Condensation in tents

Theo said:

I've sperated the inner from the fly of my Akto for the first time during
this years Challenge and I must say I quite like to pitch the outer first,
throw my wet pack and my wet self in the tent and dry up a bit first before
attaching the inner.

The Akto is a lot smaller than the OP's LsserLarge though: you could
easily unhook just the front of the inner in that (or a Nallo, for that
matter) and get out of the clag while still soaking and still save time
on the overall pitch.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Roger said:

30 years ago there were tents on the market that were very nearly as
light as todays models.

There's more to comparison than just putting them on the scales though.
The chap who started the Camping Club (mainly centring on paddle and
cycle touring) back in the *19th Century* used a remarkably light and
low bulk tent which would easily fit in a saddlebag along with
everything else he needed, but would it stand up to a gale on an exposed
pitch? I doubt it!

Quoted message said:

My Ulitmate U1-B weighs in at about 5 lbs I believe

But even when new it would have been relatively easy to rip the flysheet
material, especially with a small tear to start. Try ripping a good
high tenacity silicone coated nylon, even with a long scissor cut to
start you off, and it's /incredibly/ hard to impossible (I couldn't do
it with a sample of the nylon Saunders use). And that'll be the
difference between a tent in tatters and a tent that's fine in a real
blow. Those materials have been about since the mid/late 70s and that's
when you started getting tents that were both very light /and/ very
strong. Before that you could have one or the other. Now the better
materials are being stretched a bit so you can go lighter but at a loss
in strength.

Quoted message said:

The Ultimate was bought 1972 or possibly even earlier. It was certainly
in use by June 1972. I tried looking for a advert to confirm the weight
as my kitchen scales are inaccurate. I didn't find one for my tent but
lighter tents were readily available. A Karrimor advert in June 1974
offered the Marathon mk 2 tent at 2lb 15 oz and the Wedge 1 at 2lb 8 oz.
Both would allegedly take 2, the Wedge "squeeze two".

Mountain marathons have long been the province of kit which people only
use for events where every gramme makes a difference, and where
abandoning the event at the midway campsite is on the agenda if
necessary. Reliability is not always a primary concern. There's not a
chance one of those would stand up to the sort of punishment an Akto
would take.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

The message <[email hidden]>
from Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

30 years ago there were tents on the market that were very nearly as
light as todays models.

Quoted message said:

There's more to comparison than just putting them on the scales though.
The chap who started the Camping Club (mainly centring on paddle and
cycle touring) back in the *19th Century* used a remarkably light and
low bulk tent which would easily fit in a saddlebag along with
everything else he needed, but would it stand up to a gale on an exposed
pitch? I doubt it!

The point I was making was that there were lightweight tents available
more than 30 years ago. Obviously things have improved since then but
only to a degree. I certainly wouldn't have trusted either of those
Karrimor tents but my Ultimate survived some bad weather in exposed
situations and is still in existence although I haven't been tempted to
use it (or my bivvy bag) since I ran out of Munros to bash back in 1985.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My Ultimate U1-B weighs in at about 5 lbs I believe

Quoted message said:

But even when new it would have been relatively easy to rip the flysheet
material, especially with a small tear to start. Try ripping a good
high tenacity silicone coated nylon, even with a long scissor cut to
start you off, and it's /incredibly/ hard to impossible (I couldn't do
it with a sample of the nylon Saunders use). And that'll be the
difference between a tent in tatters and a tent that's fine in a real
blow. Those materials have been about since the mid/late 70s and that's
when you started getting tents that were both very light /and/ very
strong. Before that you could have one or the other. Now the better
materials are being stretched a bit so you can go lighter but at a loss
in strength.

I have turned up a test report, Climber and Rambler August 1971, but
unfortunately it doesn't detail the material beyond "proofed nylon".

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Ultimate was bought 1972 or possibly even earlier. It was certainly
in use by June 1972. I tried looking for a advert to confirm the weight
as my kitchen scales are inaccurate. I didn't find one for my tent but
lighter tents were readily available. A Karrimor advert in June 1974
offered the Marathon mk 2 tent at 2lb 15 oz and the Wedge 1 at 2lb 8 oz.
Both would allegedly take 2, the Wedge "squeeze two".

