Big Agnes Fly Creek HV1 Carbon with Dyneema Tent

In the BPL podcast the DCF guy mentioned that the process is still very labor intensive.  My guess is that BA is going to do a limited run and at those prices it’s a very niche tent.

• Plexamid is 14.8 ounces, bigger, and $200 cheaper. Single wall.
• DuoMid is 19 ounces, much bigger and $150 cheaper. Single Wall.
• Notch Li is 19 ounces (including stakes) and $150 cheaper. Double Wall

That’s not to say the BA tent doesn’t have its advantages but how many people will be willing to spend $150-200 more for those advantages?

Yeah, I can pick up a ZPacks Duplex for $599. Not seeing an advantage to going with BA on this one. Besides my current tent is a Fly Creek UL2 and I’ve determined I hate front entry tents anyway.

“That’s not to say the BA tent doesn’t have its advantages but how many people will be willing to spend $150-200 more for those advantages?”

Reminds me of that Mojo UFO experiment that SD messed around with a few years ago.

I think I prefer the $12 led beer cozy.

Aside from the cottage guys, few tent manufacturers have tried DCF. I can think of: an Easton dome tent, the Sierra Designs Mojo UFO, a Terra Nova tent, and Big Sky has made several. None seemed to sell very well, and all were more expensive than this tent from Big Agnes.

I just think it’s interesting that one of the biggest tent manufacturers is getting into DCF. If Big Agnes isn’t successful with it, then DCF may remain a niche fabric for a long time.

Interesting. I hope it works but I suspect they will struggle with the same issues as Sierra Designs did – dome tents just are not a good shape for cuben due to the lack of stretch, so it may pitch poorly. As BPL wrote in their review of the Notch Li (referring to the SD UFO):

Never, ever – use Cuben in geodesic spherical panels. The math (lack of stretch) doesn’t work.

The other thing is that the weight savings won’t be as large as trekking pole supported tents. A tent like the TT Notch has a lot of it’s weight in the silnylon, so a switch to Cuben sheds a lot of ounces. Conversely the canopy in the Fly Creek is a smaller portion of the total weight because the poles comprise a large portion of it’s weight and Big Agnes was already using super light fabrics. Then again, BA appears to be using carbon poles for this too so it should be super light, but probably quite a small 1P shelter that may not pitch well.

Ultimately, if you’re really serious about having a really lightweight shelter then you want to be using your trekking poles as structure rather than carrying dedicated poles. Certainly some folks don’t use trekking poles or prefer a freestanding structure, so there are niches where this tent makes sense, but most folks could get a lighter, cheaper and more spacious cuben tent by opting for one with trekking pole support.

I am SO buying a Nite Ize SlapLit LED Drink Wrap.

Short list of best gear.

I don’t see Big Agnes’ market for this tent.  The average REI customer will be horrified over this price, and as noted there are already a number of very fine, lower-priced options for the light- and ultralight crowd.   Perhaps it gets the BA name out into a different market segment, or conversely gives recreational backpackers something to aspire to without a lot of google-searching.  Interesting that they are trying this.

Me, I think the Product Manager got a bee in his bonnet and pushed the concept through. Maybe something about trying to move BA up in the UL/glamour ranks.

Take it in the context of the LED drink wraps: definitely meant for the affluent yuppies. Ho Hum.

Cheers
PS: please note that the Editors of those awards have not actually tried most of the products out yet: they are mostly future stuff. The Awards have ceased to have any value.

Terra Nova has made at least 3 DCF (Ultra)  tents : the Laser,Voyager and Solar.

Brooks Range made the Rocket.

Easton had the Si2 and the Ultralite Expedition tent.

Crux (UK) had the vestibule of their X1 Assault made in DCF.

Under the Lightwave brand they also have the T20 Vapour XT.

The G20 and G30 also have the DCF vestibule as in the Crux version.

This is the T20 Vapour

I applaud BA on trying to be on the cutting edge of UL, but this is a lot like General Motors bringing out the latest 1000 horsepower Yenko Corvette. They know it won’t be a money maker, however, the image and prestige that comes from such a venture is worth the effort.  BA is making multi millions, so if this DCF tent doesn’t do well, who cares?

I agree with Dena, it’s still a front entry tent. That means you have to shimmy like a worm going in and out of a tube in order to sleep in damn thing. Yet the Fly creek has been wildly successful for BA, so what the hell do I know?

you have to shimmy like a worm going in and out of a tube
Funny thing is, I have never heard this criticism from experienced users of tunnel tents. We seem to have no trouble diving in and out of them, and we do appreciate the comfort and security of them.

Dinner time, in a storm.

Cheers

Never, ever – use Cuben in geodesic spherical panels. The math (lack of stretch) doesn’t work.

Seems to work fine for Locus Gear with their dome tent.

Seems to work fine for Locus Gear with their dome tent.

Indeed the Djedi looks good.

I wonder if the issue is truly rooted in fundamental mathematics and stretch, or if it is simply just an unforgiving application that is difficult to get right. I think it’s pretty clear that SD didn’t get it right with their UFO, but some of those other DCF tents look like they pitch pretty well. Even my first (and only) attempt a MYOG cuben dome turned out pretty nicely:

I suspect what is going on is that due to the lack of stretch with cuben you can only have a panel that curves in one dimension. So you can’t wrap a ball with cuben and do a nice job of it, but you could wrap a cylinder. This is largely true for any fabric, but with stretch you can cheat this a bit with other materials.

