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

Nothing wrong with having them manufactured off shore provided the quality is as you asked. There are 1000's of companies that have their products manufactured in China. And those products are manufactured with a "planned obsolescence" - you pay for what you get. If you specify the material to be used, specify the thread it is to be made with, the zips and how they are to be configured, the quality of the cords etc etc, then the Chinese manufacturers will manufacture to your spec's. Then you will need to be very stringent on quality control. But do that right and there is no reason you cant make a product that will be fit for purpose, for years to come.

I'm looking at the Nortent Bivuakk (Norway). Kind of a tent inside a tarp, multiple configurations and not too pricey. And can be used with stove if that's your thing https://www.nortent.com/shop/11-tarp...rtent-bivuakk/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husky1600

Nothing wrong with having them manufactured off shore provided the quality is as you asked. There are 1000's of companies that have their products manufactured in China. And those products are manufactured with a "planned obsolescence" - you pay for what you get. If you specify the material to be used, specify the thread it is to be made with, the zips and how they are to be configured, the quality of the cords etc etc, then the Chinese manufacturers will manufacture to your spec's. Then you will need to be very stringent on quality control. But do that right and there is no reason you cant make a product that will be fit for purpose, for years to come.

---

That’s the theory, but not reality.
Culturally they will always try to get one over on you. It’s just the way they are, they’ll switch materials, change proven processes, whatever they can to save a $ at your expense.
Just like the Germans are renowned for quality, order, timing or precision, the Chinese will mostly be known for producing crap.

Yes of course they can produce quality, there are many examples. But quality control has to be extremely good. You can never relax, the moment you turn your back….
And it’s no cheaper the producing in Europe or NZ, if you can produce efficiently using automation rather than labour, and you’re producing a quality product.

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.

Attachment 216754
 
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.

Attachment 216755

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?

Having heard similar stories to what Husky1600 just relayed, I'd be interested in what "twice as much" would actually be if it was made in NZ... if that meant it would last twice as long, as well as being the perfect tent/tents/system - pleasing the connoisseurs like @Puffin (that is some bloody amazing work there, mate!), then you might find it's not that much of a deterrent? Or look at finance options to spread the load? I'd certainly think about it.

looking at your sitting up picture I cant help but be reminded of the pup tents I grew up with....I bought one from farmers store in Taumarunui 35 years ago and it lasted a good 25 years of HARD usage.... if you added a 3rd pole you could double length of fly over the top and have a HUGE vestible area the same size as pup tent infront of door..or out back if that tickled your fancy for some reason.... you could go without pole if in bush and had something to tie off to.
when I added the small fly I have over top of pup tend I ended up with narrow vestible down each side ,enough to lay riles and boots in out of worst of weather.
heck if you use a really cheap double poled dome tent and add a fly over the top pegged out as far as you can stretch it you achieve same goals for a very small price. sometimes we overcomplicate things. the big rectangle flys set up out front and over top give shit loads of room to stand up and cook/store gear.... lots easier in bush obviously.

Is it going to be free standing, above the Bush line it can be very difficult to use tent pegs.

Air frame , so many advantages.

Got no opinions, I like hammocks. But a hundred thumbs up for asking the question you did. Everything good must begin with a problem and user insight.

Puffin what a good design & you put a lot work into that but for me it would only be any good as a stay at the car tent as to me it looks as tho it going get heavy I do think what Micky duck said is right a small light weight tent then the option of a big fly that can't attach quick & easy to give the ones more hight & dry space if you want it, the down side would be siting up in tent because tent would probably be lower. It depends how mean days you plan on staying in it on a trip for me it would be a max off the 3 days so & I take all my gear & camp were I end up at the end off the day so a big heavy tent is a no go & don't need much room stop when dark set tent up tea bed up at day break watch that clearing from night before pack up & off. I do think it going be a pretty hard ask to design a tent that even works for % off hunters in NZ as so many people hunt so many different ways & different altitudes & I do get that a tops hunter probably needs a lot more space under cover than a bush hunter who can just throw pack under the tree for the night

Possibly going a bit out there with this, but could the apex seam have built in rechargeable LED lighting ? I've seen it in bigger tents but not in small backpacking ones. A friend brought me a dog collar from overseas with them built in and they are surprisingly bright. Recharges from a usb port.

