Side or End Tent Enterance

I prefer the side, so while laying down I can look out into the wilderness. I don't like the narrower views of front entrances. This is the only reason I go for the side entrances.

Outside of that, I find that you just adapt to whatever entrance you have. In the tarptents, the front openings are humongous, so no problems entering/exiting. But the Big Agnes and other mainstream manufacturers have the front entrances way too low, or poorly designed IMO. Others like them, but I don't as much. YMMV.

John:

I think this is mostly subjective. Speaking for myself, it makes no difference to me — but who's to say that it won't be a MAJOR irritant to someone else?

Two tents that I really enjoy using are the TT Rainbow (side entrance) and the BA Seedhouse 2 SL (end entrance). I just haven't experienced either door configuration to be something that I need to "overcome".

The way the BA is configured — not only is it an end entrance, it also collects rain water if the fly isn't closed up. But my take (again, subjective) is that while I can opt for a tent with a brow pole to form an awning of sorts above the door to block out the rain — those kinds of tents frequently weigh a pound more! To me, the trade off for hiking 20 miles with a pound less far, far outweigh the tiny inconvenience of getting in (or out) of my BA tent quickly — and maybe wiping off the 8 raindrops on the tent floor. Be it side or end — when it's raining hard, it's not difficult to shove the bag/pad toward the inside of the tent — to free up some space for a wet butt coming in.

A lot of your questions will depend very much on the tent design. A one-man tent such as a Nemo has no room at all. My two-man tunnel tents have plenty of room, such that my wife and I can LIVE in one under extreme conditions. Sure, the larger tent weighs a little more, but when you are out for weeks on end in bad weather, you need to be able to be comfortable.

Actually, the extra weight of a decent tent is minimal once you stop insisting on ONE-man tents and have two people in a two-man tent. The weight INefficiency of a one-man tent is bad, and I continue to be amazed at quibbles about 20 grams here or there when far greater savings can be made by switching.

As for storing and cooking: the vestibule on a good 2-man tunnel is quite adequate.

I really prefer a side entrance. It usually is wider and from my experience it allows for more ventilation and thus less condensation. That is one big reason I switched from a Tarptent to a Lunar solo. Just my two cents …
S.

The first thing that pops into mind is "side entrance" . Easier to swing in and out, better views for sunrise or just during an on an off afternoon nap.
Having said that, since I have had the Contrail (front entrance) the Rainbow (side entrance) has seen very little use and the other tents just get used once in a while in my backyard just to spook my neighbors.
So I would have to conclude that, for me, it is not as important as it first appears.
Franco
BTW the view and sunrise comments only apply to a double with two side doors, otherwise the angle of view is pretty much the same.

Like Franco, my gut reaction is "side." However, as I think about it, I also realize it really doesn't matter. I replaced a Hubba (side) with a Seedhouse SL1 (end) which I like just as well.

One thing I noticed was that the side entrance of the Hubba was convenient to get in and out of because I had height and space at the ends to keep gear out of the way. But the Seedhouse accomplished the same thing: the door end of the tent is higher than the foot, and the door end is wider, so there's room to put gear to the side, out of the way.

Before the Hubba, I had used a Zoid 1. It had the door in the long side, at the head end (kind of a blend of side and end.) Again, it accomplished a clean entrance by being wider and higher at that end, with the ability to put gear on the back and head end so I never had to climb over it to get in.

It doesn't really seem to matter where the opening is in good solo tents; the designer compensates in the design to make it easy to get in without getting tangled up in gear.

When you're faced with limited space .. and / or the slope of the terrain, the end entrance allows you to pitch it in almost any angle . without regard where the entrance is..

A 2 sided entrance addresses some of the problem , however, the end entrance still requires less space

Having said that, I've owned both and , my experience is that :

Most of the time, you can find a spot that will accomodate the side entrance tent and

The side entrance ususally does give you easier ingress and egress..

I currently own a sidey

I do like the idea of a side entrance. Ventilation is uasually better than end entrances and the view is great.

Howsomever tents like the really great Hilleberg Akto have low ends, restricting headroom. It's even worse in the newly-introduced Gossamer Gear "The One" tent which has a side entrance. Nice, BUT the ends where one is supposed to lay one's tired head have a low roof (14"). Not a good design IMHO.

The TT Rainbow solves this elegantly with the hooped walls/roof so there is great headroom. Plus it's a freestanding tent if you use your adjustable hiking poles.

So the answer is that it's a nice feature if ther's enough headroom in at least one end.

Eric

I tested mine in the yard in a heavy rain and while yes, a few drops get in during rain, it's not anything that can't be quickly wiped up with a packtowel or bandana. If it is not raining you simply fold the fly flap over gently to prevent dripping.

I put my feet at the door end and didn't have to worry about my boots being dirty. Of course this might not work with two people in the tent (seedhouse2).

My mountain hardware lightwedgeII had an end door but the tent is the same height at both ends so keeping feet near the door is easy.

I think the smaller the tent the more it matters. I had a walrus microswift that was very difficult to squiggle through the end door.