How did your DCF shelter age (and expire)?

For reinforcing the corners against twist/deformation on the bias I was thinking 4 radiating lines of 1″, .08 DCF tape. 9″ would be 1 yard per corner at $4.00 and a few grams each.  Wouldn’t cost much or take much time but would it be effective enough to be worth it?

“Even though the fabric has bias stabilization, the pattern includes long, slim sub-panels radiating from the three tieouts”

Yeah, then all the lines of stress going from the corner are on the grain, another solution to avoiding the delamination problem.  Lots of seams in the fabric though.  Construction time.  Possible water leak points.  Maybe this is more of a sail solution.

That fabric looked really stiff.  I bet it’s heavy.  I think it’s an advantage in sails to be stiff.  Probably also an advantage for tents to be stiff.

obx hiker, I don’t know if it would be worth it. I’m leary to try it cuz of fear there will be deformation in between the strips and the whole thing will look monstrous. But only one way to find out.

From what I’ve observed, when a local area of DCF is overly taut, and probably then liable to deform on the bias, the outer mylar layer becomes very smooth and shiny in comparison to other areas nearby. If this type of effect is visible, I would think this is where one would lay strips oriented along the bias and angled 10-20 deg from and alongside it.

Jerry, yeah, probably this construction style has as much to do with making massive panels from relatively narrow bolts of fabric as with orienting the grain to resist strain. However, I think there probably is a lot to learn from sailmaking, whether it be multi-panel design, radiating reinforcements, or starting with bias-stabilized fabric.

I can only imagine what any of the gear makers mentioned here would think reading all of the posts by the “experts” here on BPL.

I can’t imagine any serious gear maker wouldn’t be highly interested in reading everything that is being discussed here. Crowd-sourcing field testing is practically a given in this industry. Field validation isn’t something that even the bona fide experts and gear makers have a monopoly on.

The concept of field validation was central to Dan Durston’s negative review of the TarpTent Saddle 2, which basically single-handedly sunk a competitor’s product* that while not perfect offered an alternative, hence possibly attractive, set of compromises to other products in its class such as the X-Mid2 (*caveat emptor: a/ I’ve used both the X-Mid and the Saddle; b/ by Dan’s own account, the concept for the X-Mid was developed in 2017 while using the Saddle, hence anything published on or after that time cannot be disassociated, no matter how benign the intention, from self-marketing). Basically, Dan was critical of design choices that he found through personal field use to be poorly implemented or poorly conceived. The irony is that the X-Mid itself has gone through an important design revamp after receiving extensive user feedback (notably the addition of cat cut hems to resolve pitching issues and side guyouts to resolve wind deflection issues, but also including the redesign of the door zips, the redesign of the trekking pole grommet holders, etc, etc.). If the Saddle had issues revealed in the process of field validation subsequent to its release on the market, it would only be fair to say that the X-Mid, too, has had similar issues.

I see a lot of comments here and there about people who have tested a tent only to discover, buried within their review an admission such as saying that they had never faced strong winds during use (and let’s be honest, unless an anemometer is used, the notion of strong can be pretty subjective). Notably, the glowing review of the X-Mid2 on BPL falls into this category. Significantly, the reviewer, Ben, doesn’t mention at all the lack of side tieouts on the first generation products, while the pitching problems with the hem are not dealt with as a conceptual or design issue. Although the reviewer concludes that the “the Durston X-Mid 2P appears to be as stable as any single-pole pyramids I have used,” he also mentions that he “didn’t encounter any huge wind gusts.” That info-byte is tucked away in the “Durability” section, not the section dealing with “Storm-worthiness” where it would have provided crucial information for readers to correctly interpret the limits of the positive evaluation.

Dan Durston, much to his credit, has spent an enormous amount of time explaining his design choices and sharing information with the wider community of users. One can only laud manufacturers who take the time and care to educate their consumers. The low introductory price of the X-Mids needs to be taken into account when looking at the process of crowd-sourcing field validation, basically getting a large pool of early-adopters to provide priceless real-world feedback to assist with design enhancement and revision. Inevitably, that process of communication and feedback has also led to some exaggerated claims, such as claiming that it “is designed to perfection” or that “the X-Mid inner is truly unique because it is actually on a diagonal.” This Chinese tent, the Gohantee 1-2P, was on the market at least as early as 2017 when the X-Mid was first being conceived and it (the Gohantee) uses a diagonal inner for the 1P version. I don’t doubt that Dan conceived of the diagonal inner tent idea on his own entirely independently and autonomously of any external input, just as I don’t doubt that design innovations by a single individual, including as a matter of principle a genius like Dan, are supported by an unseen environment in which certain ideas are “in the air.”

