Okay, so I got this tent for my recent hike across Iceland (from the northern to the southern tip) with my wife. The tent performed pretty well, but not as well as it could have had it been designed a little more intelligently.
What I like:
–lightweight (57.5 ounces w/o stakes)
–2 doors, 2 vestibules
–silnylon fly and floor
–good ventilation
–good headroom
If you are unfamiliar with the tent design, I'll try to describe it (or, visit http://www.bigagnes.com/Products/Detail/Tent/CopperSpurUL2). Freestanding dome with the foot-end of the tent being a bit lower and narrower than the head-end. The vestibules are designed so that when staked out, only the foot-end side has a stake attachment point (so when you open the tent, the opening faces the head-end). The head-end portion of the vestibule is attached to the foot-end portion of the vestibule by a zipper–so when pitching the tent with the head-end into the wind, the vestibule zipper takes almost all of the stress created from the wind (this doesn't happen with the foot into the wind). Only the head-end has guyline attachment points.
Due to this, I emailed the company before my start to ask whether the head or the foot was designed to be pitched into the wind. I was told the foot-end was due to it being "more aerodynamic". That is odd to me, as their are no guyline attachment points at the foot. I pointed this out and the company said that in strong winds, pitch the head into the wind. I pointed out that if the head is pitched into the wind, then every time you get in or out and open the vestibule, it will act like a sail and collect all the wind and rain (as the vestibule opens toward the head–ovbiously designed to have the foot into the wind). Their response was to then pitch the head into the wind at a 45 degree angle and only use the leeward vestibule.
We always pitched the tent with the head into the wind (Icelandic wind is no joke!), except for one time when we thought we would just try to pitch it as the company said it was intended. We couldn't even get the fly fully on before the wind was completely flattening the tent and probably came dangerously close to breaking/bending the poles–and the wind was only around 20 mph at this point (the tent had effortlessly made it through easily 3 times that with the head into the wind). Needless to say, we NEVER tried that again.
If they just could put some guyline attachment points at the foot-end, or redesign the vestibules so that they don't act like a sail, it would be a 'fantastic' tent. As it is now, it is just a 'good' tent.
Am I being unreasonable in not understanding the logic behind Big Agnes' tent design?
