a hydration bladder pack and trekking poles – nothing else. Mad! We later learned they were training for something.

We headed up the track as best we could – it was quickly disappearing under the snow by now. At the Col du Bonhomme (2,329 m) there was a small, fairly new, wooden shelter shed with a functional door. Though this was a valuable safety feature, we chose to continue. Sue’s single Titanium Goat trekking pole and my Helix UL ice axe were in good use by now. The traverse from the Col du Bonhomme to the Col du Croix du Bonhomme (2,483 m) was a bit obscure in the fog, but no matter. We reached the Club Alpine Francais (CAF) Refuge just after the col and decided to take some shelter inside and get some food. You can’t suddenly stop in this weather just to eat! The Refuge is large, with at least one hundred beds and a large kitchen, in which the head Guardian obligingly posed for a photo.

The Refuge was still full of customers from the night before, some of them rather uncertain about what to do. They asked us about the conditions outside – I would have thought the conditions were fairly obvious! We knew what to do all right: I fired up the stove in the free kitchen area (most good refuges have this for those who can’t afford to buy meals), and we had hot drinks and a good morning tea. After this, the fog (actually low cloud) looked as though it was lifting a bit, so we packed up and headed down the other side to Les Chapieux (1,554 m) in the valley below. Once below the bottom of the cloud, we could see OK. The melting snow (it was summer, after all) made for a very slushy track and cold wet feet in our light joggers, but we had no problems as our legs were warm inside our GoLite Whims.

Interlude – Tour du Mont Blanc

At this point in the trip, we decided to temporarily leave the GR5 and do the Tour du Mont Blanc, which is a big loop around the Mont Blanc massif. At the end of the loop, we were back at the CAF Refuge, so this GR5 narrative will pick up from there. Sadly, I have to report that the snow and the weather at the Col had not gotten any better by our second passing, though some weeks later it was all grass and flowers there.

Part Two of Roger Caffin’s GR5 Trek Notes is available here.

Packrafting the Bear Trap Canyon

Bill Stadwiser shares his notes on packrafting Bear Trap Canyon with Ryan Jordan.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Packraft Trekking in Montana’s Bear Trap Canyon (Videocast)

Ryan Jordan and Bill Stadwiser explore the Bear Trap Canyon Wilderness (the nation’s first BLM-managed Wilderness Area) by foot and packraft.

For a better viewing experience, please download the Flash Player. You may also download the Packraft Trekking in Montana’s Bear Trap Canyon (Videocast)

VIDEOCAST SUPPORT PROVIDED BY

This Videocast is made freely available to the public as a result of the generous support of Big Agnes, makers of award-winning sleeping bags, pads and tents, offering innovative lightweight solutions for backpacking. Named after a peak in The Mt Zirkel Wilderness, Big Agnes is a small company located in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Spend a night with Big Agnes and you’ll never want to sleep inside again. Visit us at BigAgnes.com.

In May 2008, we managed to finagle a few hooky days from the Backpacking Light (indoor) office to explore one of Backpacking Light’s (outdoor) offices: the Bear Trap Canyon Wilderness near Bozeman, Montana.

In addition to being a premiere backcountry destination, the Bear Trap offers a number of neat hazards: howling winds, rattlesnakes, poison ivy, bears, and – what we were most interested in – whitewater.

So, we added packrafts, paddles, throw ropes, helmets, and PFD’s to our kit and set out on one of those gloriously simple overnight trips to do simple things: walk and paddle. Little did we know that we’d also swim, freeze, and itch.

This is a two part story. This first part – a video podcast, or “videocast” – presents the highlights of our trek from Ryan’s point of view. The second part, a “Notes from the Field” article, will explore the trip in more detail with narrative from Bill’s point of view, plus gear notes and lots of photos.

Enjoy!
– Ryan and Bill

Accompanying article by Bill Stadwiser can be found here.

Rab Top Bag AR Review

An old favorite gets some important upgrades and stands out as a great value for an ultralight 30 °F sleeping bag.

Introduction

One way to reduce weight in a sleeping system is to use a top bag or quilt. The original Rab Top Bag that we reviewed in 2001 was a trend setter, reducing weight by letting a sleeping pad serve as insulation for the bottom of the bag. In 2005, the bag was upgraded to the Quantum Qtop, which featured a Pertex Quantum shell and lining, but we were perplexed by its excessively wide sleeping pad opening (wider than a standard twenty-inch-wide sleeping pad) and tight girth. For spring 2008, Rab is rolling out another upgrade called the Top Bag AR; does this one get it right?

Rab Top Bag AR Sleeping Bag REVIEW Review - 1
The Rab Top Bag AR uses a sleeping pad for insulation on the bottom. Yep, the new version has a hood… well, sort of.

What’s Good

Lightweight at only 20.5 ounces
850+ US / 750+ EU down fill
Pertex Quantum shell and lining
Baffled construction
Well-designed pad sleeve fits a three-quarter or full length sleeping pad
Adequate girth for a side sleeper without compressing down

What’s Not So Good

New “hood” is undersized and only useful for a back sleeper
Narrow or short sleeping pads do not provide complete bottom insulation
Four ounces heavier than its predecessor
Temperature rating is optimistic

Specifications

Year/Model	2008 Rab Top Bag AR
Style	Hooded top bag with bottom sleeping pad sleeve
What’s Included	Bag, stuff sack, storage bag
Fill	7 oz (200 g) of 850+ US / 750+ EU fill power down, underside of footbox is insulated with 133 g/m² Primaloft
Measured Loft	1.75 in (4.5 cm) single layer loft
Manufacturer Claimed Temperature Rating	30 °F (-1 °C)
Stuffed Size	Measured dimensions: 14 x 7 in (36 x 18 cm). Manufacturer specification: 9.5 x 4.3 in (24 x 11 cm).
Weight	Measured weight: 1 lb 4.5 oz (581 g). Manufacturer specification: 1 lb 2 oz (550 g).
Sizes	One size fits to 6 ft (1.82 m)
Fabrics	Shell and lining are 0.9 oz/yd² (30 g/m²) Pertex Quantum with DWR
Features	Sleeping pad sleeve fits three-quarter and full length pads, hood, elastic drawcord top closure, Primaloft insulation under the footbox, box wall baffles, stuff sack, cotton storage bag
MSRP	$200 US

Performance

When the original Rab Top Bag came out, it was one of the few pieces of ultralight gear that could be purchased directly at the time. It wasn’t perfect, as our previous reviews have pointed out, but we were glad to have it available because the alternative then was to make our own gear. Now there are many ultralight down sleeping bags available, and hikers are carefully comparing features and performance to choose the right bag for their needs. The market is much more competitive now, so has the new Rab Top Bag AR reached perfection or not?

To answer that question, let’s start with the likes and dislikes from our 2005 review of the Quantum Qtop. We liked its light weight (16 oz), high loft down, baffled construction, and Pertex Quantum shell and lining. Those features haven’t changed. We disliked the Qtop’s extra wide sleeping pad opening (wider than a standard 20-inch-wide sleeping pad), tight girth, and only one length. The first two problems have been fixed, but the last one (multiple lengths) hasn’t. Three new features have been added: the underside of the footbox is insulated with Primaloft, a sleeping pad sleeve has been added to the underside, and the bag now has a “hood.”

Rab Top Bag AR Sleeping Bag REVIEW Review - 2
The underside of the new Rab Top Bag AR has a true pad sleeve made of Pertex Quantum fabric. It is fitted so a standard 20-inch wide sleeping pad (left), such as the Therm-a-Rest Prolite 3 Short (shown), fits snugly in the sleeve with no gaps on the sides to create cold spots. The sleeve has a clever extension (right) to accommodate a full length sleeping pad.

One thing to keep in mind is that the Top Bag AR does not work well with sleeping pads that are less than 20 inches wide and 48 inches long – such as the popular Bozeman Mountain Works TorsoLite. The TorsoLite is 17 inches wide at the top and tapers down to 12 inches wide at the bottom, so there are uninsulated gaps on both sides and the bottom end of the pad. The gaps won’t be noticeable when sleeping at warmer night temperatures, but when the temperature falls below about 35 °F, the cold spots around the pad will be very noticeable!

Rab Top Bag AR Sleeping Bag REVIEW Review - 3
The new Top Bag AR adds a hood (left), or at least a partial one. The hood is not large enough to completely enclose the head, as modeled by my wife Janet (right), and is only useful to back sleepers.

The Rab Top Bag AR still comes in only one length, which I measured at 62.5 inches to the bottom of the hood opening and 72.5 inches to the top of the hood opening. Rab states that the Top Bag AR will fit a person up to 6 feet tall. I am 6 feet tall, and the bag is too short for me when I draw up the hood, though the length is adequate if I cinch the drawcord around my neck and do not use the hood (I simply fold it under my neck and wear a warm hat at night, like I would with a hoodless sleeping bag.). My estimate is that the Top Bag AR will fit a person less than 5 feet 10 inches tall using the hood. Interestingly, the previous hoodless model (the QTop) measures 69 inches long (I had the extra girth version), which is 6.5 inches longer than the new Top Bag AR. Go figure.

I found it difficult to measure the loft of the Top Bag AR because the insulated sides of the bag wrap around to the edge of the sleeping pad sleeve, causing the bag to stand up higher on the sides and sink in the center. My best estimate of single layer loft in the chest area is 1.75 inches. Rab estimates the temperature rating of the Top Bag AR at 30 °F, but it is not based an independent test according to the EN13537 standard (it’s not possible to conduct a standard test and get a CE label on a sleeping bag with no insulation in the bottom).

As for weight, the new Top Bag AR weighs four ounces more than the previous QTop, which I assume is mostly due to the addition of a sleeping pad sleeve, hood, and Primaloft insulation under the footbox.

Rab Top Bag AR Sleeping Bag REVIEW Review - 4
Underside of the Rab Top Bag AR, head end (left), and foot end (right) with a full length sleeping pad.

Rab Top Bag AR Sleeping Bag REVIEW Review - 5
The Rab Top Bag AR comes with a roomy Pertex Quantum stuff sack. The stuffed bag measures 14 x 7 inches, but can be stuffed into half that volume if desired.

I field tested the new Rab Top Bag AR on a number of mountain backpacking trips in late summer and fall 2007 and spring 2008. In each case I slept in a single wall tent, with low temperatures ranging from 24 to 42 °F (measured with a Kestrel 4000 Weather Tracker). I consistently got chilly at about 35 °F and had to put on more clothing to stay warm the rest of the night.

I found the girth of the new Top Bag AR more to my liking than the QTop. While the previous QTop bag was too tight for side sleepers, especially in the hip area, the new Top Bag AR has adequate girth to accommodate side sleepers wearing lightweight insulated clothing inside the bag.

While our Backpacking Light Position Statement on Sleeping Bag Temperature Ratings emphasizes that there are many factors that affect a bag’s warmth, I would like to present the following data to compare the Rab Top Bag with other popular ultralight down sleeping bags.


Manufacturer	Model	Temp Rating (°F)	Single Layer Loft (in)	Weight of Down (oz)	Fill Power	Total Weight (oz)	Cost
Western Mountaineering	SummerLite	32	2	10	850+	19	$300
Marmot	Hydrogen	30	?*	10	850	21	$309
Montbell	Super Stretch Down Hugger #3	30	?*	10	800	23	$270
Feathered Friends	Merlin	30	2	11.5	800+	23	$314
Rab	Top Bag AR	30	1.75	7	850+	20.5	$200

*At the time of writing, this information was not available.

As you can see from the table, a high quality baffled 30-32 °F down bag contains at least 10 ounces of high loft down, giving it about 2 inches of loft. The Top Bag AR is not insulated on the bottom, so that saves some down, but the loft is a bit deficient. That may explain my late night chills when the temperature dropped below about 35 °F, but isn’t definitive. On the positive side, I had no problem staying warm down into the mid 20s °F in the Top Bag AR when I wore extra clothing, which was usually a Bozeman Mountain Works Cocoon Pullover and Pants.

Assessment

While I can’t state that the Rab Top Bag AR has reached perfection, it certainly has come closer with its new sleeping pad sleeve that will snugly accommodate either a three-quarter or full length twenty-inch-wide sleeping pad. Using this bag basically commits a person to use a standard width sleeping pad in order to get a tight seal. An ultralight pad can be used in warmer temperatures, but it will have cold spots along the sides and end of the pad in colder temperatures. It would be nice to add another ounce of down to this bag to achieve a solid 30 °F temperature rating.

The girth of the new Top Bag AR is now adequate to accommodate side sleepers, but the bag’s shorter length will be a deterrent to hikers at or over 6 feet tall. The hood provides some benefit to shorter hikers (it only partially covers the head), but it is of little use for taller hikers and side sleepers.

Finally, as seen in the above table, the Rab Top Bag AR is an excellent value at $200 for an ultralight sleeping bag, compared to the competition.

What’s Unique

To save weight, the Rab Top Bag AR is not insulated on the bottom. Rather, it relies on a sleeping pad to provide insulation along the bottom of the bag.

Recommendations for Improvement

Offer the bag in regular and long lengths.
Add another ounce of down.
Re-design the hood to fully cover the head, so it can be drawn over the face.

SPOT Satellite Personal Tracker – Full Review

Does this highly anticipated technological breakthrough live up to the hype?

Overview

The SPOT Satellite Messenger (SPOT unit).

The SPOT unit has the potential to be a breakthrough in backcountry safety. It’s lighter, more compact, and less expensive than Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs), which can only transmit a distress signal to emergency services. It’s lighter and less expensive than a satellite phone and has more coverage than a cell phone. The SPOT also has a Tracking (breadcrumb) mode, which automatically sends your location every ten minutes. Unlike PLBs (or even most cell or satellite phones), the SPOT unit can transmit your exact location plus one of several messages:

"I’m here and OK."
"I need help."
"Call 911 and rescue me."

Several of our testers believe that a device like the SPOT unit would alleviate their family’s worrying back home, making it easier for them to get permission to go on backcountry trips. This is especially true for solo walkers or people who pursue dangerous endeavors like technical mountaineering in areas beyond cell phone coverage. However, Backpacking Light makes no formal recommendations about what safety equipment any outdoor enthusiast should carry.

On paper, the SPOT unit is an innovative concept for improving backcountry safety. In the field, it did not deliver "virtually every message" as the SPOT unit’s literature claims, and the unit has usability problems. As such, we believe it has yet to deliver its promised functionality and message delivery reliably.

What’s Good

Provides vital last known location information and a time for that location.
Tracking mode automatically provides positional information every ten minutes.
Has three different message modes: OK (Check-in), Help, and 911.
Light and compact compared to many Personal Locator Beacons (PLBs) and with more message modes.
Long battery/operational life.
Low initial unit cost (but service fees are extra).
Help and 911 messages have a good probability of being delivered "with a perfect view of the entire sky."

What’s Not So Good

The SPOT unit did not deliver "virtually every message." It is unclear what the SPOT unit’s reliability rate of successfully delivering messages would be in the field conditions likely to be encountered backpacking and hiking (i.e. in conditions with less than a perfect view of the entire sky), and whether that reliability is sufficient.
No verification that a message was successfully delivered.
Confusing user interface.
User manual is short, lacking detail and closer to a quick start guide. It’s also poorly organized and contains errors.
GPS receiver performance is not as good as the best handheld GPS units.
Tracking mode may have significant message gaps while hiking and backpacking.
Long wait time to transmit OK messages.
Website software has usability problems.
SPOT requires a service fee to work.
At 7.3 ounces (208 g) with batteries, the SPOT could be lighter.

Basic Specifications

These specifications have been summarized from the vendor specifications and our Testers’ experiences.

