Dyneema tents now available at REI website

[Hanz B]

https://www.rei.com/product/150043/big-agnes-fly-creek-hv-1-carbon-tent

So never thought I’d see it but yea BA dyneema shelters in a mainstream store now. If u consider member 20% off coupon the price is also in line with cottage industry.

I know folks on BPL were aware of this, just thought it was pretty neat.

 

[Brad P]

I hope they’ve streamlined the home equity loan paperwork at the cash register.

[Jeffs Eleven]

Next year’s REI Garage sale FTW

[bradmacmt]

Next year’s REI Garage sale FTW

Yeah, given the weight Dyneema BA is using, I can imagine the returns will be substantial…

[Brad W]

So that is 1lb 5oz total-tent, fly and poles? Wow.

[Jenny A]

“Next year’s REI Garage sale FTW”

Alas, that is also where my mind went.

[MM]

I dragged my mouse over a picture of the tent too hard and ripped right through the .34 DCF

[Terry Sparks]

I wonder if you get a roll of Tenacious Tape with the tent?

[Arapiles .]

It actually says that it comes with patches.

[Brad P]

Are you looking for something more delicate than a Frogg Toggs rain suit but priced higher than any competing product….

[Sam C]

Brad,

This is a semi free-standing double-wall tent with a minimum trail weight of 1 pound.  What’s the competition?  Locus Gear Djedi is the only one I can think of but it is not double-walled and is even more expensive.  Granted, the Djedi does use WP/B Dyneema in the dome; the HV UL1 seems to not.

 

 

[Monte Masterson]

For an FKT/adventure racer with funding, the BA Scout 2 Carbon at 11 oz might be a good choice in drier climates. The Fly Creek Carbons have the same lousy pole structures as the nylon versions.

campsaver.com has had the BA Carbon tents available at 20% off for weeks.

[Brad W]

Sam-thanks. I was just shocked the inner tent is only 8oz(?).-but I am not familiar with this material. Seems the consensus is it’s extremely fragile.

[Jacob]

Brad,

I’d say the consensus on DCF isn’t very concise.

But it seems many believe this weight (0.34oz/yd CT0.3E.08) to be fragile. Most of the cottage manufactures who BA is getting inspiration from are using heavier weights of DCF in their tent flys, though technically with the same spec mylar film. BA is using the same mylar film but with less dyneema fibers in their flies than everyone else (CT1E.08 and CT2E.08).

DCF is a plastic film (mylar(BoPET)) with Dyneema (UHMWPE) fibers in it. So a polyethylene sheet with polyethylene fibers in it. The fibers are not woven, but are laid perpendicular. So it is completely water proof and non-breathable, doesn’t tear at all (due to the fibers), but may be easily punctured or scratched. It is easy to use more of the same material in tape form to patch small holes. Heavier weights of DCF use thicker mylar films and higher counts, maybe even higher denier (anyone know this?) of dyneema fibers.

If there is a consensus here on DCF used for tent flies I’d wager its on the 0.61oz/yd CT1K.18, which has the least amount of fibers available in the thicker of the two available films.

[David Thomas]

 

I’m seeing this on REI’s webpage for the tent:

So maybe you don’t have to wait for that discount.

Just fill in the coupon code and save $160.00.  Then you’ll earn $19,200/hour for those 30 seconds!

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

“BA is using the same mylar film but with less dyneema fibers in their fly’s [CT0.3E.08] than everyone else (CT1E.08 and CT2E.08).”

To expand on this, the important numbers in those codes are the ones before the E (0.3 vs 1 vs 2), as they tell how much dyneema is in there. Every else is using DCF with “1” or “2” worth of dyneema while Big Agnes is using “0.3” worth, so they are using 70% less dyneema than what companies like Zpacks are using, and 85% less than what companies like HMG are using. So the tear strength is way lower.

For DCF the outer mylar mostly determines the abrasion resistances and all of these have the 0.08 mylar, so they are somwhat similar there, but the dyneema helps with puncture resistance (a little bit) and increases the tear strength (a lot). So the tear strength of what BA is using is several times lower than what everyone else is doing, and thus poses a real challege for high stress areas like guyouts.

With DCF that uses the 0.08 mylar, the actual mylar layers weigh about 0.25oz/yd, so the 0.34oz stuff is roughly 0.25oz of mylar + 0.09oz of dyneema. So you hit these diminishing returns where you can have a lot more strength for only a little more weight. If you doubled the dyneema to 0.6 worth, it would add another 0.09oz and weigh about 0.43oz/yd. A tiny bit more weight but twice as strong. Or go with 1.0 worth of dyneema and it’s 3x as strong for an extra 0.18oz/yd.