The moral of the story is two-fold. First, it bears repeating what everybody already knows but has a hard time putting into practice. Chill out, cut other people some slack, and emphasize inclusiveness and mutual respect. Second, there is a LOT more community effort that goes into tent design than is generally acknowledged.

Personally, I can’t see how it wouldn’t be really beneficial for both designers and users to give more recognition to the role, virtually irreplaceable, played by users and community discussion based on field experience.

Yes I don’t expect cottage industry tent designers to be graduates of the North Carolina State University School of Textile Engineering.  Who knew I’d ever get to mention that institution in a BPL post  ;)

But sticking with that reference I’d say this has been somewhat analogous to a good class. I’ve learned a lot and appreciate all the contributions based on the accumulated knowledge and experience on display above. Thanks and an early Merry Christmas!

A few comments on various topics:

Saddle Review
I want to be clear that my review of the TarpTent Saddle was written and published prior to me having any commercial ambition or interest in tents, so it’s not accurate to characterize that review as having self-marketing motives.

Like many others here, I took a deep interest in tents and had been geeking out on threads like this one and mulling over ideas for years. I’d written several other tent reviews including a very positive review of the StratoSpire tent from TarpTent. In 2017 I was on a 4 month hike using the Saddle where I wrote the bulk of the review in the field about a month in and then published it shortly after the hike. That review is fairly negative because of actual issues I had with it, but it was also fact based, respectful, and would have led to an improved product if they had implemented revisions to my critiques that they publically agreed with and said they would do. I think this type of review makes for better products in the long run, as the user feedback here does. A few weeks later and still on that same hike, I had the idea for the X-Mid. I want to emphasize that at this time I was merely an enthusiast like many here where the extent of my ambition was possibly sewing one for myself someday, if the idea in my head panned out on paper.

After the hike, the Saddle review was published and the X-Mid continued to be just a vague idea in my head without even a quick sketch nevermind commercial ambitions. That all changed soon after the review was published when I was contacted here on BPL by a company who had read my gear geek comments on BPL, wanted to develop new gear, and reached out to ask if I had an ideas I wanted to work together on. It made a lot of sense to work with them on the X-Mid because they had the resources to do it right whereas sewing even a single tent exceeded my abilities, so I agreed to the project primarily because it was an easier path to getting one for me than employing my poor sewing skills. That’s not the first time this has happened on BPL and could happen again to some of the commenters here who also have good ideas. When this company reached out everything changed and I did gain a commercial interest, but please note this after the review. I have previously shared the dates of this communication publically. Thus, certainly the timing was close with both events occurring in fall 2017 but the Saddle review was published with sincere motives and prior to any commercial interest so I ask that people treat it for what it really was, and not some sneaky attack with ulterior motives. I haven’t published another review since I gained a commercial interest.

I’ll also note I don’t think that review was what sunk the Saddle. Certainly it didn’t help, but the core issue was that people don’t want 4 trekking pole tents. The market for a 4 trekking pole tent is very small because you need to (1) use trekking poles, (2) have a regular hiking partner who also uses trekking poles, (3) be okay with the risk that if either you breaks a pole you’re in trouble, (4) have no plans to use the tent solo, and (5) have no plans to use the tent with other partners that might not use hiking poles. Turns out that is a very small market, which is why TarpTent did not continue with the second generation Saddle they were talking about.

Duplex Comments
With regard to my comments explaining the bias issue on the Duplex, my intention here is not to attack a competitor but rather to defend DCF as a material because I don’t want people to have an unfairly poor view of the material. A question about DCF longevity was asked (the purpose of this thread) and the first reply raised this as a major problem that can happen rapidly. Someone reading this thread could easily perceive that as huge concern with DCF in general where it could fail in as little as 50 nights, when actually the vast majority of DCF tents are designed to avoid such as an issue. The only way to alleviate that worry is specific to that model to explain the issue (why it happens, how it is avoided) so it is intractably linked with a critique of the Duplex. I can understand some people speculating about my motives, but I hope you can also see the value in the community having a proper understanding of the bias issue rather than thinking this is the norm for DCF.