The SPOT unit has four push buttons: Power-on, OK, Help, and 911. In addition, the Tracking mode is activated by a long press on the ‘OK’ button.
The SPOT unit has LEDs to show Power-on and the operation of the other buttons/modes. Various sequences and combinations of LED flashes are used to show the status of the unit and its operational mode.
Dimensions: 4.25 x 2.75 x 1.5 in (10.8 x 7.0 x 3.8 cm)
Weight: 7.3 oz (208 g), with batteries as measured by BPL
Battery Life: depends of type of batteries used. Using the two AA lithium batteries included with the unit, the manufacturer claims the following:
- Power on, unused: approximately one year.
- Tracking mode: approximately 14 days.
- 911 mode: up to 7 consecutive days.
- OK messages: up to 1900 messages.
Operating Temperatures: -40 °F to +185 °F (-40 °C to 85 °C)
Operating Altitude: -300 to +21,000 ft (-90 m to 6,400 m)
Floats in water and waterproof to 1 meter for up to 30 minutes
Shock: tolerates being dropped twice on all six sides from one meter onto hard surface.
Coverage: Much of North America, South America, Europe and Australia, Northern Africa and Northeastern Asia, and some distance offshore of these areas (see coverage map on SPOT website).
MSRP: $145.95 USD
SPOT charges a per-year fee of $99.00 US for basic service and the use of the system, which is in addition to the cost of the physical unit. The unit will not work without service activation.
Use of the Tracking mode is an additional $49.95 US/year above the basic service fee.

Review Objective and Testing

The SPOT unit manual claims "With a perfect view of the entire sky, the SPOT network is designed to successfully send virtually every message."

For a real world user, this may not be a useful claim. No one can plan their emergencies to happen with a "perfect view of the entire sky." Many (possibly most) places people routinely walk, hike, and backpack do not meet this requirement. There are usually mountains, hills, rocks, trees, canyon walls, or buildings blocking a portion of sky view. One’s body blocks a significant portion of the sky view when just holding the SPOT unit. Short of putting the SPOT unit on a rock and walking away, there seems to be virtually no situation that meets the criteria of a perfect view of the entire sky when operating the unit. Finally, if you are in an emergency and/or injured, you may not be able to move to a location with optimal view of the entire sky.

Thus, our main review objective was to ascertain the SPOT unit’s message transmission success rate for conditions likely to be encountered in the field by backpackers and hikers. A secondary objective was to determine the usability of the SPOT unit and supporting Web Software, as this ultimately affects successful message transmission. At the end of this review, we recommend a number of suggested improvements for the SPOT unit and the system that supports it.

To investigate the above, four Backpacking Light reviewers tested two SPOT units for more than three months. We tested on two continents and in both northern and southern hemispheres. Over the course of our controlled testing and field testing, we sent hundreds of messages.

Field testing the SPOT in Australia.

Does the SPOT Unit Work?

No matter what the claimed potential of the SPOT system, the essential question is "Does the SPOT unit work?" Or more specifically phrased: "How reliably will the SPOT unit deliver messages and under what conditions?"

In our testing, in field conditions we believe likely to be encountered backpacking and hiking, the SPOT unit did not "deliver virtually every message," as the SPOT unit’s literature claims. As such, we see the SPOT unit as an innovative system with a lot of promise, but with some glitches and room for improvement. We make no claims that the current SPOT unit and its supporting system is or is not dependable enough to deliver messages with sufficient reliability all times in the field conditions encountered by backpacker and hikers. That is a judgment call to be made by each prospective user.

Missing messages: (Left) A 4.5 mile section with only one of six expected SPOT messages. There should be five other messages between Track 1 and Track 3. (Right) Track log from a GPS unit (with an older technology GPS chipset) run in parallel with the SPOT unit during the field test. There was a clear sky view of the entire sky the entire time with no obstructions to satellite communication. (Basic image courtesy of SPOT & Google Maps)

The SPOT unit uses a very complex system to successfully deliver a message. Any single failure in this long, multi-component, multi-technology system path results in no message delivery. Some of the components (the Globalstar satellites, supporting satellite ground stations, the Internet, and email or SMS (phone) message systems) are substantially or entirely out of the SPOT unit’s control. We found at least one instance of a system component downstream of the SPOT unit causing message losses in our testing. It is also possible that other unexplained long gaps with undelivered messages in our field testing might have been caused by a problem with a downstream component.

Initial glitches in new, complex systems like the SPOT are the norm, not the exception. In the future, SPOT may (or may not) fix many of these to significantly improve its performance from when we tested it and/or come out with a SPOT unit, Version 2. We asked John Dark of SPOT about improvements, and he said that, as a publicly traded company, SPOT could not commit to specific changes or time frames. SPOT’s eventual success will be measured by

Improvement in message delivery reliability.
Improvements to the user interface and operation of the unit, including the user manual.
Possible improvements to components downstream in the communication chain that the physical SPOT relies on for successful message delivery.

As a result of our testing, we make a number of recommendations for the current SPOT unit, as well as ones for a potential Version 2 of the physical SPOT unit, which could bring it closer to the performance and functionality of the manufacturer’s claims and the field reliability expectations for backpackers and hikers. These recommendations are covered at the end of this Review.

For those interested in our technical testing information, it is summarized in an Appendix. In most cases, the individual citations in the Appendix are a few examples that represent a larger number of similar tests as well as our field tester’s experiences.

Basic Operation of the SPOT Unit

A diagram of the major elements in the SPOT communications chain. (image courtesy of SPOT)

When the SPOT unit is activated, the following steps take place:

The unit attempts to obtain a GPS position from the standard GPS satellite system.
The unit then transmits the required message (OK, Tracking, Help or 911) up to an orbiting Globalstar satellite on the Simplex data channel.
The Globalstar satellite relays this message down to the nearest Globalstar ground station.
The ground station then transmits this message to the SPOT head office.
The SPOT head office adds some extra information to the message and
- posts it on its own website and/or
- sends the message to up to ten nominated recipients by email and/or SMS (phone text) or
- in the case of a 911 message, contacts the Globalstar office (GEOS Emergency Response Center), where a human operator takes over to contact the appropriate emergency services.

Some further explanation:

When ‘OK’ is pressed, the SPOT unit attempts to obtain a GPS fix and will not transmit until it has done so. If and when it does get a fix, it then transmits the same message and GPS position three times over what remains of twenty minutes from the press. If more than one of the attempted messages is received, only the first one is logged and emailed per step 5 above.
In principle, the green LED above the ‘OK’ button should tell the user what is going on – whether a GPS fix has been obtained and when a message is being sent – but all testers found this form of feedback confusing.
When ‘Help’ is pressed, the SPOT unit will attempt to get a GPS fix for a short duration, then will transmit a ‘Help’ message. If it has a GPS fix, the coordinates are included in the message; if it did not get a GPS fix, the message is sent without the GPS coordinates. The ‘Help’ message is then retransmitted every five minutes for one hour or until the function is cancelled. Every one of these messages is handled according to step 5 above (none are discarded). The function can be cancelled with a long press of the ‘Help’ button.
When ‘911’ is pressed, the same sequence as for "Help" is followed, but with a ‘911’ message instead of ‘Help’. This message is repeated every five minutes until the batteries are exhausted or the function is cancelled. These ‘911’ messages are handled differently from the ‘Help’ messages: they stop at the Globalstar office, where a human operator takes over to contact the appropriate emergency services in the appropriate country.
The owner of the SPOT unit can define a short text attachment to a ‘Help’ message, to be sent via the SPOT website. This requires access to SPOT’s website, thus it cannot be changed once you are in the field.
OK messages have an identical text attachment feature.
Information added by SPOT to the basic messages sent out in step 5 includes a URL to the relevant Google map with the GPS location marked on it – a very useful feature.
When the ‘OK’ button is pressed for more than five seconds, the SPOT goes into Tracking (also called ‘SPOTcasting’) mode. In this mode, the SPOT unit attempts to get and transmit a GPS reading every ten minutes. This creates a ‘breadcrumb’ trail which can be displayed on a Google map at the SPOT website.
The Tracking mode messages are not sent via email. They can only be accessed by logging onto the SPOT website with a username/password. (SPOT may soon have a way to publicly share Tracking points with friends and/or emergency contacts, if you wish to do so.)

Search and Rescue Perspective

Ron Johnson, Grand Teton National Park Search and Rescue (SAR) team member, says that "the SPOT provides a vital piece of SAR information, the last known location of the party and the time at that location." This limits the search area, making the SAR team faster and far more effective than if they had "just the information that they left X trailhead four days ago." Ron notes even when talking to lost parties via cell or satellite phone, some have been unable to describe their location well enough for SAR teams to know their exact position.

Ron views the SPOT unit’s Tracking mode as possibly the most useful, since it updates the "last known location" every ten minutes without the user doing anything. We note that you must physically activate Help or 911 modes after an emergency. If you can’t (you are too injured in a fall, for example), nobody knows there is a problem. However, with Tracking mode active, even if you are suddenly injured, rendered unconscious, or are too incapacitated to activate a Help or 911 message, your emergency contact monitoring the SPOT website will still have your precise last known location from Tracking messages. They will eventually notice your lack of movement as a sign of trouble. The need for last known position also indicates judicious use of the SPOT unit’s OK (Check-in) mode to provide position information.

According to Ron, the downsides of the SPOT unit from a SAR perspective are that "you do not know the nature of the emergency," and "you cannot talk to the party requesting help." In the first instance he says, "A well constructed short sentence or even ‘injured – unable to move’ means a lot to SAR folks" (A simple field-configurable text message to accompany a Help message is one of our recommended improvements for the SPOT.). In the second instance, where there is a cell or satellite phone contact, he says, "we’ve been able to talk people onto the right route or give medical advice for an injured party member. Many times [there is no real emergency and] we’ve advised the party to make themselves comfortable and sit tight until morning. Sometimes all they need to hear is an experienced voice to tell them it’s going to be OK [and to keep them from panicking and doing something rash, which could cause a problem]."

Terminology:

SPOT unit: refers to the physical SPOT device the user holds in their hand. The official company name for this product is the "SPOT Satellite Messenger" or the shorter "SPOT Messenger."

SPOT: refers to SPOT, the company and/or systems the company controls, like the SPOT website. At times it can refer to the whole system, the SPOT unit, SPOT the company, and every other system and device (not necessarily owned or controlled by SPOT) that supports successful a message delivery from the SPOT unit to its intended recipients.

Message transmission: the SPOT unit transmits a message. No assumptions are made as to whether a satellite is in view to receive the transmission. No assumptions are made that all parts of the system, the satellite, ground station, and components further downstream are online and functioning properly.

No message transmission: the SPOT unit makes no attempt to transmit a message. This usually applies to OK and Tracking modes. The most probable cause is no GPS fix. The SPOT unit will not transmit a Tracking or OK message without first obtaining a GPS fix. Operational errors and/or a misunderstanding of the user interface could also cause the SPOT unit to make no message transmissions.

Successful message delivery – Tracking: message successfully delivered to the SPOT website. Each Tracking message sent at ten minute intervals counts as a messaging attempt – in other words, six Tracking message transmissions per hour.

Successful message delivery – OK: At least one of the three SPOT unit’s message transmissions sent over a twenty minute period is successfully delivered to all intended recipients, which include the SPOT website, email messages, and phone SMS text messages.

Successful message delivery – Help: At least one of the twelve SPOT unit’s message transmissions sent over an hour period is successfully delivered to all intended recipients, which include the SPOT website, email messages, and phone SMS text messages. The message may or may not contain a location.

Successful message delivery – 911: At least one of the SPOT unit’s message transmissions, sent every five minutes until the batteries fail, is successfully delivered to the GEOS Emergency Response Center. The message may or may not contain a location. We did not test the 911 mode for reliability, for obvious reasons.

Successful message delivery – General Case: an individual message transmission, when in Tracking, OK, or Help mode, is successfully delivered to all intended recipients, which include the SPOT website, email messages, and phone SMS text messages. This applies most to Tracking and Help modes. In this general case, each individual transmission is counted as an attempt to send a message, regardless of the mode. Thus, in OK mode, the three transmissions in twenty minutes would count as three messaging attempts. Help mode’s twelve transmissions in an hour would count as twelve messaging attempts. Each of Tracking mode’s transmissions sent at ten minute intervals count as a messaging attempt – in other words, six Tracking message transmissions per hour.

Analysis of Test Results

Antenna Design

The SPOT unit receives signals from GPS satellites on one frequency and transmits messages to communications satellites on another frequency. It uses the same antenna to do both. One antenna cannot be optimized for two frequencies. If it works better for one frequency (message transmission) then it will not work as well for the other frequency (GPS location reception) or vice versa.

We asked John Dark, Senior Marketing Manager for SPOT, about the shared antenna design. He said their design favors message transmission. They picked favoring transmission because they believe getting an emergency message out is the highest priority. Even without a GPS position, a Help or 911 message is still of great value.

The choice of a single antenna that favors message transmission may be why the SPOT unit does not have the same GPS fix performance of a handheld GPS unit using a similarly sensitive GPS chipset (The GPS-only unit presumably has an antenna optimized solely for best GPS reception.).

A reduction in GPS performance has problematic implications. First, as Ron Johnson noted above, the last known location of the party is a vital piece of information for SAR personnel. Second, two modes of the SPOT unit, OK and Tracking, require a GPS fix or they will not transmit. Lack of GPS reception is one possible contributor for the OK and Tracking modes to have lower successful message delivery rates than Help messages, which do not require a GPS fix.

One of our recommendations for improving the SPOT unit is to use two dedicated antennas, one optimized for receiving GPS signals and another for transmitting messages.

Obtaining a GPS Fix

We found that the SPOT unit could not match the GPS reception performance of the best current generation handheld GPS units. Heavy tree cover and other obstructions that limit sky view challenge most GPS units, but recent high sensitivity GPS chipsets have decreased this problem.

To see how the SPOT unit does with a limited sky view, we tested GPS performance under an overhang with two Garmin GPS units and the SPOT unit. At two positions, the SPOT unit failed to get a GPS fix while the latest version of the Garmin H series GPS acquired a fix in both positions. An early generation technology Garmin unit was comparable in performance to the SPOT unit.

We also field tested the SPOT unit under heavy tree cover. In this case, a substantially older technology Garmin unit appeared to outperform the SPOT unit. (Note that we are comparing GPS track points to the SPOT unit’s delivered messages, so this is not an exact comparison.)

The SPOT instructions recommend using the SPOT unit horizontally (face up). We found that tilting the SPOT unit sideways significantly reduced GPS performance. When the SPOT unit is stuffed into a pack, some degree of tilt is almost inevitable, though we found that tilt of less than forty-five degrees would not significantly affect GPS performance. From our testing, we also found that the ninety degree angle (from horizontal) created by hanging the SPOT from its belt clip reduced successful message transmission rates in Tracking mode.

Nearby cliffs and boulders can cause reflections of the signals transmitted from the GPS satellite, which can make the apparent position to be in error by a kilometer or more (We experienced with a nearby cliff in one field test.). However, it seems the SPOT unit is more prone to problems here than some other GPS units, such as a Garmin H series unit.

Tracking Mode When Backpacking or Hiking

We found Tracking mode when backpacking or hiking had low message delivery rates. Antenna design and GPS performance may be factors, since Tracking messages are not transmitted without a GPS fix. It is difficult to mount or hold the SPOT unit in a way that your body (especially torso) doesn’t block a good portion of the sky view. Block some sky view, and you affect GPS reception.

Four of our testers evaluated successful message delivery rates while walking with the SPOT in Tracking mode. They typically put the SPOT face up in a fanny pack or horizontally on the top of a backpack, hip mounted it as the SPOT Manual suggests, or held the unit in front of them. Each went for a one hour or longer walk in Tracking mode. In two cases, no messages were successfully delivered during the entire walk. In another, a single message was received in the entire hour. Careful inspection of the coordinates showed it had been transmitted when the walker stopped (at a known location) to re-lace a shoe. In several cases, the SPOT unit was placed face up on a rock under a clear sky for some time immediately after the walker returned home, and in each case, most of the messages from this stationary position were received.

Two possible contributors to undelivered messages would be reduced GPS performance due to movement of the SPOT unit or limited sky view for the SPOT unit when it was close to the hiker’s body (the body blocks sky view). From our testing on a moving kayak, which had higher message transmission rates than walking, it is probable that close proximity to the hiker’s body is the greater contributor, but we cannot completely rule out movement as a secondary contributor. There may even be other factors at play to prevent message delivery.