Hi @hunt08. The initial brief is for 1.5kg or under so that is a given. I don't know if you consider that as too heavy to take away from the car or not, but I think Onamission's choice on this target weight is a very well considered one, inasmuch as going under that starts to rapidly narrow a number of design choices.

All I could offer for the Puffin1 — if 1.5kg is too much (and heavier than MD's small tent + fly, which it won't be) — is setting up in the fly-only mode, so dropping the inner and adding the separate footprint. I'm guessing that would bring weight down to 900-1000 grams for about three and a half square metres of under-cover space that excludes a 100mm clearance from the fly edges. A comparison in this configuration could then be made to the previously mentioned Kuiu Summit Star that is 740grams without the separate pole or inner (850g with pole) and with a similar covered area.

Yes, not free-standing. So thinking about what pegs would be needed that would not be needed for a free-standing design? Well if all the guy-out points are being taken out to rocks or tied around tussocks or dracophyllum, as they would be for a free-standing tent above the bushline, then that would be just the additional 4 pegs around the base, and yes there is a problem there as — unlike the guy-out points — there is almost no flexibility in their placement.

The above, and the ability or otherwise to handle high winds and snow are really the main aspects that have been traded off for the other benefits. I've watched the Hilleberg videos with the wind machine and there is no doubt that the shape of the Enan (or Laser), when securely guyed out, can take a hammering. It probably still can when extended to 1200mm tall and fitted with a slightly more robust pole. But agreed; it is not a tunnel or multipole dome tent, and won't be for folk who want or may be forced to tent in severe wind, when something in the 2.2—2.5kg class will be required.

I would thought that your design would be over the 2 kg with the size you want there isn't many tents they are under the 1.5 kg so my guess is that to go higher & bigger than most tent on the market it going end up heavier than most tents & this is only a guess

In my earlier description I didn’t directly address the issue of weight, only referring in passing to the upper limit of 1.5kg, as it had been specified in the original post as the starting point for this exercise. Without a target weight there is no need to make any compromises or balance any aspect of the size, strength and features, or the necessity for using light-weight materials at elevated cost. Instead the tent can have it all, and this thread changes to simply what features you likes to have in a 1-person tent for hunting trips. To imply that I hadn’t considered the weight is wrong. It now seems that it is necessary to say on what grounds I think the design would stay under 1.5kg.

First up there have been a proliferation of 1P tents come into the market in the past few years that are under 1.5kg; too many to list online links here. I even weighed my Macpac Microlight the other day and was surprised that the example I have here came in at exactly 1.5kg packed weight, and this is neither a new design or an expensive one. Let’s instead look at the two double-skinned tents on which my concept was a somewhat enlarged composite; the Terra Nova Laser Competition and replacement Compact and the Hilleberg Enan. We can look at the published weights for these very similar shapes as starting points along with some dimensions and then I’ll make educated estimates on how making a similar shape of tent larger as I was proposing would add to these starting weights.

Here is the Enan along with some specifications:

Attachment 217094

Packed weight: 1.2kg (flysheet & inner 884g, Pole 166g, 8 Pegs 76g, sundries 74g)
Inner / vestibule floor area: 1.7m² / 0.8m²
Pole length/diameter: 193cm / 9mm
Outside width / depth / height: 2.4m / 1.75m / 1.0m

Laser Compact:

Attachment 217095

Packed weight: 1.06kg,
Inner / vestibule floor area: unspecfied
Pole diameter: 8.7mm and 2 short end poles
Outside width / depth / height: 2.4m / 1.55m / 1.0m