X-Mid Updates / Issues
Certainly we are always updating the X-Mid. Scarcely a production batch has occurred without us making some sort of improvement. I can’t see that ever ending because innovation doesn’t have an endpoint. There are always refinements, new ideas, new materials etc that will make something even better. Tents that don’t evolve are stagnant, not perfect. We are coming out with a second generation X-Mid next month but it won’t stop there. I’m already planning the following generational update and expect all of our tents will undergo a major revision every second year pretty much forever. My intentions are to have a high pace of innovation, but that is not to say current products are flawed and rushed.

As part of the 2022 updates, we are adding side panel guyouts and some catenary cut around the base  but I don’t think it’s fair to characterize these as major issue we missed due to a lack of field validation. We actually had side panel guyouts on prototypes in early 2018 and elected not to retain them on the production version because at the time my opinion was that they weren’t worth the weight. Since then the tent has grown more popular in windier markets (e.g. Europe) where we’ve had some requests for them (although really not that many). I agree there is value in them as they expand the performance of the tent and I’ve found a way to make them lighter, so we are adding them now.

As for the new cat cut around the base, I agree there is benefit here as it can make for a tighter pitch and also easier pitching on uneven surfaces, but I don’t think of the flat cut base on the original X-Mid as a major issue. Rather, a flat cut base is extremely common in tents, with HMG, TarpTent, Black Diamond and numerous other companies employing this. The Locus Gear Khufu that is lauded in this thread for being perfectly cut has a flat cut base (and is built at the same factory as some of our tents). Interestingly, Black Diamond went back to a flat cut base with their new Beta Light after previously using cat cuts. There are pros and cons with both styles, where a flat cut base where I think it has worked fairly well in the original X-Mid and we’ve only had 1 or 2 vocal critics of that. Certainly it is more sensitive to uneven camp sites but not moreso than other tents with this characteristic (in all cases things get weird with the stake points are not on the same plane) and there are upsides like better draft blockage from the lower fly edge. We’ve been playing with different cat cuts from the beginning because it’s a mix of science and art. At this point, I do agree a cat cut base is an improvement so we are adding that for 2022.

Overall, I certainly agree there is a ton of value in user feedback. That has contributed quite a few good ideas and made our tents better. IMO, the extent to which other companies don’t do this is a missed opportunity on their part, and not an indication that their designs are so perfect they wouldn’t benefit. What I take issue with is the idea that the lower price of the X-Mid is somehow a reflection of reduced design and testing effort on our part (e.g. crowd sourced testing). Rather, I think it would be very hard to find another tent designer that has invested more of their own time into a single one of their own products than I have. I obsessed over the X-Mid 1 continually for 1.5 years before it came out and I continue to do so. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect but it does mean I am working very hard on development and field testing. My receptiveness to community feedback is not at the expense of that.

Exaggerated Claims
I’m quite opposed to grandiose marketing claims and always endeavour to make my claims objective and fact based, so it is never my intention to exaggerate. If I have a claim somewhere that I learn is not fully true, I will readily cease to make it (In many places I encourage people to contact me if they are aware of something that invalidates something I say).

As it relates to the examples provided here, the claim of ‘designed to perfection‘ are the words of a third party reviewer, which surely I can’t be responsible for. I do claim the X-Mid is unique because the inner on a diagonal relative to the fly (not parallel nor perpendicular to any side of the fly) because I sincerely think this is true. You mention the Gohantee 2P as coming out in 2017 and that their 1P version uses a diagonal inner. These are not tents I’ve seen before and I’m not sure if these predated the X-Mid idea (summer 2017). Certainly they were not influences as I was largely off the grid in 2017 (see the long gap in my BPL post history) but other tents were (mostly the DuoMid) and I agree tents are not designed in a vacuum. As it pertains to the Gohantee, the 2P version uses the same non-diagonal design as the Black Diamond Beta Light so nothing to discuss there, whereas the 1P version is more interesting and is basically a StratoSpire minus the struts, except the inner is warped in such a way that it does put the sleeping position on a slight angle rather than being fully perpendicular (assuming the tent is really like that and it’s not merely the diagram that is warped). As such, I agree this tent has the inner on a diagonal. Information is hard to come by as this tent is obscure and marketed in another language, but if it preceded the X-Mid I will cease to make this claim. My intentions are always to speak accurately and with integrity to the best of the available information.

