Articles (2020)

Introduction

The Gossamer Gear Mariposa pack, introduced in 2004, has become very popular with ultralight backpackers because of the versatility offered by its removable carbon fiber stays. However, many hikers gave feedback that the Mariposa had too much volume (4200 cubic inches) for the average ultralight backpacking trip. In response, Gossamer Gear introduced the Miniposa in spring 2007, a smaller version at 3300 cubic inches. Is it right on target for ultralight backpacking?

What’s Good

• Highly versatile; can be used as either a frameless or internal frame backpack
• Removable stays and sternum strap
• Wide padded shoulder straps and hipbelt
• Sleeping pad doubles as backpanel padding
• Very high volume to weight ratio
• Very high carry load to pack weight ratio
• Large capacity front and side mesh pockets
• Comfortably carries 20 to 25 pound loads (with stays)

What’s Not So Good

• Stays are not bendable for a custom fit
• Excess dye in pad sleeve stains clothing

Specifications

Performance

The Miniposa is made of silnylon and is basically identical to the Mariposa except it is 900 cubic inches smaller in volume. The volume was taken out of the main body (6 inches thick versus 7.5 inches) and the extension collar (8.5 inches long versus 11 inches). The other dimensions and components are the same. The Mariposa and Miniposa have a fixed hipbelt, which is shorter on their new size Small pack. Only the Mariposa Plus has a removable hipbelt available in different sizes.

Frame and Suspension

The frame is the lightest to be found anywhere, two carbon fiber rods weighing 0.9 ounce total. They are very easy to remove and replace, and have rounded aluminum caps to prevent them from puncturing the fabric. Although they are very light, they are also very straight and are not bendable to fit the curvature of the user’s back. More on this in the Field Testing section.

The suspension system consists of 3.5-inch wide shoulder straps and hipbelt with 3D spacer mesh on the underside, and a backpanel pad sleeve into which a sleeping pad is inserted to serve as a padded backpanel and pack stiffener. The shoulder straps and hipbelt have openings (with Velcro closures) to insert either articles of clothing (e.g. socks) or provided 3-inch wide, ½-inch thick closed-cell pads. The pack does not have load lifter straps or hipbelt stabilizer straps.

Features and Utility

The Miniposa has an essential set of features tailored to meet the needs of the ultralight backpacker. The outside of the pack is covered with four large mesh pockets (500 cubic inches total) capable of holding a lot of gear and keeping it readily accessible on the trail, virtually eliminating the need to enter the main body of the pack during the day. Each pocket has an elastic binding at the top to keep things from falling out, and heavier ripstop nylon at the bottom for durability. The lower right mesh pocket is designed to make a water bottle reachable without taking the pack off.

One pack feature listed on the Gossamer Gear website is a “Small map/permit/sundries pocket (right side)”, which sounds like an internal security pocket to me, but is actually the lower mesh pocket. Gossamer Gear provides a length of elastic cord and cordlocks with the pack (0.4 ounce) to create a bungee attachment/compression system for the front of the pack or the two sides, using loops provided.

Several components (stays, shoulder strap and hipbelt padding, and sternum strap) are removable, so the pack can be stripped down to a frameless backpack weighing about 16 ounces. However, I personally would not want to part with the shoulder strap and hipbelt padding and the sternum strap, so the frameless pack minimum weight sans stays would be 17.7 ounces.

Gossamer Gear’s removable hipbelt pockets were not yet available when I field tested the Miniposa, but they were announced as this review was waiting to be published, so I was able to obtain a set and include them in the review. They are made of durable 210 denier nylon ripstop, come in three sizes, and weigh 0.6 to 0.8 ounce per pocket. They fit all Gossamer Gear packs, as well as many packs by other manufacturers. I tried one on a 2006 Osprey Aether 60 and the attachment loops stretched to fit the 4.5 inch wide hipbelt. Gossamer Gear also has a shoulder strap pocket in development. The pockets are not waterproof. I personally like a pocket on the sternum strap to keep my topo map handy, and hope that Gossamer Gear will make one available. To accommodate it, the sternum strap would need to connect at one side rather than in the middle.

The pack body is large enough to hold a bear canister lengthwise, but it takes up a lot of the available volume. The pack’s Y-strap is designed to hold a canister on top of the pack, and the strap is extra long for that purpose. In use without a bear canister, the Y-strap is a bit cumbersome compared to a single top strap, especially with smaller loads, because of its extra length and tendency to get twists in it.

Although an internal hydration sleeve (with two hose ports) is provided, I find it more convenient to carry a Platypus water bladder in the upper right side pocket (as shown in the photo gallery above). The side pocket location makes it much more accessible for refilling, and I offset the weight by packing a little more weight on the left side inside the pack.

Field Testing

I carried the Miniposa on a number of ultralight summer backpacking trips carrying loads ranging from 14 to 22 pounds. On each trip I assessed the Miniposa’s comfort with and without the stays. The stays help to transfer weight to my hips, so I prefer to use them when pack weight was over about 17 pounds (your preference will depend on your body size and strength). Because the stays are straight and unbendable, the top of the pack tends to lean back somewhat. Tightening the shoulder straps pulls the pack in toward the shoulders some, but places more weight on the shoulders and compresses the shoulders, which becomes uncomfortable after awhile.

Without the stays, and using an inflatable pad in the pad sleeve, the pack conformed to my back better, and was quite comfortable to carry with a lighter load. Its wide padded shoulder straps and hipbelt allow this pack, with or without the stays, to carry a load very comfortably. It’s definitely more comfortable than most frameless backpacks with similar loads.

I tested the Miniposa with several different sleeping pads, and found it to be amenable with the Bozeman Mountain Works TorsoLite, Gossamer Gear NightLight, Therm-a-Rest RidgeRest ¾, and Therm-a-Rest Prolite 3 Short. The NightLight is ideal because it provides a stiffer backpanel (for better weight transfer to the hips) with minimum thickness and weight. A folded ¾-length RidgeRest provides a lot of stiffness, but its 2.5 inch thickness pushed the pack’s center of gravity away from my back, which is undesirable for heavier loads. Inflatable pads provide a comfortably padded backpanel, but do nothing to stiffen the pack for weight transfer.

The Miniposa is designed with openings in the shoulder straps and hipbelt to insert extra clothing (socks, etc.) for padding. I found the technique cumbersome and time-consuming, and socks and fleece catch on the Velcro closure. Gossamer Gear provides a set of four foam pads to insert in the pockets instead of clothing. The shoulder strap pads weigh just 0.5-ounce and the hipbelt pads weigh 0.3 ounce (that’s a total of 0.8 ounce for all four pads). My opinion is that Gossamer Gear should sew in the pads and be done with it, eliminating the weight of the Velcro closures.

On their website, Gossamer Gear notes that the mesh used for the sleeping pad sleeve on some packs has been reported to stain clothing, and they recommend giving it a good soaking before using the pack. I encountered the problem, and it was a major annoyance. Sweat from hiking caused the dye to migrate from the pad sleeve to the back of my shirt and pants (see photo below), leaving a stain that did not come out by laundering. I found the dye difficult to remove; I scrubbed the mesh on three separate occasions in hot water with laundry detergent to finally get it out. Gossamer Gear also notes that stitching on the mesh pockets may unravel, and offer to repair existing packs at no charge. They plan to remedy both problems in the next production run.

Although the Miniposa is made of 1.3 ounces/square yard silnylon and mesh, I found it to be adequately durable with reasonable care. In my off-trail wanderings, I frequently bushwhacked through willow thickets and heavy forest cover, with no damage to the pack. The mesh used for the outside pockets is remarkably durable for its weight. Also, I had no problems with the stays slipping out of or wearing through their pockets. For hikers who are tough on their gear, or hike where there are sticker bushes, Gossamer Gear may offer the Miniposa in a heavier fabric (similar to the Mariposa Plus) in 2008.

Assessment

Although the Miniposa is a new pack model, its straight carbon fiber stays (arrow shafts) are a carryover from the Mariposa. Back in 2004 we were impressed with their miniscule weight and ability to support a heavier load. However, they are not bendable to fit the curvature of the user’s back, and in fact cause the top of the pack to lean backward. Bendable stays that can shaped to achieve an anatomical fit would be a marked improvement for the Miniposa (and Mariposa). The improved fit and comfort would be well worth the extra weight. Switching to flat aluminum stays would be an easy fix, but it would add about 3.5 ounces to the weight of the pack. Wouldn’t it be nice if Gossamer Gear, a leader in ultralight backpacking gear, developed some bendable (or at least curved) stays with little or no increase in weight?