In the concept tent where the depth is being increased 26-42% over these two tents for the large vestibule and the height by 20%, it follows from geometry that the length of the main pole will increase by 22-29%, and with the pole diameter stepping up to 10mm it will consequently weigh about 260grams, an increase of 100gr. The 2-piece end poles being longer will weigh 25gr more. The width is staying the same, as is the inner footprint, so the height change only applies to the amount of fabric used in the inner walls but not to the heavier material used in the tub floor. The above changes both apply to the amount of fabric to be used in the fly though, bearing in mind that an amount of the weight of any tent is in the fittings, seams & hems etc. that in some cases remain fixed as the area of fabric increases. From this the estimate is that the material increase to accommodate the larger size adds a further 100grams.

Adding things up takes the weight for the concept tent to somewhere between 1285gr and 1425gr with the difference between these figures and the 1500gram limit going into my other preferences of having a more robust material for the floor, a more complex inner door, double entrances for the fly, and some strengthening dictated by the potential for higher wind-loading. The weight available for these may be more as the promise of no limit on materials may be able to claw back some of the increases.

Just going back through this thread and wondered if having velcro attachment points inside the fly for a demountable, flame retardant patch over a designated cooking area would be beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andygr

over a designated cooking area would be beneficial.

---

Endorsing a cooking area inside a tent in todays world is asking for trouble. Both fire and Carbon monoxide risks.

No amount of warnings or labels will save you from the lowest common denominator. Sadly, people dont know what they don't know. If they haven't been taught.......

MSR Hubba Hubba, just the fly and a plastic ground sheet is my go to. Enough room for 2 people though is getting a bit tight. Roomy as for 1 person. Bombproof in terms of weather. If/when it gets real shit, turn the edges of the plastic ground sheet up and that keeps the rain out. Gotta be smart about where you put the plastic ground sheet but if it gets holes then a bit of duct tape (which I have in my first aid kit for emergencies) fixes it right up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nugget connaisseur

Endorsing a cooking area inside a tent in todays world is asking for trouble. Both fire and Carbon monoxide risks.

No amount of warnings or labels will save you from the lowest common denominator. Sadly, people dont know what they don't know. If they haven't been taught.......

---

True, I was looking at the plan of Puffin's tent with the half open fly when I had the idea. The tent would have to be positioned to shield the stove and also allow adequate ventilation. Unfortunately there are too many "lowest common denominators" in the world.

Were you thinking of having a fire-resistant patch to allow the stove to be used inside the tent inner and protect the tub floor, because to be honest there isn't much room in these sizes of inner for that sort of thing along with yourself, sleeping gear, and the like? On the other hand I'm quite keen on the idea of sizing the vestibule to make it far more convenient to bring the cooking under cover, which is one of the reasons it has been made so large. In the standard configuration you'd have the stove on the bare ground. In fly-only mode the footprint may be sized to cover the entire area including the front half (normally vestibule), TBD on this, though I'm sure if it was, it could also be unhooked and folded back under itself to be a half-footprint just for the rear sleeping area, again allowing cooking on the bare ground (for when the meal boils over right?). Either way I'm sure you'd be fine. Fly partly open for ventilation? Even if not, the fly doesn't go down to the ground. This was to better control condensation but I guess the same applies for carbon monoxide. An important point to have raised that I hadn't considered.

Someone has an original model Macpac Eclipse up on Trademe at the moment, and has put up a lot of photos. Looking through these inspired me to have a play around with Photoshop and add a larger vestibule. The below tweaked Eclipse would suit me very well I think — snug one person sleeping and a much larger area for storage and cooking. Picture the original fly over the top, so the overall footprint is unchanged.

Attachment 234085

Only just spotted this thread and haven't read through it.
All I will add at this stage is the Terra nova Laser was the worst tent I've owned. Failed miserably in fiordland and i couldn't wait to get rid of it when I got out.

