AN OUTDATED TENT DESIGN

IMHO any backpacking tent that requires you to set up the inner tent and poles before putting on the fly is outdated. Yet it appears that most of the backpacking tents currently on the market are of this design, even “new” tent shapes have this design. Somebody is asleep in those companies or else nobody in the companies ever tried putting up their tents in a storm.

If you have ever tried to erect (or take down) a tent like this in a rainstorm or wet snowstorm you know the frustration of getting the inner tent wet during the operation.

Tents that can have the inner tent pre-attached to the fly before the poles are added is, obviously, what I feel is the best design. Thankfully more of these are coming on the market.

That all sounds good in theory, but not every design that is storm worthy lends itself to the concept you’re espousing… everything is a compromise weighted one way or another.

Lots of people complain about the design of a tent like the Fly Creek in terms of how rain will supposedly enter the tent when one enters or exits.

I’m not here to flak the Fly Creek, which I did find bomb proof in very bad conditions over the years that I used it. But I also never found that whole ‘rain entering while entering or exiting’ thing to be much of a much. After all, my body was in the entrance when I entered or exited. And a quick mop up of the few rain drops that snuck in always did the trick.

This tent allowed the option of being pitched with the fly pre-attached. I did pitch it a few times in the rain when the fly had to be attached after set up of the inner–I hadn’t expected rain. Again, this was never a disaster. I honestly can’t remember; maybe the set up wasn’t in torrential conditions.

.

Tarps don’t have this problem and an ancient design :)

Eric,
I think you are generally correct, and we have seen TarpTent and other tentmakers address this. However, I would part with you on one point. If there is only a portion of the tent that needs to be covered with a fly, I think a solid inner over that portion with a good DWR treatment can resist leakage for the few minutes it takes to get the tent up and the fly attached. This approach provides the advantages of both conventional and suspended inner tents, and was discussed in my post proposing a clamshell tent:

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/proposed-clamshell-hex-tent-solo-with-side-entries/

Will not bump the post, but may edit it to illustrate some changes, including longer vestibules that provide greater leverage at the stakepoints, and a better photo of the space inside. Would be interested in knowing your take on the proposal.

I haven’t used an inner-pitch first tent in…I don’t know how long, certainly decades. I prefer outer pitch first, when a double wall is called for.

The models in the Trek, Ultra, and Mountain ranges of Lightwave tents are inner pitch first. (Other ranges are outer first, or multi-pitch). The Trek is a range that emphasizes budget performance and longevity. The Mountain range is advertised as 5 season. The designer/manufacturer explains their rationale for this design choice.  I’ve cut, pasted, and combined explanations from the manufacturer’s website:

Lightwave is an ardent supporter of this pitching method for the following reasons:

1. It gives greater structural integrity. Because the poles run through sleeves on the inner canopy, they directly tension and support the walls and built-in groundsheet of the inner tent and give it taut and stable three-dimensional shape. In the outer-pitch system, where the poles pass through sleeves on the flysheet and there is no built-in groundsheet, the walls must be “tied” together at ground level by webbing straps and the overall structural rigidity is not as good.

2. It allows the flysheet to be tensioned better and more easily. Without external pole sleeves, inner-pitch tents have a more streamlined, “slippery” profile and thus a greater ability to withstand high winds.

3. It makes for a lighter tent and a simpler construction, since it does not require the connecting mechanisms needed to secure the inner tent to the flysheet.

My personal preferences aside, I don’t see the value in categorically stating that a certain design is, by definition, “failed” or “outdated.”

It’s all about tradeoffs – it depends where you camp and what you prioritise.

I have friends living in California who haven’t been rained on for years on their weekend trips. They greatly value the ability to pitch the inner on its own for a well vented and bug free night under the stars. This kind of camping represents a significant market, so you can hardly say that inner-first designs are outdated.