The continued use of shoulder strap and hipbelt pockets to insert clothing for padding is also beyond its heyday. The technique does save a little weight, but it’s a pain in the butt. Since the alternative foam pads supplied with the pack weigh a total of 0.8 ounce, why not sew in the pads and save the weight and manufacturing cost of the Velcro openings?

The Miniposa is in a class by itself as a superlight, small volume (3300 cubic inches), removable internal frame backpack. The only comparable backpacks with removable stays on the market are the Six Moon Designs Comet and Starlite packs, and the Gossamer Gear Mariposa packs, but they are all larger volume (3700-4200 cubic inches). The Six Moon Designs’ flat aluminum stays are easily bent to the curvature of the user’s back, resulting in noticeably better fit and comfort. SMD packs also have a removable hipbelt with available pockets, and are made of durable Dyneema fabric. However, they weigh 8-11 ounces more.

Overall, the Gossamer Gear Miniposa and Mariposa are the lightest and most versatile convertible packs around. Their removable stays allow one pack to serve as either an ultralight frameless or internal frame backpack. In frameless mode, the Miniposa is very comfortable owing to its wide padded shoulder straps and hipbelt. With the stays in, its comfortable weight carrying capacity is extended to about 25 pounds. If your total pack weight is normally in the 15 to 25 pound range, consider getting the Gossamer Gear Miniposa (or Mariposa) instead of a frameless backpack or an internal frame pack meant for carrying heavier loads.

What’s Unique

Because of its removable carbon fiber stays, the Miniposa is easily the lightest internal frame backpack on the market in its size class. It’s also extremely versatile. With the stays and other components removed, its weight is comparable with many ultralight frameless backpacks on the market and it’s very comfortable to carry because of its wide padded shoulder straps. With the stays in, this 18.6 ounce backpack is capable of carrying 25 pounds.

Recommendations for Improvement

• Switch to curved flat stays to achieve a more anatomical fit
• Sew the foam padding into the shoulder straps and hipbelt, and eliminate the Velcro closures
• Move the sternum strap buckle to one side to allow use of a sternum pocket
• Source a colorfast mesh for the pad sleeve

Introduction

In the middle of 2007 the author and his wife spent three months walking in France. While it was meant to be summer, the chances of snow on the high cols was real and we wanted something very light to add just a little safety in the snow. Conventional ice axes were too heavy to be justified, but we felt that the very light weight of a medium-length ‘Potty Trowel’ was justifiable. It was used quite a bit, both as a real potty trowel and as an aid in the snow, but we never got any further than ‘walking’ with it. While not perfect in all details, it can be recommended for those walking trips where a little more security is needed.

What’s Good

• Lighter than any other ice axe on the market
• Very easy to carry
• Digs cat holes very well
• Metal and shaft both resist damage very well

What’s Not So Good

• Sharp edges, or at least, square corners, where it is held
• Holes in pick have sharp edges too
• Not certified by UIAA

Specifications

Caution

The manufacturer ULA Equipment advertises this as a ‘Potty Trowel’. The company does not advertise it as an ice axe, although the web sites admits it looks like an ice axe and that people have used it as such. One reason for this caution is very likely to avoid any liability if someone uses it as an ice axe and has an accident which the lawyers could try to blame on the Helix. In such a case the company can point out the Helix was being used for a purpose for which it was not advertised. Another very good reason is because the Helix has not been submitted for testing to the UIAA, the European body which tests and certifies ice axes against European standards. So what you do with this Potty Trowel is entirely up to you.

The comments here are just the author’s own opinions: Backpacking Light makes no claims as to the suitability of the Helix Potty Trowel as an ice axe either.

Design and Construction

For simplicity I will talk about the Helix Potty trowel as though it really is an ice axe, despite the caution above. As you can see from the photo to the right it has the features you would expect from an ice axe: a head with pick and adze, a shaft, and a spike at the bottom. Both the head and the spike have been hard-anodised. The head and the spike are glued into a round carbon fibre tube which is the shaft. The spiral markings on the shaft are just an artifact of how the carbon fibre tubing is made.

The head has a classical shape, with the pick curving out at a gentle angle for about 125 mm from the shaft. It does not have the pronounced downwards rake of a modern ice tool, but then it is not sold as an ice tool. The pick is made from 4.7 mm thick aluminium alloy plate and this piece of plate extends forward to provide the support for the adze blade as well – this is the normal construction method. The pick has series of 8 plain 6.3 mm (1/4 in) holes down its length. These holes are too small for any respectable carabiner and are not chamfered at the surfaces, which is a pity. In fact I am not sure why the holes are there: they don’t reduce the weight by very much. The tip of the pick is chamfered but is definitely not sharp. The pick also has a series of semi-circular notches of the same size along the underside, going out to the tip. I assume that these are meant to help the pick to grip in really hard snow or soft ice, but their effect is not great. They might grip better in hard ice, but you are unlikely to get the pick very far into hard ice. If you are climbing on hard ice you should be using a UIAA-certified axe anyhow. The notches do have some effect on crusty ice early in the morning.

The adze is welded to the pick plate very solidly. It has very rounded front corners – more rounded than my two other heavier axes. These corners are usually meant to prevent the adze from jamming in hard ice, but the axe is too light to be of much use on hard ice anyhow. It does not matter. The adze blade has three small holes along each side – exactly why I cannot tell. Once again, any weight reduction would be very small. The cutting edge of the adze has been chamfered but like the tip of the pick it is not sharp. Really, none of the edges on this axe represent any danger to gear or clothing – unlike my steel axe which is very sharp at both adze and pick tip. Behind the adze itself there is an unchamfered 9.5 mm hole in the support for the adze. It would have been nice if this hole had been lightly chamfered before anodizing.

Finally, the pick plate itself is welded into a short length of tube which goes into the carbon fibre shaft. The weld lines are very full and look well done. There is a shoulder on the bit of tube which butts up against the end of the carbon fibre tube: this is visible in the photo.

The spike at the bottom end of the axe is a bit of aluminium alloy tube set into the end of the carbon fibre shaft, and it has been cut on a definite chamfer. It too has a shoulder to butt up against the end of the shaft, and this shoulder is essential to support the spike inside the shaft and prevent the glue from being overloaded. Both the chamfer and the shoulder are visible in the photo above.

I have some experience with using 2-D wrapped carbon fibre tubing in outdoors gear, and I like it. Some people have worried about its impact resistance, saying it is ‘brittle’. In my experience it handles impact very well, up to its yield point. Unlike, say, mild steel which yields (bends) slowly at low forces, carbon fibre resists any deformation right to the end, but then it fails quickly. It could therefore be described as being ‘brittle’ – but this is somewhat misleading. It is really extremely strong, but like anything else it can be broken if you take it to an extreme. I found both the Helix and a carbon fibre trekking pole we were carrying on in France to be very reliable when used as walking aids.

I know that abrasion can damage the surface of carbon fibre tubing, and I was a little concerned about the effect of both ice and rock on the bottom end of the shaft. I added a short length of heat-shrink tubing over the bottom end of the shaft to provide some protection against abrasion – I am sure this added a few grams to the weight. This is visible in the photo above just above the spike and below the spiral markings on the shaft. Whether it is really needed depends entirely on how one treats the axe – it made me feel just that little bit happier about waving it around.

The Helix is missing three features often found on a certified ice axe. It does not have a hole in the head which could take any of my fairly normal carabiners, although there may be very light ones which would fit through the 9.5 mm hole. Mine would require a 10.5 mm hole I think. However the lack of a chamfer there makes putting either a carabiner or a loop of tape or cord through the hole a bit risky. Second, it dose not come with a wrist strap and the shaft has no stopper on it to limit downwards travel of any wrist strap, nor is there a carabiner hole through the spike. Now you may not need a wrist strap with this axe and I have never needed a hole through the spike on any axe, but the UIAA tests seem to require one or the other (clause 2.2.1) in order to do a test on the strength of the head.

Third, the Helix is very light: it lacks the mass and thin adze edge needed to hack into ice. But once again we note: it is not sold as an ice axe, and is not meant for use ice climbing. So there is no point in criticizing it for this.

