Arctic tent

Agree with Roger. I have a Kaitum 2 GT. You can open up both vestibules very easily. Keep the inside doors open with just the mesh keeping out bugs. She's a 7 pounder (+3 kg), but reasonable for two people. You can even remove the inner tent (must get additional pole holders) though I have not tried this.

Probably don't want to use it if high daily walking mileage is your priority. IMO, Hilleberg is the way to go unless you can build your own like Roger and the other fabric foundling maestros. : )

I do think the Tarptent Scarp 1 will be up to the task, but if you want to be 100% sure, go for the Hilleberg Soulo. Both are free standing and can take some abuse and wind, but the Soulo will be the beefier – and heavier – one.

Seeing all of the comments in this thread has been interesting. I thought I'd summarize some thoughts, if only to clarify in my own mind. Here are my current thoughts (comments welcome):

* Reliable protection from bugs and weather comes first. I am looking for the lightest tent that can provide that.

* Freestanding — Nicholas Sweeting's comment is consistent with other information I have seen. I recognize Matt Lutz' experience, and can only assume they were on different terrain. My plans are to be more in Nick's neighborhood.

(FWIW: note that I have always thought of freestanding as excess weight — I still do not own a freestanding tent — this one would be my first. It took a bit of thought to convince myself that one is required for this use. My other tents are a Gatewood Cape, an old NOLS fly, and a Stephenson)

* Staking out — all tents, freestanding or not, will need additional guying for a serious storm. That seems like a wash — pretty much the same, regardless of what kind of tent you have. The only differences are the actual needs of specific models.

* Strength — Hilleberg uses two fabric weights — after looking around a lot, reading this thread, and reading a lot of Hilleberg tent user reviews on trailspace.com, I believe that the lighter tents (Kerlon 1200) are adequate for this use and save a meaningful amount of weight.

* Vestibule — after some thought, I want one. It is important for keeping bad weather out of the tent, and to cook in during high winds. I could live without one, but would much prefer one — seems worth the weight.

* Hilleberg — I have not thought much about them before, so I was surprised by how popular they are with people in this thread. That was confirmed by how glowing most reports on Hilleberg tents are on trailspace.com. I am becoming convinced. At first I thought they were heavy and expensive. Now I have taken a good look at the competition, they are not heavy, and their cost is in the (top end of) the ballpark. Still the most expensive, but not by as much as I thought.

* Models — solo vs dual is not settled, so choose one of each for now. Based on all the above, the tents to beat look like the Hilleberg Allak (dual) and the Hilleberg Soulo (solo).

Rightly or wrongly, I did not really consider the cottage industry — my concern is (lack of) a track record of proven strength in major storms. One of my considerations is that I may not be able to control where I pitch the tent, such as in very exposed places (because of group).

I looked at a lot of major manufacturers, including Big Agnes, Black Diamond, Eureka, Integral Designs, Marmot, Mountain Hardwear, MSR, North Face, and Sierra Designs. None of them have a truly freestanding tent — in all cases I found the vestibule needs to be pegged out. In some cases that is needed to support the tent; in other cases it is not.

All of the tents I found that were lighter than Allak were single-wall, except one — Mountain Hardwear EV2. Unfortunately, that tent has some other problems, such as no way to open its door in nasty weather without getting wet inside.

Most of the choices were from Black Diamond and Integral Designs. Those were mostly variations on a 2-pole wedge tent, which seems sub-optimal for this use.

Comments on some suggestions earlier in this thread:

Kaitum — very nice, but not freestanding. Weight about same as Allak.

Saivo — self-supporting, not freestanding. Kerlon 1800 — strong, but heavier. I think Kerlon 1200 is enough for my use.

Unna — not as strong as Soulo, and I like Soulo's vestibule more than Unna's "virtual vestibule" (vestibule comment could be just ignorant, though).

Integral Designs Mk 1 or Mk 1 XL — I am not convinced of the single-wall wedge shape for this use. As Tom notes, no vestibule, and I want one. (Actually, several of their models have an optional vestibule. Adding the vestibule makes them weigh more than Allak, though.)

Jannu — made the short list. About same weight as Allak, and need to peg out the vestibule.

Akto — nice tent, but not freestanding.