We asked John Dark of SPOT about our undelivered Tracking messages. He said that other users had reported undelivered Tracking messages as well. For best use of Tracking mode, he suggested "mounting the SPOT unit horizontally on the top of a pack shoulder strap. In this way, only your head blocks a portion of the sky." (Note: the User Manual instructs a vertical mounting at your waist using the SPOT unit’s belt clip.)

We agree that the top of the shoulder strap mounting would probably improve Tracking message delivery, as no portion of your torso would block sky view. However, even with a perfect view of the entire sky, our testing indicated average daily Tracking message delivery rates of 83%, with some rates as low as 17% in a given one hour period.

Message Reliability

In various controlled tests and our field testing, we found that somewhere between 0% and 83% of messages were successfully delivered, depending on the amount of sky visible to the SPOT unit and the mode used. This is a broad range. In addition, difficulties with SPOT unit’s user interface meant that incorrect modes were sometimes activated, which resulted in unsent messages. These unsent messages were not counted in our reliability figures, but nevertheless may affect users’ real world reliability.

SPOT recognizes that not all messages will be delivered, and addresses this by sending multiple messages. A single OK message is transmitted up to three times in twenty minutes. A Help message is transmitted once every five minutes for an hour. A 911 message is transmitted every five minutes until the batteries give out.

Our testing suggested that Help and 911 messages would have a high probability of being delivered "with a perfect view of the entire sky" when in SPOT’s high coverage areas. OK and Tracking messages would have a good but lesser probability of successful delivery "with a perfect view of the entire sky."

It is unclear what the SPOT unit’s reliability of successfully delivering messages (four types) would be in field conditions likely to be encountered backpacking and hiking (conditions with less than a perfect view of the entire sky), and if that reliability would be sufficient.

No Message Delivery Confirmation

Another wrinkle to the possibility of an undelivered message(s) is that the SPOT unit cannot confirm successful message delivery. The SPOT unit sends to communications satellites, but cannot receive from the satellites. Thus, there is no way to send a message delivery confirmation back to the SPOT unit.

Suppose a hiker has severely sprained an ankle or broken a leg in an area of heavy tree cover or in a deep canyon with limited sky view. Should they assume a Help or 911 message was successfully delivered and with a good GPS location? If so, they should probably sit tight and wait for rescue. Or should they assume a low probability of message delivery (and/or the lack of GPS location) and hobble as best they can towards some place where they can get help or at least have a higher chance of being discovered?

If our hiker decided to stay put, but the SPOT unit’s message was not delivered (or lacked a GPS location), they could be in for a long, cold, and hungry wait. If they decide to hobble to a better location, and the message was delivered, they may unnecessarily cause far a more serious injury to themselves, and they will not be in the location of their Help or 911 messages, where SAR will look first. The range of problematic scenarios in this vein is worth consideration.

SPOT Website

Most of the testers had some initial problems with the SPOT website. Its design is not particularly intuitive, and there are some features we’d like added. However, the problems were minor, and from our Conversations with John Dark of SPOT, we expect improvements to their website in the near future.

SPOT email messages include a location URL. Click on the URL and up pops a Google map with the position marked. This makes it very easy for people monitoring your trip to see where you are. While they are not emailed, Tracking messages are viewable on the SPOT website. If you select a series of logged Tracking positions, you can display a map of the region with position tags at all the logged message locations (see the Technical Appendix for a screenshot of this feature).

SPOT User Interface

The SPOT unit has only four buttons and four LEDs. It should be simple to use. In practice, we found it confusing to activate, cancel, and inactivate all the SPOT functions. Different modes are activated by long or short presses of the same button. Some modes stop by themselves, some can be cancelled by button presses, and others can only be stopped by turning the unit off. We believe that most users would need a field crib sheet to remember all the operations. We also found the few LEDs and their cryptic combinations of flashes did not provide enough feedback on what the SPOT unit was or was not doing, even if one had nothing to do but stare at the LEDs, which is usually not the case in the field. The attempt to transmit a message is indicated by the LEDs going solid for two seconds. Blink and you’ll miss whether the SPOT transmitted a message or not. The SPOT does not keep track of attempted message transmission. Once that information is gone, it’s gone.

A usability example: Pressing the ‘OK’ button normally causes the SPOT unit to send up to three OK messages with the same GPS coordinates. Pressing it for more than five seconds puts it into the Tracking mode, which sends one message every ten minutes until you turn it off. The status flash sequence is the same for both modes, so you have no idea which mode is active.

One tester was using Tracking mode while on a sea kayaking trip (see Appendix), and had notified friends back home that he would do this. However, one morning in bad weather prior to a hazardous section of the trip, he accidentally released the ‘OK’ button a shade too soon, and the SPOT went into OK mode instead. One OK message was sent, and nothing more for the rest of the section. His friends knew this portion of the trip was exceptionally hazardous: imagine their dilemma when they only got one OK message instead of the series of Tracking points they were expecting. Had the kayak foundered and sunk in the bad weather, or had the kayakers just decided to stay put and wait for safer conditions? What to do?

The problem is that the feedback provided by the current SPOT design consists of a few flashes of the LEDs. In many situations it’s not feasible to sit and focus on the SPOT LEDs for up to twenty minutes to find out what the SPOT is doing, if it has a GPS fix, and if a message was sent. Look away briefly and you might miss an important LED flash. Was a message sent or not? If it was sent, what type of message? What mode is the SPOT in? This may not be the best design for an emergency/safety system.

John Dark of SPOT told us that other users have reported inadvertently activating OK when they intended to activate Tracking. SPOT intends to re-write the manual to look for a solid LED light indication that Tracking has been activated, rather than waiting a potentially ambiguous five seconds. This rewrite will still not change the same status flash sequence that OK and Tracking modes share.

Enhanced SPOT Display

All our Testers noted that the SPOT unit had the current GPS coordinates inside but could not display them. Many problem situations are little more than "Where are we?" Displaying your position on the SPOT unit could possibly eliminate the need to carry a separate GPS unit. As noted earlier, the four LEDs convey very little information about the operation of the SPOT unit. May times we wished for an improved display for feedback on the current SPOT mode, the quality of the GPS fix, and number of attempted message deliveries, etc. A more sophisticated LCD text display is the obvious solution to these needs, though it would decrease the impressive battery life.

SPOT Versus Other Options

Personal Locator Beacons

The PLB system is an obvious alternative to the SPOT. The older PLB system, now being phased out, simply transmitted a beacon for the authorities to home in on. The newer PLB system (on 406 MHz) does more than that: the units can also contain a GPS unit and can transmit the GPS coordinates. In effect, this makes the newer 406 MHz PLBs equivalent to the SPOT with only the ‘911’ button.

The new PLB system may have several advantages over the SPOT:

Many planes are equipped to detect the PLB signals, and there are two global satellite systems, called GEOSAR and LEOSAR, which specifically monitor the 406 MHz frequency for distress signals. This combination might be more reliable than the Globalstar system.
The PLB unit contains the 406 MHz transmitter for the satellites and a lower frequency beacon at 121 MHz, which serves as a homing frequency for search organizations, some of which have gear which can locate this beacon.
There is no annual service fee for the use of the PLB system: it is taxpayer-funded.
Typically, a PLB will have separate antennae for the GPS and the transmitters. This may make the GPS sensitivity in a PLB higher than in the SPOT unit, which has a single antenna (although there are many other sensitivity factors as well).
If the GPS coordinates are not available, the PLB system still locates the unit using timing variations as detected by the satellites. At close range during an actual search, the homing beacon helps to locate the unit.

However, a PLB is usually more expensive than the SPOT unit and can only send a non-text Emergency/911 message, while the SPOT can send three other message types. Both the SPOT unit and the 406 MHz PLBs are new. Which one would prove more reliable at bringing in a search party may not be known until statistics are compiled on the success rates of notifying emergency personnel.

Satellite Phones

As noted earlier by Ron Johnson, there are significant advantages for phone communications in an emergency (over the SPOT or PLBs).

If the SPOT can reach a satellite, so can a satellite phone – they have similar (if not exact) areas of coverage. In many ways, a satellite phone would be the ultimate solution, but for two things: they are currently heavy, an almost inevitable consequence of the need for a bigger antenna and bigger batteries, and they are expensive and the service costs are high. Should satellite phones come remotely close to the cost of ordinary mobile or cell phones, this option would likely surge in popularity among backcountry users.

Cell Phones

Cell phones would be a great option, if they had full coverage of the backcountry wilderness areas. For this to work, the backcountry would have to be covered by a grid of cell phone towers and other supporting infrastructure. This is not likely to occur in the foreseeable future.

However, places like Mt. Rainier and the Tetons have decent cell phone coverage for many areas, provided you are high enough. Ron Johnson told us of numerous SAR contacts by climbers, hikers, and backpackers via cell phone in the Grand Teton National Park. In many other "backcountry areas," you can get intermittent to good cell phone coverage from high ridges and peaks. Some of our testers have had better luck transmitting a single SMS text message in fringe cell phone coverage.

Conclusion

So what is the SPOT unit’s reliability to successfully deliver messages? To better understand our findings, we break this question into separate sections and a final statement.

Note: The following is a special, best case condition where the SPOT unit was mounted face up on the deck of a kayak away from people, so that not even our bodies blocked a significant portion of a perfect sky view. We traveled almost entirely on large bodies of water where there were no trees, hills, or other objects blocking the SPOT unit’s sky view. We believe this best approximated SPOT’s "perfect view of the entire sky." These successful message delivery rates would probably not apply to hiking or backpacking, where a number of natural features or even the hiker’s body can block a significant portion of the sky view. To achieve these message delivery rates in the field, you would need to place the SPOT unit somewhere with a perfect view of the entire sky and then walk away so your body does not block a portion of the sky view (or a similar solution).

Reliability with a Perfect View of the Entire Sky*

With a perfect view of the entire sky, our six day kayaking field test produced daily successful message delivery rates of 75% to 83%. This success rate dropped to as low as 50% for a given two hour period and 17% for a given one hour period. The longest gap without successful message delivery was forty minutes. These message delivery success rates were for individual message transmissions sent out at ten minute intervals with the SPOT unit in Tracking mode. As such, it is a direct measure of the Tracking mode’s successful message delivery reliability with a perfect view of the entire sky, or "ideal conditions."

In our six day field test, all attempted OK messages, sent morning and evening, were successfully delivered. It should also be noted that two scheduled morning OK transmissions were not sent. Due to dangerous conditions, our testers could not afford to wait twenty minutes for an OK message transmission and instead initiated Tracking mode and got underway. The lack of an OK message caused concern for our field tester’s emergency contact monitoring SPOT messages. In this case, the multiple message/long wait period for the OK mode was a disadvantage.

From our field testing, we estimate that with a perfect view of the entire sky, Help and 911 messages have an excellent probability of getting through. Both modes send multiple messages frequently and for a long period (one hour for Help, and until the batteries fail for 911). In our six day kayaking field test with perfect sky view of the entire sky, we had no message delivery gaps lasting an hour or longer.

An OK message would also have a good chance of getting though with perfect view of the entire sky, but not quite as good as Help or 911. After initiating OK mode, the SPOT unit makes three attempts to send a message in whatever is left of the twenty minutes after the SPOT unit gets a GPS fix. During our six day field test, we had twenty-eight periods of approximately twenty to forty minutes with no successful message delivery. If we had initiated an OK mode during those periods, the message might not have been delivered. In our controlled testing, we had instances where OK messages were not delivered. We also had a number of instances where the OK message was delivered in the last attempt of the twenty minute period, indicating that SPOT had difficulty with first two attempts.

Also decreasing the probability of sending an OK (or Tracking) message is the requirement that SPOT have a GPS fix before attempting to send a message. With no GPS fix, no OK or Tracking messages are sent (Help and 911 modes do not require a GPS fix to send), and our testing indicated that while good, the SPOT unit’s GPS performance falls short of the best handheld GPS units currently on the market.

In summary, with a perfect view of the entire sky, Help and 911 messages have an excellent probability of successful delivery (although with a slight possibility of lacking location information due to GPS reception performance). OK messages have good but lesser probability of successful delivery, and Tracking messages have approximately an 80% probability of successful delivery during the course of the day, though this can drop as low as 17% for a two hour period.

Again, these rates probably do not apply to more limited sky view situations, including those with the SPOT close to your body, nor do they apply to areas with hills, trees, canyons, or other situations normally encountered backpacking and hiking (more below).

It seems reasonable to assume that many people cannot plan all their emergencies to happen with a perfect view of the entire sky. It is unclear what the SPOT unit’s reliability of delivering messages would be in field conditions likely to be encountered backpacking and hiking – that is, with mountains, hills, trees, narrow canyon walls, or even your body blocking most or part of the "perfect view of the entire sky."

Reliability with Less Than a Perfect View of the Entire Sky

SPOT gives no message reliability rates for situations with less than a perfect view of the entire sky, nor do they guarantee that a message will get through with less than a perfect view of the entire sky. John Dark of SPOT mentions making multiple message transmissions as a way of improving the chances that one message will be delivered in areas with less than a perfect view of the entire sky. He said the longer you wait, the better your chances that a satellite will be overhead to receive a transmission. However, in our field tests and controlled tests, we found instances where the SPOT was unable to get a message out no matter the number of attempts. As expected, most of these situations occurred where the SPOT had less than a perfect view of the entire sky (for now "limited sky view"). Because it does not rely on a GPS fix, we found fewer situations where a Help message was not sent, but we do have examples of Help messages sent without a GPS position.

Many of these limited sky view situations are ones that would be routinely encountered hiking or backpacking. Heavy, but not complete, tree cover is just one example were the SPOT was unable to successfully deliver most, if any, messages. As mentioned earlier, many people can’t plan on having emergencies only in areas with a perfect view of the entire sky.

Undelivered messages with trees: (Left) We expected five SPOT messages between point A to point B but the SPOT only sent one Tracking message (at point C) in the three mile long tree lined creek. We believe it only managed to transmit at point C due to a widening in the creek indicated by the X arrow. (Right) Track log from a GPS unit (with an older technology GPS chipset) run in parallel with the SPOT during the field test. (Basic image courtesy of SPOT & Google Maps)

We asked SPOT for some guidelines for when a user could expect a successful message delivery. John Dark replied that the number of field variables that could affect message delivery is far too complex to even come close to a simple list. He suggested that since they believe transmitting is more successful than GPS reception, one might use "having a GPS fix" as an indicator of a higher probability of successfully delivering a message. While this may help, it is not conclusive. It also does not address the need to make a pre-trip assessment of whether you’ll be in areas where the SPOT might not successfully deliver messages.

Reliability in Tracking Mode when Hiking or Backpacking

When hiking or backpacking, a significant portion of the SPOT unit’s sky view is usually blocked by your body. This may be a cause for lower message delivery rates when hiking or backpacking in Tracking mode versus kayaking, where the tester’s bodies did not block the sky view. We had multiple hikes with message delivery rates of 17% or lower for the whole hike. We had least two instances of an hour or longer hike where no messages got through. We tried mounting the SPOT horizontally on a fanny pack, clipped to the hip as SPOT suggests, and handheld, all with similar results. John Dark of SPOT suggested mounting the SPOT horizontally on the top of a shoulder strap. While this may help (this advice was received after field testing was completed), we would not expect it to do any better than the message delivery rates from the kayaking test. With a less-than-perfect view of the entire sky, we would expect lower message delivery rates.

SPOT’s Caveat – "Based on Network Availability"

SPOT reliability claims on their coverage map carry the caveat "based on network availability." At first glance, we interpreted this to be a wiggle room statement. That is, even with a perfect view of the entire sky you might not get SPOT’s claimed 99% message delivery for their best coverage areas. As an example, one of our reviewers could not get messages delivered, even though SPOT claims 99% message delivery reliability in his coverage area. He contacted SPOT, and they informed him a ground station was undergoing maintenance for a couple of days.