One other ‘feature’ should be mentioned, although it is not unique to the Helix. The shaft is hollow, and can act as a cork borer in snow and dirt. This meant I ended up with the shaft loaded with tightly packed snow a few times. I found out about this the embarrassing way, when my axe dribbled water all over the floor of a refuge one evening. It took us a little while to work out just where the water was coming from! After that I made sure I melted and blew the snow out before taking the axe indoors. I don’t think this is a fault, and you only make this mistake once (I think).

ULA Comments on Design

We do not normally quote what the manufacturer writes about a product as it is usually just marketing spin, and we can live without that. However, two comments from ULA are worth including here as they relate to the ULA position about the use of the Helix as an ice axe.

Field Testing – as an Ice Axe

I took this with me on our three month walking trip in France in the middle of 2007. That time of the year should be summer in France, but we had previously met old snow (névé) piled up rather steeply in high cols in the Pyrenees even in summer. Well, it turned out that the snow season had been very late in 2007, and there was a lot of snow around still when we got there in mid-May, and it lasted for quite a while too. (So did the bad weather…) In fact, the cols in the Pyrenees where we started we definitely not passable with the light-weight gear we were carrying, and we had to take our alternate route.

The Helix got used on four occasions in the snow in 2007: going over the Col d’Anterne (2,257 m) in good weather, climbing up the back of Mont Brevent (2,526 m) in good weather (above right), and twice going over the Col du Croix du Bonhomme (2,483 m), each time in filthy weather (second photo). As you may be able to see from the photos, I was wearing light joggers in the snow, and these can skate around a bit -especially late in the day when the sun has warmed things up a bit. It’s not that the angle of any of these ascents was that steep, but there were some runouts below which could have been ‘undesirable’. It also got used a fair bit as a potty trowel: more on that later.

I found the Helix very easy to carry of course, being so light. I started out with a light cord wrist leash which I had added myself, but I found that it was not really a lot of use for ordinary snow walking. I wanted to change hands quite often, depending on which side was uphill. The Medium length was a little too short to be of much use to me on the downhill side. (I would have selected the Long model except that it was too long to fit in my pack for the airline flight. This was a serious consideration.) After a little while I removed the leash completely. In addition to making it easier to change hands, removing the leash made it easier to stow the axe temporarily behind my shoulder in the usual manner.

One thing I did notice while using the axe in bare hands was that the top edge of the tube and the pick have not been rounded off. As you can see in the photo to the left, the top of the tube and the pick are quite square. This contrasts strongly with the old designs of ice axe heads, which were very smoothly rounded and very comfortable to carry (see below right). One could hope that the next generation of the Helix might make some concession to comfort: perhaps a plastic plug in the top of the tube might go a long way towards this? However, I have to admit that the edges, while square, are not sharp at all. It’s a detail.

One might ask whether the owner could round off these edges, and the answer is of course yes. But doing so would remove the hard anodizing layer which protects the underlying aluminium alloy. Remember: the anodizing is much harder than the aluminium alloy. So I can’t see any sense in doing this.

I did not try any ice climbing with the Helix. Why not? Because the Helix is simply not meant for genuine ice climbing. To the right I have shown three different ice axes (right to left): the Helix at 150 g, a Charlet Moser Snow Walker at 470 g, and a classical wood and steel axe at 960 g (1960s era). The steel one has the weight needed to cut steps with a will, and the Charlet Moser one is really only meant for snow walking, and both are much heavier than the Helix. To try to use an axe the weight of the Helix on any sort of ice is simply misusing an otherwise useful tool. I did try chopping steps in the softer snow we met, but frankly I found it easier to sink the shaft into the snow and hang onto the head while kicking hard, even with light joggers.

One comment about ergonomics is in order. The wood and steel axe swings quite well: there’s a lot of weight there. The Charlet Moser axe does not swing all that well: the shaft is heavier than the head. That’s still fine for walking of course. The Helix actually feels better than the Charlet Moser because the shaft is so light: it felt as though I could focus the strike reasonably well. The ULA web site makes some mention of this feature too.

Some Forum readers have tried the Helix out on steeper snow and report good performance. Brian Lewis wrote on the 18-Apr-2007:

I recently bought the shortest ULA Helix, the 55 cm. I took it up to a fairly steep-yet-safe slope and threw myself down the slope a couple of times to test my ability to self-arrest. Due to the snow conditions, even on a steep slope I wasn’t able to build up a lot of speed/momentum, but I satisfied myself that it would stop me just fine. I’m used to a 75 cm axe that’s a pound heavier, but I’m convinced that the 55 cm Helix will dig in fine. I’m a little less confident about plunging the carbon fiber shaft spike into the snow to help when carrying this in my uphill hand. I think I’ll do it when snow conditions are not too soft to make this less useful and not so hard as to risk the CF spike. A short axe like this definitely isn’t a “walking stick” for me, but that’s not what I bought it for. It cut steps just fine for me too, at least when traversing uphill; downhill is more of a challenge with a shorter axe. The lightness of the head means I change my technique somewhat to cut steps, it’s a little slower process, but it worked fine.

Peter King wrote on the 2-May-2007:

… some initial field test results: Tests done on firm snow (running shoes could barely kick steps), approximately 40 degree slope, lightweight tester (<<60kg), 65cm Helix.

• 8 arrests, 2 in each direction (face up/down, feet up/down).
• 10 falls on self belay (shaft plunged above, feet kicked out).
• 5 arrests during fast sitting glissades.
• 5 arrests during standing glissades, plunging the shaft while falling headfirst.

Result: no axe failure…

Field Testing – as a Potty Trowel

Well, the company does advertise it as a potty trowel, so I tested it as a potty trowel as well. For comparison purposes I used the widely available orange plastic Coghlans Poo Trowel. In the soft soil of our untracked Blue Mountains in Australia the Coghlans Poo Trowel works fine, albeit with a bit of hacking sometimes. In the limestone soils we met in France it was a different story. Those soils seem to have been stompled for a few hundred years by sheep and cows, and they were hard. I had a lot of trouble making any impression at all on the soil in some places with the Poo Trowel. So after a few days of this I hauled out the Helix and tried digging holes with it, using both the adze and the pick. (We were wild camping at this stage, even stealth camping.) I have to report that the Helix worked very well! In fact, it was as the ULA web site says – bring it on! Later on I used it to ‘modify’ a wild tent site on an abandoned farm terrace, and it did an excellent job there too despite all the stones in the soil. In the end I didn’t bother with the Coghlans Poo Trowel any more: I always took the Helix with me. I refined my technique too. Rather than just hack away, I found that the pick could be used to help cut out a square divot which could be replaced, leaving no real sign of disturbance. This was an added feature in my opinion.

Two things are worth mentioning here. The first was that hammering the adze into a lot of soil over the months did result in some fine burrs along the edge. That’s why the edge of the adze looks a bit shiny in the photo above: I cleaned it up with a file when I got home. The second is that the head got a lot of hammering and pulling over that time. If there was any chance that the glue might release and the head fall out, it would have done so. But it came home quite solid. This was very reassuring.

Ice Axe Certification

A big question is whether the Helix could meet the UIAA requirements. I don’t know. I did a lot of pretty hard digging with the axe as a potty trowel and I also used it clearing several tent sites, and if the head was going to break loose I would have expected it to have done so under that treatment. It didn’t. And the carbon fibre shaft seems extremely strong: I have little doubt it would take the load test as well. On the other hand, neither I nor Backpacking Light are certified test laboratories, so any numbers we could come up with would be meaningless.

The real question is whether it would be worth-while getting the certification, since the Helix weight is so low that it is very limited in power when it comes to chipping. The author’s opinion is that would not be worth-while.

What’s Unique

• Low Weight

Recommendations for Improvement

• Modify the sharp top corners
• Chamfer the holes
• Add heat shrink at bottom end (perhaps)

Introduction

At 13 ounces, the Six Moon Designs Wild Oasis is the lightest bug-proof one-person shelter on the market. The design is based on the popular Gatewood Cape, with the same shape and protected area (35 square feet). However, it is not wearable as a poncho like the Gatewood, so the Wild Oasis is a single-purpose shelter. How does its utility and performance compare with the Gatewood Cape?