Hilleberg separating freestanding vs self-supporting — yes that is good. I decided I prefer freestanding (for this use). All non-Hilleberg tents I looked at were at best self-supporting.

Scarp 1 — in freestanding mode is 3# 8oz. That is only 4 oz less than the Soulo (and a lot cheaper), but I would need to be convinced it is as strong as the Soulo.

— MV

I attended several talks by Cliff Jacobsen, a well-known canoeist, author and guide who travels in northern waters frequently above the tree line.

He was instrumental in getting Eureka to manufacture a tent to his specifications that would withstand the conditions he's faced.

This is what he recommends:
http://www.boundarywaterscatalog.com/browse.cfm/4,6753.html

It is not lightweight nor cheap, but it does the job for canoeing and camping in the north.

Also recommended would be a bug tarp. Highly recommended.
See Cooke Custom Sewing for this. The insects are many times worse than anything in the lower 48. A friend of mine who made a trip on the Kazan last year had photos of the bugs. He used a bug tarp to cook and lunch in.

Marty Cooperman

Since the 90’s, I’ve used five different models of Hilleberg tents on expeditions, guiding, and personal use. After 2-3 months of Himalayan or Artic style expeditions, the Hilleberg tents have continued to have many years of use afterwards. Typically, the other brands were pretty hammered after these types of expeditions; and Bibler tents always fared the worst.

To be honest, I’ve not really taken a serious look at what else the market is offering for many years. My casual few looks, I’ve seen some other nice offerings, but nothing has tempted me to rethink switching from my time-tested and proven confidence in Hilleberg, for another brand that might shave some small grams at best-case scenario! Simply, the Hilleberg family has always had exactly what I needed in tents.

For the last couple decades, I’ve also used the Chouinard/BD Pyramid/Megamid shelters for basecamp/kitchen/group activities. I’ve seen that it now comes with an inner mesh tent, but haven’t used it as of yet.

Cliff Jacobson is certainly experienced and widely respected. He has been pretty public for a long time about his sadness over the demise of the Cannondale Aroostook tent. The tent you gave the URL to certainly continues that heritage. It is also heavy-duty, and I expect durable (e.g. a 5000mm rated floor).

My concerns about it are that its minimum weight is 12 lbs, and that its modified A-frame design does not have a lot of headroom (although that is somewhat ameliorated by its 48" height).

I would like to think that we could find a tent that would also be suitable, and would weigh a lot less than 12 lbs.

— MV

Henri,

Thanks for your comments. As you can see from my long-ish comments, now that the matter has come up I am becoming convinced about Hilleberg as well for those scenarios where cottage industry UL is not adequate.

BD Megamid — I overlooked mentioning that I have one of those, too. Great tent. Talk about palatial room for 1 or 2! I can see why you use it for a group gathering place — I'll have to look into the bug liner you mention.

–MV

Hi Bob

I am going to be a bit controversial here, and speak out.

> I looked at a lot of major manufacturers, including Big Agnes, Black Diamond,
> Eureka, Integral Designs, Marmot, Mountain Hardwear, MSR, North Face, and Sierra Designs.
None of the brands make a decent lightweight storm-proof tent. Most of their models are aimed at the summer traditional consumer mass-market.

Now, prove me wrong?

Cheers

Roger,

None of the brands make a decent lightweight storm-proof tent. Most of their models are aimed at the summer traditional consumer mass-market.

I think that is what my posting said — I looked at all of them, and was unable to find anything lighter than the Hilleberg tents that also seemed like a suitable tent for this use.

I did find a very few well respected tents if you are willing to go heavier — e.g. North Face Mountain 25 and VE-25. But those are *not* light weight.

— Bob

Roger, before you guys debate the topic, you ought to define "lightweight" in grams or ounces. Then "decent" does not have a good definition. "Storm-proof" is kind of difficult, also.

–B.G.–

"None of the brands make a decent lightweight storm-proof tent. Most of their models are aimed at the summer traditional consumer mass-market.

Now, prove me wrong?"

Actually, the onus is on you to prove that they don't. I am surprised you put Integral Designs and Black Diamond into that group.