I had forgotten I had the original catalog from the period but again
there is no detail about the material. It does however give the weight
of the U1-B @ 4lb 12 oz (just half a lb heavier than the Pro-Action)
and, at £36 (say £360 in today's money), it cost more than the
Pro-Action 30 years later. That would have been about a week and a
half's wages back in 1971.

Quoted message said:

Mountain marathons have long been the province of kit which people only
use for events where every gramme makes a difference, and where
abandoning the event at the midway campsite is on the agenda if
necessary. Reliability is not always a primary concern. There's not a
chance one of those would stand up to the sort of punishment an Akto
would take.

But the heavier tents in the 5lb category were durable if my example is
anything to go by. The Scambler and Gambler had tested the Vango Force
Ten Mark II Featherweight (@5 lbs) the previous month but wasn't quite
as impressed with that as with the Ultimate.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

Roger said:

The point I was making was that there were lightweight tents available
more than 30 years ago.

About 130 years ago, in fact!

Quoted message said:

Obviously things have improved since then but
only to a degree. I certainly wouldn't have trusted either of those
Karrimor tents but my Ultimate survived some bad weather in exposed
situations and is still in existence although I haven't been tempted to
use it (or my bivvy bag) since I ran out of Munros to bash back in 1985.

For comparison, Hilleberg test their new designs over a couple of years
of extended expeditions, including in Arctic conditions for ski touring.
There's "surviving some bad weather" and there's extended 4 season use.

Quoted message said:

I have turned up a test report, Climber and Rambler August 1971, but
unfortunately it doesn't detail the material beyond "proofed nylon".

I don't recall Ultimate ever using silicone elastomers. For many years
after it first appeared only Saunders in the UK and Hilleberg in Sweden
seemed to be using it (the recent lightweight test in Trail gets it
entirely wrong in suggesting that all tents have PU coats). PU coatings
are far more common, but heat-age the fabric applied too far more than
the silicone elastomers, and the SE coats also inhibit UV degradation to
a significant degree which PU coats don't.

Quoted message said:

But the heavier tents in the 5lb category were durable if my example is
anything to go by. The Scambler and Gambler had tested the Vango Force
Ten Mark II Featherweight (@5 lbs) the previous month but wasn't quite
as impressed with that as with the Ultimate.

As stated above, there's durable and there's durable. Hilleberg's
"ultralight" models are tested as described above and are designed as
full 4 season reliable expedition tents, but Hilleberg still suggest
their heavier models where robustness is a key factor. I would bet
good money that it would be easier to tear the fly of the Ultimate than
any of Hilleberg's lightweights, and that's before you factor in several
years of UV degradation.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Roger said:

30 years ago there were tents on the market that were very nearly as
light as todays models.

There's more to comparison than just putting them on the scales though.
The chap who started the Camping Club (mainly centring on paddle and
cycle touring) back in the *19th Century* used a remarkably light and
low bulk tent which would easily fit in a saddlebag along with
everything else he needed, but would it stand up to a gale on an
exposed pitch? I doubt it!

The tent in question was made of silk and single-skin so I doubt it
would have stood up to a downpour either.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My Ulitmate U1-B weighs in at about 5 lbs I believe

But even when new it would have been relatively easy to rip the
flysheet material, especially with a small tear to start. Try ripping
a good high tenacity silicone coated nylon, even with a long scissor
cut to start you off, and it's /incredibly/ hard to impossible (I
couldn't do it with a sample of the nylon Saunders use). And that'll
be the difference between a tent in tatters and a tent that's fine in a
real blow. Those materials have been about since the mid/late 70s and
that's when you started getting tents that were both very light /and/
very strong. Before that you could have one or the other. Now the
better materials are being stretched a bit so you can go lighter but at
a loss in strength.