Spirit of Collaboration
I agree heartily with the call for a spirit of collaboration and with the value of engaging in the amazing depth of knowledge and experience here. It’s difficult for someone in my position (with commercial interests) to engage in these valuable discussions on materials and design without discussing the pros and cons of various approaches including examples, and thus I can understand someone speculating about ulterior motives, but I try to carry myself with a respect for other companies.

Love your comments Dan – keep making them.  I have read your comments on reddit as well. Informative and provides information that you cannot easily get from other places.

Looking at the way your Xmid tents are being gobbled up on reddit, I would have to say that they are as popular as the Duplex:-) My hiking partner was using the Xmid1 during our SHR hike – somebody commented that the Xmid1 was a palace and it is. I was using the Pocket tarp. We both enjoyed our hikes and survived rain and wind above tree line.

I wish more commercial designers participated in these discussions. The only other person is Kevin from SO and his views are also appreciated. Wish Joe from Zpacks would comment here!

Stumphges: thank you for addressing my question. I was (and still am) contemplating multiple radiating lines.

Murali C: My shelter is brand new, and I agree with your sentiments about Dan’s contributions here.

Dan: Thank you for your detailed comments. I have always found that you try to be as objective as possible in pointing out the good things about competitor products and admitting to where yours might need room for improvement. It’s clear to me that your interest is to advance the backpacking industry and hobby over promoting your own products. Favorite line: “Tents that don’t evolve are stagnant, not perfect.”

My turn to further clarify a few things that I had already made an effort in my post above to make clear. I appreciate Dan’s responses but I feel uncomfortable with his characterizations of what I’ve said, which are unjustified in certain cases.

Motivation and intent. 
My post explicitly rejects calling into question Dan’s (or anybody else’s) motivation and intentions.

I agree wholeheartedly that sincere motivation goes a long way and is more important than anything else (it is exactly what good spiritual teachers in any tradition always say), but if there is one thing that I’ve learned from an extensive career speaking and writing in public it is that the meaning of what one says and the way one says it (including the timing) are things that are open to and actually intrinsically dependent on active interpretative involvement from the listener/reader. For that reason, I don’t think it is possible to rely on personal motivation and intent when explaining to others the meaning of one’s words in public. That’s why I chose the wording very carefully: given the timeline involved, it’s not possible to dissociate critique of the Saddle from marketing the X-Mid — regardless of the intention.

Crowdsourcing testing
I made it very clear in my post that this is an industry-wide phenomenon. I think that this is a good thing, for all the reasons that Dan enumerates. As Dan recognizes, I was principally advocating greater recognition of this phenomenon.

Anecdotally speaking, I was the first one to talk about the Akto on the new at that time UL forums in the US. I had one of the early editions of the Akto that used 40D fabric and was without a top vent integrated into the door. In 1999, I asked Hilleberg Sweden to modify it by adding a rain flap over the exposed two-way zipper that could be used in most conditions like a vent. They loved the idea and a new top vent soon found it’s way into the design, which has been preserved to this day.

Incidentally, I sold both the Saddle 2 and the first gen X-Mids 1/2. As an early adopter, I knew going in that there could be some issues still to be ironed out. I would like to humbly suggest that manufacturers take this into account in their pricing standards and offer first gen models at a slight discount in anticipation of the priceless feedback they will receive from users (I think that some already do and it would be great to see this become a standard best practice).