"I would recommend a hilleberg as well, but avoid the tunnel tents. They are great for winter around the arctic, but are simply a pain in the a** for any other time. Freestanding is the way to go. I live in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, and all we got is rock around here – soil is very hard to come by. If you are anywhere in this area, or further north, you will for the most part be camping on rock. Having to find heavy loose rocks, or other suitable items to hold up a tunnel tent is both time consuming and frustrating. I made that mistake once for a multi-week canoe trip around Great Slave lake, and lesson learned."

I find pegs do not hold well in high winds and you end
up hauling big rocks around anyway, whether you are using
a VE24, a tunnel or a tarp.

Here is my favorite tunnel tent, REI brand of Goretex !
(now discontinued.)

"None of the brands make a decent lightweight storm-proof tent. Most of their models are aimed at the summer traditional consumer mass-market."

Hi Roger,

I'm not sure what you are basing your opinion of the ID MK 1 on. It is definitely not in the same category with Big Agnes, et al, and has never been a "mass market" tent. Below is a link to 3 reviews by folks who have used it in fairly extreme conditions. You might want to have a look.

http://www.spgear.org/gear/1240/event-mk1lite.html

Cheers,

Tom

Tom,

As I understand it, the ID tents are no longer available in eVent, even as an option. Is that correct?

Interesting thought exercise — compare the ID Mk 1 Lite to the Hilleberg Soulo.

Minimum weight and price for each is in the same ballpark.
Soulo 3#12oz $550
Mk 1 Lite 3#9oz $500

Features are a bit different though … matter of which appeals to whom.

— MV

"As I understand it, the ID tents are no longer available in eVent, even as an option. Is that correct?"

Bob,

That is correct. They've replaced Event with their own proprietary PTFE laminate called Tegraltex to get around US Flammability regulations; Event didn't make the cut apparently. Field reports seem to indicate it performs as well as Event, but that is anecdotal, subjective input. I don't know if they have been compared in a controlled environment. I can add my experience with the MK1 up here in the Cascades. Never had any trouble with condensation, and mine was the Tegraltex version.

Again, for your situation, the lack of an integrated vestibule is the major drawback. The optional vestibule is a clunky affair. A friend once gave me one he had found somewhere and a cursory backyard fitting told me it wasn't ever going on a trip with me. A secondary concern is that the MK1 is not a spacious tent; it was originally designed for use as an alpine style climbing tent able to fit on small ledges or other cramped platforms. At 26 sq. ft. I don't know if you'd want to spent a week holed up in one in inclement weather. Roger to the contrary, though, you wouldn't have any problems with the ID MK1 in a storm.

Tom,

Field reports seem to indicate it performs as well as Event, but that is anecdotal, subjective input.

That's good to hear. I had been wondering — I understood they dropped both weight and condensation levels when they went to eVent. I was worried that without eVent they had gone back to their previous state. If the Tegraltex is as good as eVent, their marketing folks need to gather evidence and make that clear on their web site.

–MV

" If the Tegraltex is as good as eVent, their marketing folks need to gather evidence and make that clear on their web site."

Bob,

ID is a small Canadian company with a very loyal following. They know they make top notch gear, and my guess is they're not too concerned with that end of things. They do their homework and know that their customers know that. If complaints started to come in, I think they would be all over it; Their business depends on their hard earned reputation. Tegraltex has been around for at least 10 years now, probably more(but my memory is sketchy), and they're still using it, so I'm guessing it works as advertised. Actually from their description of it, it sounds an awful lot like Event.

I'm the author of the Hilleberg Kaitum review on the site, and many other shelter reviews. I've had loads of different shelters and particularly love putting bomber tents in stupid places and staying a while, all in the name of adventure and proper field testing. Of all the tents that have come through my gear shelves, the Kaitum is one that has stayed. I've had it in really insane weather, winds that blew me over, and dumping snow. It is a FANTASTIC tent. It's one that I go to again and again when the conditions are nasty, and it's a pleasure to live inside it when the weather turns bad. Great choice, this one.

Doug,

I'm the author of the Hilleberg Kaitum review on the site …It is a FANTASTIC tent. …Great choice, this one.

Thanks for the comment. From what I can discover poking around on the Internet, lots of folks agree with you.

As noted above, unless someone explains my error, I am looking for a freestanding tent and the Kaitum is a tunnel tent. Do you have any experience relevant to models such as the Allak or Soulo that you want to contribute?