John Dark says "based on network availability" is statement recommended by SPOT legal council. It is intended to convey that the 99% figured is based on measured statistics on the satellite communication system supporting SPOT. We found this ambiguous and confusing. Our best guess is that it means "99%" may not be based on long term measurement of message statistics of successful message delivery from an actual SPOT UNIT. As such, the claimed "99% message delivery" is more likely a prediction of what message delivery might be, and is not a statistic based on direct measurement of successful message delivery rates (starting with pressing a button on the SPOT unit and ending with the successful message delivery to a final recipient). Whatever "based on network availability" actually means, it seems clear that SPOT is not legally obligating itself to meet this 99% message delivery rate to SPOT unit users.

Finally, we leave it to the reader’s personal experience to assess the chances of email and SMS phone text systems successfully delivering messages, or even the possibility that an "OK" or "Help" message might end up in a SPAM folder.

All this emphasizes that one is relying not only on the physical SPOT unit, but a long chain of other systems in "the network," the Globalstar satellites, supporting satellite ground stations, SPOT’s website and message center, the Internet, and email or SMS (phone) text message systems. It is entirely possible that significant periods of unsent messages in our kayak field testing could be from a failure somewhere downstream in the network chain after the SPOT unit successfully sent messages.

User Interface

We had one instance where the SPOT unit’s user interface contributed to a failure to transmit messages during the riskiest section of travel in one our field tests – the time during the trip when our field testers most needed to get messages out.

All our testers found the SPOT’s user interface non-intuitive. The same button operates different modes, depending on how long it is pressed. The blinking LEDs are hard to interpret, but even when fully understood, they still do not provide enough information about the SPOT unit’s status and operation. One must watch the blinking LEDs continually to see if the SPOT unit attempts to transmit a message. If you blink or look away, you may miss the two second period when the LEDs are solid, indicating a message is being transmitted. The SPOT does not retain information on what messages were transmitted, or even if they were transmitted at all. Also, and more serious, there is no way to determine if a transmitted message was successfully delivered.

In the End, It’s a Personal Decision

We neither encourage nor discourage using the SPOT unit. No system is 100% reliable in all conditions. No piece of equipment is appropriate for all situations. On paper, the SPOT unit is clearly an innovative backcountry safety product. The question remains: Does SPOT deliver messages with sufficient reliability – not just for a "perfect view of the entire sky," but with sufficient reliability for conditions likely to be encountered in the field when backpacking or hiking?

We are aware that there may be some positive reviews and significant endorsements for the SPOT. We ask the reader to ascertain if these are based solely on unverified SPOT performance claims or whether they provide a body of test data to substantiate those positive opinions.

In the end it is up to each potential SPOT user to determine

their communications needs,
the level risk they are comfortable with,
what message delivery reliability they deem acceptable,
and under what conditions they expected to transmit messages.

We hope that that our readers will use all available information – this review, other publication’s reviews, SPOT’s literature, and any other materials – to make their best decision.

Be safe out there!

The Backpacking Light SPOT Review Team

Recommendations for Improvements

Improvements that can be easily made to the current SPOT:

Rewrite the SPOT User Manual in more detail with significantly more consultation with people who have field experience using the SPOT unit.
Include a small waterproof instruction card no larger than the SPOT unit. If possible, this should be attached to the SPOT unit.
Allow longer messages and more message recipients on the SPOT website.
Add an option of including UTM coordinate position in SPOT email messages.
Allow Tracking messages to be emailed in addition to being tracked on the website.
Make the SPOT website more intuitive.

Improvements that would require a physical change:

Improve SPOT GPS performance. This could be done by a separate GPS reception optimized antenna, a better GPS chipset, improved processing, or possibly all three.
Devise some system whereby carrying the SPOT while hiking or backpacking does not significantly interfere with Tracking mode. This may require the use of two antennae as in the previous point. Ideally, the SPOT, or possibly an external antenna(s), would be horizontal and away from your body.
Improve message transmission reliability in difficult conditions.
Add an alphanumeric or graphic display to relay operational status to the user and as a menu for initiating and cancelling modes.
Provide a rudimentary GPS coordinate display.
Significantly reduce the weight of the SPOT unit – mobile phones with embedded GPS receivers weigh a fraction of what the SPOT unit weighs.

Satellite communication changes:

Switch the SPOT to a duplex satellite channel and provide "message received" acknowledgement to a user.
A more radical suggestion is to allow the SPOT unit to send a brief text message composed in the field. One could send critical information about a medical emergency this way, bringing the SPOT unit closer to the functionality of a satellite phone by providing critical information to SAR personnel.

Technical Appendix

Here we briefly outline some of the testing done during the review process. Testing was performed both in a laboratory environment and in the field.

Six Day Extended Field Test with a Perfect View of the Entire Sky

Numerous tests under different field conditions with less than a perfect view of the entire sky showed our testing team that message delivery could be as low as a 17% success rate (even lower with heavy tree cover or other significant obstructions limiting sky view).

We decided to run a full-scale field test over six days to give the SPOT unit a perfect view of the entire sky almost the entire time. We used a sea kayaking trip near the Gulf of Mexico to do this. In this field test, the SPOT unit was mounted face up on the deck of a kayak away from people so that not even our bodies blocked a significant portion of a perfect sky view. The unit was horizontal the whole time, ensuring optimal antenna position. We traveled almost entirely on large bodies of water, where there were no trees, hills, or other objects blocking the SPOT unit’s sky view. We believe this best approximated SPOT’s "perfect view of the entire sky." As such, the successful message delivery rates in this test would probably not apply to hiking or backpacking where a number of natural features (or even the hiker’s body) can block a significant portion of the sky view.

On the trip, we used a combination of morning and evening OK messages and activated Tracking mode for the rest of the time we were traveling.


Two out of every ten messages did not get through: Although there are a few obvious large transmission gaps (indicated with a yellow arrows), transmission appears generally good for the trip. However, even in what appear to be the consistent transmission sections there are smaller and even moderate sized gaps (white arrow). (Basic image courtesy of SPOT & Google Maps)

With a Perfect View of the Entire Sky

While the SPOT unit had some problems in these almost ideal conditions, it performed much more closely to the manufacturer’s claims than in any other conditions we tested. There were still message delays, long periods with tracking gaps, and only one transmission in a tree-lined section of the route (there was a brief section where sky view was less impeded).

Some of these gaps are marked by the yellow arrows in the map here. The SPOT unit also suffered from usability issues. Our OK messages were not sent on some mornings, due to the long wait time while the SPOT unit tried to get a GPS fix.

It should be noted that while the examples shown here are taken from a six day trip, they were not brief, isolated incidents. Data from other excursions and controlled testing is consistent with the message delivery success rates shown here.

Transmission Reliability Statistics from a Six Day Field Test

Entire Trip


Number of Possible Track Messages	222
Number of Track Messages Sent	186
Number of Track Messages Unsent	36
Percentage Sent	83.8%*
*Note: Percentage Sent drops below 80% if you include twelve missing tracks over a two hour period due to poor usability (we did not realize Tracking wasn’t on).

Worst Day (Open Sky)


Number of Possible Track messages	40
Number of Track Messages Sent	30
Number of Track Messages Unsent	10
Percentage Sent	75.0%

Worst Two Hour Period (Open Sky)


Number of Possible Track Messages	12
Number of Track Messages Sent	6
Number of Track Messages Unsent	6
Percentage Sent	50.0%*
*Note: The SPOT unit had 53.3% sent in two other two-hour periods.

Worst One Hour Period (Open Sky)


Number of Possible Track messages	6
Number of Track Messages Sent	1
Number of Track Messages Unsent	5
Percentage Sent	16.7%

Worst One Hour Period (With Trees)


Number of Possible Track Messages	6
Number of Track Messages Sent	1
Number of Track Messages Unsent	5
Percentage Sent	16.7%*
*Note: The single message sent was in a wide (easier transmission) area.

With Less than a Perfect View of the Entire Sky

Undelivered messages with trees: (Left) We expected six SPOT messages between point A to point B but the SPOT unit only sent one Tracking message (at point C) in the three mile long tree lined creek. We believe it only managed to transmit at point C due to a widening in the creek indicated by the X arrow. (Right) Track log from a GPS unit (with an older technology GPS chipset) run in parallel with the SPOT UNIT during the field test. (Basic image courtesy of SPOT & Google Maps)

With more detail one can see that the SPOT unit probably gained GPS reception at the widening starting at point X and then managed to transmit position at point C, another very wide section. Without this 0.2 mile wide stretch, we believe the SPOT unit would not have sent a single message on the creek. (Basic image courtesy of SPOT & Google Maps)

A portion of this trip was along a tree-lined creek. It was the only portion of the trip with significantly limited sky view. The sky above was visible, and you can clearly see the creek in the satellite imagery. However, the sky view was narrow due to the width of the creek and the height of the trees. The SPOT unit managed only one tracking message in the three miles shown here, and it only managed that tracking point at wider section of the creek about halfway through, starting at X and sending at C. The widening here approached an open sky view that was sufficient for the SPOT unit to get a GPS fix – the precursor to transmitting a Tracking message. Without that widening, the SPOT unit would possibly not have sent a single message along the creek. In contrast, a Garmin GPS Map 76C (using an older technology GPS chipset) maintained a GPS fix the full distance of the creek.

References have been made to the problems of distinguishing between the OK mode and the Tracking mode and how easy it is to activate an OK message when intending to activate Tracking mode. This happened one morning while launching off an unprotected beach on the Gulf of Mexico. Winds were already at twenty knots and forecast to increase to thirty-plus knot headwinds in the next hour. A 5.5 mile open water crossing in three-foot seas was required, with higher seas over numerous shoals. The wind was blowing away from land and threatened to blow the kayaks into the Gulf. Because it had been dangerous boating conditions for days, there were no boats on the Gulf, and rescue was unlikely in case of trouble. This seemed like an ideal time for the Tracking mode.

Under the stress of getting off the beach in high winds and rough surf, the OK button was not pressed long enough to get into Tracking mode. Instead, a single "OK" message was sent at the start, and nothing more was sent for the rest of the dangerous crossing. Due the poor design of the SPOT unit’s LED display, this mistake was not discovered until the full crossing to a sheltered creek mouth was complete. Fortunately, the emergency contact back home did not panic when no Tracking messages were received.

If it was that easy to make a mistake when in a moderate stress, non-life threatening, non-emergency situation, one wonders how much higher the probability of making a mistake would be in a true emergency.

Limited Sky View Test

The SPOT unit was frequently unable to acquire a GPS fix (or send messages) with limited sky view. A high sensitivity GPS had no difficulty obtaining a fix, even with severely limited sky view. With somewhat limited sky view, the SPOT unit struggled to send a message out in twenty minutes. Only in the easiest test did the SPOT unit manage to quickly send a message out within one minute.

We know that all GPS systems need some view of the sky and that transmission to a satellite also requires some view of the sky. This was tested by placing the SPOT unit, a recent Garmin HCx, and an older Garmin Cx unit side by side, a variable distance under an overhang. The units started at a position deepest under the overhang where their view of the sky was most limited (hardest position) and were then moved forwards at intervals (progressively more sky view) until the SPOT unit could quickly get a GPS fix and send an OK message (easiest position with most sky view).

Four distances were tested. The SPOT unit was unable to get a GPS fix or send a message in the first two positions (severely and very limited sky views, respectively). The Garmin HCx unit easily got a GPS fix at these two positions. At the third position, under somewhat limited sky view, the SPOT unit gained a GPS fix in under five minutes. It successfully sent a message in its last attempt at twenty minutes.

Our best guess is that the SPOT unit had a tenuous GPS fix at the third position, and that it also had some difficulty in transmitting a message to the GEOS communications satellites that was successfully delivered. At this position, the Garmin Cx also had a shaky GPS fix that occasionally dropped out. Only in the last and easiest position, with only slightly limited obstruction of sky view, did the SPOT unit quickly get a GPS fix and send a message in approximately one to two minutes.

This suggests that the SPOT unit’s GPS performance is on a par with the older generation Garmin Cx series, but not as good as the high performance Garmin H series, which quickly obtained a fix at the hardest position. (Later in our six day field test, a much older receiver technology unit, a Garmin GPSMap 76C GPS, appeared to outperform the SPOT unit on a tree-lined creek. See below).

Unfortunately, while most dedicated GPS receivers display the quality of a GPS fix, the number of satellites connected, and the relative signal strength, as well as positional accuracy, the SPOT unit has no provisions to do so. Therefore, the user may not be aware of when the SPOT unit is having GPS reception problems in a fringe reception area where the signal is shaky and dropping in and out. The SPOT unit only has two LEDs blink out of sequence when it does not have a GPS fix, and they only do so after five minutes. For the first five minutes, they blink in sequence whether they have a fix or not.

Field Test – Tracking Mode While Walking

One Tracking Mode test under good conditions, with SPOT placed horizontally in a bum bag.

The red block indicates the time frame in which Tracking was enabled.
A solid pink box indicates where a message was received on schedule.
A hollow pink box indicates where a message should have been received, but was not.

The SPOT unit was put into Tracking mode, placed face up in a bum-bag (fanny pack), and taken for a one hour walk (8:20 to 9:20). Messages should have been received every ten minutes. The only message received in the first hour was transmitted when the walker stopped to re-lace a shoe (8:30). We know this from inspecting the exact position on the Google map. The successful message deliveries at 9:30 and later were after the walk, with the SPOT unit placed on a rock. This implies that the SPOT unit is more reliable at successfully delivering messages when not attached to a walker.

While graph "SPOTCasting Reception #`1 only shows one test, several other similar tests by several members of the team gave the same results: when in Tracking mode, the SPOT unit did not successfully deliver a number of messages. This applied both in Australia and in several parts of America. We had a number of walks in Tracking mode with the SPOT unit backpack-mounted, fanny pack-mounted, and handheld with reception rates of 17% or lower, including one hour walks without a single message delivered.

Field Test – OK and Help Messages

A field test: the unit was activated a number of times during a simple walk, and the exact times of activation and message reception were noted. The red and blue blocks show where the unit was powered up and was attempting to send either an OK signal (red) or a Help signal (blue). The early OK signals got through (shown by solid red diamonds), as did some of the Help signals (shown by solid blue diamonds). These were often transmitted while the unit was held in the hand.

Between 14:00 and 16:30, two attempts were made to send OK messages while walking along a track beside the sea, on the side of a hill. The failures may have been due to the hillside blocking either the reception of the GPS signals or the transmissions to the satellites, or may have been due to the motion of the SPOT.

The leading hollow blue diamond shows a Help message which was received without any GPS position, indicating that the GPS reception had failed here.

Delay times between button press and message reception during the field test shown in the previous graph (Saturday 15-Dec-07 SPOT Field Test).

The solid red triangles indicate the minutes of delay for each of the successfully delivered "OK" messages.

The solid blue diamonds indicate the delays from activation for the successfully delivered "Help" messages. The messages should have been sent at regular, five minutes intervals, but clearly the SPOT had trouble obtaining GPS readings for most of them. It is also quite possible that some transmitted Help messages were simply not received at all (by the satellites) during these two "Help" attempts.

The hollow pink squares show where two missing OK messages should have been received (shown without delays factored in), but were not.

The hollow blue diamond shows how long the SPOT attempted to obtain a GPS reading before sending the first Help message without the GPS coordinates.

This graph shows the elapsed time between the button press and the message reception. Many of the ‘Help’ messages, sent at five minute intervals, simply did not get through, with or without a GPS fix. From a safety perspective, this level of message delivery is troubling. We do not know whether this is a SPOT-to-satellite problem, satellite-to-ground problem, or something awry elsewhere in the long chain of communication required to successfully deliver a message.

Tilt Test

Sensitivity to Forwards Tilt (SPOT stationary with clear view of the sky).

Red squares show successfully delivered messages: in general, little sensitivity to Tilt is seen here.

Also shown on this graph are some blue triangles, which show when the ‘nearest town’ feature was present in the message. It appears that the third-party server which provided this feature occasionally had overly-long delays in response, which caused the message to be posted on the SPOT web site without the "nearest town" information, which is not critical.

