GEAR REVIEW: Topo HydroVenture Trail Running Shoe

By Will Rietveld

This review is focused on using the new Topo HydroVenture shoe as footwear for ultralight backpacking. When you carry a lightweight backpack, trail running shoes suffice for footwear. And we are constantly looking for the lightest trail runners that provide for our needs.

The new Topo HydroVenture waterproof/breathable trail running shoe for spring 2016 features a new eVent DVdry LT membrane and construction.

 What do I look for in a trail runner for backpacking? The shoes most likely to meet my needs are in the stability/support category, meaning they need to be more than house slippers – they need to provide good support, rock protection, traction, cushioning, and have a wide toebox for foot expansion. Most ultralight backpackers prefer well-ventilated trail runners, which are cooler for the feet and dry out quickly, and they generally avoid waterproof shoes which have a reputation for holding in moisture once they get wet inside.

Three key elements make Topo shoes unique: light weight, wide toebox, and low drop.  Topo shoes have a foot-shaped toebox wide enough to allow your foot to expand, in combination with a narrow heel cup to fit your heel and keep it from slipping. This combination allows your feet to swell naturally and receive proper circulation. Topo also designs their soles with a low or neutral drop (3mm in the case of the Hydroventure) to help you maintain a more neutral position. Finally, Topo shoes have no-sew construction, utilizing adhesives, rather than stitching, to reduce weight and add durability. More on these features later.

Topo shoes are foot shaped -- what a unique concept (ya think?) What is amazing is how many shoes out there that are not shaped like feet.

 The new Topo HydroVenture shoe adds a new element to the design equation, a new eVent footwear technology called DVdry LT membrane and construction. It utilizes an upper construction that consists only of a three-layer waterproof laminate---the typical internal waterproof bootie has been completely eliminated in this new technology. eVent’s DVdry LT construction method reduces the amount of material and number of steps in constructing the shoe, which will increase manufacturing efficiency. The membrane on top is durable, flexible, and highly breathable (a 40% increase), and is protected by a TPU overlay which also provides extra support.

The eVent DVdry LT 3-layer laminate is the shoe's upper, no bootie.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Topo Athletic (www.topoathletic.com)
Model	HydroVenture
Weight	9.7 oz/shoe (men’s 9); 11.4 oz/shoe (men’s 12 tested
Features	No-sew construction, wide toebox, fitted heel cup, eVent DVdry LT waterproof/breathable membrane, 3mm heel to toe drop, flexible TPU rock plate, supportive TPU overlay protects laminate, high-traction outsole, EVA midsole
MSRP	$130

Field Testing

I wore the HydroVenture on 15 outings over 4 months, which included day hiking, trail running, and backpacking. I wore them hiking and running on dusty, muddy, and watery trails; glissading on snowfields, scree skiing, and backpacking through lots of off-camber sliderock. Hiking off-trail is hard on shoes, especially when crossing and descending sliderock slopes and scree-skiing in loose gravel and dirt where edging is required.

The highlight of my testing was a 6-day, mostly off-trail, backpacking trip through the Weminuche Wilderness in Southwest Colorado. We traveled 60 miles, mostly above 12,000 feet elevation, and climbed a total of 20,000 feet over very rough and steep terrain.

We walked in snow a lot on our 60 mile traverse of the Weminuche Wilderness in Southwest Colorado. I wore gaiters over the shoes and my feet stayed dry.

Hiking in mud and water was no problem for the HydroVenture. A tight fitting gaiter is important to keep dirt, grit, mud, snow, and water from entering the top of the shoes.

I wore the HydroVenture while hiking through miles and miles of rough terrain like this.

Performance

The washed HydroVenture after 15 outings, including a rough 60-mile off-trail wilderness traverse.

Waterproofness – I found the shoes to be waterproof as claimed. While day hiking and backpacking I wore lightweight gaiters over the top of the shoes, which were very effective in keeping dust, grit, snow, and water out of the shoes. With some tight gaiters over them, I could quick-foot it through shallow water without getting much water in the shoes.

On hotter days I did get some dampness in my socks from sweat, and some snow and water did manage to get in at times. However the new eVent membrane vented the moisture out fairly quickly to maintain comfort, much more so that Gore-Tex shoes I have tested.

Breathability – I have always been a fan of eVent, and once again its superior performance came through. Even in hotter weather my feet were comfortable, akin to wearing a mesh shoe.

Traction – The HydroVenture has a 4.5mm rubber outsole with multidirectional lug traction, forefoot flex grooves and a mud-release design. It gripped well on a variety of surfaces.

Fit – My Brannock-measured shoe size is 12-E. I need a lot of room in the toebox, so I favor shoes with a wide toebox. For me, the HydroVenture is a good fit, as long as I wear thinner socks. Throughout my testing I did not have any problems with crowding in the toebox area. The shoes are true to size and fit me very well.