PU nylons in the 70s were pretty strong, just heavier than silicone
nylon. The U1-B was a 70s tent that was tough, along with other Ultimate
tents. I used one, the Tramp, for a Land's End-John O'Groats walk and it
was fine in storms. The problem with these PU nylons was they
delaminated after a while and were more susceptible to UV damage than
silicone nylon. The big advantages of silicone nylon are light weight
and long term durability.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Ultimate was bought 1972 or possibly even earlier. It was certainly
in use by June 1972. I tried looking for a advert to confirm the weight
as my kitchen scales are inaccurate. I didn't find one for my tent but
lighter tents were readily available. A Karrimor advert in June 1974
offered the Marathon mk 2 tent at 2lb 15 oz and the Wedge 1 at 2lb 8 oz.
Both would allegedly take 2, the Wedge "squeeze two".

Mountain marathons have long been the province of kit which people only
use for events where every gramme makes a difference, and where
abandoning the event at the midway campsite is on the agenda if
necessary. Reliability is not always a primary concern. There's not a
chance one of those would stand up to the sort of punishment an Akto
would take.

The Marathon Mk 2 was a popular backpacking tent in the 70s. It appears
on the cover of the first TGO magazine (then called in full The Great
Outdoors) and on Robin Adshead's and Derrick Booth's then seminal
Backpacking in Britain. The Mk2 was a tough, reliable tent but was
single skin so condensation was a problem and lacked a porch. Two was a
squeeze in the Mk2 let alone the Wedge and other than on mountain
marathons people used it as a solo tent. These tents disappeared, along
with many others, when domes and tunnels came along. Similar designs
have returned recently with trekking poles used as supports. I have
camping photos from the 70s/early 80s that looked out of date 10 years
ago but don't now!

--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

PU nylons in the 70s were pretty strong, just heavier than silicone
nylon.

They had (still have!) lower tear strength, even at considerably higher
weights, though their abrasion resistance would be okay (but tents tend
to be more subject to tearing forces than rubbing ones) AFAICT).

Quoted message said:

The Marathon Mk 2 was a popular backpacking tent in the 70s. It appears
on the cover of the first TGO magazine (then called in full The Great
Outdoors) and on Robin Adshead's and Derrick Booth's then seminal
Backpacking in Britain. The Mk2 was a tough, reliable tent but was
single skin so condensation was a problem and lacked a porch.

Twin skins also provide an air-gap insulation effect which makes a
useful comfort difference. A modern twin-skin might not be much lighter
but it is stronger, more comfortable to live in and should last longer
as well as being easier to pitch.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>, Peter Clinch
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Chris Townsend said:

PU nylons in the 70s were pretty strong, just heavier than silicone
nylon.

They had (still have!) lower tear strength, even at considerably higher
weights, though their abrasion resistance would be okay (but tents tend
to be more subject to tearing forces than rubbing ones) AFAICT).

I've never had the tent fabric tear and I've used PU coated tents on
thousands of nights. The few problems I've had have been poles snapping
and bending, zips failing ,pegs pulling out and pegging points tearing
out of the fabric.

Silicone nylon does have greater tear strength and greater all round
durability and is my first choice for tent fabric. The best PU nylon
isn't bad though (cheaper versions tend to have a lifespan of a few
months at best - companies who show their tents at outdoor displays have
to replace the budget models every season).

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Marathon Mk 2 was a popular backpacking tent in the 70s. It
appears on the cover of the first TGO magazine (then called in full
The Great Outdoors) and on Robin Adshead's and Derrick Booth's then
seminal Backpacking in Britain. The Mk2 was a tough, reliable tent
but was single skin so condensation was a problem and lacked a porch.

Twin skins also provide an air-gap insulation effect which makes a
useful comfort difference. A modern twin-skin might not be much
lighter but it is stronger, more comfortable to live in and should last
longer as well as being easier to pitch.

I've just tested modern single-skin tents for TGO and condensation was
the big issue. They are easy to pitch but in most you can just about
guarantee a damp sleeping bag come morning.
--
Chris Townsend

http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk

Chris Townsend said:

I've never had the tent fabric tear and I've used PU coated tents on
thousands of nights.

I haven't seen them tear either, but I know people who have (actual
first hand, not friends of friends). One sounded like extreme UV
wastage had got to it first, others are from paddlers where it's often
the case that a sheltered pitch is harder to come by and the reason to
camp at all was having been forced ashore. IIRC both were Vangos, and
they're generally trustworthy as a brand.