Prior to testing, it was not clear how sensitive the SPOT unit is to tilt around the two axes. We know the instructions say it should face upwards, but the unit comes with a belt clip to hang it downwards (antenna facing sideways, which is sub-optimal for GPS reception or successful message transmission). The instructions also indicate how to use it in this position for Tracking mode. Under laboratory conditions, we tested how much this non-face up position would degrade successful message transmission.

The SPOT unit was clamped and operated at various angles. ‘Tilt’ is defined here as being back and forwards from horizontal: when the SPOT unit hangs from a belt clip, it is tilted.

Sensitivity to Sideways Rotation (or roll).

A solid red square indicates a received message.

A hollow red square indicates where a message should have been received, but was not. The cause of failure is not known in most cases: it could have been a failure in the GPS reception or in the satellite transmission.

A pale pink square indicates where the LED transmit signal was seen on the SPOT unit but no message was received. In these cases we do know that the satellite link failed. The point of this information is that we have seen failures in BOTH halves of the system: GPS reception AND satellite transmission.

Rolling the SPOT unit sideways had a noticeable effect on GPS sensitivity and loss of messages. The data is rather ‘noisy,’ but that is to be expected when signal reception is marginal. As to why the SPOT unit is sensitive to rolling sideways, we cannot say, but it is most likely an issue involving the antenna used. We do not see moderate tilt sensitivity being as drastic a limitation: in most cases, the user should be able to keep the SPOT within forty-five degrees of being upright. Hanging the SPOT unit on the belt clip is ninety degrees from horizontal, and in our field testing, this had a significant effect on successful message delivery.

Coleman Pack-Away Lantern Spotlite Review

A compact LED lantern, lighter than canister lanterns and fairly bright, but not yet perfect.

Overview

Coleman Pack-Away Lantern Spotlite Review - 1
The Coleman Pack-Away lantern, open and shut. (Picture courtesy Coleman)

The Coleman Pack-Away is a compact little triangular white-LED lantern, lighter than canister lanterns while still fairly bright. It uses three 3-volt CR123 lithium batteries, which are included in the package. Folded up, it is a compact and robust little unit – far more sturdier than the rather fragile glass chimney and very fragile mantle of a gas lantern. To use it, you pull on the ends so it telescopes out. There is a single button on the base with a rubber cover: pressing this several times cycles through Bright, Low, Strobe, and Off. To turn it off from High, you have to cycle through Low and Strobe.

There is a wire loop handle at the top which pops up, and Coleman includes a mini-carabiner with the lantern to assist in hanging it. There are also three little lugs at the bottom corners through which one could thread some loops of string.

Coleman Pack-Away Lantern Spotlite Review - 2
The lantern open and hanging up.

If you hang the lantern from the handle, the single white LED points upwards at a shiny round cone, which reflects the light out sideways. The lighting pattern is certainly not uniform around the lantern: there are quite a few vertical strips of shadow due to wires inside the case and ridges in the clear plastic surround.

Coleman Pack-Away Lantern Spotlite Review - 3
The variable light pattern on the wall of my office.

To change the batteries, you have to remove the carabiner and push the handle out of the way before you can undo the large screw holding the battery cover. The whole bottom cover comes off to reveal three holes for CR123 batteries. It seems that these three batteries are wired in series, to make a total of 9 volts. Why the unit should need 9 volts to drive it when a typical white LED only needs 3 volts is not clear, but I believe there are some electronics at the base to control the LED in its three modes. Before putting the battery cover back, check the instructions which come with the lantern. There is a small ‘key’ for correctly orienting the cover so the batteries are correctly wired up, but it is not obvious.

Disassembly will probably void any warranty. There seem to be three screws holding the top shell to the bottom, two more holding the upper interior to the base, and three holding the base together. If you want to disassemble the lantern, make sure you free the thin battery connection wire under one of the top three screws. When removing the top shell, treat the two thin O-rings around the lower part with care: they help keep water out.

Field Testing

Opening the Coleman Pack-Away lantern requires an act of faith the first time: a firm tug is needed. Closing the lantern also requires a firm press. Once you have done this once or twice, there is no problem. Opening the battery compartment is very simple. Coleman suggests using a coin, but you can do it with your fingers.

We all know that looking straight at the white-hot mantle on a gas lantern leaves you completely blind for a while. Looking straight at the white LED on this lantern tends to have a similar effect. In fact, I found the glare from the very small LED was a bit much at times. If you hang it up above your head so you can’t see the LED directly, it is a fair bit better. I do wonder whether a design with a ring of smaller 5 mm white LEDS, all pointed outwards, might not produce a softer and more uniform light.

As for brightness – I found the High rather bright, unless you want to read by it some distance away. The Low was still brighter than I need in a tent, but I am usually happy with quite dim lighting in the evening. The Strobe is painful, with very bright flashes. Frankly, I wish it did not have this feature as it often caught me by surprise when I was turning the lantern on or off. I guess it is a "marketing feature." However, the non-uniform pattern around the lantern was at times a bit annoying, especially if the lantern was swinging or twisting around a bit. This was a disappointment.

Another disappointment for me was the use of the CR123 batteries. Here in Australia, where I live, the brand names are very expensive in the shops, making replacement of the set something to be avoided as long as possible. However, I am aware that you can buy these in bulk on the web at much lower prices – but the quality may not be as good. You could use rechargeable CR123 batteries as well, if you don’t mind recharging them.

The weight of the lantern is perhaps the biggest obstacle. At 4.8 oz (136 g) with batteries, it is just too heavy for lightweight summer overnight walks. But then, given how long into the evening the light lasts, who would need such a powerful light in the evening? In winter, it is another matter. I can well imagine this lantern being useful for a group cooking dinner in the evening in the snow. And it would be even more useful in an igloo or snow cave at night compared to a gas lantern or a candle. Both of those can melt the snow wall above the light, burn up oxygen and even risk making carbon monoxide, but this lantern has none of those hazards.

Of course, if you want to use the lantern in the winter, you will be concerned about the effect of the cold on it. Coleman says "This lantern may not light at temperatures below 20 °F (-7 °C)". Energizer gives graphs for performance of their EL123 battery at -4 °F (-20 °C), although it must be noted that the performance there is rather poor and the output voltage rather low. Duracell give a similar graph at the same temperature. I suspect what all this means is that, at 20 °F (-7 °C), the battery output voltage will have fallen so much that the electronics in the lantern will no longer start up. The message might be to hang the lantern a little distance above your stove?

Specifications


Manufacturer	Coleman
Year/Model	2008 – Pack-Away Lantern
Material	Various plastics
LED	Cree XR-E
Batteries	Three CR123 3v cells
Operating Temperature	Down to 20° F (-7° C)
Brightness (claimed)	"100 lumen on High"
Life (claimed)	"Up to 5 hours on High & up to 12 hours on Low"
Modes	High, Low, Strobe
Size (folded)	2.5 in high x 2.25 in per side (65 x 55 mm)
Weight (claimed)	4.8 oz (136 g) with batteries
Weight (measured)	5.3 oz (151 g) with batteries
Accessories	Mini carabiner for hanging
MSRP	US $59.99

What’s Good

Very robust
Bright
Fairly compact

What’s Not So Good

Not very light (but very bright)
Expensive batteries
Brightness can’t be turned down very far

Recommendations for Improvement

A lighter version using AAA cells
Better intensity control
Get rid of that strobe

Garmin Colorado 400t Handheld Color Mapping GPS – REVIEW

Garmin’s latest mapping GPS has a large, high-resolution display, streamlined controls (including the new “Rock ‘n Roller” input wheel), and topographic maps for the entire United States at 1:100K scale. In many ways, it represents an advance in handheld GPS for the general consumer…but it appears to have missed the mark for lightweight backpacking.

Introduction

The Colorado series is a new line of high-resolution-display GPS units from Garmin. Backpacking Light tested the Colorado 400t model, which includes built-in topographic, recreational POI, and elevation data for the entire United States at 100K scale.

One of the Colorado’s most prominent features is its new color TFT display which, at 240×400 pixels, provides higher resolution than any other GPS in this class. The display is particularly well-suited to the topographic and marine data. In addition, the Colorado includes a beautiful shaded color basemap and does 3-D terrain rendering, both of which are enhanced by the display. However, we did find that the display and color choices are dark and difficult to read, even in moderate light, requiring frequent use of the backlight.

Garmin Colorado Review - 1
The Colorado’s large display has over twice the resolution of older Garmin units. Note that this promotional image from Garmin makes the map colors and display look much brighter than they do on the actual unit. (Image courtesy of Garmin)

The other obvious stand-out feature is the new Rock ‘n Roller input wheel. This innovative input wheel has the simplicity and power of a Blackberry wheel with an additional inner rocker ring that allows for cursor slewing, map panning, and movement in text fields. The scroll wheel allows for a new interface design that makes many basic functions like jumping to a different display page or navigating to a single waypoint easy and intuitive.

The revised screens and menus on the Colorado are generally simple to understand and navigate, though some intermediate and advanced tasks are now actually more cumbersome to access than on previous models. While our experienced GPS users liked the Rock ‘n Roller input wheel, they found that some important tasks, such as route building, took additional steps or were deeper in menus than on previous Garmin GPS units.

Garmin Colorado Review - 2
Improved ease of use: it’s easy to scroll though the basic menu, Macintosh Dock style, and perform essential functions using the new Rock ‘n Roller input wheel (shown at top of GPS). (Image courtesy of Garmin)

This may in part be due to the fact that the Colorado appears focused primarily on features and automation for Geocaching and Whereigo enthusiasts. While it does display detailed topographic maps (and high-quality nautical charting GPS with additional map data such as those included on the 400c and 400i versions), trekking and route navigation seem to us to be a secondary focus.

The Colorado comes pre-loaded with topographic maps for the entire US, as well as recreational points of interest data. One serious caveat to note is that this mapping data is only accessible on the Colorado, not on your computer. Data usable on your PC is an additional purchase (more on that in a bit). However, for map viewing (on the Colorado) across the full United States, there’s no need to connect the Colorado to a PC to load and manage maps; it’s ready to go right out of the box. The Colorado does come with Mapsource software (minus maps) for transferring routes, tracks, geocaches, and additional mapping data acquired separately; however, without the additional PC readable maps, route planning on the PC is limited and frustrating.

The Colorado also features a built-in electronic compass, altimeter, and barometer, as well as ANT wireless compatibility for connecting to other devices and accessories. The Colorado can serve an automotive/pedestrian GPS like a Nuvi (with additionally purchased mapping data), a training device like a Forerunner (with optional heart rate monitor or other hardware), and a picture viewer (of any supported file stored on the internal or SD memory).

Finally, the Colorado can wirelessly transfer tracks, waypoints, routes, and geocaches with other Colorado units and also mounts on a computer desktop as a storage device, just like a USB drive making file transfers blissfully simple. It runs on two AA batteries and includes an SD card slot for storing not only additional maps, but also photographs, Geocaching data, and other files.

What’s Good

Large, high resolution display. Good color, detail, and shaded relief.
Most often used, basic GPS functions easy to find for new and occasional users, due to graphic based software menus and Rock ‘n Roller input wheel.
1:100K topographic maps for the entire United States pre-loaded in GPS.
Plug-n-Play USB computer interface: the Colorado mounts as an external USB drive.
Superior GPS reception.
User customizable main menu: display only the functions you need.
Good ergonomics.

What’s Not So Good

Display (both text and graphics) is hard to read in moderate to dim light.
Some display text is quite small and difficult to see.
Short battery life in comparison to eTrex units.
Intermediate to advanced functions can be more cumbersome to find and use than on previous Garmin GPS units.
Limited 1:24K map availability from Garmin: only for some National Parks, and only as an additional purchase.
No satellite imagery.
Heavier than eTrex series and other “mid-sized” GPS units by 1.5 to 2.0 ounces.
Rock ‘n Roller input wheel will not work in many protective enclosures/cases.

Things to Know

The software vexingly jumps back to your current physical location on the map, even when performing tasks such as route building, where such jumping is extremely undesirable.
The included US topographic maps are only viewable on the Colorado 400t, not on a personal computer. To view the topographic maps and use them to enhance route planning on your PC, you need to purchase Garmin Mapsource Topo U.S. 2008.
Panning and zooming can be slow at very large display resolutions (map scale approximately 20 miles or greater).
The Colorado is still a bit buggy. The unit hung on more than one occasion, and we had to pull the batteries to get it to reset. The Colorado is quite new, and patches and enhancements are inevitable; make sure you update your Colorado with the latest firmware (the latest version as of this review was 2.40 – since then, a beta 2.5 version has been posted).

Specifications

(Unless identified otherwise, all are manufacturer claimed)


Description
Position accuracy	WAAS-enabled 3 meters
Routes	50
Waypoints (total)	1000
Memory	Expandable SD card
PC Compatible	Yes
Magnetic Compass	Yes
Barometric Altimeter	Yes
Color Screen	Yes
Quad Helix Antenna	Yes
Display Size	2.6 x 1.5 inches
Screen Pixels	400 x 240 inches
Battery:	2 AA alkaline, NiMH or lithium (not included)
Battery Life at 70 Degrees	15 hours (manufacturer claimed)
	The following are BPL measured:
	* 13.7 hours, alkaline batteries, no backlight, compass off
	* 11.5 hours, alkaline batteries and backlight set at 100%, compass off
	* 21.5 hours, lithium batteries, no backlight, compass off
Dimensions	5.7 x 2.4 x 1.4 inches
Weight	7.3 ounce (manufacturer claimed)
	7.5 oz (214 g) alkaline batteries BPL measured
	5.8 oz (165 g) without batteries BPL measured
Physical & Performance:
Unit Dimensions, WxHxD:	2.4 x 5.5 x 1.4 in (6.0 x 13.9 x 3.5 cm)
Display Size, WxH:	1.53 x 2.55 in (3.8 x 6.3 cm); 3.0 in diag (7.6 cm)
Display Resolution, WxH:	240 x 400 pixels
Display Type:	Transflective Color TFT
Waterproof:	Yes (IPX7)
Floats:	No
High-sensitivity Receiver:	Yes
PC Interface:	USB
RoHS Version Available:	Yes
Maps & Memory:
Basemap:	Yes
Preloaded Maps:	Yes (topographic)
Ability to Add Maps:	Yes
Built-in Memory:	Yes
Accepts Data Cards:	SD Card (not included)
Waypoints/Favorites/Locations:	1000
Routes:	50
Track Log:	10,000 points, 20 saved tracks
Features:
Automatic Routing (turn by turn routing on roads):	Yes
Geocaching Mode:	Yes (paperless)
Outdoor GPS Games:	Yes
Hunt/fish Calendar:	Yes
Sun and Moon Information:	Yes
Tide Tables:	Yes
Area Calculation:	Yes
Custom POIs (ability to add additional points of interest):	Yes
Unit-to-Unit Transfer (shares data wirelessly with similar units):	Yes
Picture Viewer:	Yes

Included

Colorado 400t
Preloaded topographic maps
Worldwide basemap with shaded relief
Carabiner clip
USB cable
MapSource Trip & Waypoint Manager
Owner’s manual
Quick start guide

Feature Details

Display

The Colorado has the largest and highest resolution display of any handheld recreational GPS. In bright daylight and held at the right angle, its sharp display presents high-resolution maps with good color and detail. At 400 x 240 pixels, it is larger than the Quarter VGA and has over twice the display resolution of older Garmin units, such as the GPSMAP and eTrex series. Note that the display is at a finer pitch than those previous units (That is, while the resolution is doubled, the physical size of the display is not, being only slightly longer than the display on the 60 and 76 series GPS units. So, the pixels are smaller, and some displays seem to use type and graphics that are better suited to larger pixels.).

Garmin Colorado Review - 3
With features approximately the same, you can see how much more map area the Colorado 400t (left) displays than the eTrex Vista HCx (right). (Screen shots via software) (Alan Dixon notes: Actually, while the level of map detail and area of coverage is correct, in the field, the HCx would display the same map coverage and level of map detail, but 10% to 20% larger because its pixels are that much larger. Unfortunately, up scaling the HCx screen-capture significantly distorts the JPG file with a serious case of the jaggies for text and contour lines. Given that the two displays have differing individual pixel sizes, I see no way out of this, and the above seems to be the best approximation to compare the displays.)

