Solo shelter w/smaller footprint and similar weight to a Hexamid

A modular system is not well supported by Z-Packs. And, yes, the Hexamid (I use a Solo+) can be a bit fiddly to set up.

It is unfortunate that these designs do not have modularity built in, but this is difficult. The shelter is good (With the Solo+ it has good 360 degree coverage) but with the number of stakes makes it painful to set up, especially on a slight mound, my preferred setting. Guylines all over it to have adequate room inside and wasted netting beneath. I believe we think alike on all the little dislikes.

I have found that setting the rear two stakes on guylines about 45 degrees, then setting the hiking pole, then the front stakes, seems to work a bit better than just guessing where to set up the front two stakes to get a proper pitch. But, since I use shepherds hook skewers, the stakes are easily moved anyway. But it always seems like about half of the stakes takes a couple iterations to get a decent pitch. As you say, a bit fiddly.

Anyway, the overall bug netting and floor configuration works well. Most of the larger sticks are cushioned so the floor has fair protection from pokes, etc. But all together, it looks to be about the same weight as a simple bug bivy. A full inner net tent is really not possible with the shelter, there simply is not enough room unless you plan on a 50″ height and commensurate gap around the perimeter. I would guess a full zipper around the perimeter would work OK, allowing you to remove the net when not needed, but this would add considerable weight…at least 2oz. Tough on a 18oz shelter…

The new Plexamid does a lot to remove the redundancy by sewing in the floor and netting, eliminating the wasted netting under the floor. The sewn in floor/netting also leaves a lot of things unaddressed (variable pitches, ventilation, uneven ground, etc.)

Just stopping by to say how much I prefer the rectangular pitch of an MLD mid over my former Duplex and Deschutes. The modularity of the mid is very attractive to me as well, allowing me to take a light bivy, full inner or no inner depending on conditions.

Have you considered a DCF Solomid? Is the footprint too large?

I had a Duomid for awhile. It was silnylon, so a bit heavier and had to deal with a bit of stretch. I always liked how easy it was to pitch, though. I have considered a Solomid or Solomid XL. I assume both of these options would have more room than the Hexamid (I am fine with the amount of room I have in the Hexamid). The Patrol tarp is also an attractive-looking option. I usually just cowboy camp, so I really only need a shelter for when it rains or snows.

@matthewkphx “Just stopping by to say how much I prefer the rectangular pitch of an MLD mid over my former Duplex and Deschutes.”

I’m don’t really understand this. The Duplex is a rectangular pitch.

The Duplex fly is a hexagon shape. That makes it harder to stake out because you can’t just stake down the four corners at the distances dictated by the length of the material. You could start by staking the 4 corners, but the material wouldn’t be there to guide the distances between the stakes, so you’d be estimating that. There are many different approaches to staking out a hexagon, but all of them involve estimating a lot more parameters than you have to do with a rectangle.

Steps to staking out a rectangle:
1) Stake out two adjacent corners (one side) at whatever distance apart pulls the fabric taut (no estimating)
2) Pull out a third corner at 90 degrees. You have to estimate this 90 degrees, but not the length of the side because the material dictates the length (one estimate)
3) Pull out the last corner at whereever it pulls taut (no estimating)
Total Estimates: One

Steps to stake out the four corners of a hexagon:
1) Stake out one end at the length that pulls the fabric taut (no estimating)
2) Pull out the third corner and estimate both the distance and 90 degree angle (two estimates).
3) Pull out the fourth corner at the distance from the 3rd corner dictated by the fabric but still estimate the 90 degree angle to the first side (one estimate).
Total Estimates: Three

If you consider there to be a 80% change of eyeballing a good estimate, then the rectangular pitch will go up perfectly on the first try 80% of the time, while staking the four corners of a hexagon will have 51% first try success (80% x 80% x 80%), and if you fail, then you have to figure out which if your estimates is wrong. But typically it’s not one estimate that is “wrong” but small errors in each estimate adding up to a wonky pitch. So the cumulative error with a rectangle is usually small enough that you get a good pitch, while with a hexagon it’s often more substantial and tweaking is needed. Thus hexagons are more fiddly.

Love the way your mind works Dan!  I’m a little surprised/dissappointed you didn’t mention how easy the Dan Durston X-Mid is to pitch too :)

The Hexamid doesn’t play well in the snow, so I won’t be using much, if at all, it this winter. Maybe I will sell it and hold out for an X-Mid. Preferably an X-Mid in DCF, but I am an impatient fellow and can only wait so long. Using just the fly should work well. I frequently don’t need the extra protection from insects. On the other hand, it appears that Zpacks is no longer making the Hexamid tent. It now shows only as a “pocket tarp” with no beak or netting. It may increase in value….

