Solo-Plus Tent Round-Up

Did you receive compensation for this article?

Edit. Thanks for the PM explaining.

Well herein lies the problem..

Backpacking Light doesn't normally offer financial compensation for contributors, but we do offer complimentary memberships to all contributors, as well as complimentary Lifetime Memberships to regular contributors. And, we're eager to work with budding bloggers and authors to help promote your websites or social or environmental causes (assuming they are compatible with our own), and commercial services so long as they don't result in a conflict of interest with our gear review program.

So I guess we should not complain about getting what we paid for. Cuz' that just the lights around here.

RJ should give you your hundred back.

Thanks for your PM Chris. Not good RJ, not good.

I am going to go a bit sideways and agree that the SOTM report really didn't speak to me. I guess it is nice that he covered a niche segment of tents but I really don't carry trekking poles here in the plains where it is flat nor have close to $300 to spend on a tent that I have to provide the support for. I really was looking forward to this article but it did not speak to me as to what I need.

In addition the Golite is complete sold out of just about every place except one that has it at $250.

Thanks Chris for this update on solo tents.

BPL would do well to collect all the solo tent reviews (for tents still produced) and group them together and then write up a summary that could be changed as new tents came along.

For example the SMD Skyscape X in all its iterations including the Cuben tent is certainly worthy of a high rating. It is designs like this and the TT Stratospire and Notch that keep us grabbing for our wallets every few years.

So, BPL, let's set up a rating standard for tents (all tents) that give points (say 1 – 5) for categories like weight, ease of pitching, storage areas, design quality, wind-worthiness, quality of construction, etc. With a STANDARDIZED rating system, not one for each reviewing author, we can more readily compare tents from different reviews. If the reviewers do not have enough time for a full review and standardized rating then don't print it. We can wait a week or two get the best from a review.

And so, as well, we could use a STANDARDIZED rating system for all backpacking products. Much good work on rating standards has already been done by reviewers like Will Reitveld and his light down jackets review, for ex.. But, again, let's standardize it for ALL reviewers. Motor Trend has standardized ratings for their automotive reviews and so can we at BPL.

Just sayin'…

Chris,

Don't lose any sleep over the complaints. A very high, and perhaps exhaustive standard has been set by BPL for SOTM reports. They are the usually the most useful reviews out there. Perhaps this is not as field tested or comprehensive as many of the prior SOTM reports, but that does not mean it lacks value. Such a review certainly does not merit the threats to abandon BPL. What is easy to see is the amount of passion, high expectations, and how well educated BPL forum members are. You are speaking to a core audience that lacks an appreciation for backyard "tests".

Given the consistently errant measurements of many shelter manufacturers, just knowing what the REAL weights of these shelters was useful. This article has served to solidify my love of my SMD Skyscape Trekker that I bought last year in Ron's first run of them. Thanks for letting us know their real weights and for your personal annotations about pitching them and their usable space.

Another useful review of lightweight single plus fully enclosed shelters can be found on hikelighter.com. John did a great job with this one as well.

http://hikelighter.com/2011/12/29/sulxul-enclosed-shelter-comparisons/

Cheers,
Bodhi

Reviews are hard. I can understand the problems with it. By the time you manage to compare all of the tents, the market has changed. I get that.

So, don't focus on the reviews. To me, a "State of the Market" report should list as many products as possible. It should also give as much technical information about the product as possible. Much of this is objective. For example, list all of the tents that you think fill the bill. Put asterisks by the ones that you didn't include. Now, with the ones that you did include (and maybe some of the ones you didn't) give a clickable floor layout. In other words, list the total floor space, but with each one, you should be able to click on it, and then see the layout, with distances from one corner to the other, etc. So many of these tents aren't rectacles, but trapezoids, pentagons, etc. Do the same thing with the third dimension. How does the tent slope up? One of the advantages of a typical dome tent is that the sides are steep. I can easily make a tent that is the opposite (plenty of "floor space" but the angles are so shallow that you wouldn't want to be under it).

Reviews are hard. You may not be able to review everything, in every condition. But give a calculated guess. You did this with previous market reports. You suggested that one tent might not be that good in a storm, but you didn't do any sort of real calculations (putting each tent on a rotating platform on top of a pickup and then driving until something broke). But a calculated guess is better than none. It means folks can argue about that, but we are all used to that.

In this case, everyone is wondering why some tents (Refuge X, for example) weren't included. Does it not meet the arbitrary "one plus" limit? If the Cuben version wasn't available, why didn't you get the other (cheaper) version? Are they that different (other than the material)? If you bent on the objective measurement (36 ounces) why didn't you bend on the "one plus" limit? List it, point out its objective limitations and then, if you have time, review it.