But as regards the possibility of doing a tent well with a PU sheet, of
course Quasars wouldn't have got a reputation as strong tents had the
early ones ripped all the time!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

The message <[email hidden]>
from Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> contains these words:

Quoted message said:

Twin skins also provide an air-gap insulation effect which makes a
useful comfort difference. A modern twin-skin might not be much lighter
but it is stronger, more comfortable to live in and should last longer
as well as being easier to pitch.

The Ultimate U1 range were twin skin tents, albeit sewn together along
the ridge, and easy to pitch if your hands were warm enough to unpack
the nesting poles.

--
Roger Chapman
Nearest Marilyn still to be visited - Great Orme.
89 miles as the crow flies,
considerably more as the walker drives.

In message <[email hidden]>

Peter Clinch said:

Chris Townsend said:

I've never had the tent fabric tear and I've used PU coated tents on
thousands of nights.

I haven't seen them tear either, but I know people who have (actual
first hand, not friends of friends). One sounded like extreme UV
wastage had got to it first, others are from paddlers where it's often
the case that a sheltered pitch is harder to come by and the reason to
camp at all was having been forced ashore. IIRC both were Vangos, and
they're generally trustworthy as a brand.

But as regards the possibility of doing a tent well with a PU sheet, of
course Quasars wouldn't have got a reputation as strong tents had the
early ones ripped all the time!

Pete.

We had a Vango Hurrican Beta where one of the panels in the bell end
ripped out in a storm in the Llanberis Pass (it damaged several other
tents as well). Fortunately it happened in the morning shortly before we
were due to pack up and leave anyway. I also have seen friends nylon
flysheet Vango Force 10s rip as well.

Our Quasar flysheet finally started ripping all over the place, but that
was the result of many years of UV exposure.

But I would concur with Chris Townsend's earlier post that the major
problem I've had with tents has usually being a failure of the poles.
That was particularly a problem with the Quasar. Almost every section of
every pole was a replacement after about 10 years of use.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"

Mike Clark said:

But I would concur with Chris Townsend's earlier post that the major
problem I've had with tents has usually being a failure of the poles.
That was particularly a problem with the Quasar. Almost every section of
every pole was a replacement after about 10 years of use.

I took down my Snowcat (now Dominic's Snowcat!) in what we reckon was
about a Force 8 because the poles were doing "interesting" things... I
wasn't in it at the time, it was along as the "party tent" without the
inner. A pal in an old Phoenix ridge tent (Phreak? generally reckoned
to be pretty bombproof, whatever) deserted it in favour of my Tarra
during the same night as he doubted it would survive.

Unfortunately, while trying to unbend one of the Snowcat poles I put a
crease in it, so that was a new pole from Saunders and mostly my own
work. Bah!

So it wouldn't surprise me if busted poles are a primary problem, though
of course depending on how it fails a broken pole may stand a reasonable
chance of punching through the fly wall after which really good tear
strength will be a Handy Thing...

Not that I've tried it myself, but Hilleberg say they size their pole
sleeves (and pole holder feet) for double poling, so if it looks really
frightful you can double up for extra strength.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In message <[email hidden]>
Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

So it wouldn't surprise me if busted poles are a primary problem, though
of course depending on how it fails a broken pole may stand a reasonable
chance of punching through the fly wall after which really good tear
strength will be a Handy Thing...

Yes and that is also where the design of the tent can make a difference.
On the Quasar where the poles fit in sleeves in the inner tent, a broken
pole can easily push a hole through the outer tent.

On the Hillebergs the poles run through a sleeve on the outside of the
outer tent so a hole is less of a concern.

Quoted message said:

Not that I've tried it myself, but Hilleberg say they size their pole
sleeves (and pole holder feet) for double poling, so if it looks
really frightful you can double up for extra strength.

Pete.

Yes as it happens I have a broken section of a pole for a Hilleberg tent
that I need to replace. I had to resort to the spare section whilst
erecting the tent in sub-zero temperatures. The section snapped on me as
I attempted to flex the tent.

I suppose I could get some complete spare poles and then they could be
used for double poling.

Mike
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark
<\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A mountain climbing, cycling, skiing,
"> || _`\<,_ |__\ \> | immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and
` || (_)/ (_) | \corn computer user"