Comparison of Selected Handheld Mapping GPS Dimensions


GPS Unit	Oz	Display (inches)	Pixels	Dimensions (inches)
Garmin Colorado 400t	7.5	2.6 x 1.5	400 x 240	5.7 x 2.4 x 1.4
Garmin GPSMAP 76CSx GPS	7.6	2.2 x 1.5	240 x 180	6.2 x 2.7 x 1.4
Garmin eTrex Vista HCx	5.6	1.7 x 1.3	240 x 180	4.2 x 2.2 x 1.2
Magellan Triton 500	6.6	1.7 x 1.3	320 x 240	4.7 x 2.2 x 1.2
Delorme Earthmate PN-20	7.0	1.7 x 1.3	220 x 176	5.3 x 2.4 x 1.5

Also, in lower light, a heavily overcast day, at dusk or dawn, even in room light or the interior of a car in daylight, the display appears dim…significantly dimmer than other Garmin GPS units we have used. To see the display in low light, our reviewers used the backlight much more often than with previous Garmin units.

Garmin Colorado Review - 4
While larger and higher resolution, the Colorado 400t display uses a darker color scheme with less contrast, which can be difficult to read in moderate to dim light. Note how hard it is to discern the topographic lines on the Colorado 400t (right) in comparison to the eTrex unit (left), which has a much lighter display color scheme.

Several things besides overall brightness appear to hinder readability of the display in low light:

The color scheme of maps, menus, and other displays is much darker than previous Garmin units. While these deep, rich colors look nice in bright light, they appear quite dark in dim or even moderate light. Some display elements are quite close in shade and color (e.g. display text is close in color and shade to its background). In dim light the text and background start to merge and become hard to distinguish. The same is true for map contours, trails, and other imagery.
The display often presents very small letters and icons. Some of these will challenge the farsighted in bright daylight, and in the dark they challenged even some of us with good close vision. It appears that some type and graphics were not scaled up to adjust for the new, smaller pixel size.

Garmin Colorado Review - 5

Garmin Colorado Review - 6

The Colorado sometimes uses small fonts, which are not easy to see. In this case, critical position information is in a very small font and not prominently located on the screen. It is quite difficult to read. Note how much more readable the GPS location (and most other information) is on the older eTrex display. (Note: In the field, the screen never looks as bright as the software-generated screen shot at far right.)

Menus and Operation

The Colorado makes use of three primary controls for navigation: the Rock ‘n Roller scroll wheel and rocker pad and the two buttons below and to either side of it. The Rock ‘n Roller wheel zooms on the map screen and moves the highlight in lists, while its rocker pad slews (moves) the cursor on mapping screens, and moves the highlight in lists as well. The left-hand button pops up a menu of options for the current screen, while the right-hand button pops up a list of screens to cycle through.

Cycling through options with the scroll wheel is relatively intuitive, though some of us found the “round” menus rotated in the opposite direction than was intuitive using the wheel (we got used to it). For those preferring the older style of “paging” through device screens, that is an option available in the settings, although you may have to download a new firmware version.

Because the Colorado is meant to serve so many audiences and has more features than many GPS units, menus can sometimes feel cluttered or filled with options not germane to the task at hand.

Garmin Colorado Review - 7
The Colorado is something of an all-in-one unit for the mass market, with a multitude of functions designed to serve many different GPS users. These additional, non-backpacking features can clutter the screen menus. (Screen shot via software)

However, the main screens list can be customized so that only those of interest appear on the primary arc of choices, with the remainder hidden under an “Other…” option. In addition, these customized settings can be saved in groupings for easy accessibility (the unit ships with Recreational, Geocaching, Automotive, Marine, and Fitness groupings, and you can create and name your own.)

Numerous settings allow customization of how the Colorado works and displays information. Also, many screens are configurable for data fields and sometimes for layout as well.


Examples of the Profile screen, with the ability to create a new profile: the Compass screen showing editing data fields and the Datum choices within the mapping settings. (Screen shots via software)

One caveat: the scroll wheel is not ideal for text entry. Rather than navigating a matrix of letters (as on some GPS units), the Colorado displays a few characters at a time in an arc, and you rotate the wheel to move through letters, symbols and the backspace command, pressing the center button of the Rock ‘n Roller to enter a choice in each slot. This is a bit cumbersome.

Garmin Colorado Review - 11
Text entry can be tedious with the Rock ‘n Roller. With no “shift” function, it takes forever to scroll to the lower case letters. We also missed the “Clear” function (available on eTrex units) to delete a long previous name in one stroke. (Screen shot via software)

The combination of wide-ranging menus, Rock ‘n Roller, and the all-in-one feature set do come at a cost. The non-backpacking features (and sheer number of choices per menu, in some cases) can inhibit usability. Interface simplifications make some intermediate and advanced functions harder to access and/or more time consuming in comparison to the eTrex and GPSMAP units. For example, we found it exceptionally vexing to create a new multiple waypoint route, whether using a list of waypoints (sorted only by nearest to most distant), or using the map display.

In what may have been a move to help novice users find their current location, the Colorado has a maddening tendency to jump its map display back to your current location when you attempt actions at another point on the map. For example, slewing the cursor to a waypoint and adding that waypoint to a route (or even sometimes just turning the wheel to zoom in or out) causes the display to snap back to your current location, not remain at the location you’d panned to. This may be a bug, or it may be a feature, but we found it extraordinarily frustrating, especially when route building or exploring terrain ahead. It made route building exceptionally tedious and inefficient!

Garmin Colorado Review - 12
Adding a waypoint to a route via the map is a mix of joy – as in this clear, useful screen – and frustration – the GPS is about to jump the display back to its current location, hundreds of miles away, as soon as I add this point to my route. I’d prefer to stay at this location and use the cursor to select waypoints, only returning to the current location on the map when I’m done. We have yet to find a way to defeat this “feature.” (Screen shot via software)

Testing

Field Testing

We used the Colorado in Yellowstone National Park, the central Sierra Nevada’s Stanislaus National Forest, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Point Reyes National Seashore, Shenandoah National Park, the Chesapeake Bay, and the open space preserves of Marin County, California. Conditions ranged from open water to densely forested canyons; weather ran the gamut from clear and sunny to a snowstorm, with temperatures dipping as low as -14 °F overnight on one occasion and hovering in the 20s on many.

Navigational Performance

Because the Colorado locks onto and tracks satellites well, even in sheltered terrain, it’s a pleasure to use for basic tracking and route recording. Screen legibility issues aside, the large, detailed maps are useful in the field; they present a lot of detail, and we found the shading a meaningful addition. However, these features are mitigated by frequently too tiny fonts and dark color choices that often render maps difficult to read.

Among the many surprises discovered in the field was the omission of route and waypoint management features available on previous units like the 60CSx and Vista HCx. For example, it’s not possible to reverse a route or track on the Colorado. This means that you can’t “trace back” on a track you create while out in the wilds, nor can you reverse a pre-planned route to use on your way out. So, when doing an in and out trip, you’ll need to create two versions of the route on your PC and load both into the unit in advance.

It’s also difficult to create a route on the fly in the field, whether using preexisting waypoints or adding points to the map. We detailed some of those frustrations earlier in this review, and suffice it to say that the current software on the Colorado left both Alan and Steve pulling their hair out in frustration when trying to create or adjust a route in the field, such as on our Yellowstone expedition, when we had to reverse our originally-planned route, then add side trips, due to an illness in the party and other unexpected events.

These are serious shortcomings for backcountry navigational use. While they are potentially addressable via software updates, so far Garmin has not done so, and so at this point the Colorado falls well behind the GPSMAP 60 and 76 series and the Vista HCx, both of which BackpackingLight recently recommended for backcountry use.

Battery Life

The Colorado draws a lot more power the previous GPS units we’ve tested. It only ran an average of 13.5 hours at room temperature with alkaline batteries, no backlight and the magnetic compass off (two batches of batteries from different manufacturers). This is less than the Garmin specified run time of 15 hours and less than half the life of the Garmin eTrex Vista HCx with a similar high performance GPS receiver. It would be nice if run time could approach the range of 20 to 25 hours offered by the Vista HCx.

Cold weather field testing showed (as one would expect) even faster battery depletion: when used at 10-20°F the Colorado’s battery life was cut by half. Also, while the Colorado allows you to set your battery type to alkaline, NiMH, or lithium for more accurate battery capacity metering, we found in our field testing that battery life was often overestimated, particularly for alkaline and NiMH batteries.

Conspicuously missing is some sort of “battery saver” option: for example, shutting down the display while continuing to run the GPS and save a track log.

In low temperatures or for long trips, we strongly recommend using lithium batteries. In other conditions, the environmentally conscious – or frugal – might choose to take extra rechargeable NiMH batteries for long trips.

We often resorted using a backlight setting of 50% or more to make the display more readable in low light. Fortunately, using the backlight even at 100% had only a minor reduction in run time (11.5 hours).

GPS Performance

Garmin Colorado Review - 13
The above screen shot showing excellent reception in our limited sky view reception torture test. (Screen shot via software)

The Colorado has excellent GPS reception. Even in difficult conditions, the Colorado produces high accuracy fixes. In our lab and field testing, we found its GPS reception performance equal to or better than the top performing Garmin Vista HCx and GPSMAP 60CSx.


	First Fix	Fix at 5 min
GPS	Min	Acc ft	Sat	Acc	Sat
Garmin Colorado 400t (1)	0:47	200	4	24	8
Garmin Colorado 400t (2)	3:10	140	4	30	6
Garmin eTrex Vista HCx	3:30	160	3	24	6
Garmin eTrex Venture Cx	no fix	no fix	0	no fix	1

Ergonomics

We like the Colorado’s ergonomics. The curved and rubberized case is easily gripped, even when wet, and has a nice feel in the hand. The two buttons and the Rock ‘n Roller input wheel are easy to use single-handed (equally so for lefties). The unit has the easiest battery cover removal and battery change of any GPS we’ve tested other than the GPSMAP 60CSx.

The Colorado ships with a slide-in carabiner clip. We found this to be unnecessary extra weight and a “floppy” way to carry the Colorado; we preferred to carry the unit in a shoulder strap or hip belt pouch, or even in a pocket.

Maps

The Colorado 400t ships with 1:100,000 scale topographic mapping data for the entire United States, including 3-D data and a colored shaded relief basemap, already installed in internal memory.

Maps show trails and roads in many areas, in addition to the topographic information. The map screen is also customizable to show data fields or not, and at what zoom level to display additional details. At wider zoom levels, the topographic information is hidden, and the basemap displays by itself – it’s a really nice shaded relief map, and though it displays under the topo data as well, it shines on its own.

Garmin Colorado Review - 14
Example of shaded relief basemap overlaid with topo lines.

In bright light, the Colorado’s map display is significantly better than previous units. The display is larger and higher resolution, displaying far more information than previous eTrex and GPS Map units. As noted before, viewing in dim light is problematic.

Garmin Colorado Review - 15

Garmin Colorado Review - 16

In these field shots, you can see how the display is not brilliant as screen shots captured via software on the Colorado 400t, seen above and many other places in this review. Map on left is close to what the display looks like in field with good light. On right is something close to what the display looks like in the field in moderate light. In dim light, it is often unreadable without using the backlight.

A large and detailed map screen, with two selectable, transparent data fields on the bottom, provides excellent navigational information. It’s something like combining the map and compass pages from an eTrex, only larger and on one screen. De-cluttering the screen of all menus and data features is a great option.


Left: Colorado’s map screen with data fields. Right: Skip the data fields and have all map! This 1:24K map detail of Shenandoah National Park is from “Garmin National Parks East” (at an additional cost), loaded into the Colorado via Garmin Mapsource software. (Screen shots via software)

It’s possible to load in additional maps (such as Garmin’s 24K National Park data and marine charts, or third-party 24K maps produced in the Garmin format). Marine charts and land maps co-exist on the Colorado and will display seamlessly on the same screen. Plus, it’s easy to switch between maps using one of the options choices on the mapping screen.

On the downside, satellite imagery is not available for the Colorado at this time (except for limited instances on newer marine charting cards), and most commercially available map data from other manufacturers are not compatible with Garmin GPS units.

The Colorado also provides a 3-D map view. This seems to be a derivation of Garmin’s automotive navigation feature, more suitable for street routing than for backcountry use. For topographic maps, it is quite slow to refresh, has a limited range of vision, and doesn’t provide much useful information. It seems more gimmick than useful feature for backpacking use.

Garmin Colorado Review - 19
Example of “3-D view” showing same area as previous “screen detail” shots of Shenandoah National Park. (Screen shot via software)

Other Screens

The Colorado includes many screens standard in other GPS units: compass, data, elevation plot, and so on, as well as many new or improved screens. We won’t cover them all here, but we did find a few useful in our testing, including this mapped tide table and a Sun and Moon calendar:

Garmin Colorado Review - 20

Garmin Colorado Review - 21

The Garmin contains useful screens, like a new sunrise/sunset calculator and tide tables. Note: we wish Garmin had included the much more powerful tide table function from previous marine units, like the GSPMap 76 series. It allowed you to calculate the tide level for any hour of any day in the year and included a daily graph of tide levels, not just a report of high and low tides. (Screen shots via software)

Performance on the Water

The Colorado is an excellent marine GPS when marine maps (e.g. G2 vision cards, pre-installed maps on the 400c and 400i, or Garmin Blue Chart loaded via comptuter) are installed, providing most of the features of the old GPSMAP 76C series. The expedition kayakers on our testing team were enthusiastic about the Colorado’s larger high-resolution screen and extensive capabilities with nautical charts.

The Colorado is moderately waterproof (the GPS case can withstand accidental immersion in one meter of water for up to 30 minutes), assuming that all the covers are closed properly and the seals are in good order, which is not always a safe assumption. It is not immune to mud, grit, sand, long-term exposure in wet environments, and especially not exposure to salt water. In many environments it’s a good idea to use a protective case over any GPS. Unfortunately, the Rock ‘n Roller input wheel cannot be rotated when the Colorado is in most protective enclosures/cases, rendering many functions inaccessible, which is a serious hindrance to marine usage.

Garmin Colorado Review - 22
The Rock ‘n Roller input wheel can’t be rotated in most protective enclosures/cases. Previous units, such as the GPSMap 76 series, worked fine in a protective case.

Computer Software

The Colorado comes with Garmin’s Mapsource software, which runs only on Windows. Mapsource allows updating and loading of maps to the unit (via separately purchased Garmin mapping data), and loads and retrieves waypoints, tracks, and routes. Its user interface and route and waypoint manipulation abilities are basic, but adequate for most trip planning. Beta versions of Macintosh software are available from Garmin, and we found them even more basic and limited at this point.

The Colorado, like all Garmin GPS units, can only use Garmin’s proprietary mapping data. The only way to load maps into the Colorado is with Garmin mapping products. A surprise to us, especially at the Colorado’s price point, is the failure by Garmin to include the Topo 2008 data disc with the unit. As a result, there’s no way to use the detailed maps from the Colorado 400t to plan routes on your PC. The only way to do this is to purchase the Garmin Topo 2008 data disc for an additional $100. Route planning on the unit, on the other hand, is frustrating unless you have already created a set of waypoints (see our comments about unwanted re-centering of the screen to your current location), which is a task better done on a PC with the full maps to reference.

The software limitations are mitigated somewhat by the fact that it’s possible to use many other software packages, such as National Geographic Topo or Google Earth, to create routes and waypoints (but not maps) and load them into the Colorado 400t.

Documentation and Manuals

The Colorado ships with a small manual that’s really not much more than a quick start guide. We believe the unit would benefit from the more complete documentation that we’ve seen in previous Garmin units like the eTrex and GPSMAP series.