— MV

Hi Bob

> I am looking for a freestanding tent and the Kaitum is a tunnel tent.
One of the biggest myths in this game is that of a reliable storm-proof 'free-standing' tent. Such a beast does not exist, and will not exists either. There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing tents rolling away in a storm, getting impaled on tress and shredded on barbed wire fences. The common feature of these is that they are all 'free-standing pop-ups'.

If you want your tent to stay exactly where you put it, then you must stake it down. Once you have made that step, drawing distinctions between tunnels and domes becomes rather pointless.

The next thing to consider in a storm is the length or radius of curvature of the poles. The poles in a dome are long and can buckle – I have had that happen to me many times in the past. The whole dome popped down in the middle – and popped back up when I shoved. But I have yet to see the much shorter pole in a tunnel buckle. It just doesn't happen. Sit on a tunnel tent and the poles may break, for sure – but that takes a lot of force.

But, what tent you need depends very much on what conditions you want to handle.

Cheers

Structurally, both freestanding dome and non-freestanding tunnel tents can work well in the Arctic.

If Bob states specifically his interest in a freestanding tent, that's his prerogative, no?

One of the biggest myths in this game is that of a reliable storm-proof 'free-standing' tent … If you want your tent to stay exactly where you put it, then you must stake it down. Once you have made that step, drawing distinctions between tunnels and domes becomes rather pointless.

Roger,

I understand that. I am under no illusion that one can just plunk down a freestanding tent and all of wind problems are gone — at least if it is (or will become) very windy. I do, however, disagree that the distinction is pointless.

If I expected to be able to drive tent pegs, I would not be seriously considering getting (for the first time in my life) a freestanding tent; I'd consider just counting on my Stephenson (which is, in fact, a tunnel tent). It's light and it does well in the wind.

Instead, what we are talking about is terrain such as Nicholas Sweeting described earlier in this thread: all we got is rock around here – soil is very hard to come by. If you are anywhere in this area, or further north, you will for the most part be camping on rock. Having to find heavy loose rocks, or other suitable items to hold up a tunnel tent is both time consuming and frustrating. I made that mistake once for a multi-week canoe trip around Great Slave Lake, and lesson learned.

He is talking about camping on large gravel bars, or on river-swept bedrock, either of which can leave you with the inability to use tent pegs and a scarcity of useful-sized rocks anywhere close to your tent. Choosing a better campsite may not be one of the options.

I see the situation a bit less simplistically than some comments have made it out to be. Let's separate what it takes to just pitch the tent from what it takes to keep the pitched tent from blowing away.

* You always need to pitch the tent. For either kind of tent, you need to assemble a few poles and slide them through sleeves (or hooks, or whatever). However, to finish pitching a tunnel tent (but not a freestanding one) you also always need to scrounge up the necessary rocks. In nice weather, this may be the entire scenario.

* If it is (or is expected to become) quite windy, then both kinds of tents need to be secured so that they will not get blown away, and so that the sides will not get blown in. It seems to me that requires about the same resources regardless of the type of the tent, so I have tended to gloss over it (because it is not a distinguishing point between tents). The fact that the tunnel tent is already pitched would not reduce its need to be secured in a serious blow. The tunnel tent may even require more attention to ensuring its sides not get blown in.

It seems to me that, while the freestanding tent requires securing some of the time, the tunnel tent requires more securing all of the time. That is why the distinction is not pointless.

Ben said: Structurally, both freestanding dome and non-freestanding tunnel tents can work well in the Arctic. He is, of course correct – at least in general — that a good one of either kind can resist wind when pitched correctly. I do believe there are terrains where either type works about equally well. There are other terrains where the tunnel type can be made to work, but it is significantly more work. That is what Nicholas Sweeting was describing up around Great Slave Lake.

— MV

PS Roger, I take it that you see no harm in a freestanding tent — you just do not see insisting on one as important. Is that right?

Hi Bob

> I take it that you see no harm in a freestanding tent — you just
> do not see insisting on one as important.
Yeah, I guess so.
But, and there are several buts here:

1: There is no such thing as a free-standing tent in bad weather, regardless of design. So if you are camping on sheet rock (and I have), you need to find some way of holding the tent down, whatever the tent design. Usually, that means rocks. If the rock is totally bare, then you are in serious trouble, regardless of what sort of tent you have. Gravel beds on the other hand are not a problem.