Even in Scotland I managed for years in the ’70s with an inner-first design. It was the Wintergear Sapphire, which represented such a radical step forward for mountain tents that I decided to put up with the inner first issue. The design offers all three of the advantages that Carol claims for his Lightwave designs. I often pitched the Sapphire in torrential conditions, and with a little ingenuity you could largely protect the inner with the fly. It wasn’t ideal, but I never remember it being a deal-breaker and I really loved that tent…

I recently bought an old Macpac Olympus as a basecamp/festival tent. This outer-first design has legendary stormworthiness as Roger C will confirm. They address the stability issue by attaching the outer to the inner with a fiendishly complex semi-permanent connecting mechanism (I once made the mistake of detaching it – never again…) So you get a very stable outer-first design, but you sacrifice the ability to separate the inner in the field for drying and carrying. You can’t pitch the inner on its own. The connection mechanism is heavy. Plus it’s trickier to get a taut pitch compared to the much simpler design of the Sapphire with its throw-over fly.

The outer first Hilleberg tunnels are somewhere in between. You can separate the inner and set up the outer on its own, but attaching the inner afterwards is a major faff and not something you’d want to do routinely So it’s mostly going to be used the same way as the Olympus, with similar tradeoffs.

Swings and roundabouts…

Thank you for the insights regarding the Lightwave, the Winter Gear, MacPac Olympus and Hilleberg tents.

A major issue seems to be whether tents with inners and outers pitched together can be designed with the kind of taut, structurally stable inners seen on tents with inners pitched first. It is difficult to know, because it’s often necessary to purchase and take some time with single pitch tents to evaluate the tautness and stability of the inners. Certainly not within my budget. Shops used to have whole floors full of tents on display, but seldom seen these days.

One design approach is to start with a taut, weight bearing inner structure, as mentioned by Lightwave, then integrate vestibules, which can be single wall, into as much of the structure as possible. What is left is a smaller area around the occupant(s) that can be breathable, and covered with a small WP fly supported by the the inner structure. And the fly can be removed, and the vestibule doors opened to provide greater ventilation in fair weather.

Or the fly might be integrated into the structure so that it goes up together with the tent; for example, as with the double wall Stephenson’s Warmlite tunnel tents. Again, I’ve never actually pitched one to see how taut the inner walls are; but can conceive of the outer walls of one of Roger Caffin’s tunnels becoming breathable inners, with the outer fly being sewn onto the top of the pole sleeves. The poles would be threaded through the sleeves supporting the inner, and the inner and the fly would go up together.

Possibly, We may be able to have our cake and eat it too. Here’s a photo of a Crescent tent once made by Eureka! The three poles could be fully installed on the ground, and the inner and outer went up together. However, the inner had a tendency to sag in damp weather, and sit-up space was limited.  The front beaks were add-ons::

It was an early attempt, but had some clever ideas, like the fly being permanently attached to the leading edges going up to the peak, but otherwise loose, being stretched over the rear poles and attached to the same stakes as the inner.

Totally agreed. I wouldn’t design one any other way. I went back to a Big Agnes Fly Creek after using fly first tents for a while, and immediately regretted it when I had to set up during a heavy rain storm.

It seems like pretty much any tent design could be made to pitch fly first. Big Sky has done a good job translating more traditional designs into ones that pitch fly first.

I’ve never liked that I have to fuss with the spreader poles in our Lunar Duo in the rain and thus get rain on the inside. But you know what, unless you’re in a nice thick forest like they have in Washington where you can actually find dry ground under a tree, it seems you’re going to get the inside of your tent wet no matter what you do if it’s really raining. Eventually you have to put yourself in the tent and you are going to get everything wet.

I really do think maybe a tarp is the superior rain shelter. I remember hiking up in Washington I was able to set my tent up in the rain in a fairly dry area under a tree, dry enough I was able to sit out for a little bit and cook my dinner. But in the middle of the night I woke up to rain falling from the roof onto my face, and the foot of my tent was in a little lake. (It was such a giant long tent I was worried that would happen but there hadn’t been anywhere else to camp for a very long time.) In the morning I set off early and met a guy with a tarp. He looked a lot drier than me and he was making hot chocolate while he was under the tarp and still in his sleeping bag.