Exaggerated Claims
As Dan duly notes, “the claim of ‘designed to perfection‘ are the words of a third party reviewer.” There’s no question: Dan cannot be held responsible for those comments. For the record, that’s not what I said and I reject Dan’s implication that I was trying to impute responsibility to him for that. Hopefully, he will feel relieved or assuaged to know that. Maybe in that light he could re-read what I wrote. I prefaced the link to that third party reviewer with this key sentence: “Inevitably, that process of communication and feedback has also led to some exaggerated claims.” Feedback by definition refers to users, not designers, whereas communication refers to explanations provided by the designer/manufacturer. Consistent with my emphasis on the collective aspect of design and innovation, I wanted to highlight the loop from designers to users that can lead to a proliferation of exaggerated claims.

Demise of the Saddle 2
Shouldn’t somebody from Tarptent have a voice — and the last word — on this?

Criticism
Criticism is essential. It’s the prerequisite to innovation. There can never be enough.

Cat Cut Hems
It seems to me that there is a synergy between hem design and fabric choice. More elastic fabrics like those made with pure silicone coatings (such as the LG Sil Khufu mentioned in this thread) probably don’t need cat cuts because of the inherent elasticity of the fabric. But of course, the same LG Khufu design in DCF doesn’t use them either. Dan notes a tradeoff with weather protection but has tentatively concluded, after giving it much thought, that cat cut hems could be useful for the X-Mid, which uses a stiffer silpoly (coated with PEU on one side) — and will soon appear on a DCF version. Both of these fabrics are less elastic than pure sil/sil fabrics. Would be really interesting if there were a sil/sil version of the X-Mid (made with that luscious silpoly from ET mentioned in this thread) so that we could compare the difference in the field.

it’s a mix of science and art.

Thanks for saying that Dan… not everything is quantifiable on some grid or spread sheet :)

So I’ve ordered some of the half ounce DCF.  Much has changed since the Cuben I looked at some years ago, and want to see how the current DCF performs.  If it tests without permanent distension, leakage, or other flaws,  I’ll stay with the plan to use it for vestibule beaks.  (If there is leakage after long use, it won’t be into the occupied areas of the tent, just into the vestibule areas.)  Either way, with the tent design it can be easily removed and replaced with other vestibule panels, with some weight penalty.

One matter that may not be sufficiently taken into account is quality control (QC).  Unfortunately, lack of it is rampant in the global economy, and I’ve had some nasty experiences with this.  And am often unsure sure whether they are due to QC or other causes.  Certainly this and similar threads, reporting very different experiences with the same products or materials, are difficult to explain.  That’s why “test and retest” will be my motto from now on.

Jon, your paragraphs in the Motivation and Intent section of your last post would claim that anything anyone ever says is open to any subsequent interpretation, and responsible for that interpretation. That can’t be right. It suggests that everyone has to consider all possible eventualities and circumstances and possible listeners before saying anything at all.

“the meaning of what one says and the way one says it (including the timing) are things that are open to and actually intrinsically dependent on active interpretative involvement from the listener/reader. For that reason, I don’t think it is possible to rely on personal motivation and intent when explaining to others the meaning of one’s words in public.”

Again, I take this to mean that a speaker is responsible for how some others interpret his or her meaning, even if the speaker had nothing of the sort in mind. That sets an impossible bar.

You can’t say that you reject calling into question Dan’s motivations, but then suggest he shouldn’t have given a negative review of a product, because years later Dan went into production with a product of his own. You’re trying to have it both ways.

jscott, good question!

The simplest way to say it might be: A speaker isn’t responsible for (how others interpret his/her meaning) but responsible to, or better yet, would benefit from making him/herself response-able to it.

I’m not suggesting that Dan shouldn’t have given a negative review of the Saddle 2, nor that he shouldn’t have pursued bringing to market the concept that was born simultaneously with that review and grew out of it. This process of critique that generates a new idea is one of the main avenues for innovation in any field and it would be a shame to see that turned into a moral issue.

Thus, certainly the timing was close with both events occurring in fall 2017 but the Saddle review was published with sincere motives and prior to any commercial interest so I ask that people treat it for what it really was, and not some sneaky attack with ulterior motives. I haven’t published another review since I gained a commercial interest.

Where problems arise is when you start telling other people that, well, geez, I know that this potentially looks a certain way but inside my heart-of-hearts that’s not at all what I meant. Precisely because there is an undeniable possibility to interpret this as part of a guerilla marketing strategy, it would make sense and serve the innovator in the long term to adopt a different public explanation than one that simply relies on my honest-John word. So, I’m not questioning Dan’s motives and I’m not trying to have it both ways. I’m trying to suggest a different ethics of innovation that doesn’t exclusively rely on patents and good intentions.