“If there is a consensus here on DCF used for tent flies I’d wager its on the 0.61oz/yd CT1K.18, which has the least amount of fibers available in the thicker of the two available films.”

I think you mean to say that the consensus is 0.51oz/yd which is CT1K.08.

[jscott]

“The You’ll earn $19,200/hour for those 30 seconds!”

Eat backpacker dust Beezos!

 

oh wait…Beezos makes that every few minutes…well, eat backpacker dust Jamie Dimon!

[Ross Bleakney]

I was curious as to the type of material used in my Six Moon Designs SkyScape X. They aren’t selling it right now, but a search lead to an interesting review, with this quote:

The outer wall, the canopy, is made from CT2K.08 cuben fiber, also known as 0.74 cuben fiber. I do not want to get into the discussion of which cuben fiber weight material is the best for solo shelters, so let me just put it this way: Pretty much every single outdoor cottage manufacturer that makes cuben fiber shelter, with the exception of one, uses 0.74 (CT2K.08) cuben fiber. …

The review is old, so maybe that has changed. Anyway, I notice that they use the letter “K”, while others use the letter “E”. Is there a difference?

 

[Jacob]

There is a difference. I think only -E.08 and -K.18 varieties are currently available.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/61-dyneema-ct1k-18-now-at-rsbtr/#comments

I bookmarked the above thread for DCF/cuben fiber info

[Eric Blumensaadt]

And STILL it is a “fly last” design! Duuuhh…

[Dan @ Durston Gear]

“I notice that they use the letter “K”, while others use the letter “E”. Is there a difference?”
E vs K are two different types of mylar. The suspicion is that the E mylar was introduced to be more resistance to micro-cracking but that’s not confirmed. They switched all the 0.08 mylar versions to “E” but still use “K” for the .18.

There’s more discussion on E vs K near the bottom of the page here:
https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/44516/page/13/

[Sam Farrington]

Disagree to the extent that this BA tent is ground for excitement.
In one of the linked threads, T Hoosier had obtained samples of the 1 oz, .18 DCF, and the .67 oz, .18 DCF on RBTR (currently sold out). He said:

“.61 on the left, 1.0 on the right. Same Mylar, 1.0 has more dyneema. In terms of hand feel/stiffness, they do feel quite similar.”

I have a piece of the 1 oz .18, and it is so stiff, would not dream of trying to make a tent out of it. It would be frustrating to try to pack up the tent, and the tent would not be able to have any compound curves on it. Albeit, a tunnel might work. If T Hoosier, who actually had swatches in hand, found that “in terms of hand feel/stiffness, they do feel quite similar,” then the RBTR DCF .67 oz, .18 material would be equally unsuitable.

But am not sure the RBTR is actually what BA is using. Suggest seeing the tent face to face before buying.

And there is another issue with the Fly Creek design. Most of the tent forms a triangle shaped cross-section, front to back, except at the door, where there are two poles that form a gothic arch that bows out the sides of the door and make it a little wider than a triangle. But you can’t spend all your time in the tent sitting at the door.

Until actually getting inside a Fly-Creek tent, it is hard to appreciate how confining the two walls of the triangle can be. BA obviously realizes this, as they have redesigned a version of the Fly Creek to add a transverse strut overhead, that makes the tent more spacious: https://www.rei.com/product/150051/big-agnes-tiger-wall-2-carbon-tent
It is $200 more, and still under 2lbs, pkgd weight (1# lloz).

But once 2 pounds are approached, is it really worth laying out a grand for a tent when 15-20 Denier woven fabrics are available for far less in tents below or just above 2 lbs, and have advantages that DCF does not have: Longevity, elasticity that sheds wind and other forces, packability, lower packed volume, and for MYOG folks like myself, far easier construction. Granted, for woven fabrics, it is just as important to obtain the best quality in both the materials and coatings; otherwise, might as well pick something up from Walmart.

We have been through two generations of use of sail cloth for tents; first with the very stiff woven materials, and now with DCF. At least the first generation were reasonably priced, like the original Gossamer Gear One. I submit consumers can do better than thousand dollar 1-2 person BP tents.

[William Chilton]

@scfhome See @jakeyjohn1’s post above. BA are using 0.34oz/yd (CT0.3E.08) for the fly. This has less dyneema and thinner mylar and quite a different handle than the heavier versions, particularly the .18 mylar versions. It’s also rather more delicate; I made a stuff sack out of some, and I soon learnt that it’s easy to put your fingers through it!

[Mark]

Wrong thread

[HkNewman]

the 0.34 DCF

Deepest sympathies for the clerks manning the returns counter when those things come back..

[Author]

Posts