Having poles on the inner can have the advantage of keeping good separation between the fly and the inner when the fly becomes wet and stretches. We all know what having a wet fly glomm onto the inner’s netting is like. The Fly Creek inner hangs down from the poles for example,.creating that separation.

The Fly Creek does have the option of leaving the fly attached to the inner, although you have to unclip one or two corners during set up as I recall.

Again, I’m not advocating the Fly Creek, just using it as an example. I’m not even really disagreeing with the original premise. Just being contrary I guess.

Diane, when the mosquitoes and flies come out, aren’t you glad that you have netting?

“Lightwave is an ardent supporter of this pitching method for the following reasons..”

All of their critiques are specific to tents with an external poleset and not necessarily applicable to fly first pitching tents in general. You can have a fly first pitch with the poles still inside the fly (e.g. via sleeves on the underside of the fly. That avoids all of the issues they mention while still having the advantage of a fly first pitch.

Ah yes, the Macpac Olympus – legendary. But you need to understand about the New Zealand weather …

Lightwave is an ardent supporter of this pitching method for the following reasons:
1. It gives greater structural integrity. Because the poles run through sleeves on the inner canopy, they directly tension and support the walls and built-in groundsheet of the inner tent and give it taut and stable three-dimensional shape. In the outer-pitch system, where the poles pass through sleeves on the flysheet and there is no built-in groundsheet, the walls must be “tied” together at ground level by webbing straps and the overall structural rigidity is not as good.
Waffle.
Just because they make their tents that way does not mean their claim is true. I don’t care whether the inner tent is ‘taut and stable’ – I want the outer tent stable! Taut is automatic for that.
The idea of having an outer-pitch system without a built-in groundsheet is just stupid imho. You WILL need a groundsheet under any conditions: make it part of the tent for stability.
Furthermore, the poles do NOT have to be tied together with webbing straps in an outer-pitch system. Mine don’t: they use tabs off the side of the groundsheet. It may be that it is cheaper to throw in some webbing than to attach such tabs, but that is hardly a reason to make up bad spin.

2. It allows the flysheet to be tensioned better and more easily. Without external pole sleeves, inner-pitch tents have a more streamlined, “slippery” profile and thus a greater ability to withstand high winds.
More total crap. You want the outer tent to be streamlined and to resist the wind; the inner tent can flop around as much as you like if the outer tent is handling the wind.
As for suggesting that the outer tent can be better tensioned without poles: that really is a lie. Look at my tunnels and the Olympus for concrete examples.

3. It makes for a lighter tent and a simpler construction, since it does not require the connecting mechanisms needed to secure the inner tent to the flysheet.
Oh, you poor thing. A few bits of Velcro to hook the two together: such a weight and such a hassle. Sniff, sob. Actually, I never separate the two parts in practice. Well, I did try the idea once, but never again.

I respect the fact that Lightwave has made some commercial (probably financial) decisions regarding their products, but those decisions do not justify rubbish marketing spin of this nature. It just degrades the company image.

Cheers

Re:  ‘… the inner tent can flop around as much as you like ,,,’

Roger,  Granted I quoted a snippet out of context, but some, perhaps many of us do not want an inner tent flopping around madly, especially if the inner is attached to a bathtub floor.,  Attaching the inner tent to the floor with the right design can create a very solid platform for an outer tent.  I think this was the point Lightwave was trying to make in support of its decision to produce more conventional (in the US anyway) tents that pitch inner first.

I also think that a smaller fly can be designed to attach very firmly to a stable inner tent and maintain wind resistance.  Not everything different is ‘rubbish marketing spin.’  You validly make the point that you have tried many different tent designs and assessed the results.  You might be open to others who are experimenting also.  Although I thought of you when reading this week’s ‘Dilbert’ cartoons, where Dilbert is improving a product and the marketers are not interested in his claims because they are true; and for the marketers, that would be totally out of character.