Suggestions for improvement

Improve display readability.
Make the display brighter.
Use lighter and higher contrasting colors for display scheme (or at least add a low light color scheme option).
Increase font sizes on important information such as waypoint or POI names.
Improve battery life.
Allow option to turn off display to save battery life while keeping GPS running.
Eliminate snapping back to the current location when planning out a route, marking waypoints, and after executing a “Where To?” search (or at least this elimination an option).
Include Garmin Topo US 2008 with the unit (or at least make it very clear to prospective buyers that they cannot view or do trip planning on a PC with the 400t’s pre-loaded topographic maps, but can only do so with the basemap).
Reduce GPS weight.
Add power user features and shortcuts back (e.g. improved route planning, turning the compass on/off from the map screen).
Add additional sorting modes for waypoints (e.g. alphabetical).
Allow reversal and/or track-back of routes and tracks.
Publish a more detailed user manual (or at least a downloadable advanced version on the Web).
Design a waterproof case that works with the Rock ‘n Roller wheel. This is much needed for marine and other harsh environments.

Professional Perspectives on Backcountry Photography

Perspectives from Tom Murphy, Rainbow Weinstock, and Rick Dreher on how professional photography fits with lightweight principles.

Introduction

Ever stop to wonder how those glossy, inspiring, beyond-perfect photos of the backcountry are created? The stunning vistas and elegant wildlife, the splash of sun and snow framing a fit, young skier flying down the mountain, or the introspective, solitary, Emersonian view that evokes feelings of contemplation and self-reflection…those images, the ones that seem to capture the essence of existence, are the framework for many of the magazines and catalogs of the outdoor world. They are the ‘pretty pictures’ that people are drawn to and practically demand.

But how are such stunning photos captured, and by whom? Beyond the how and whom, why carry all those delicate pounds of photography equipment, worth thousands of dollars, through deserts, rain forests, oceans, rivers, blizzards, and more? The tremendous amount of work and risk involved for only a handful of photographs can be daunting, but what is even more discouraging is that there may not even be a market for them once developed.

Tom Murphy and Rainbow Weinstock took time to answer a few questions about how and why they have chosen to do backcountry photography and where lightweight backpacking principles fit in. Rick Dreher, BPL’s resident photo guru, also contributed his two cents on the subject of lightweight backpacking and which cameras on the market are the lightest and of the best quality.

Click a thumbnail to view the image gallery.

NOLS Instructor Dave Braun teaching a class in the Wind River Range. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Frost on a pine at sunrise, about 20 degrees below zero in January. (Tom Murphy)

Mountain landscape, Sawtooths, Idaho. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Coyote on a snow drift on the surface of the frozen Yellowstone River. (Tom Murphy)

Elizabeth Ruff climbing at El Potrero Chico, Mexico. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Bull elk feeding in a thermal pool. (Tom Murphy)

NOLS students planning a hiking day, Gannet Cirque, Winds. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Trumpeter swan flaring its wings as part of grooming and preening behavior. (Tom Murphy)

NOLS student Becca Farner fly-fishing at Temple Lake, Winds. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Coyote leaning into the wind of a blizzard. (Tom Murphy)

NOLS instructor Seth cooking a meal in Gannet Cirque, Winds. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Great gray owl tipping his head to the curious sounds made by Tom’s camera. (Tom Murphy)

Sean Williams and Dane Sherstad contemplating the route in the Bugaboos, British Columbia. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Bull moose walking along the shoreline of Yellowstone Lake. (Tom Murphy)

Rachel Landis in Chile. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Colter Peak at sunset in the Absaroka Mountain Range along the thoroughfare of the southeast portion of Yellowstone. (Tom Murphy)

Rachel Landis crossing the Cochamo River, Chile. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Bison at 35 below zero standing in steam from the geothermal-warmed ground. (Tom Murphy)

NOLS instructor Alex Yannakos with Torta, the cat, at Refugio Frey (“refugio” means hut), a popular climbing destination and NOLS classroom, Bariloche, Argentina. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Aspens on Black Tail Plateau in Yellowstone during a snowstorm. (Tom Murphy)

Tree and stones abstract, Chile. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Hoodoos at the head of the Lamar River. (Tom Murphy)

Torres del Paine, Chile. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Summer wildflowers in the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone. (Tom Murphy)

Glacier abstract, Los Glacieres National Park, Argentina. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Gwinna Falls at Ferris Fork of the Bechler River. (Tom Murphy)

Cerro Fitzroy, Cerro Poincenot and other peaks, Glacieres National Park, Argentina. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Coulter Peak at sunset above Beaverdam Creek. (Tom Murphy)

Fitzroy, Glacieres National Park, Argentina. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Two bull moose at sunset in Beaverdam Creek. (Tom Murphy)

Rainbow Weinstock, backpacking in front of Fitzroy, Argentina. (Rainbow Weinstock)

Tom Murphy

Ask Tom Murphy what his pack weight is for a typical eight day trek, and he will say with a chuckle, “Oh, about seventy-five pounds… it used to be ninety-five until I lightened it up a bit.” Another traditional backpacker unnaturally proud of their heavy pack? Not at all. Tom is by no means a kitchen sink hiker: he chooses to sleep on a tarp instead of using a tent, carries minimal clothing, and keeps it simple when it comes to camping gear. In the summer, he does not even carry a stove. Tom means it when he says that he’s done what he can to make his backpack lighter, cutting a strap here, taking out an unnecessarily heavy cook pot there.

“A lot of the time, people carry too much stuff, and I think they wear themselves out by it,” says Tom. “They’re more likely to get in trouble that way. If you’re really good and confident about being outside, then you just don’t need that much stuff.” Still, seventy-five pounds is practically unheard of these days.

For thirty-five years, Tom has been heading off into the wilderness to capture images of the backcountry and the animals found therein. He is a photographer with a keen eye for wildlife and natural scenes, and to get the shots for which he’s famous, he has to carry a lot of gear. Think tripods, multiple lenses, backup cameras, and pounds upon pounds of batteries. For Tom, wildlife and backcountry photography is not a lightweight game. It takes perseverance and dedication, regardless of his pack weight.

Having grown up on a remote cattle ranch in South Dakota, Tom was privy to the life cycle of the animals he lived and worked with. The way the seasons, time of day, and weather affected their behavior was laid out in front of him on a daily basis. His youth became a tapestry of wildlife and windswept hills, leading him to gain a deep understanding of animal behavior. It is this understanding, ingrained in Tom since childhood, that lends him at least part of his success as a photographer. “My perception is different because I have a different scale of experience,” says Tom. “You can’t photograph wildlife unless you know wildlife.”

While going light is important to Tom, it is clear that photographers have a different definition of what “light” means. When it comes to taking the cameras, he must be careful about what else he packs. Over the years, Tom has thrown out anything that is not necessary in his pack, keeping only what he absolutely needs. His opinion about his packing choices is pretty obvious: “I carry all that stuff because I want to make good photos when I get there.”

As a self-taught photographer, Tom states very simply that he became a photographer because he is backpacker. “The motivation was to record what I saw…I always see something when I go out. I don’t write, and I can’t draw, so I picked up photography.”

These days Tom gives guided photography tours of Yellowstone. His work was recently featured in the PBS show Christmas in Yellowstone that aired in December 2007.

Rainbow Weinstock

Rainbow Weinstock’s love affair with the outdoors began, as it does for many people, during childhood. In his case it was on the Mauna Loa volcano where he and his family lived in Hawaii. “The first time I went backpacking was as a family to the top of the volcano,” says Rainbow. “It left a strong impression on me to have that immersion in our natural surroundings.”

While backpacking and camping have been part of his repertoire since those early days on the volcano, it was not until Rainbow traveled to Alaska during the summer of 1999 that he took up photography. While Rainbow was in Alaska, he took a month-long NOLS course, explored the backcountry, and enrolled in a photography class at the University of Fairbanks. “Alaska was a significant experience on many levels,” says Rainbow. “I had a fantastic time and found that I really enjoyed being behind a camera.”

In 2001, Rainbow was working for an environmental consulting firm in Boston, but was searching for something different. When the opportunity to take a NOLS instructor course presented itself, he quickly packed his bags and headed to the American southwest. “I decided that I wanted to have a career that helped preserve our natural world,” he says. “I chose education over activism. I was motivated by NOLS experiential education capabilities and the wonders of its classrooms.” In the NOLS classroom, Rainbow found multiple opportunities to develop his photography skills. In the 2008 NOLS catalog, his work is the most prevalent in the notoriously picture-laden publication.

As an instructor for NOLS, Rainbow teaches courses in caving, climbing, mountaineering, and backpacking, which affords him great opportunities to capture the outdoor shots that feature both the natural world and how his students interact with it. “I’m blessed to be able to do incredible things in incredible places – photography is a way to interpret and record these experiences,” says Rainbow.

Having been backpacking for roughly twenty years, Rainbow has continually been changing and lightening his pack throughout that time. After taking a lightweight backpacking course from Ryan Jordan last year, the pounds and ounces on his pack have dramatically decreased. Now, on a thirty day NOLS course, his pack weight, including nine days worth of food, is thirty pounds. On personal trips, such as the one he just completed in Patagonia, his base weight is only ten pounds.

These pack weights include his photography equipment, which can at times be burdensome, but to Rainbow, the weight of the equipment does not deter him. When asked why he continues to do it, Rainbow says, “Well, I could be cocky and say ‘Check out the images accompanying this article,’ but it’s really passion for quality. I’m generally not satisfied with the caliber of images that I get back with point and shoots. Having the higher-level digital sensors, quality and interchangeability of lenses, and increased artistic capabilities are indispensable.”

Q&A with Backpacking Light’s Rick Dreher

Rick has been a backpacker and photographer since childhood. His work has been featured in Backpacking Light and other commercial pieces. These days he is the resident photography expert at BPL.

Q: What type of cameras and equipment do you use?

A: For digital work, and I’m only partway through year two using digital, I have an Olympus E-510 dSLR with six lenses, and a Kodak P880 “prosumer” fixed lens camera. I use a Manfrotto carbon monopod or a Gitzo subcompact carbon tripod when I carry support, and I also tote the typical smattering of filters, batteries, lens tissue, and the like.

From there, it gets complicated. I have an absurd array of analog (film) equipment, some of which I still use. I’ve collected most of what I consider the crown jewels of compact 35mm point-and-shoot cameras, the best being a Contax T3 and a Ricoh GR1. I still occasionally use my Contax G system rangefinders and Contax N and RTS SLR systems. Film and processing are becoming significant headaches, adding to the time-lag, hassles, and expense of shooting the stuff. Anybody who still owns a turntable and vinyl will understand the predicament, although with film there’s an eventual dead end (for example, there’s precisely one Kodachrome processing lab on the planet).

Q: In your opinion, what is the best, lightest camera on the market right now?

A: It’s dangerous to recommend a camera barely beginning shipment and yet to be thoroughly tested and reviewed, but the Sigma DP1 represents a compact camera paradigm shift, stuffing a dSLR-size imaging chip in a compact body, while depriving lazy people of a zoom lens. In this first quarter of 2008, it’s the only digital show in town for anybody desiring pro-quality landscapes while only toting half a pound. (For a quarter of the cost and about the same weight you can find a GR1 and a few rolls of film on eBay. The GR1 is the DP1’s analog-analog.)

Other notable compact digicams are the Canon G9 and the Ricoh cousins GRD II and GX100. All four digital examples supply RAW file format for maximum image quality and lossless post-processing. All have good lenses: the G9 has a reasonable telephoto reach and built-in optical viewfinder, while the GX100 has a superwide angle zoom and the GRD II is the DP1’s cousin with the same effective focal length lens and very high-quality construction, along with including some compelling accessories.

Today’s lightest dSLRs are the Olympus E-410 and forthcoming 420. Olympus recently announced a super-compact 25mm “pancake” lens (95 g) that will combine with one of these bodies to represent the smallest, lightest dSLR-lens combination ever, at something like 18 oz (for the E-410+25 mm).

You’ll probably notice I don’t cite any waterproof cameras, because it’s not a camera’s responsibility to be waterproof, and all the waterproof digicams are quite flawed in some way. However, since there are folks who hike where it rains 200 inches a year, or they go packrafting, a waterproof model might be the only reasonable option. It’s infinitely better to take snapshots with a less-than-perfect camera than not to take any photos at all.

For folks who don’t mind size and heft, at least three dSLRs (by Pentax, Nikon and Olympus) are weather-sealed, and while they shouldn’t be dunked, can fend off driving rain. Olympus weather-seals all their mid- and high-grade lenses.

Q: Do you have any tips that people can use to lighten up their camera and equipment?

A: For snapshooters, not really. Any four to five ounce digicam will do a fine job of capturing your travels, so long as you’re happy with posting on the Web, emailing, and printing no larger than 4×6 inches. These tiny pocket-sized cameras mostly do just fine, so find one with controls you can easily use (without thinking about them too much) and go hiking.

If your ambitions stretch further, you’ve got to first decide whether you want to commit to a dSLR system or use a high-end compact digicam (I’m ignoring mid-format and rangefinder systems). Before picking any gear, decide whether you want to shoot scenery, people, wildlife, mushrooms, whatever, then match tool to task. Note: two quality compact digicams weigh less than a dSLR with one lens.

It’s easy to become trapped stressing over what a particular camera can’t do and never learn to capitalize on what it can do. Sure, equipment matters, but the person handling the equipment matters vastly more.

Let photography become a natural part of your hiking day. Keep the camera handy and become comfortable shooting on the go. Shoot from unusual perspectives and shoot tiny details along with the dramatic vistas. Take time from setting up camp and making dinner to shoot during the “magic” hour immediately before and after sundown. If you can pry yourself out of bed, shoot before dawn. Bring a camera support and shoot star trails and yourself. Shoot your muddy socks, your hiking partner, your breakfast. Come home with your storage cards completely stuffed.

When you do get home, upload your photos and assess your work with a certain brutality. What worked and didn’t work technically, and why? Relentlessly weed out uninteresting photos and after a period (a week, a month) go back through your keepers to find which ones rise above the others. Learn from your successes. Developing your vision is a longer journey than even Andy Skurka can draw up, because it’s a trail with no end. And that’s why you want to carry a camera.

GSI Outdoors Cascadian Bowl SPOTLITE REVIEW

Strong polypropylene, almost twenty-four fluid ounces capacity, 1.55 ounces weight and $1.50 USD: it can’t be too bad!

Overview

Some people are happy to eat out of a freezer bag with a long spoon, but that doesn’t work too well when you have to cater for more than one person. Anyhow, on a long trip you may not have that many separate freezer bags. Walking in France for three months, my wife and I had to buy stuff as we went. And, I might add, my wife expected dinner to be served in a reasonably couth manner…a light bowl is the answer.

In the past, it’s been hard to find good, light bowls with a decent capacity and fairly high sides. There are plenty of light ‘plates’ on the market in a range of materials, but those flat things can spill easily, getting dinner all over your sleeping bag. Bowls are available too, from both gear shops and supermarkets, but in general they weigh a ton or are too shallow. I don’t like shallow bowls for the same reason I don’t like the plates: one slight lurch and I’m covered in my dinner. I want a bowl with a decent depth…but not too small a base.

GSI Outdoors has come out with this Cascadian brand bowl: cheap, light, not too flexible (unlike some folding bowls we have tried), non-cracking, with a decent capacity for a good meal, and with adequately high sides. The base may look a little small for stability, but some field testing has shown they’re quite stable in practice. They’re large enough that dinner does not ‘escape’ (under reasonable treatment!). If you have a couple of them, they stack quite nicely. Cleaning is pretty easy: a rinse and shake works most of the time.

We measured these at twenty-four fluid ounces capacity – but that’s filled right to the brim. Don’t expect to put that much in one without immediate disaster. Mind you, even twenty fluid ounces of dinner is more than most could possibly eat.

Specifications

Manufacturer: GSI Outdoors
Year/Model: 2007
Manufacture: China
Material: Polypropylene
Capacity: 24 fl oz (680 mL) to the brim (BPL measured)
Size (diameter x height): 6.3 x 1.8 in (160 x 45 mm) (BPL measured)
Weight: 1.55 oz (44 g) (BPL measured)
Colors: Red, orange, green, and blue
MSRP: $1.50 USD

What’s Good

Light
Cheap
Almost unbreakable
Stable
High walls
Suitable capacity for walkers

What’s Not So Good

Cannot be held over a stove

Recommendations for Improvement

Slightly wider base, perhaps

GSI Outdoors Cascadian Cup SPOTLITE REVIEW

Strong polypropylene, will not burn your lips, twelve fluid ounces capacity, 1.7 ounces weight and $1.75 USD: it can’t be too bad!

