Thread: Designing the best back country tent in the market - Need you help

Here is the concept for my ultimate 1-person that also fits the criteria in the original post. I’ll list the main features and the reason why these suit me, with some positives along with negatives that offset these as part of the design trade-offs. There is absolutely nothing new here, only dimensional or set-out variations for a combination of existing commercial designs that come together in a way that suits me.

1. The tent would be double skinned.
Having a double-walled tent is a preference thing for me; for the 5°C or more of added warmth that an inner offers, mosquito & sandfly protection, allowing for a tub floor to keep out ground water, and for the fast set-up in designs where the fly and inner are left attached . The downsides are less usable space for a given size of site, and more weight. The idea here would be to stick with the way most manufacturers of this type of tent try to offset this negative by having the inner removable for a fly-plus-pole-only option requiring the addition of a separate footprint. The inner hangs from the fly by quick-detach fasteners, perhaps rings and toggles. It would be interesting to see how the fly-only weight compares to a Summit Star.

2. Robust tub floor.
Again a personal preference is having the convenience of a built-in floor that can take a bit of hard use in standard form without the need for an additional footprint. In years past I’ve found the Macpac floor materials very good, so I am envisaging a similar but contemporary material for this tent. I would not want to cut back on the robustness and puncture resistance of the floor material as a means of keeping under the 1.5kg weight limit. I would however be Ok with keeping the tub walls down to around 100mm in height.

3. Single pole.
The weight limit pretty much dictates this, or would mean compromises for reducing weight to run multi-pole that would have to be made elsewhere and that I would be less happy about. To claw back a bit of strength I’d up the pole diameter to 10mm and have the usual attachment points for additional guys on the spine and mid-panel on either side. I like the front-back orientation, as in the Hilleberg 1-person tents, the Terra Nova Laser, and in the Macpac Sololight and discontinued Eclipse. Actually this concept design is very much like an stretched Terra Nova Laser, where the width has been left alone, but the front-to-back depth has been increased by 25%. The pole runs down a sleeve in the inside of the fly, Macpac style, as I think I’d prefer to seam seal than have a separate pole sleeve cover. There are also some pre-bent sections that skew the arch to the rear over where the inner is hung. The downside of bent pole sections: they don’t pack away quite as well.

4. Height.
I want to be able to layer-on or –off inside the tent, and for this I need some height, more than all the contemporary 1P designs with this shape provide. The maximum height figure isn’t the whole story of course when there is an apex that a single pole design must have, so I’ll instead specify the requirement in terms of an equivalent flattish area of roof under which I can sit to get changed, much like the MSR Elixir and Hubba Hubba families of tent actually provide. The maximum inner height at the apex in this design will be 1100mm, perhaps a little more, giving a central area that is over one metre above the floor of about 400mm x 400mm, extending out to 700mm x 500mm at the 900mm height contour. Hopefully this all makes sense? The obvious downside of more height is much more potential for wind loading, as lifting up the ceiling inside has necessarily extended the external height to 1.2 metres, 200mm greater than the Hilleberg Enan and 300mm more than the Eclipse Microlight. However this lack of internal height (just 800mm at the apex) is the main failing of this latter tent in my view and is not something that I would compromise in my ideal concept tent.


 
5. A huge vestibule.
About twice the size of even the most capacious 1-person tents. I like to have everything under cover out of the rain and dew, but not necessarily in with my clean gear and bag. This re–apportioning of under–cover area is the most significant difference between this tent concept and using a two person tent for one person as many of us do. Plenty of room for cooking under shelter too, with good clearances to the flammable materials. The back triangle of the inner does give some additional interior room over a plain 2200mm x 600mm rectangle if the dog isn’t happy being out in the vestibule. Some will prefer having the extra space inside the tent inner, and then sticking with a 2P tent will be the way to go.

6. The material for the fly I would leave as a decision for the tentmakers. The inner had the usual choice to be made of mesh, or a breathable fabric, or some combination of the two. I’m taking the full fabric route here for warmth and to catch any condensation off the underside of the fly. For my own tastes I like the Macpac fabric-backed mesh door designs, so would have the entrance to the inner tent secured with a pair of double slider (two-way separating) zips that run right around; one for access , and the second running inside that to drop the fabric leaving a full face of mesh. I’d either specify 2-3 tie points to properly secure the rolled-up fabric at floor-level, or perhaps have the door fold away into a pouch at the side as in the Terra Nova Laser. Fabric and a multi-zip door all add weight though.

7. The entrance in the fly would be created with two zips, terminating under a drip hood. At this stage I’m unsure whether it would be better to have these zips running up vertically on either side of the pole and with the resulting flaps then rolling and tied to each side (as on the TN Laser), or whether the zips should run diagonally from the corners to the apex and the flaps roll into the centre to be secured against the pole (like the original Macpac Eclipse). Either way, two-zips allow the whole front of the tent to be opened up for optimal livability when the weather allows and for ventilation and drying the tent off in the morning, which segues nicely into…

8. Condensation.
The fly would have mesh ends in much the same way as the similar Terra Nova and Hilleberg designs. I’ve allowed a 100mm gap between the fly and the inner for all the surfaces in reaching the dimensions shown in the drawing. If this is to be a 3+ season tent then the performance in snow need not be a major consideration and I would specify that the fly edges not be taken all the way to the ground, instead leaving a 30-50mm gap, again for air flow. What is needed somehow is a significant improvement in condensation over what is reported for the above tents.

9. Length.
The inner length stays in the 2150-2200mm range, same as the Hillebergs or Terra Nova. I don’t think more length is needed, but then neither do I think it would be a good move to go shorter in an attempt to save weight.
 
10. Attachment points and stays.
Looking for fast set-up, so keeping with something much the same as the established designs mentioned earlier, meaning the same 4 stake-out points in the corners at ground level (refer drawing), and then two further tie-outs at the ends. So first fit the pole and then six pegs will get the tent up in the minimum configuration, with extra stability able to be added through the other 4 guying points if needed. 10 pegs in all then? Perhaps the pole should be supported with a pair of tie points on each side rather than the single attachment shown.

11. Tent ends.
As someone who isn’t a tentmaker, everything mentioned so far seems pretty straightforward – as far as dimensioning the materials and the fabricating; after all this is just a conglomeration of features from existing tents that may be copied. However this isn’t necessarily true of the tent ends, where it looks like some development work would be required. Extending out the vestibule has left the inner so it is no longer in line with the two end tie-out points. This can perhaps be addressed through the hanger lengths and positions that tie the inner to the fly, and perhaps the ends of the inner will still be left as somewhat asymmetrical. I’m undecided between the type of semi-inbuilt single carbon-fibre pole ends as used in the Enan, or removable two-section poles as used in the Laser. In the drawing the end apices are marked up as 400mm high, but on reflection it might be better to lift these to 500-550mm, in which case in-built poles are out (so to speak). If the ridgeline created by the main pole is going up by 200mm over similar contemporary designs then the ends can be raised by the same amount. Either way it gets around any issues with the proximity of the inner to one’s face when lying down that is often reported in 1P tents. The negative is again the additional wind loading so I’m relying on that 10mm pole! Below is a tweaked image of the end portion of the Terra Nova Laser Compact and the concept tent looks a bit like that except with mesh ends and probably a bit more of a rain hood.



Materials, reinforced areas for strength and improved wear resistance , roof and side pocket position and number, peg design, guy tensioner types, 2mm or 3mm guys? These I either don’t know about or haven’t worked out my preferences yet.
So what do you think? Is this completely removed from your perfect tent design or does this tick many of the boxes too?
If some but not all, what would you change?