For the record, while it’s true that Dan hasn’t published another review on his blog since gaining a commercial interest, he has made extensive and often enlightening comparisons to competitors’ products on forums around the world. On occasion, though, this leads to unsubstantiated/unmeasured/non-validated claims, such as those around the wind resistance of the revised X-Mid2 in comparison to the SS2. The SS2 is an 8 paneled symmetrical hexagon buttressed by two poles, two V struts, numerous guylines, nd a 30D fabric, it just has to be more wind resistant by design than a six panel rectangle with fewer supports, fewer guylines (though there is a case for their strategic placement at the apex), and a less wind-resistant fabric.  How much more, though, is an open question. What we really need are some standardized norms for wind resistance and means of testing.

What we also need IMHO are a different ethics of product innovation that value the collective aspect of innovation. As we’re talking about DCF in this thread, I think that we have to be very careful not to legitimize the effective monopoly that DSM exercises over the material. To spell it out: a) Royal DSM has a monopoly on DCF, b) this monopoly has allowed them to simply blow off making HB DCF while allocating LOTS of resources to patent infringement cases, c) HB DCF is so obviously superior that any idiot can see it, d) conventional DCF is deeply flawed, overpriced, and fragile, and e) no manufacturer of DCF tents is going to say any of this because Royal DSM has a monopoly and could shut off their supply of the fabric for any reason at any time (see what happened to Josh Leavitt of Ruta Locura back in 2015-16).

Tellingly, when the X-Mid came to market in summer 2018, Henry Shires of Tarptent responded in the product discussion thread on Massdrop (today known as Drop) by bringing up the issue of patent infringement. Henry’s intervention earned a lot of ire from others at the time. It was also claimed on Bushwalk (Australia) that Dan had posted to Facebook (I didn’t see the post myself) that he had sent a cease and desist letter to Seek Outside for patent infringement by the Silex.

I’m under no illusions that a niche community like the UL backpacking community, or even the much larger backpacking community as a whole, is in any position to bring sweeping change to intellectual property rights and patent law. But I do think that the DCF saga brings to light the need for a new ethics in the community, one that emphasizes more explicitly the contributions of all stakeholders (including those excluded by the market pricing), questions the legitimacy of IPR-based monopoly, and seeks to valorize, not simply monetize, the loops among designers and designers, as well as between designers and users.

Sam I’ve definitely noticed what seem to be QC differences in DCF. Good luck with your vestibule project!

Be nice if they made insignia cloth with DCF.

https://www.sailmakerssupply.com/product/insignia-cloth/sailcloth

It’s a shame that this potentially practically useful thread has degenerated into speculation about personal motivations and technical analysis of fabrics. Yes, I know that a few people are fascinated by the technical details, but there are already many threads on the topic.

The OP asked for first-hand real-world experiences with DCF tent aging and failure, and this does seem like a good venue to crowd-source these data. In fact, I think it would be useful for people to note if they never experienced significant wear or damage at all, since that would minimize selection bias. The vast majority of gear that I retire is due to a lifestyle change or replacement by something I like better, not because it died. Everyone will have their own trade-off calculation, and every piece of gear will eventually fail if used long and hard enough. Personally, if I can save 12 ounces, I don’t mind a tent that will last “only” 5 years. That’s good enough for me.

Yes, I’m sure there are some anomalous cases where defective gear expires prematurely. But how common is that really? It would be interesting to know the real answer based on user experience, not speculation by experts and industry insiders. We are talking about some of the most popular models that have been sold for a long time, and so it seems pretty likely that most users are satisfied.

I still don’t know if this degradation is from me pitching the tent tight, which I don’t think I have, or material failure . I helps me in deciding to continue using this tent. 

Actually Henry Shires of Tarptent does post here on BPL from time to time. As a matter of fact this is an exchange he had with Dan about a year ago. The second sentence of the last paragraph got my attention. There are many other posts between them throughout the thread. https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/so-i-have-a-new-tent-plan-for-2021-input-welcome/page/2/#post-3687864

Thanks for the pics Sam. It’s good to see someone who actually builds and tests their own shelters.