Just one comment on the Stephenson Warmlite tents.  The inner tent was not pulled that tight.  It hung loosely inside the tensioned outer fly.  The difficulty with erecting that tent was feeding the poles through the fragile pole sleeves you can’t see.  This always ended as a bare handed job because they fit very tightly into their sleeve pockets to tension the tent.  Handling the alum poles barehanded in the cold was not fun.  But the tent interior was protected while you struggled with the poles.  I recently sold mine.  It was always a fragile piece of art until you got it pitched.-Scott

perhaps many of us do not want an inner tent flopping around madly, especially if the inner is attached to a bathtub floor.
You may have seen this photo before, but it makes the point.

The outer skin with tent poles threaded through sleeves was taut and happily rejecting a 100 kph storm.
The inner tent is attached to the pole seams by Velcro couplings. It may not be taut, but it was not moving, and we were comfortable inside. The bathtub floor is attached to the inner tent and holds the ends of the poles as well.

Something to remember: the tents I make are designed to handle the sometimes ‘interesting’ weather we meet in our Alps. I am not fussed if the sewing is a bit complex. Litewave on the other hand has to keep the sewing complexity down so they can sell the tent to a large number of people at an attractive price (a lot less than I have charged for mine!). Only a few of their customers will ever really stress the tent. Two very different objectives.

So yeah, maybe my comments are a shade harsh, but BS marketing spin is always fair game in my book.

Cheers

There are the best tools for the job and a bomb-proof shelter in high winds and rain is definitely the best tool.

Users and designers of hexagonal (Seek Outside) and conical (TiGoat) Tipis have confirmed withstanding sustained winds in excess of 70 mph (112 kph) + blowing snow. No floors involved. Much higher peak height. Weights are competitive, depending on configuration. The cost of these outer-pitch shelters constructed in silnylon is a freakin’ steal compared to some of the models discussed here.

True about the sell price but it goes hand in hand with the cost of production.

The reason why mids are the most popular DIY choice (apart from tarps)  has a lot to do with the relative simplicity of the design as well as the time it takes to make them.

Scott,
Thanks for detailing your experience with the Warmlite tents. They have been good enough to sell me parts (fabric, zips, etc.) for many years, but never bought a tent or other big ticket item. Your comment about the inner hanging loosely is what I feared. For its time, it was an original design, but I think we can do better.

True about the sell price but it goes hand in hand with the cost of production.

Not every design is commercially viable, despite the exponential rise in consumer prices.

Eric’s OP: “Tents that can have the inner tent pre-attached to the fly before the poles are added is, obviously, what I feel is the best design. Thankfully more of these are coming on the market.”

“Dan’s comment: ‘Totally agreed. I wouldn’t design one any other way.’

For years I poured over websites from outside the US looking for more tents like this, and finally gave up and went to MYOG, even though I had tired of toweling out bathtub floors when there was no choice but to set up in a downpour. Thanks for the comments about the heavier Lightwaves, the somewhat cramped Fly Creeks, TarpTents, the mids and the difficulties with the Olympus (the website no longer mentions the “swift-pitch” feature). The Tarptent videos are helpful in showing the setups, but most of the vendors do not provide this kind of solid assurance that a tent can be pitched in a downpour without swamping a bathtub floor.

True enough, the Pacific Crest can be backpacked with minimal danger of a swamped inner; but in much of the world, that is not the case. Staying dry greatly improves the experience of longer treks, so much that I also wonder why commercial tent makers do not respond. If there are more tents available with flies and inners that pitch together as a unit as Eric suggests, it would be great to hear more about them. There must be many of us whose trekking experiences would be greatly improved.

Setting up tents in the rain.

I shot this video clip about 6 years ago, before we all had broadband so sorry for the low quality.

We were getting tropical like rainfall at the time, so I took the opportunity to demonstrate that even under heavy rain you can set up a tent (well a Scarp anyway) and keep the inner dry .

If you turn the sound up you get the idea of what sort of rain that was.

Helsport too

I haven’t seen one of the new Macpac Olympus tents yet but they seem to pitch in the same way, poles through sleeves in the fly, perhaps the new inner suspension system is a little simple and lighter. Keep in mind that the Olympus while super stable etc is a very small tent, as is the Minaret.