What’s Good

• Bug proof shelter for one person
• Very light weight, only 13 ounces
• Trekking pole support
• High protected area to weight ratio
• Top vent for extra ventilation
• Fast setup

What’s Not So Good

• Mesh reduces ventilation
• Velcro closure catches on the mesh and damages it
• Expensive

Specifications

Performance

Although the design and dimensions of the Wild Oasis are the same as the Gatewood Cape, it’s a distinctly different shelter. It’s not a dual purpose product (rainwear and shelter) like the Gatewood; rather it’s designed to only serve as a shelter, providing bug-proof protection for one person. It has a high vent instead of a hood, and an 18-inch mesh skirt has been added around the perimeter to make it bug-proof.

The Wild Oasis is hexagon shaped, with six corners that are staked out with short (6-inch) extender loops. I followed Six Moon Designs’ setup instructions and obtained mixed results. The procedure is as follows: 1) set a trekking pole to 45 inches, 2) lay the shelter out flat on the ground in the desired position, 3) stake the two front outside corners, 4) stake the rear center, 5) insert the trekking pole tip into a grommet at the peak and raise the tent, 6) stake the front center, and 7) stake the two rear outside corners. That process produced the pitch shown below on the left.

However, going to a taller pitch requires a different setup procedure: in step three, stake the front outside corners loosely, then insert the trekking pole in the grommet and stand up the front of the shelter, then continue staking as outlined above.

Field Testing

I used the Wild Oasis on several backpacking trips in spring and early summer where bugs were a definite issue, and am pleased to report that it is definitely bug-proof. After swatting the mosquitoes already inside the tent with my hat, the shelter remained bug free the rest of the night. It helped to overlap the shelter’s mesh skirt with my groundsheet to seal the floor, and to use my boots to seal the front entry in the mesh. Protection like this is most appreciated when biting insects are an issue.

Although I pitched the shelter with trekking poles ranging from 45 inches to 51.5 inches, I was never able to raise the sides of the shelter off the ground more than a few inches (see photos above). The mesh skirt is designed and sewn so that it extends inward from the canopy edge (rather than downward), so it lies on the ground where it can be overlapped with a groundsheet. With this design, the canopy can be raised only a small amount without raising the mesh above the ground too much, so variable height pitching is limited. It would be nice if the sides could be raised 6 inches or more to expose more of the mesh for increased ventilation when desired. I tried using longer (12-inch) extender loops on the tent corners, but that didn’t raise the canopy above the ground very much more, unless I propped up the guylines with sticks.

Using my tall pitch and extended entry technique, I found headroom and length to be adequate. There were times when the foot end of my sleeping bag got damp from brushing against the tent wall, and my head also brushed against a wet tent wall as well. Overall, the Wild Oasis provides a good deal of protected area for its low weight.

One thing I missed is the Gatewood’s zippered storage pocket. The shelter stuffs into the pocket for packing, and the pocket is used for storage in shelter mode. The Wild Oasis comes in a stuff sack instead, so there’s no interior pocket to stash eyeglasses and other fragile items overnight.

The Wild Oasis is certainly storm worthy, but it has definite limits because of its single trekking pole support. On one windy alpine evening at 12,500 feet, I staked the shelter to the ground to reduce breezes through the tent, and put rocks on the stakes for insurance. Its hexagonal shape handled a 20 mph wind just fine, but it flapped a lot. A really strong wind would be worrisome.

Summer showers and even extended rains were no problem for the Wild Oasis, if you don’t mind sitting out a storm in a confined space. It’s important that the perimeter mesh does not stick out beyond the edge of the canopy, because it will draw streams of water inside the shelter. The Wild Oasis is strictly a three-season shelter, and is not intended for use in snow at all. Although I did not have an opportunity to test it, this shelter would probably handle a light snow okay, but would probably sag a lot under the weight.

The tradeoff for bug protection is reduced ventilation and more condensation. Because its mesh skirt restricts ventilation, the Wild Oasis is more prone to condensation compared to tarp-like shelters I have tested. That said, the Wild Oasis is not a condensation chamber. The combination of its high vent and taking advantage of site conditions and available breezes allowed me to minimize condensation much of the time.

Interior wall condensation is normal for a single wall tent, especially on clear, calm nights with a large temperature drop. With the perimeter mesh skirt sealed up to exclude bugs, the Wild Oasis is more prone to condensation because the mesh restricts ventilation. For more information on condensation in single wall tents and how to minimize it, see my article on Condensation in Single-walled Shelters: Contributing Factors and Tips for Reduction.

Assessment

For me, the Wild Oasis is an ultralight seasonal shelter, to be used during the bug season in spring and early summer when mosquitoes are a significant issue. In some locations it’s bug season all the time, and the Wild Oasis is definitely a good ultralight bug-proof shelter for those areas. However, in other locations, like the Alaskan tundra, any floorless shelter, even one with the features of the Wild Oasis may not be adequate to exclude bugs.

One question that begs asking is: why not simply develop a detachable mesh skirt for the Gatewood Cape? Then one could have the Gatewood’s dual benefits of rainwear and shelter, plus bug protection when needed by adding the skirt. The challenge would be to devise a lightweight attachment system that is convenient and bug-proof. Velcro is not necessarily a good solution because it would add too much weight and it snags badly on the mesh. This concept is food for thought, and perhaps our readers can offer some design ideas.

What’s Unique

At 13 ounces, the Wild Oasis is the lightest bug-proof single person shelter on the market.

Recommendations For Improvement

• Add an interior storage pocket that doubles as a stuff sack
• Revise the design and instructions as needed to allow for a taller pitch that provides more headroom and exposes more of the mesh skirt for better ventilation
• Design a Velcro-free closure for the front of the mesh skirt

Introduction

AntiGravityGear’s TarpTent is based on the pattern and design of the former Brawny Tarptent. It’s a little bit funky, and a whole lot functional. The canopy is one piece of silnylon – no seams. With a floor area of 38.25 square feet, it has the highest area to weight ratio in its class (single wall tent with floor). And its trail weight is just 23 ounces. So far it sounds awesome, but there’s a downside too.

What’s Good

• Bug proof shelter for one person
• Highest area to weight ratio for a single wall tent with floor
• No canopy or floor seams
• Very light weight, only 21 ounces (tent only)
• Trekking pole support
• Fast setup

What’s Not So Good

• No cross ventilation
• Limited wind stability
• Short beak in front
• Mitten hooks are cumbersome

Specifications

Performance

To be truthful, when I reviewed the AntiGravityGear TarpTent, I didn’t realize that Backpacking Light had previously reviewed it back in 2004 as the Dancing Light Gear Ultralight Brawny Tarptent. It is now hand-made by AGG owner George Andrews, and he does a very fine job. His sewing and seam sealing are superb.

The design of the current AGG TarpTent is essentially unchanged from the Dancing Light design. The emphasis in the re-introduced tent is on strong construction and developing accessories to expand its utility. The TarpTent is available in two sizes: 10 feet wide and 9 feet wide at the rear. The difference in weight is miniscule, so unless you are a short person you might as well get the larger size.

Setup is very easy and takes about 5 minutes: 1) lay the tent out on the ground, 2) stake the four corners, 3) insert a trekking pole set at 40-44 inches in a PVC cup at the peak and raise the front, 4) stake the front guyline, and 5) stake out three lift loops on the sides and back of the tent. For adequate interior space, it’s important to stake out the lift loops to pull the canopy outward. Eight stakes are required for a complete pitch.

Field Testing

I used the AGG TarpTent on several backpacking trips in spring and summer and found it very livable and functional. It’s a tent that grows on you as you learn how to refine the pitch and use its accessories. The first time I set it up I used adjustable trekking poles set to 44 inches as recommended. That produced a taught pitch in keeping with the tent’s design, but interior headroom was lacking except for the front center. Since then I have used 47.5 inch fixed length basketless carbon trekking poles (my preferred poles) with the TarpTent to gain more interior headroom, which works fine except the front beak is limp. Because the tent has no ridgeline, its very important to stake out the lift loops on the sides and back to increase interior volume.

One shortcoming of the AGG TarpTent design is its short front beak. By itself, it does not provide adequate protection from wind-blown rain hitting the front of the tent, and it does not provide much privacy when the tent is used in a public place. AGG’s solution is to offer an optional StormFlap (1.2 ounces, $29) that attaches across the front opening (see photo panel below). It attaches with four mitten hooks, which are cumbersome to use, making it inconvenient to enter and exit the tent. It begs the question: why not extend the front beak as an alternative? The early Tarptent Squall had the same issue, and it was solved with an extended beak.