I'm glad this thread has been revived as I am curious to know how the design is progressing. Also has a prototype been fabricated ?

Will tag in @onamission for an update then (hopefully)?
@Gkp, this is interesting, could you tell us please how the Laser failed and in what circumstances, and if in your view it would be possible to improve the design to address the deficiencies you identified?

The Terra Nova Laser is a single skin tent. Nice to carry but that is where the joy ends.
It is far from waterproof. Mine was new and didn't last 6 days of fiordland rain.
It felt like it was raining in the tent
That trip taught me it's best to carry a bit more weight, use quality gear and enjoy being dry and warm at night.

As a side not the Terra Nova bivy bag with the hoop over the head was even worse. They use crap materials to appeal to the light weight market

@Gkp I have not found any detail of the Terra Nova Laser being single skin; dozens of reviews of the Terra Nova Laser Competition and Terra Nova Laser Compact, both double skinned.
There is information on ditching the inner for some weight saving and replacing it with a footprint, leaving the fly to provide a minimalist shelter. Would you be able clarify as to whether this was your configuration or perhaps please provide link/s to sites with some information on the single skinned variant of the Terra Nova that you used?

I had a Terra nova solar competition for years. Put it through a tonne of shit (including fiordland) and was always warm and dry. I've still got it actually just ran it over (whilst in its bag) with my ute and wrecked the poles. Only use a tarp these days anyhow

I know it would be heavier and probably hard to make reliable but if you could manage a 1 man tent with a puncture proof floor pan that inflates like a thermarest or something like that would be cool. It would mean the whole floor is insulated and remove the need for a sleeping mat. The insulated floor would mean no moisture/condensation comes through the base too.

@Puffin I have a couple of sets of synthetic full body spray / chemical overalls. The material that they are made of is super light weight and coated to make them totally water / chemical proof. Would be interesting to see how it compares with the best tent material. It is likely a coated nylon but imo superior to any tent fabric I have examined. And they are cheap, so the pricing is likely at an industrial user level rather than recreational products

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puffin

@Gkp I have not found any detail of the Terra Nova Laser being single skin; dozens of reviews of the Terra Nova Laser Competition and Terra Nova Laser Compact, both double skinned.
There is information on ditching the inner for some weight saving and replacing it with a footprint, leaving the fly to provide a minimalist shelter. Would you be able clarify as to whether this was your configuration or perhaps please provide link/s to sites with some information on the single skinned variant of the Terra Nova that you used?

---

You are right. It does have an inner that reduces space quite dramatically and I found it to be quite baggy. Still doesn't take away from the fact that my one I bought new was not up to fiordland rain.

Reinforced bits where the lines attach to the tent. Fold away vestibule for when it gets real windy. Pegs that are long and hard to bend and a second option short peg for rocky ground. Double zip entrance that goes in a full circle so you can choose where the hole is and it doesn't get buried in snow close to the ground. High sided floor so it's easy to dust out. Strong enough poles to hang wet socks in the vestibule.

Im in the market for a new tent.
Finally my old Fairydown 2 person, NZ made tent is leaking from floor corners and seam tapes are delaminating. Ive had this tent for twenty years plus and used it extensively from the West coast to Fiordland and Stewart Island with all the weathers one can get in the hills. At a guess it would have done 250 or so day/nights of use and never let me down.
My thoughts are that I will look for something similar to it with rain and windproof as possible. A little extra weight doesn't worry me but climbing into a wet damp tent and sleeping bag do. Ive got a bad back and crawling in and out of a tent is a pain as is getting dressed inside. So a bigger entrance would be good for me.
I generally use a fly over tent [even though the tent is double skinned] with a lean to over entrance so its easier to get changed and leave a bit of gear drying under it. I don't mind spending good dollars on a tent as long as it is going to work the way it should.
Good luck with your venture and I watch with interest and would look hard at a NZ made tent if it met with my ideas of dryness and strength.