2: I have used domes, pop-ups, tarps and tunnels. In my experience, the first three are miles behind the tunnel when it comes to seriously bad weather, at least on a kg for kg basis. Yes, a heavy 'free-standing' geodesic dome can take a lot of bad weather – but what do you expect with 6 criss-crossing poles? But oh, the weight! It still has to be securely staked down of course – before it becomes a tumbleweed.

3: There seems to be some idea around that one can't use rocks to hold a tent down. All I can say to that is 'waffle'. I have done it many times with complete success, and so have many others. It's an art-form …

> to finish pitching a tunnel tent (but not a freestanding one) you also always
> need to scrounge up the necessary rocks.
True that the tunnel will always needs rocks to hold out the two ends.
But are you suggesting that you would not go find the same number of rocks to guy out a 'free-standing' tent? Surely not? Tumbleweed!

On the other hand:
> There are other terrains where the tunnel type can be made to work, but
> it is significantly more work.
I am going to call you on this statement. I have pitched my tunnel tent in a 100 kph storm and I know it takes less time to do so than to put up a dome (which I have also done in a storm).
Step 1: stake leading end of tent down – 2 stakes, no hassles.
Step 2: insert poles into sleeves while tent is lying flat on the ground.
Step 3: pull tent out and stake downwind end in place.
Step 4: put out guys.

In particular, note step 2. Consider the real fight one normally has to get the poles into a dome in a storm – while making sure the tent doesn't get shredded. It's looking after the dome tent which is so difficult. Contrast this with the ease of inserting the poles into the sleeves while a tunnel tent is lying flat on the ground. There is just no comparison – I can do the latter even sitting down!

Maybe I am just old, biased and argumentative … If so, my apologies to all. :-)

Cheers

nm — looked as if BPL lost this, so I reposted (below)

(take 2 — bpl lost my first attempt)

Roger,

Maybe I am just old, biased and argumentative … If so, my apologies to all. :-)

Tempting as that one is, I'll just say that I don't see it that way at all — I'm glad to hear your comments and honest discussion. Makes me examine my thinking closely.

My overall reply is that we are making a different underlying assumption. As I read you, you are saying that basic pitching the tunnel is all the guying it needs to ride out a gale. That is not my understanding.

For example, considering the Hilleberg Kaitum 2 (tunnel tent) that triggered this interchange, here is what the Hilleberg web site has to say:

Pitching requires only four pegs, yet additional peg and guy line points – 14 on the Kaitum and 18 on the Kaitum GT – provide a myriad of options for increasing stability. Remarkably strong Spectra guy lines are attached at two points to all poles sleeves on both sides of the tent, and have two line runners each to ensure optimal tension. Each vent also has a guy line with a line runner.

Note the similarity to what they say about the Allak (freestanding tent):

Pitching requires no pegs, but 12 peg points provide options for increasing stability: six loops, one at each pole end and six double guy lines with double line runners, one along each pole line.

My earlier post assumed that the basic pitching of a tunnel tent (4 pegs/rocks for the Kaitum) is comparable to erecting a freestanding tent (no pegging), and is often enough. In bad weather, they each need similar added guying to ride out a gale (up to 12 for the Allak, up to 14 for the Kaitum).

Sounds as if you are saying that in a worst case they are pretty comparable, and I grant that but am questioning whether that is most of the time.

Aside from that:

Your point #1 — I do not think there is any disagreement over that.

Your point #2 — I, too, have always thought of freestanding as heavier, because of all the poles. One of the eye-opening things about looking closely at the Hilleberg information has been that similar capability freestanding and tunnels of theirs seem to be about the same weight. Surprised me. For example, the Kaitum and the Allak have exactly the same minimum weight. The Allak is 6 oz heavier on packed weight — I am not sure why. By the way, as I read the Hilleberg site, it says that they are both plenty strong, but that the Allak is the stronger of the two.

Your point #3: I have not heard anyone say that, especially not me. Of course you can support a tent with a suitable size rock. All any guy line or peg loop needs is to be secured to an immovable object — peg, deadman, rock, house, …

— Bob