“I’m a little surprised/disappointed you didn’t mention how easy the Dan Durston X-Mid is to pitch too :)”
I’m trying to not make comments that could be construed as a commercial sales pitch – especially in threads that aren’t clearly about the X-Mid – but certainly the X-Mid is easy to pitch. My video on that shows the ease of staking a rectangle at 0:49 via the method I describe above, in case my description was unclear.

Preferably an X-Mid in DCF, but I am an impatient fellow and can only wait so long.
Since you bring it up, I am working on a DCF X-Mid but it’ll be a while so I don’t want to build hype. The goal is to have the design sorted out by mid-summer (yeah 9 months from now) and then production takes a while after that. The initial drawings are done and the factory is getting started now on the first prototype (different factory – same one that’s making the Big Agnes DCF tents but no 0.3oz cuben here). The DCF X-Mid is fairly different from the regular X-Mid because I don’t want to simply make the same thing in another material. Everything is redesigned to be as light as possible (as opposed to more well rounded) so it’s a coherent design. It wouldn’t make sense to have #5 zips on 0.5oz DCF. So it is ~15% smaller, less beefy and some features are trimmed but it’ll will weigh ~16oz. It’s hybrid design so it has mesh end and door walls, but single wall on the roof. I’d love to do a variety of versions, but it makes sense to start with the hybrid version so there is less overlap with the regular X-Mid.

As it pertains to your original post, this tent will certainly be easier to pitch than the Hexamid. The weight will be slightly heavier than a Hexamid + floor, but including stakes/guylines about the same since the X-Mid requires only 4. The floor area will be similar (X-Mid will be a bit shorter but wider). The main advantages will be increased simplicity (rectangle base, no guylines, 4 stakes) and function for that weight (e.g. a full coverage fly that can extend to the ground on all sides, peak vent, dual doors, more vestibule area, zippers instead of door clips, better snow shedding.

@dandydan “You could start by staking the 4 corners, but the material wouldn’t be there to guide the distances between the stakes, so you’d be estimating that. ”

Indeed you could start by staking the 4 corners and we do and the material is there to guide the distance. We hardly ever use the doors so we pitch the Duplex as a rectangle with the doors rolled up. It works, believe me. The Duplex is a rectangle and pitches as a rectangle in exactly the same three steps that you outlined above. The doors are an optional extra and play no role in the pitching.

@dandydan Thinking about the three steps outlined above, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. If the Duplex were just a flysheet, then you would have to estimate the length in step 2. But since the groundsheet is sewn in, the length is set so no estimation is needed – just pull until the first two guy lines form a 45 degree angle to the line of the tent or the corner forms a 90 degree angle, whichever you find easier. I find it easier to estimate the 45 degree angle since you just have to estimate when the first two guy lines are at the same angle.

Hi Will,

Thanks for your thoughts and explanation here. I understand your point that the floor acts as a rectangle, and thus you can stake out those four corners with the advantages of a rectangle, and then later add the additional stake points to make the fly a hexagon. I also see what you mean about pulling the guylines at 45 degrees. I mention the “90 degrees sides” strategy rather than the “45 degree guylines” strategy because most rectangular tent bases don’t have corner guylines nearly as long as the Duplex (because the fly typically extends closer to the ground) and when you have shorter guylines this indicator isn’t as reliable (if the fly extends right to the ground with short guylines of only a few inches, you can have these way off 45 degrees).

In the past when I’ve used with a tent that is a hexagon fly +  sewn in rectangular floor like this (e.g. SMD Refuge X), I still found it a bit wonky to pitch using the rectangle strategy because the stretch / looseness in the mesh that connects the fly and floor made the distance between the corners was somewhat variable/fuzzy, whereas when you have a rectangular fly the distances are solidly defined, but apparently that is not an issue with the Duplex, or at least it’s not substantial enough to be notable. So thanks for the clarification here. It’s nice to see the Duplex does retain most of the advantages of a rectangle.

It terms of remaining pitching disadvantages, admittedly they are small. Obviously the Duplex needs those two additional stakes to stake out the doors (or peak guylines), and then the other small pitching disadvantage compared to a tent with “internal” peaks (e.g. a mid) is that the tent doesn’t naturally limit the height of the trekking poles, so you actually need to measure (or estimate) the pole lengths.

Anyways, I’m getting pretty off topic here because this thread is about the search for a tent that is easier to pitch than the Hexamid, not the Duplex.

“In terms of remaining pitching disadvantages, admittedly they are small. Obviously the Duplex needs those two additional stakes to stake out the doors (or peak guylines), and then the other small pitching disadvantage compared to a tent with “internal” peaks (e.g. a mid) is that the tent doesn’t naturally limit the height of the trekking poles, so you actually need to measure (or estimate) the pole lengths.”

Yes, one of the disadvantages of the Duplex is that the peak guylines have to be used and they need a lot of tension.

*End of thread drift from me.*