A handy accessory for the TarpTent is AGG’s Poncho Villa (5.5 ounces, $79), which is a unique poncho that also serves as a front vestibule for the tent. The Poncho Villa is basically a square (almost) piece of silnylon with a hood in the center, but it is worn or attached to the tent diagonally.

For bug protection, the AGG TarpTent has a no-see-um mesh curtain that drapes down across the entry. It’s not zippered like other tarptents, but it is functionally bug proof because the mesh overlaps the tent floor and boots or other gear can be placed on it to seal any gaps. The curtain is simple and functional and eliminates a zipper, but it has several folds in it and is bulkier than a zippered mesh door (see photo panel above). It is fairly easy to tie it up out of the way when it’s not needed.

I was able to test the AGG TarpTent in moderate winds, gusting to about 20 mph, with scary results. Ideally, for best wind resistance, the back of the tent should face the wind. Even with that positioning, the TarpTent deflects and flaps substantially in stronger wind gusts, to the point where I worried about the lift loops (which are attached to reinforcement patches on the canopy) tearing out. Overall, the AGG TarpTent should hold together in moderate 10-15 mph winds, but beware of really strong winds. Choosing a sheltered location is highly recommended.

I went through the spring and most of the summer without hitting a good rainstorm while testing the AGG TarpTent. Then in early September I got a good one, at 12,100 feet elevation in an open alpine setting. Overall, the AGG TarpTent was a dry haven, except for gaps at the sides of the vestibule from not installing it correctly.

I was not able to test the AGG TarpTent in snowy conditions, but Ryan Jordan did in his review of the Dancing Light Gear Ultralight Brawny Tarptent. The outcome was not pretty. Because of its single pole support and large canopy, this tent is not recommended for use in snow or strong winds.

Condensation is normal for a single wall tent, especially on a clear calm night with a large temperature drop, and the AGG TarpTent is one of the worst performers in that respect. There is no cross ventilation through the tent – the front entry is the only opening. There is no mesh around the perimeter and no top vent. When its mesh curtain is down to exclude bugs, the AGG TarpTent is a condensation chamber, unless there is a good breeze. For more information on condensation in single wall tents and how to minimize it, see my article on Condensation in Single-walled Shelters: Contributing Factors and Tips for Reduction.

Assessment

Design-wise and functionally, the AGG TarpTent provides an amazing amount of protected area for its weight. At 31.4 ft²/lb (tent plus vestibule), it even blows away the Gossamer Gear Squall Classic, made of spinnaker fabric, which is 22.8 ft²/lb based on 35.3 ft² floor + vestibule area and 1.55 lb trail weight. The tent and its accessories function very well together as a system, especially the Poncho Villa, which can serve as both a poncho and a vestibule. The side pullouts are a bit funky, but very functional to expand the volume inside the tent. That’s the plus side. On the downside, the tent’s design (single trekking pole support and a large canopy with fragile side pullouts) makes it very unstable in strong winds and snow. For that reason, I would recommend this tent only for summertime use in areas where there is good wind protection. If you can find a protected campsite in some trees to break the wind, you can probably avoid problems, most of the time.

Another significant limitation is the tent’s short front beak. It is not long enough to provide adequate protection from wind-driven rain from the front. AGG’s StormFlap is a questionable solution; why not just extend the beak as part of the standard tent rather than solving the problem with an optional accessory? On the other hand, AGG’s Poncho Villa is a viable accessory because it serves as both a poncho and a vestibule. It would not necessarily be overkill to extend the tent’s beak and still use the Poncho Villa to create a roomy vestibule for gear storage.

My biggest issue with the AGG TarpTent is its lack of cross ventilation. As presently designed, the user simply has to learn to live with condensation. That’s not necessarily a given, because on many nights with low humidity or a light breeze, I had little or no condensation inside the TarpTent. However, in conditions favoring condensation (as described in the article linked above), the TarpTent will develop more condensation on the inside walls compared to other (better ventilated) tarptents. When the tent’s mesh curtain is down to exclude bugs, there is no way to increase ventilation, except to face the tent into any available breeze. The best moisture management for this tent is a good pack towel, such as the Sea to Summit Microfiber Towel, which will absorb three times its weight in water.

In my opinion, this tent needs a re-design to provide cross ventilation. It would not be that difficult to add a flange around the perimeter with mesh underneath. If the flange were about 18 inches above the ground, it could incorporate several tieout points to secure the tent better and expand the canopy. That height would provide enough room underneath the flange for a mesh panel and bathtub floor. It would add minimal weight and a lot more ventilation. The tent also needs a high vent at the peak to utilize the chimney effect to exhaust moisture.

A tent most similar to this one is the Six Moon Designs Lunar Solo (23 ounces, 27.5 ft² floor, $235). The Lunar Solo has mesh around the sides and back, a floating floor, a large front beak/vestibule, a zippered mesh entry, and a high vent. These features add up to much better ventilation, but the Lunar Solo is not as roomy and does not have the coordinated accessories of the AGG TarpTent.

Some final nitpicks: there is no storage pocket inside the tent to stash eyeglasses and other fragile items, and the mitten hooks used to tie up the mesh curtain and connect accessories are cumbersome to use.

What’s Unique

For its 21 ounces (tent only), the AGG TarpTent provides the most protected area available for a single-person single-wall tent with floor. Its canopy does not have any seams or ridgeline.

Recommendations For Improvement

• Add an interior storage pocket
• Re-design the tent to add cross-ventilation, perhaps by adding a silnylon flange around the sides and back, with mesh underneath to enhance ventilation, plus a high vent
• Extend the front beak, with a side Velcro attachment, to provide better protection from wind-driven rain
• Consider replacing the mesh curtain with an inverted T-shaped zippered door that ties open to the sides
• Design a way to attach the Poncho Villa or solid vestibule to the tent’s peak when poles without baskets are used
• Find an alternative to mitten hooks to tie up the mesh curtain and attach accessories

Introduction

The Six Moon Designs Comet is a convertible pack. Optional flat aluminum stays ($10, 4.7 ounces) are easily inserted into sleeves to create an internal frame backpack (27 ounces), or removed to use it as a frameless backpack (22.3 ounces). The hipbelt is also removable, further reducing the weight to 17 ounces. When I reviewed the original Six Moon Designs Comet I was impressed with its comfort and versatility, but I thought the construction was a little rough. The updated 2007 Comet adds some welcome improvements and is much more refined overall.

What’s Good

• Durable fabrics and mesh
• Huge front and side mesh pockets
• Removable stays and hipbelt
• Large hipbelt pockets available
• Adjustable torso length and stay curvature
• Very effective weight transfer to the hips
• Very comfortable to carry

What’s Not So Good

• Velcro dry bag closure catches on clothing
• Aluminum stays are not anchored to the hipbelt, and do not have adequate reinforcement at the bottom (but this problem is being corrected)
• Bottom of side pockets is not reinforced with durable fabric

Specifications

Performance

The 2007 Comet is more of a makeover than an upgrade. I was impressed with the original Comet’s comfort and versatility, but acknowledged that there was room for improvement. The 2007 model basically “gets it right” with the following improvements:

• Durable Dyneema Gridstop body
• Contoured shoulder straps
• Redesigned torso length adjustment
• Redesigned detachable hipbelt
• Stay sleeves moved to the inside of the pack
• Added interior zippered security pocket
• Three hipbelt lengths available
• Two shoulder strap lengths available
• Hipbelt pockets available
• Simple elastic binding on exterior pockets
• Webbing reinforcement between pockets

A notable upgrade is the use of durable Dyneema Gridstop fabric in the new pack. The original pack was made of 70 denier silnylon, and its yellow color was likely a negative for some people. The new pack is a more pleasing blue. Overall, the new Six Moon Designs Comet is a much more refined backpack, as can be seen in the following photo gallery.

Frame and Suspension

The Comet comes in only one size that fits 15 to 22 inch torsos. I measured the pack torso length (underside of shoulder straps to the center of the hipbelt) in the fully extended position at 21 inches, and 15 inches in the shortest position, which more or less conforms to the manufacturer’s claimed fit range.