LG’s Djedi dome tent has very little (or no) curvature around the base. So the base is basically a rectangle (not a circle) and thus the panels only curve inwards (one dimension). So it works.

Getting back to the DCF Fly Creek, the panels mostly look like they work, but there looks to be a bit of two dimensional curvature. Particularly near where you pull out the two back corners. So I wouldn’t be surprised to have some hard to avoid wrinkles there. While wrinkles in the pitch are unsightly, they probably aren’t a large functional problem. Wrinkled but no sag cuben may be a better choice that nicely pitching but sag prone nylon.

That Uber light thermarest is interesting.  Not warm enough for me at R2.0 but knocking 25% of the weight off is impressive.

Not only do you need some stretch in the fabric to handle tent sites which are not dead flat (and I have never found one of those), but the stretch is also much needed to absorb shock loadings in storms.

Cheers

“I applaud BA on trying to be on the cutting edge of UL, but this is a lot like General Motors bringing out the latest 1000 horsepower Yenko Corvette. They know it won’t be a money maker, however, the image and prestige that comes from such a venture is worth the effort.  BA is making multi millions, so if this DCF tent doesn’t do well, who cares?”

Agree 100%. This is only to get the BA name out there in trade shows, forums, word of mouth, etc and to create a buzz. Craft their image a bit. And it will work.
Ryan

‘you have to shimmy like a worm going in and out of a tube’

No wonder. The Fly Creek falls short of a tunnel in many respects. It is much closer to an A-frame than a tunnel, because it has walls that slope from the ridge in a straight line directly to the ground. The two bow poles at the front don’t help, because you don’t live and sleep under the entrance, but rather inside the tent. So you are cramped like in a puptent, but also have to carry a bunch of poles to boot.

Also, the shadow in the photo makes me wonder if it is a hammock cover suspended with one cord, hiding under a Fly Creek canopy. If so they deserve the grand award for chutzpah.

That Fly Creek thing is NOT a tunnel by any stretch of the imagination. It’s a pop-up with an unsecured fly thrown over the poles.
Chutzpah indeed!

Cheers

I have to lightly protest. Lately, I’ve been playing around a lot with a Cuben flat tarp (HMG square), and am regularly astounded by its ability to form hypar (hyperbolic parabolic; maybe the surfaces are more rotational hyperboloid) surfaces around the tie-outs (at least at relatively small scale (say 1.5 ft radius). These are surfaces of double curvature. It just seems to adjust to take the most appropriate form. Similarly, the LG Cuben Khufu forms hypar surfaces; sure, that is in part because of the catenary cut, but I don’t think exclusively so. I also sometimes use a Big Sky Cuben Soul, and that also pitches well; Big Sky geometries are highly sophisticated, though the Soul is rather different to the Big Sky main stream, I’m really referring to the geometry of those main streamers which is pretty evolved. The point of hypar surfaces of course being their optimal shape for strength resisting wind load.

Right after they became available, II bought a Fly Creek UL1 from Arizona Hiking Shack  I found the tent hard to enter and exit, and in a strong wind it was laughably bad. If I staked out all the guy lines the Fly Creek was a little more solid, but the 3 point of contact poles just don’t provide much stability. I sold the tent after 1 weekend trip.

Yet from what I understand, The BA Fly Creek has been a huge seller. I’ve seen more of them out on the trail than any other tent, by far. Go figure.

I have many issues with the basic Fly Creek design but weather worthiness is IMO it’s Achilles heel.  That said, the number if FCs sold clearly illustrates that my opinion is not the norm.  HYOH and all that.

Will be interesting to see how many other manufacturers experiment with DCF. I’d love to see others offer something with steeper side walls and or have Zpacks or someone else come up with a design that offers better head and foot clearance.  I carry a Duplex and sleep diagonally to open it up and I’m not very tall. Not sure how tall folks use them comfortably or maybe they just deal with condensation on the feet etc. where it touches the sides.  They’ve (zpacks) offeres a freestanding option it doesn’t seem like it would take much tweaking to change the sidewalls a bit to steepen them up and really open up the interior.

I think the BA cuben tent will sell very well to the JMT crowd.  I see their postings on line, and honestly, most of them think a ZPacks Duplex is a “reasonably priced tent”!  I don’t think they’ll bat an eyelash at shelling out $750 for this dog ahem, UL masterpiece.

> The Fly Creek falls short of a tunnel in many respects. It is much closer to an A-frame than a tunnel, because it has walls that slope from the ridge in a straight line directly to the ground. The two bow poles at the front don’t help, because you don’t live and sleep under the entrance, but rather inside the tent. So you are cramped like in a puptent, but also have to carry a bunch of poles to boot.

OMG, yassssss! That is precisely how I feel about the entire FC line!  I’m always shocked to hear people praise them; I couldn’t sell mine fast enough back in the day.  One trip, and I was in hate.

And it’s not *only* because it’s a front entry tent… I’ve used front entry mountaineering tents from TNF and MH that had a reasonable amount of room inside (not so with the BA FCs).  It’s just a lousy design that people love because they probably have never tried a well-designed tent.  Never mind the cuben — the FC design is all the chutzpah anyone will ever need.