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

I agree with fly setting up on own & fly & liner set up together. I'm more off a solo hunter so wouldn't be interested in a 2 man tent but would like a bigger one man tent ideally set up with one trekking Pole so I do you think you need two tents a smaller solo one probably needs enough room for a dog as alot people have dog now and a bigger two-person one and I wonder if to make things more affordable you have different options of different material for the fly if people want to pay more and go really light weight you could get Cuban fibre but if people want to pay less have some sort of nylon but work with same inner & poles. Just another though could the bathtub attach to the fly so when you're just fly camping you don't need to take a ground sheet might be a silly idea but see what other people think.

On several trips for 3 of us, we have just used a fly with 1 end folded across to cut down the breeze and walking poles.
And its no fun in the rain, Got wet feet when my feet poked out slopping down hill followed by ice showers in my face with every gust of wind shaking the frozen water vapour off the inside.

I personally rock a Cuben Tarp and a Cuben Tent both of which are mint (Zpacks pocket Tarp and Tarptent Stratosphere Li). The material is great doesnt stretch or sag in the cold and wet which is bloody annoying. Super light easy to repair as the repairs dont have to deal with stretching fabric like Silnylon. Being able to pitch without inner for summer is nice. Tent poles are bloody good for weight savings if people use them which they should but sometimes freestanding is nice if you hunt away from a setup tent.

Love the little DCF tents. For bad weather however I am increasingly a big fan of the wonder material - Corrugated Iron.

huntech bivy/tube tent.... yip sandflies get in...yip one end is open..but for bushline and below it just works for me...
if I want really bomb proof,a old school pup tent from warehouse with super light tarp bought from same 20 years ago over top and the shit can roll on and I will be warm n dry...but yes agree pick 2 out of the 3.

Mostly been covered, but an old thread with some other good info/suggestions of what's already about: https://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co....0/index2.html#

Had to hunt it down to find this link: https://youtube.com/shorts/gYidyeDq808?feature=share
Macpac Minaret doing the goods on Jumbo, Tararua's... whatever you come up with needs to withstand 8 hours of this shit. This thing is about 8yra old, and has been on many motorbike/cycle trips, tramping, hunting, and hasn't let me down yet (apart from a guy rope ripped out in that last storm)

+1 for pitching fly and inner at the same time (Macpac Minaret is 2-3 mins between unrolling and getting inside when in a hurry and on decent ground)

+1 for willing to carry a bit more with for bombproof (6'2" and hate wet top and tail from condensation)

+1 for a bit more space - comfy vestibule, and enough room to sit up. Usually solo or 2 ppl and a dog, and the Macpac Minaret is basically a 1.5 person with gear outside, or 1 + pack/rifle.

Super waterproof tub is key. Minaret PU Coated nylon has been great, but a few pin-prick holes starting to show.

+1 for good luck ticking all the boxes. Super keen to see where this goes!

2post & I had our Minarets out over the weekend (along with another 4 tents for some comparisons) and decided the design has quite a number of shortcomings that well and truly excludes it from our concept for best back-country tent:
— 2.4kg weight (target is 1.5kg),
— vestibule starts at <0.6m^2 and then reduces to almost being non-existent when space is left clear for access (our preference BIG >1.5m^2)
— interior height 900mm and at the hoop centres only (preference >1000mm across 600x300minimum interior roof)
— tapered floor leaving unusable length on one side (turning the minaret into a 1+ person tent, same as the concept brief)

Originally Posted by Puffin

2post & I had our Minarets out over the weekend (along with another 4 tents for some comparisons) and decided the design has quite a number of shortcomings that well and truly excludes it from our concept for best back-country tent:
— 2.4kg weight (target is 1.5kg),
— vestibule starts at <0.6m^2 and then reduces to almost being non-existent when space is left clear for access (our preference BIG >1.5m^2)
— interior height 900mm and at the hoop centres only (preference >1000mm across 600x300minimum interior roof)
— tapered floor leaving unusable length on one side (turning the minaret into a 1+ person tent, same as the concept brief)

Minaret is a great one person tent, mine is 2.6kg though, which is 2.1kg more than my lightest tent. The easy pitch and small footprint means you can easily find a spot for it which is a big plus, especially in a pickle. Agree about the small vestibule, but I also rate the Minaret as pretty a bombproof option for bad weather. If it was half the weight it would be awesome.

i use the 1 man msr and have used it for quite a few fiordland trips, and find it great , my only complaint is that when you are inside it with your 80litre pack and rifle outside the vestibule no matter how you position it your pack is not fully under the fly , there is not quite enough room , so it is always getting soaked. the vestible footprint is fine as always hard to find a flat spot big enough anyway , but the fly is just a bit small.

Thanks Everyone who has taken the time to respond on this thread, its super helpful and has given us plenty of ideas. Defiantly some regular culprits popping up that are solid performers. Again we can't meet the market in all areas so modularity could be the answer or just focusing on several areas. For those asking about it being made in NZ as much as we would like this to be it essentially will double the cost and we couldn't meet the market.

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/

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.


 
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?

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.