Although the Comet’s flat aluminum stays weigh 4.7 ounces/pair, a distinct advantage is they can easily be shaped to match the curvature of the user’s back. I found the existing curvature to be pretty close, but I got my wife to bend one stay to match the curvature of my back, then I bent the other one to match. The resulting custom anatomical fit made the pack feel like I was wearing it instead of carrying it. While I have had a problem with other packs leaning back at the top, the Comet pulled in tight to my shoulders, owing to a combination of its custom bent stays and load lifter straps.

Features and Utility

If you like a backpack with lots of exterior storage, you’ll appreciate the Comet’s large mesh pockets. The front and side mesh pockets will swallow a lot of gear and make it readily accessible on the trail. The side pockets are 18 inches deep and 8 inches wide, and the front pocket is 13 inches deep and 10 inches wide. All three pockets have an elastic binding to prevent gear from falling out when you bend over.

Although the tall side pockets are roomy, they are not designed for reaching a water bottle on the go, so one is forced to take the pack off to get a drink, or use a hydration bladder. Also, the side pockets extend all the way to the bottom of the pack and do not have a durable fabric reinforcement at the bottom, so the mesh could suffer some wear at the bottom. I did not experience that problem, but I am not hard on gear.

I have mixed feelings about the Comet’s Velcro dry bag closure. I am not a big fan of Velcro, and find that it snags clothing (especially socks and fleece) when putting it in or taking it out of the pack. Velcro can damage certain fabrics. On the other hand, it’s easy to close (just pull the ends tight and the Velcro lines up) and it makes a tight seal. It’s also easy to open, just pull on the two center loops (right photo above).

The interior sleeping pad sleeve will accommodate any lightweight sleeping pad. A folded ¾-length RidgeRest pad (shown in the above photo) takes up quite a bit of the pack’s volume. However, for shorter trips, using a thicker pad or partially inflating an inflatable pad can be a useful technique to use up unneeded volume and make it possible for one pack to suffice for a variety of uses.

By itself, the interior sleeping pad sleeve does not work very well as a hydration sleeve, because a full water bladder creates a large rounded bulge in the center of the backpanel that is not very comfortable against the back. It does work okay if the bladder is separated from the backpanel with a sleeping pad. There is one hose port on the right side. I personally prefer to carry a hydration bladder in a side pocket because it is much easier to access for refilling.

The Comet does not have any exterior webbing loops to tie large items to the outside of the pack, or to create a bungee system to attach clothing.

Field Testing

My first trip with the Comet was with Backpacking Light MYOG Editor Jay Ham to a large, remote mesa on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona. I started out with a total weight of 24 pounds, which included insulated gear, proper shelter, and food for a five-day late winter trip. The Comet with stays and adjusted to its longest torso length fit me very well and comfortably carried the load on our approach. But there was one catch – the mesa was dry, so we had to carry all our water up with us. At the last available waterhole, I added a full 6 liter Platypus Water Tank (about 12.5 pounds) to the Comet, bringing the weight up to about 36 pounds. Then we packed that heavy load (for us) up 1600 vertical feet on a primitive Indian trail to the top of the mesa. The Comet carried the load surprisingly well, and with the hipbelt tight it put most of the load on my hips.

On subsequent trips I carried more modest 17 to 22 pound loads in the Comet, with stays in, and it was extremely comfortable. I found that for any load over about 15 pounds the stays are a definite benefit and are worth their weight (4.7 ounces).

On shorter summer backpacks, I carried the Comet as a frameless backpack with loads from 12 to 16 pounds, leaving the hipbelt on for extra stability and for its pockets. I easily adjusted the pack volume for smaller loads by tightening the pack’s three front compression straps (see photo below). With those straps pulled completely tight, the pack volume is reduced to about half, but the use of the front mesh pocket is eliminated. At 22.3 ounces in this configuration, the Comet is overkill; there are several packs on the market weighing half as much that will comfortably carry the same load. In its lightest configuration (sans stays and hipbelt), the Comet still weighs 17 ounces. However, it’s notable that the Comet is a single pack that will adapt to a wide range of loads and conditions.

I did a lot of off-trail hiking in forested terrain, and found the Comet to be very stable and durable for bushwhacking. The mesh pockets are also quite durable, showing no snags so far.

Assessment

Although the original Six Moon Designs Comet was not necessarily a best-seller, the new 2007 model is much more refined, and definitely deserves serious consideration. Its best use is for an ultralight backpacker who wants a more durable pack, and one that is capable of carrying heavier loads in certain situations – like cold weather backpacking or hiking for extended periods between re-supplies. It’s also ideal for a lightweight backpacker whose total pack weight is in the 20 to 30 pound range.

Very noteworthy features of the Comet are its adjustable torso length and removable flat aluminum stays. I was able to obtain a perfect fit by matching the pack’s torso length and stay curvature to my back. This helped tremendously to comfortably carry a heavier load. The stays themselves weigh 4.7 ounces, which is a significant amount of weight. Possibly thinner, lighter stays could be used to reduce weight a bit.

The Comet has a slightly larger cousin, the Starlite, with 4200 cubic inches of volume and a somewhat different feature set. The weight and cost are very similar.

Compared to a conventional lightweight internal frame backpack with approximately the same volume, such as the recently reviewed GoLite Quest and REI Cruise UL 60, the Comet is 1.5 pounds lighter and more versatile because of its removable stays. However, the Comet does not carry heavier loads with as much comfort. If you consistently carry loads in the 25 to 35 pound range (or more), then a more heavy-duty lightweight internal frame pack is a better choice because the stays will likely be anchored to the hipbelt, and more anatomically shaped padding and load control features are added.

Although the Comet (27 ounces with stays) is a very lightweight and durable convertible pack, it’s not the lightest one available in its category. The durable Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus weighs just 21 ounces with stays, and the Mariposa (made of silnylon) weighs just 18 ounces with stays. However, the Mariposas’ straight carbon fiber stays are not bendable to fit the curvature of your back, hipbelt pockets are not presently available, and they do not have an adjustable torso length (rather the pack comes in three sizes to fit different torsos). Although the Comet weighs 6 ounces more than the Mariposa Plus, I would personally choose it over the Mariposa Plus because its flat aluminum stays can be shaped for a custom fit, allowing me to more comfortably carry a 20 to 30 pound load. I also prefer it because of its adjustable torso, inside security pocket, and roomy hipbelt pockets (a $15 option).

What’s Unique

The Comet is a “convertible backpack” with removable stays that allow it to be used as either a frameless or internal frame backpack. The body is made of Dyneema Gridstop, which is considered to be one of the best backpack fabrics available because of its high strength to weight ratio.

Recommendations for Improvement

• Anchor the bottom of the stays in sleeves on the back of the hipbelt
• Consider using the “gentle touch” version of Velcro for the dry bag closure, it’s less snaggy than the conventional type
• Consider thinner narrower stays to reduce weight
• Add a durable fabric reinforcement to the bottom of the side pockets

Introduction

Carbon fiber trekking poles are becoming quite common. We have reviewed an astonishing variety in the past year from large and small companies. Fixed length, 2-segment, and 3-segment poles with all manner of grips, straps, and locking systems have been examined. One thing many of the poles have in common though is their fairly high price. A notable exception can be found with the Alpkit Carbonlite Trekking Pole Review written by Doug Johnson last fall. Alpkit has since refined the pole, making several changes which I believe have made a value-leading trekking pole better yet.

What’s Good

• Very stiff, deflecting 1.75 inches in our stiffness tests, among the least in their class.
• For their stiffness and overall length they’re quite light at 6.9 ounces per pole.
• Secure locking system that remains easy to adjust.
• Comfortable straps that do not cause undue sweat on the wrists.

What’s Not So Good

• Somewhat less durable than aluminum poles where side impacts are concerned.

Specifications

Performance

A solid locking system is vital for any trekking pole. I used these poles on a variety of terrain including steep root and rock infested ground, and steep hard pack with plenty of loose rock and soil. Having a pole collapse under these conditions would be irritating to say the least, but the poles performed quite well and only gave way once. I fell down while pushing hard on the pole – the pole tip lost purchase and slipped under the relentless heavy pressure. They have remained solid even after I accidentally broke a plastic prong on a locking segment off. I cannot be completely certain when this actually happened, though I believe it was on a hard fall where a pole landed underneath me and on top of a rough rock step (not the same fall described above). However, it is possible that it happened due to one too many rough airline luggage handling sessions. Even if the damage occurred during the most recent mishap, the pole still has seen nearly 100 miles of use in assorted terrain without any incidents.