Joe at Zpacks has sold thousands of DCF tents and has received mountains of feedback regarding how his tents hold up through extensive field use. He might converse with one of his peers about tent design, but that would have to be someone like himself who has designed and sold hundreds if not thousands of DCF tents over a period of many years.

There must be a number of DCF materials scientists and/or DCF tent designers and builders posting here on this thread. I see some long (very long) passages that deal with the physics of DCF shelters. If someone didn’t know better they might think a lot of the posts were simply long-winded technical mumbo-jumbo which are meant to try and impress more than anything else.

At a certain point ego stroking can become nauseating to witness. Dan is an intelligent man and has never done anything to me, I wish him success. But when I see the fanboy hero worship on display here it becomes borderline comical.

Jon: I think we’re agreed on the important stuff including the potential for bias in posts by people with a commercial interest, such as myself. That’s a tricky topic because there is potential bias but also potentially a lot of useful discussion. I discuss gear design topics because I think it’s important, but always try to keep it about the gear/facts/engineering and not hyperbole and personal jabs.

Back on the topic of DCF longevity, in my view the main constraint for DCF is delamination over time from creasing the fabric. If you crease DCF repeatedly at the same spot, or just crease it a lot such as from stuffing the tent every night, then DCF will start to delaminate after 100+ nights. That’s why most manufacturers recommend rolling DCF rather than stuffing. You can have a long lifespan with proper care whereas woven fabrics have a long lifespan largely regardless of proper care (aside from being sure to dry them).

I still think DCF is overpriced for what its worth. Save a few ounces or more, even a pound somewhere else!!  I know this is BPL.. or ultralight and everyone has been brain washed to who has the lightest pack weight and what not.. and i DO NOT mean that as a knock to BPL, just a general reference as I see it everywhere on other sites too.. but c’mon people. If your pack weight is 15 lbs and your shelter weight makes it a difference of either 14 lbs or 16 lbs will that really make a difference that is noticeable for you to carry? Will that really be a deciding factor if you can hike 15 miles or 20 miles a day?  I understand older age and medical conditions can effect this bit.. but the average person should be FIT enough and conditioned enough that carrying an extra 4 lbs is NOT make or break. Also, for what its worth.. the average person is NOT using their gear in any extreme or extended conditions either. Heck I bet majority of people make it out more then 5 or 6 times in a calendar year.  So if you have that money to spend on a DCF shelter, by all means go for it, you will look sexy out there in the mountains and I hope it serves your purpose well and i hope you get lots of use out of it and hopefully it lasts many many many years and trail miles. If I am going out in any severe conditions I personally would not bring my fancy corvette to a smash up derby.. I learned my lesson the expensive way.. I now know what works for me and what doesn’t and what I prefer to use in any season and conditions.  I will never be purchasing another DCF shelter as long as the prices are equal to me being mugged in the streets.

“But when I see the fanboy hero worship on display here it becomes borderline comical.”

Monte, I’m assuming that you mean me here. However, if you didn’t you’re still responsible for insulting me, according to Jon. Heck, you’re responsible for insulting anyone who mistakenly thinks that you were referencing them. And so you deserve that cussing out coming your way from all those mistaken people–according to Jon!  I won’t cuss you out, though. I find your comment borderline comical in its own way. Did you read my post? I was commenting on Jon’s thesis.

I don’t own any of Durston’s gear. i’ve never met him. About a year ago I did write that I liked the design of his Xmid solo. So have many others. Ah well what’s to be done? I’m decidedly NOT responsible for your mistaken notions about me. You are.

Normally the way it works is, if you disagree with something someone writes, fine. Then you explain why. You address the points raised and refute them, or try to. Calling someone a booger and thinking that counts as a refutation is childish.

Dan: I think that we do agree on the important stuff. I regret that you modified your most recent post to eliminate a lot of the really interesting and informative stuff not just about what we agree on but especially about cat cut hems and the synergy with fabric and design choices. Considering the heat that is currently circulating here, that might be a prudent choice. There’s much more risk involved in posting here for you than for those of us who don’t have any direct stake in the game. Our loss.