Overview

There is no end to the cups offered for outdoor use, but many of them have faults of one sort or another. We will skip the traditional enameled steel ones without comment. The titanium ones are terribly trendy, but at nearly $30 USD each, they are hardly ‘lightweight’ on the wallet. Their weight isn’t bad, at 2 ounces (56 g), but despite what they say about the poor conductivity of titanium, I still burn my lips on them.

There are mass-market cups made of hard plastic and sold at supermarkets: lighter and cheaper, but many of them have the standard ‘1 cup’ (250 mL) capacity, which isn’t really quite big enough for a walker. I often have to ‘top-up’ half way through a cup of coffee. The hard plastic can crack if hit hard too, then they leak. Good, but not quite good enough.

The common wisdom has been that the mass-market companies cannot produce anything worthwhile for the lightweight crew. Well, that may have been true in the past, but the times they are a’ changing. GSI Outdoors has come out with this Cascadian brand cup: cheap, light, slightly flexible but robust, non-cracking, and with a decent capacity. The handle is quite strong and dead easy to pick up, even with a gloved hand. If you have a couple of them, they stack quite nicely. Cleaning is pretty easy: a rinse and shake works most of the time.

The measurements on the GSI Outdoors website should not be used: the Backpacking Light ones are more accurate! In particular, note that the claimed twelve fluid ounce capacity is nice and generous. You might also like to check the inside of the cup very carefully: there is a faint scale on one side showing cup measurements, up to one and a half cups. For reasons which utterly pass me by, the text on this scale is in mirror image: perhaps someone made a slight mistake here in making the mold?

Specifications

Manufacturer: GSI Outdoors
Year/Model: 2007
Manufacture: China
Material: Polypropylene
Capacity: 12 fl oz (340 mL) quoted, but nearly 13 fl oz (460 mL) to the brim
Size (diameter x height): 3.75 x 2.95 in, (95 x 75 mm), but the handle is extra (BPL measured)
Weight: 1.66 oz (47 g) (BPL measured)
Colors: Red, orange, green, and blue
MSRP: $1.75 USD

What’s Good

Light
Cheap
Almost unbreakable
Easy to pick up, even with gloves
Suitable capacity for walkers

What’s Not So Good

Cannot be held over a stove

Recommendations for Improvement

Fix the lettering on the scale!

MYOG Titanium/Carbon Fiber Ice Axe

Following the Review of the ULA Helix Potty Trowel, there was considerable discussion on the Backpacking Light Forum (MYOG, DIY walking axe) regarding the use of a light “ice axe” in areas where one’s life or ultimate safety would not be an issue. The author, Steven Evans, asked specific questions regarding the required length of such an ice axe, the general use of such an ice axe, and what people used in situations where a UIAA-certified ice axe would be overkill, but where a tool of some sort would be nice to have. Such a tool could be used to assist in small steep sections of snow and ice and general up-hill travel in less then desirable conditions, but it would have a weight which would be negligible on one’s back when not in use. This project was born from that discussion.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Podcast: NOLS and the 40 Pound Initiative

NOLS Rocky Mountain discusses the process and progress of the 40-Pound Initiative, a branch effort to reduce student pack weights to 40 pounds or less for all Wind River courses.

PODCAST SPONSOR

This Podcast is sponsored by Big Agnes, makers of award-winning sleeping bags, pads and tents, offering innovative lightweight solutions for backpacking. Named after a peak in The Mt Zirkel Wilderness, Big Agnes is a small company located in Steamboat Springs, Colorado. Spend a night with Big Agnes and you’ll never want to sleep inside again. Visit us at BigAgnes.com.

Overview

Going light is one thing when you are on a personal trip with your friends, but when teaching backpacking to a whole new group of students under a lightweight context? It is not as easy a task as you would think. Safety, education, gear quality, and accommodating for a lot of “first times” makes lightening up for students a completely different situation than when lightening the pack of experienced backpackers on personal trips.

The Rocky Mountain Branch of the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) in Lander, Wyoming has been working toward a goal of having all the packs on their Wind River Wilderness courses be forty pounds or less by June 15, 2008. The plan, which has been termed the 40 Pound Initiative, has been a collaborative effort with program supervisors, administrators, manufactures, and students and instructors alike.

From packs to first aid kits, sleep systems to food, NOLS has been cutting and dropping ounces and grams for the past two years, getting closer to the forty pound mark with each trip that heads into the Wind River Range. However, it has not exactly been an easy transition. Like every new endeavor, there has been a trial and error period for the new practices and the new gear. Lighter first aid kits went out, but they did not hold up as well as their older, heavier counterparts. Spice kits were reduced, but the feedback from students was a hefty request for more, not less. New packs and coats were field-tested by both students and instructors, and as the hardware lightened up, so did some of the concepts. How big of a library should instructors carry? Should personal items in camp be discouraged?

In addition to working out the kinks with gear and lightweight philosophies, convincing some of the instructors about the new practices of going lighter with students was also a bit of a challenge at first. Quiet rumblings of student safety, effective teaching methods, and even tradition were brought up. Skepticism over how well lightweight gear – which can also be delicate – could stand up to students was also brought into question…but with more and more courses successfully completing trips with lighter packs, most of those concerns have since died down.

To get an idea of the process and the progress going on with the 40 Pound Initiative at NOLS, Backpacking Light spoke with NOLS Wilderness Medicine Institute Curriculum Director Tod Schimelfenig. NOLS Risk Management Director Drew Leemon and NOLS Instructor Jamie Hunt also contributed to this article.

A special thanks to Jeanne O’Brien and Lara McCluskey of NOLS for their additional information and guidance on this podcast.

Photo by Ryan Hutchins-Cabibi

Outdoor Research Endeavor Mitt SPOTLITE REVIEW

Lightweight durable shell mitt especially suited for snow sports or any situation where a more durable waterproof-breathable mitt is needed.

Overview

I go through a lot of gloves and mitts. Usually, the fingertips wear through. Another problem is “waterproof-breathable” handwear keeps water out, but it also keeps sweat in – so my hands get cold. My solution is to wear a liner glove or mitt inside a lightweight waterproof-breathable shell. When the liner gets damp, exchange it for a dry one. If it is a cold day, use a warm liner. If it is a cool/dry day, wear only the liner. If it is raining or snowing, wear the shell with or without a liner, depending on the temperature.

The Outdoor Research Endeavor Mitt is made of Gore-Tex PacLite fabric with a very durable coating on the palms for extra grip and a long gauntlet to overlap the cuffs of a jacket.

Weighing just 3.9 ounces per pair (size large), the Outdoor Research Endeavor is a durable lightweight waterproof-breathable shell mitt. My emphasis is on durable because there are lighter shell mitts to be found, such as the Mountain Laurel Designs eVENT Rain Mitt, and the Etowah/ULA Frogtog Over Mittens. Although Outdoor Research markets the Endeavor Mitt for “wet moderate conditions,” I found it performs quite well for snow sports or any situation where a more durable shell mitt is needed. Note: the OR Latitude Mitt is the Endeavor Mitt combined with a removable softshell and fleece liner glove and costs $20 USD more.

Outdoor Research Endeavor Mitt SPOTLITE REVIEW Review - 2
The palm side (left) is coated with AlpenGrip, which feels rubbery and is very grippy and durable. The mitt’s long gauntlet overlaps a jacket sleeve to effectively seal out snow. The gray pull tightens the gauntlet and the black one loosens it – very convenient. The inside of the mitts (right) is fully seam taped.

The Endeavor Mitt runs true to size, and the OR website shows how to measure your hand to ensure you order the correct size. If you are going to use them in cold weather, it is a good idea to oversize a shell mitt so there is plenty of room inside for insulated gloves or mitts.

The OR Endeavor Mitt and several liners were part of my gear kit for an eleven day winter camping trip in Yellowstone National Park, plus many backcountry ski and snowshoe trips near home. With a warm liner inside, the mitts are perfect for building igloos, snowshoeing, and ski touring. For snow sports, overmitts are a very important outer layer because they keep snow from sticking to insulating gloves or mitts. Fleece is very light and warm, but snow sticks to it, and it gets wet easily in the winter. Wearing the Endeavor Mitt over fleece is a perfect combination for cold days. On really cold mornings (down to -16° Fahrenheit) while winter camping and cold days (0° to 10° Fahrenheit) while backcountry skiing, the Endeavor shell added a lot of warmth when worn over an insulated glove.

Outdoor Research Endeavor Mitt SPOTLITE REVIEW Review - 3
I wore the Endeavor Mitt over a variety of gloves and liners made of different fabrics, with or without insulation. Some of my favorites are (left to right) OR Latitude softshell/fleece liner glove, Manzella Tahoe fleece glove, Heat Factory Pop Top mitten (a fold back mitten with a built-in pocket to insert a chemical hand warmer packet), Ibex wool liner glove, and Outdoor Research PL-400 mitts (also available as a glove).

After three months of hard use, the Endeavor Mitt shows little evidence of wear, as can be seen in the two top photos. It also has been consistently waterproof, with no detectable leakage through the mitts, even in situations where there is a lot of contact with wet snow or water. Overall, the OR Endeavor Mitt is an excellent choice for a lightweight shell mitt for situations where more durability is needed, such as snow sports and winter camping.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer: Outdoor Research (http://www.orgear.com/)
Year/Model: 2008 Endeavor Mitt
Materials: 70 d Gore-Tex PacLite
Insulation: None, this is a shell mitt to be worn by itself or over a liner
Features: Seam taped Gore-Tex PacLite shell, AlpenGrip palm, Duo Cinch gauntlet closure, ladder lock wrist cinch, removable idiot cords
Sizes: Small to Extra-Large
Weight: Measured Weight: 4.1 oz/pair (116 g) size extra-large, Manufacturer Specification: 3.9 oz/pair (111 g) size large
MSRP: $69 USD

Komperdell Touring Glove Spotlite Review

Gloves made with Komperdell’s new seamless bonding construction get a mixed review.

Overview

Komperdell Touring Glove Spotlite Review - 1
The Komperdell Touring Glove is one of a range of gloves utilizing their "seamless bonding" technology and four-way stretch fabrics. Photo by Bill Webbe.

Komperdell has developed a new "seamless bonding" construction method to produce gloves that are entirely free of seams. Their latest line of gloves are made of a new three-layer softshell fabric with four-way stretch, which are claimed to be waterproof and breathable. All these innovations made us eager to test them out and report on their performance.

In the seamless bonding process, glove parts are assembled using a narrow seam tape (about 13 millimeters wide) and a special adhesive-plus-heat-plus-pressure process. The result is a glove in which all of the joints are butted and taped; there are no sewn seams, and the taped seams are hardly noticeable.

Komperdell Touring Glove Spotlite Review - 2
Close-up of Komperdell’s seamless bonding construction, showing the taped seams around the sides of the fingers. The palm side has an anatomic silicone gripper pattern.

Equally innovative is the unique fabric used in the gloves. It is a three-layer softshell construction with four-way stretch. The sandwich consists of a soft nylon outside layer, waterproof-breathable membrane, and a merino wool mix inner lining. According to Komperdell, the membrane functions according to c_change technology. In warm temperatures, the polymer structure opens up, and water vapor and heat escape; in cold temperatures, the polymer structure compresses, becoming wind and water tight and providing more insulation.

Komperdell Touring Glove Spotlite Review - 3
The inside lining is a merino wool and polyester mix, which is soft against the skin and moderately warm.

The first thing we noticed when we donned the gloves was that they run small, so it is best to size up. Will found that size extra-large was a snug fit, but comfortable to wear because the snugness was compensated for by the stretchiness of the fabric. The stretchiness was very noticeable when we closed and expanded our hands and made it easy to grip trekking poles. The silicone pattern on the palms provided a good grip on trekking pole handles – more so on EVA and cork grips, less so on plastic or smooth leather grips.

A range of models is available that utilize the same construction, differing in insulation, wrist closure, and palm coating. Insulated models are a four-layer construction that adds an Isopren layer. We chose the Touring model because it is one of the lightest and most versatile. We used it for hiking using trekking poles and for snow sports using ski poles.

For warmth, we found the Touring glove to be moderately warm, down to about 25° Fahrenheit when active and down to 35-40° Fahrenheit when less active.

During our four months of testing (eleven trips), we found these seamless gloves to be quite durable. Upon close inspection, we did not find any failed seams or areas of specific wear. We used them a lot with poles, and the palm side has held up well to intensive use.

Komperdell claims these gloves are breathable…so how breathable are they? In our field testing in cooler weather, we consistently found that the gloves accumulated moisture (from sweat) inside and felt clammy. Because of the moisture inside, our hands got cold and we had to switch to dry gloves. While hiking uphill at a brisk pace in 50-60° Fahrenheit temperatures, the gloves were damp inside, but our hands did not get cold. It appears that their c_change technology provides some breathability at moderate temperatures.

We tested the gloves waterproof claim by filling the inside of the gloves with sand (in a plastic liner glove) and immersing them in water down to the wrist for one hour. It did not take long to get our answer; after twenty minutes the water level inside the gloves was the same as the outside! Not waterproof, sad to say. Our immersion test was done after three months of use; upon close inspection we found that the gloves leaked in multiple locations, but primarily from the taped seams between the fingers. If you look closely at the second photo above, you will notice that the tape has shifted a bit between the fingers.

Komperdell Touring Glove Spotlite Review - 4
After three months of use, the Touring Glove is not waterproof as claimed. Most of the leakage occurred in the taped joints between the fingers.

Besides a lack of breathability and waterproofness, we found that snow and debris stick to the gloves exterior fabric, and the fabric also absorbs a significant amount of water. We weighed Janet’s size small gloves after wetting the exterior and found that the outside fabric absorbed one ounce of water, which is twenty-eight percent of the gloves weight.

Overall, we are impressed with the materials and construction in these gloves, but we are disappointed with their performance. A lack of breathability is a common problem with waterproof gloves, so the gloves get as wet inside from sweat retention as they would from water leaking in. Also, their lack of waterproofness came as a surprise, considering the fabric and construction. Their leakage, combined with water absorption of the exterior fabric certainly does not make them very useful for hiking in wet weather!

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer: Komperdell (http://www.komperdell.com/)
Year/Model: 2008 Touring Glove
Fabrics:: Three-layer softshell (nylon outer, WP/B membrane, and merino wool mix layer on the inside)
Features: Seamless bonding technology, silicone gripper palm, Velcro tab closure
Weight: Measured weight: Women’s small 3.5 oz/pair (99 g), Men’s extra-large 4 oz/pair (113 g), manufacturer specification not available
MSRP: $79.95 USD

MYOG – A Winter Canister Stove using your Summer Upright Stove and the Brunton Stove Stand

The Brunton Stove Stand is a nice bit of engineering, but is it really of any use? Oh yes: it can be turned into a neat winter stove with just a little DIY effort.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Hypothermia

Avoiding and treating hypothermia in the backcountry with ultralight equipment.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Stoves, Tents and Carbon Monoxide – Deadly or not? Supplement 1: The MSR Reactor

Roger Caffin revisits the carbon monoxide emissions performance of a production model MSR Reactor stove.

You don’t have access to view this content.

Podcast: Journey on the Wild Coast – When the Weather Outside is Frightful and There is No Inside, What Gear Works?

Carol Crooker exposes the insanity of Bretwood Higman and Erin McKittrick. Three pounds of shared sleeping quilt for minus 30 degree weather?!

PODCAST SPONSOR

Overview

Bretwood Higman and Erin McKittrick have been trekking along North America’s wild western coast since starting from Seattle in June. They have carried a core set of gear from the start and made a few adjustments as they traveled north. For the shift from non-winter conditions to winter conditions – which they define as “colder than 20 degrees or with snow too deep to walk through” – they added amazingly little gear. They discuss this added gear and the spectacular failure and success of some of it.

Username
Password
	Remember me