The Alpkit Carbonlite Trekking Poles weigh 7.0 ounces per pole (EVA foam handle). With the balance point in the top segment this gives the poles a very comfortable swing weight. I also found the poles easy to carry completely collapsed. At 26.5 inches long when collapsed these aren’t the shortest poles to carry, but I never found it an issue except when trying to stuff them into my suitcase for overseas travel. At full extension the poles are 54 inches long which ought to be adequate for even very tall hikers.

The poles are stiff and do a wonderful job of absorbing vibrations when you cross rock or slam a pole down onto hard ground. I never really noticed any vibration of the shafts during walking. Even when I would place my entire weight on the pole I felt very little deflection. This was confirmed when I performed the stiffness test described in this article. When I put a 25 pound load on the center section of a 115 centimeter pole it deflected 1.75 inches. This is far from the smallest deflection measured, but for this class of pole it is quite good.

Going hand-in-hand with pole stiffness as far as comfort is concerned is the grip and it’s strap. I tested the Carbonlite poles with EVA foam and cork grips. I was expecting I’d notice some differences in overall feel of the grips especially when my hands grew sweaty which they had ample opportunity to do when hiking in the summer heat in Maryland. To my surprise I found each type of grip just as comfortable. They both have performed quite well and remain easy on the hands even when you are drenched in sweat. Furthermore, I found the straps to be comfortable even under the hottest conditions. Sometimes straps can cause uncomfortable sweat and warmth underneath. I did not have any issues of this sort with these straps.

The Carbonlite poles come with 2.2 inch press-fit baskets that are certainly more than adequate for non-snow use. The tungsten tip grips the ground just as you would expect it to do. You can attach other types of baskets to the poles such as those from Life-Link and Black Diamond.

With the exception of the broken lock prong I mentioned above the Carbonlite poles have proven to be quite durable. I’ve not taken any special care with the poles. In fact when I took the hard fall on the hard rock steps and landed on top of the pole I felt sure it would deform somewhat. Nothing happened.

What’s Unique

These are not the lightest carbon fiber trekking poles we have tested. They are, however, among the least expensive trekking poles we have used. Combined with the poles apparent durability and Alpkit’s clear attention to detail (incorporating many improvements into this generation of poles) and you have a set of trekking poles that fill a valuable market niche.

Recommendations for Improvement

I believe these trekking poles are quite well designed. Alpkit has incorporated many improvements into this second-generation of their Carbonlite poles. I have managed to break a bit off the lock that, but that is hardly a design failing. If anything it is a testament to how stout the locking mechanism is since that still works. I do wish the minimum length of the poles was a bit shorter since this would make transporting them in smaller luggage a bit easier, but this is a minor complaint since they do fit if you are persistent and careful.

Introduction

The Jacks ‘R’ Better “Down to Earth” Pad Converter is a system for attaching a custom foam pad to a JRB quilt. To use the system, the quilt must be modified by attaching full-length Omni-tape along the sides. The quilt then attaches underneath the pad with matching Omni-tape. The JRB Down Hood also attaches to the pad, making the converted quilt into a roomy integrated top bag system for ground sleepers.

What’s Good

• Part of an extremely versatile modular system – if you have all the components your options include a top bag, quilt, hammock under quilt, separate sleeping pad, and a warm serape/poncho with optional hood and sleeves
• Part of a very lightweight system at just over 2 pounds for the complete top bag/poncho
• Quality materials and craftsmanship

What’s Not So Good

• Top bag is very roomy – a bit too roomy to be efficient
• Cold spots at bag/pad junction are typical of top bag systems
• Hood attachment creates gaps at sides of head, allowing heat to escape
• Wet weather limits use of the poncho around camp
• The pad itself is reasonably priced, but the system is fairly expensive at just over $350 for the No Sniveller Quilt, “Down to Earth” conversion, pad and Down Hood

Specifications

Performance

The Jacks ‘R’ Better No Sniveller is a highly adaptable down quilt. It can be used as a top bag, as an underquilt in a hammock system and even worn as a serape/poncho. Options for the No Sniveller include a matching down hood and sleeves, both of which can be used in the serape set-up and also a suspension system for attaching the quilt to Hennessy and other hammocks. The No Sniveller is the foundation for one of the most modular and flexible sleep systems available. It is also very effective, achieving the highest score in our Unconventional Sleep Systems Review Summary and Gear Guide Overview.

Reviews of individual system components can be found here:

• Jacks ‘R’ Better No Sniveller Universal Quilt
• Jacks ‘R’ Better JRB Down Sleeves
• Jacks ‘R’ Better JRB Down Hood

While the No Sniveller system is extremely adaptable, it does favor the needs of hammock campers. The introduction of the Jacks ‘R’ Better “Down to Earth” Pad Converter aims to bring true top bag versatility for ground sleepers and can work with any converted Jacks ‘R’ Better quilt.

The Jacks ‘R’ Better “Down to Earth” Pad Converter is a system for attaching a custom foam pad to a JRB quilt. To use the system, the quilt must be modified by attaching full-length Omni-tape along the sides (Omni-tape is like Velcro except that it’s softer and isn’t male/female specific). The quilt then attaches underneath the pad with matching Omni-tape.

The pad is made from Gossamer Gear ThinLight material and is available in 1/8 inch Torso and 1/4 inch Torso and Full models. The Torso length models measure 58 x 20 inches with the first 36 inches being full width and the final 22 inches tapering to a point where the footbox begins. In the 1/4 inch full length version that I tested, the pad measures 69 inches long (72 inches claimed) and it narrows to 12 inches rather than coming to a point. The extra length of the long pad tucks inside the top bag.

When setting up the system, it takes a couple of minutes to properly line up and attach the Omni-tape fasteners. Once set up, though, it provides a very secure attachment that didn’t unfasten despite numerous roll-overs and inside the bag movement. When using the system in the field, I never had any problems with components becoming unattached while sleeping. The quilt attaches under the pad, creating an effective seal against outside air. The Jacks ‘R’ Better hood also attaches to the pad, making the converted quilt into an integrated top bag system for ground sleepers.

With this system, you have the choice to convert the No Sniveller from a quilt to a top bag. The distinction between these two types of bags was thoroughly explained in our 2006 Unconventional Sleep Systems Manifesto. The bottom line, though, is that there are distinct advantages and disadvantages to top bag. While the top bag’s closed bottom prevents drafts, the seal also creates dead air spaces in the corners, as seen in the illustration below. The “Down to Earth” system cannot avoid this weakness inherent to the top bag design.

As a top bag, the No Sniveller / “Down to Earth” has the characteristic dead air spaces in corners where the bag and sleeping pad meet. However, these cold air spaces are larger than in most top bags because of the roominess of the wide No Sniveller quilt.

The fit of the top bag system is trim and efficient in the foot box but widens to very roomy in the upper body. This gives plenty of room to move around and is important because without a zipper, you have to slide into the bag. Even when wearing a high loft down jacket and with a second pad inside the bag, though, there is a lot of extra space in the upper bag. While larger hikers (I have a medium build) or those who like roomy bags will appreciate the extra space, I found the extra space to be excessive and inefficient. The hood attachment adds extra warmth to the system but it was a bit wide on my first generation pad, creating large spaces in the neck/shoulder area that leaked a large amount of air (later models will have a narrower attachment at the neck and hood which should minimize these draft issues). Despite the generous loft of the No Sniveller bag, I found the dead air spaces and poor shoulder/neck seal to decrease the warmth of the bag in cold conditions.

To make sure that these issues were due to the top bag configuration, I used the No Sniveller and Hood in a quilt configuration on back to back nights and with much more warmth. That said, the “Down to Earth” setup was fantastic on more mild evenings when I wasn’t pushing the temperature rating of the bag; I had room to move, none of the draft issues that are typical of quilts, and I never had to worry about rolling off my pad.

On a side note, the new lace closure that defines the footbox area on the latest generation Jacks ‘R’ Better quilts is an excellent upgrade. The bag can be used as a quilt with solid footbox or opened wide for use in warm weather or with a hammock system.