I feel for Chris and know exactly where he comes from.
To be blunt what he did was a labour of love not a paid report and as such there is only so much you can do if you are not the only son of Bill Gates and therefore don't need to work for a living…
When I did my article on weatherproof cameras (I offered to do that…) I was contacted about six months after it had been handed in to let me know BPL was ready to publish it.
By then of course a lot of the data was obsolete so I had to ,quickly, re-do most of it.
At the time I was working in the photo trade and part of my job was reviewing cameras so it was not a big deal however the delay in publishing put me off doing another one.
So Chris, yes we do expect more thorough reviews , the frustration expressed above is towards BPL not you.
Nevertheless thank you for your effort , much better than your "pay".
Franco

I subscribed to BPL (and dropped Backpacker) because of its detailed gear reviews and comparison reports. The number of SOTM reports seems to be increasing while in-depth reviews and especially comparisons with ratings seem to be decreasing. For us gearheads, this is not a welcome trend. Please don't let lifestyle stories, trip reports, and general overviews replace what's been unique about this website.

Thanks,

Dan

Another disheartening thread.

Agree. Some much negativity the past several months.

As Jimmy Durante said, "My, what a revoltin' development!"

You folks who beat up on the author should be ashamed. What goes into these articles is a function of the management. You can go remonstrate with them, but mind that they have been sending us clear signals for some time now that this is going to be a shoestring operation from now on, like it or not.

Like at least one of the other posters, I continue to subscribe because a lot of very interesting and helpful contributions are made on the forums/threads.

The only problem is that if the rest of site becomes (has become?) fluff, a lot of the best contributors may disappear. Don't see anymore a lot of very talented and experienced folks posting who used to do so fairly regularly. If this trend continues, the threads will just become a place for trolling, shilling and marketing by poseurs who have some vested interest. It's not unusual, and is all over the internet. For every lousy product that is poorly reviewed, there are often a few reviews that wildly extoll the virtues of the product. If it comes to that, the ultimate sham would be when the editors start to delete the lousy reviews.

Probably I will hang in there till the bitter end, feeling that there are enough folks out there with good contributions to make that this site will continue to be worth visiting. We will have to ignore the chaff, and refrain from castigating folks who take the time to put together some reviews for a pittance. If that doesn't work, we can go somewhere else. We all spend too dam much time sitting in front of a monitor anyway.

"…everyone is wondering why some tents (Refuge X, for example) weren't included."

Perhaps because it was discontinued years ago? I think you meant Skyscape X :)

I wasn't expecting long term testing. I was expecting more information than just a rehash of the manufacturer specifications. As I mentioned, setting up all the tents on the lawn and turning the hose (with a pressure nozzle) on them would have elicited some quick results relating to waterproofness and condensation. So would turning loose the dog or kids for a little "strength testing" if a windstorm wasn't available. That's what I've done to test the tents I've bought, which I've done before deciding whether or not to keep the tent. Someone also mentioned diagrams of the actual space inside the tents. For many cottage manufacturers, that info is available on their websites, but for some tents it isn't, and it's important information for those trying to make "buy" decisions.

The SOTM report on single-wall tents that has been referenced several times in this thread is a shining example of what we have been conditioned to expect from BPL SOTM reports. I think we all assumed that this one would be similar.

If a manufacturer isn't able to supply test models, I believe that should be noted. Not as a backhand to the manufacturer, but to provide a complete listing of the tents that meet the specific criteria, as a service to potential buyers.

Chris, I understand that there were problems, especially with the delay in publication. You're not the only one; "Balls" and "Sunshine" were within a few days of completing the Appalachian trail by the time their first AT article, written several months earlier, was published, which removed any "suspense" over whether or not they'd make it. I believe, though, that a perusal of old SOTM reports would be very useful in demonstrating why we were disappointed. .

Chris, I just read your above post that evidently was being written at the same time as this one. It actually would have been extremely helpful–and not at all subjective!–if you had described the results of the trips, including the weather conditions. That might be good information for a short follow-up article.

"Another disheartening thread.

Agree. Some much negativity the past several months."

+1

There is such a thing as constructive criticism; then there is the other kind, which is sadly all too much in evidence on this thread. Ponder the former, Chris, and recognize the latter for what it is. You made a good faith effort for little, if any, personal gain and, IMO, you deserve better than a lot of what is floating around on this thread.