Trekking pole tent. Bad idea for you.

“These are all parts for the not so good BD Distance tent.  Great concept but poor execution.”

I never really put much thought into this tent after initially putting it off, but this statement is 100% correct. If I wasn’t consumed with other projects, and if i used BD distance poles, I think this would be a great starting point!

“I’m working on a semi freestanding tent that can be reinforced with BD Distance AR trekking poles to become fully freestanding and more wind worthy (will also work with optional tent poles). …”

The concept of connecting two trekking poles with a top strut in order to make a T-pole tent more stable goes back many decades.  The original was a “Nomad” tent that morphed into what Lightheart Gear sells.  Montbell tried one, but it was a tight fit.  Still another was made by a cottage industry in the NW US.

These all did make the tent more stable in high winds, but certainly not freestanding.  They were more akin to a tunnel with one skinny trapezoid at the peak, and something analogous to TarpTent’s pitchlock on each side to hold the tents up. These were not even remotely freestanding, as is shown by recent threads about the heavy stakes (or rocks) required to keep the tents upright, especially in high winds.

Eric, the universal trekking pole adapter would allow you to use any trekking pole.

Sam,  thanks for pointing out the system that Light heart Gear use, I hadn’t had a close look at them before.

To clarify, Sam, I’m going for a semi freestanding design with the trekking poles being optional for reinforcement and conversion to true freestanding.  Tent poles can also take the place of the trekking poles.  I wont be using the BD cross beam, rather I will be making inserts to reduce the diameter of the female section of the BD Distance AR to fit my pole size… but after looking at the LHG tents, I wonder if it would be wiser to think about having the poles inverted with the tips inserting into the tent poles.  As im going for an external frame, baskets wouldn’t need to be removed from the trekking poles (which looks like the case for the LHG tents).

Simon, can you give us an example of how two trekking poles would make a semi-freestanding tent into a true freestanding one.  Assuming that freestanding means that the tent assumes its full shape before it is staked; and is thus fully self-supporting.  An example would be a Hilleberg Soulo (https://hilleberg.com/eng/tent/red-label-tents/soulo/   The Soulo incorporates its vestibule(s) under one free standing canopy, but there is quite a weight penalty.  By contrast, a MSR Hubba uses stakes to support the vestibules, although the rest of the tent can stand on its own; or is self-supporting.  But once you get into some of the Nemo or Big Agnes tents, for example, they require stakes at certain points to support the main body of the tent, not just the vestibules.

It may be just a matter of semantics, but would like to better understand what you are saying.

Apologies, gotta nail those definitions.  I take a true freestanding tent to be any tent that can be fully taught without stakes ala Soulo, and a semi freestanding tent to be a tent that stands up on its own but requires stakes to become fully taught.  Soulo is freestanding, Hubba Hubba is semi freestanding but so is the Nemo Dragonfly or BA Fly Creeek, which require additional stakes on the body as well as the vestibule.

The path I’ve chosen is to have a symmetrical, irregular 5 sided polygon so that a pole set with 3 points of contact to the ground corners and staked out vestibules gets the tent fully taught.  Trekking poles can insert into the cross beam, from the apex of the vestibule to the corner of the vestibule (tie off point for staking out) in order to have all 5 sides contacting the ground.  Same principle could be used for a hexagonal design.

Thank you, Simon, for your reply.  Agree with your definitions of ‘freestanding’, except when you get into tents with loose corners that must be supported with stakes.  Did not follow your pentagon design.  Got any diagrams?

I’m on holiday but I have an earlier version of the basic geometry screenshoted on my phone that I can share.

There has been quite  few changes since this version. Geometry has changed a little but remains similar. I’ve decreased the width of the cross beams, added a unique origami door mechanism so the inner stays dry on entry/exit and creates a “porch”.  Bathtub has changed to an irregular pentagon that fits 2 wide/long mats or 3 20″ tapered. Height has increased to give 95cm internal height… I’ve also added a unique method of improving wind worthiness but I may keep it to myself for now as I think it may be worth patenting.

https://imgur.com/a/NaIU7Vf

Thanks, Simon.  The diagrams will keep me busy for a while.

<p style=”text-align: left;”>Np Sam.</p>
I don’t think I said that she’ll be external frame, outer and inner pitched together.

I have 20D silpoly (1.1 xeonsil for fly, xenonsil wide for bathtub), 7d nylon and nano noseeum for the semi solid inner.

I don’t have my poles (Easton 6.3 CF) in hand yet.  Right pain to organise them for the UK.

CAD measurements and parts list on the latest version is putting her at 1050 grams (excluding seam allowance, thread and seam sealing).