The pads for the conversion system are reasonably priced at $24.95 for the 1/8” torso pad, $26.95 for the 1/4” torso pad and $24.95 for the quilt conversion. A complete No Sniveller / Down to Earth system with pad and Down Hood will set you back just over $350 and the price is well over $400 when you add the Down Sleeves. That is quite expensive but when you consider the versatility of the system and the cost of a separate bag, down jacket, and a pad, it’s a pretty fair price. Further, all of the components are of the highest quality and craftsmanship.

As an upgrade to an existing quilt, the “Down to Earth” Pad Converter starts at $49.90 for the pad and Omni Tape conversion. If you are looking for a roomy top bag, this kit adds yet another option for your Jacks ‘R’ Better quilt.

For those that don’t want to send in their quilt, the conversion kit is a reasonable $11.95 and can be added to the quilt yourself or by a local tailor.

What’s Unique

There is no bag on the market with the versatility of a Jacks ‘R’ Better No Sniveller Universal Quilt. Poncho, quilt, hammock under quilt, and now top bag- if you are looking for the ultimate in versatility, nothing else offers what the No Sniveler does.

If you have any Jacks ‘R’ Better quilt, the “Down to Earth” Pad Converter gives you a well though-out option for taking     to the ground.

Recommendations for Improvement

The downside of a product as versatile as the No Sniveler is that some compromises must be made in its various configurations. The quilt is brilliant as part of a hammock system (either top or under quilt), is darn good as a poncho/serape, and is also a high quality ground quilt (although a bit roomy in the footbox). When used with the “Down to Earth” Pad Converter as part of a top bag system, it is too wide to be very efficient.

To improve its usage in this arena, I would like to see Omni Tape attachments under the pad that pull the bag further underneath, making for a less roomy fit. I would also like to see a hood/neck attachment that allows for a complete neck and head seal. These changes would add quite a bit of warmth to the system.

Introduction

At 3 pounds 12 ounces, the Deuter KangaKid is among the lightest framed child carriers with storage on the market. Its long list of features makes it a great for day hikes or overnights, as long as you have a shorter torso.

What’s Good

• 5-point child harness keeps kids in place comfortably
• Pack carries up to 35 pounds with comfort
• 1800 ci of available pack space will hold child’s gear for an ultralight overnight trip or both kid’s and parent’s gear on a day hike
• Side entrance feature makes loading and unloading a child quick and easy for two adults
• Water bottle pockets, lack of an exterior frame, and large volume makes this more “pack-like” than most child carriers on the market.
• More than 10 ounces lighter than the manufacturer’s spec!

What’s Not So Good

• Short torso length not “one-size fits all” as claimed
• No rain cover available and sun cover sold separately
• No self-supporting frame to stand the pack on the ground makes it difficult to load a child with only one adult
• Manufacturer’s weight limit of only 33 pounds
• Uncomfortable at higher weights for those with medium to large torsos

Specifications

Performance

The Deuter KangaKid is a full-featured child carrier that at first glance appears to be a “normal” day-pack, or at least a normal day-pack with an infant stuck in. This is the allure of this compact pack: no bulky external frames to lug around and as much or more storage capacity than many ultralight packs. While 3 pounds 12 ounces might not necessarily be considered ultralight, the KangaKid is among the lightest framed child carriers with storage on the market and is more than 2 pounds lighter than the lightest external framed carrier, the Sherpani Rumba Superlight.

Any child carrier is defined by its harness system and the KangaKid is average in this area. The harness consists of a padded sling-seat as one of the five points, and then waist and shoulder straps that snap into this sling using quick release buckles make up the other four points. These nylon straps are adjusted using ladder locks found over the child’s thighs when they are seated. While the harness is very secure, the sling seat cannot be adjusted up or down in the pack to accommodate for different size infants or toddlers. The buckles and adjusters are also difficult to get to when a child is in the seat, especially since it is easiest to load the pack while it is on a parent’s back.

Most external frame child carriers are self-standing, making it easy to “drop” the child straight into the harness system. The lack of a self-standing frame makes it easiest to load a child if one parent is wearing the pack while the other secures the child into the harness system. To make this task easier Deuter has added a split side-piece to the 2007 model of the KangaKid. This piece fastens together using Velcro and an adjustable quick release buckle and can be quickly undone to remove the child from the seat, allowing for more convenient side entry and exit.

Once situated in the seat harness, the pack itself can be further adjusted to make a better fit for both the child and the adult. On either side of the child there are adjustable nylon straps that can be tightened to cinch down the seat area. This snugs the child closer to your back and keeps him or her from moving around too much. When our son Porter was smaller we could also partially zip up the sides of the carrier compartment to keep his feet inside the pack and keep him warmer in cooler weather. Deuter doesn’t offer pack stirrups for the KangaKid, so this was our only option to keep his feet in place. As Porter has gotten bigger his feet just dangle down the sides of the pack.

The KangaKid does have an available sun cover, which I didn’t test, but offers no option for a rain cover. In situations where sun or rain may be an issue we just carry a lightweight umbrella for protection.

The use of internal stays instead of an external frame has some benefits and some drawbacks. The main benefit is that the pack is much lighter than an external frame pack of a similar volume. It also means the pack can be stowed more easily in a car or closet. The downside of not having an external frame is that you can’t put the pack directly on the ground to load or unload the child, or to take a break. When we put Porter on the ground in the pack we have to keep a hand on him. When he was smaller and didn’t move around as much we could also prop him up against a tree without a lot of worry.

It is possible to lower the pack to the ground with a child in it, but I’ve learned to do it when Mom isn’t watching because the balance point of the loaded pack isn’t quite perfect to pull this off smoothly (the harness is secure, though, and ensures that the child won’t fall out). The whole pack, including Porter, tends to lean back past vertical making it look and feel moderately unstable. Getting the loaded pack back on by yourself is possible but is easier done with a second pair of hands for help.

Load carrying is limited by the suspension design of the KangaKid. Whereas an external frame pack from Kelty or Sherpani can carry 50 pounds or more, Deuter’s recommended weight limit of 33 pounds for the KangaKid is pretty accurate. Our son has weighed close to 30 pounds since he was 9 months old. (Doug Johnson of this website has nicknamed him “Sumo.”) This has meant either limiting what we can carry or exceeding the comfortable maximum load of around 35 pounds. With clothes, diapers, wipes, changes of clothes, food, etc. we regularly get closer to the 40 pound mark. While the frame and suspension components of the KangaKid are plenty sturdy enough to handle the weight, the problem is in the torso fit which makes loads over 35 pound uncomfortable for many pack users.

Deuter claims a one-size-fits-all pack size for the KangaKid but the sizing is truthfully for short-torsos only (such as smaller moms). I typically use a medium pack size, but can fit into a large if needed and my wife’s torso is about two inches shorter than mine- a definite medium. For both of us the torso length of this pack is too short. This makes it difficult to balance the weight properly between our hips and our shoulders. If we put the weight on our hips, we have to loosen up the shoulder straps to the point where the pack becomes unstable (though the pack does have load-lifter straps to help with this). If we tighten up the shoulder straps to where they are comfortable the waist belt slides up to our belly buttons and off of our hips. When Porter was lighter, which wasn’t long for him, this wasn’t such a big deal, but now that we are forced to carry heavier weight it gets downright uncomfortable and shortens the distance we can hike without stopping and readjusting. The shoulder straps and waist belt themselves though were quite comfortable but could not be properly used because of the short torso design.

At $129.00, the Deuter KangaKid is less expensive than most child carriers on the market. It is durable and has plenty of room to carry everything a child needs for an overnight trip or everything we all need for an extended day hike. The seat harness system is simple though the adjustments can be difficult when a child is seated. It would be nice if the sling were adjustable. We like the fact that it is compact and very rarely miss having an external frame. Offering a low price and good features, the KangaKid is a great value – especially for those with shorter torsos.

What’s Unique

The KangaKid is one of only a few internal frame child carriers on the market, and at 3 pounds 12 ounces is among the lightest. The child compartment zips up to compact the pack if a child is not seated in it, and when open one side has a “quick release” to make loading and unloading the child easier.

Recommendations for Improvement

I offer the following recommendations for improving this pack:

1. Offer different size packs or make the torso length adjustable for taller users.

2. Offer more accessories. A rain-fly would add versatility and stirrups would be a great addition.