Arthur: Looking around at photos of the Duplex on the net, one thing that strikes me is that Zpacks seems to have changed the construction. The Z bartack above the stake point in the photo you’ve shared doesn’t appear in a lot of photos I see on the net. Maybe this was something that Zpacks has changed for a reason but I haven’t spent the time to figure out if the Z bartack is new or old (products evolve, after all).

Compare the way Zpacks sewed that stake point to the technique used on this stake point used by Haitao Li on a symmetrical octagon:

The webbing, which leads to a lineloc, is still bartacked, but it is backed on both sides by reinforcement and the reinforcement extends a few inches above the bartack on each side of the fabric. Looks to me like the stress on the fabric in your photo starts directly from the side of the fabric above the bartacked webbing that isn’t reinforced (well, reinforced only on the other side). If you could source some of the black reinforcement material that might stabilize the fabric — at least for a while.

I’m not surprised that Zpacks responded to you by saying that this was normal wear. It exactly what they said to me about baffle failures on a sleeping bag.

More generally speaking, the Duplex design has always seemed to me to be poorly considered in view of the properties of DCF itself. The mid panel guyline tieout half way up each of the two large panels deforms the shape of the shelter and the panel fabric. The synergy between that deformation and the inherent limits of DCF seem to be a bad mix but have obviously been enough for many of the Duplex’s users.

I feel everybody has become a little too sensitive:-)

I love Zpacks stuff – have owned Duplex, Altaplex tarp, still own Altaplex tent, Pocket tarp and many of his backpacks and assorted accessories. I love how he pushes the envelope. When stuff fails like backpack frame or plexamid struts, he fixes them. That said, ignoring the pictures of de-lamination is trying to ignore the problem. There are real delamination problems for a handful of folks and we are trying to understand the reasons behind them.  Most likely these delamination issues are not affecting a majority of users – otherwise these would have been fixed just like the backpack frames/plexamid struts.

I don’t see anything wrong with such discussions. Sure at one point, it looked like DCF was the worst material and you should abandon it. I will of course continue to use my DCF tarps without any fear in all conditions. Because of this thread, I may proactively apply some patches to the tieout points. Buf if my tarps suffer such de-lamination, I will be pissed for sure:-) So, understaing the problem is important.

Questioning people’s motivations is always going to cause lot of un-necessary back-and-forth responses. We should abstain from such attacks. Let’s stick to understanding the problem.

Sure Monte – Henry Shires, Ron and others are on this forum. Though haven’t seen them recently. I don’t think defending Dan is making some of us fanboys. Heck, his Xmid1 tarp is 17 oz – will never buy his Xmid1 till it comes down to 5.5 oz of the Pocket tarp:-)

I received an e-mail from Joe Valesko regarding the failures with ZPacks shelters pictured on pages 1 and 2 of this thread.

You’re right Murali C, I guess I’m probably a bit overprotective when it comes to the Valeskos because I’ve been buying from them since they started sewing out of their apartment. I adore them.

And I’m sorry to Dan if it seems as if I’ve been accusatory, but the fact remains that when you become a professional who designs, produces and sells ultralight tents, any criticism aimed toward a competitor’s products can and will be viewed with suspicion. In other words, it’s a conflict of interest on a public forum. Dan’s ethics might be above reproach, but how is the reader to know that for sure?

The e-mail

Hi Monte,

I saw that thread when it had a couple pages fewer comments. I read the new entries. Thanks for the heads up.

Dan’s probably not wrong about the diagonal bias contributing, but I don’t think that is the main factor.

DSM had some quality issues with their fabric a few years back. We also switched our adhesive from one that was getting “gooey” in the sun to one that doesn’t have that problem back in 2018. I think some reinforcements were sliding, especially when hot.

You can tell that the reinforcements that they are showing are older because they are made with black hybrid DCF material. We’ve been using clear material and the new adhesive for a few years now. We haven’t seen any shedding like what is shown since DSM changed their formula and since we changed our adhesive. Not sure which of those two things fixed the issue but it isn’t happening anymore as far as I know.

Best Regards,

Joe Valesko

Thanks for following up Monte! Good to know that I don’t have to patch my corners:-)