Comfort – I did not have any foot problems with these shoes; they were comfortable to wear during the entire test period. Cushioning is good, and the rock plate is very effective. Simply tightening the laces over my instep is sufficient to prevent toe jamming on steep descents.

Stability/Support – For me, the HydroVenture provided all the support I needed. However, that’s a very individual and subjective assessment. I have strong ankles and high arches, so they work well for me. Other hikers may need the additional support of a mid- or full-height shoe or boot.

Durability – The short answer is – better than most. Here the no-sew construction and TPU overlay really make a difference. Many other shoes I have tested have a sewn seam in the lateral metatarsal head area, which is very vulnerable to abrasion when the shoes are used for off-trail hiking. The stitching wears through, then the seam opens up. The HydroVenture does not have any stitching in that area, so no problems

Footbox area after 4 months and 15 outings of use. Note that the outsole is loosening where it wraps the toe, otherwise there are very few signs of wear to the TPU overlay or fabric panels.

The TPU toe bumper and overlays also performed well to protect the shoe’s panels of breathable fabric. After many trips of abusive wear there is very little evidence of damage.

The only issues I had with the HydroVenture were 1) the outsole is coming loose where it wraps up around the toe of the shoe, and 2) the thin insoles tended to shift to the rear, bunching under my heel. Once the insoles started to shift rearward, it was a repetitive problem; I had to take off the shoes and move the insole to its proper place. The problem can probably be fixed with a few drops of silicone under the footbeds.

Assessment

Simply put, the Topo HydroVenture is one of the best hiking shoes I have tested. Their wide toebox is what allows me to wear them in the first place, and all of their features add up to near perfect shoe for ultralight backpacking and day hiking. For their weight, their fit and performance are amazing.

One question that arises among people who use trail runners for hiking regards the pros and cons of hiking in a zero drop shoe. I have heard arguments both ways, but I personally don’t see any clear advantage of a zero drop shoe for hiking. By my reasoning, they would strain the Achilles on steep slopes. Some people report foot problems when switching to zero drop, but it’s not a clear cause and effect relationship. And some people recommend a gradual transition to adjust to zero drop. In response to this issue, some shoe manufacturers have added back 3 to 4 mm of heel rise to their trail running shoes (the HydroVenture has 3mm of heel rise). That solution works good for me; I once developed a case of Plantar fasciitis from testing some zero drop shoes from another manufacturer (which could have been caused by the lack of a TPU rock plate), but I have not had any problems at all from shoes with a minimal 3-4mm of heel rise. Note that a “standard” hiking shoe has about 10mm of heel rise.

The eVent DVdry LT membrane and construction method makes the choice to get a waterproof/breathable shoe closer to a no-brainer. If you hike in the mountains it’s an easy choice. But not so much so if you hike in the desert. The shoes were not hot on my feet and dissipated moisture from sweat and an occasional water intrusion very well.

Topo’s no-sew construction, meaning the shoe’s components are assembled using adhesives rather than stitching, is a big plus. I have tested many, many shoes and boots with stitching in the lateral metatarsal head area, and that’s where the shoes failed. The stitching wore through and the seam came apart. To avoid that, a prominent rand around the shoe helps a lot (but that adds weight), or the user can apply some McNett SeamGrip (liquid polyurethane) to the stitching to resist wear.

Fit is a very individual thing when it comes to shoes, so it’s hard to claim Topo shoes as the “best fit”. However, their design makes a lot of sense; as we run or hike, our feet swell and expand, so it’s only logical that shoes provide room for that, rather than squeeze your toes together.

Even though the wide toebox/snug heelcup design makes perfect sense, it is surprising how few brands use it. People with narrow feet probably don’t like it, or need it. However hikers as a group favor that type of shoe because their feet “pancake out” from years of hiking. Mine certainly have. I remember Montrail’s “IntegralFit” design with a wide toebox/snug heelcup, and my feet were happy in their shoes. That is, until Montrail changed their last, then I couldn’t wear them.

Overall, Topo’s three main design elements (light weight, wide toebox, and low drop) are a winning combination, and when you add in their grip, support, durability, and new eVent membrane they raise the bar to a new level of performance.

REVIEW: GaiaGPS, a Smartphone-Based Mapping GPS for the Backcountry

By Tom Galbraith

GaiaGPS is the single best App I’ve ever purchased, and that’s coming from a parsimonious Scots miser who hasn’t purchased more than a dozen App’s for his smartphone, and those few all under $3.

Let’s just get the price issue out of the way at the onset: it costs $19 from the App Store for iOS devices and at Google Play for Android devices. If the cost puts you off from trying this invaluable backcountry App, then find someone who’s using it and get a first-hand demonstration, or visit the GaiaGPS website to view a demo.

GaiaGPS has extended my hiking and backpacking experiences many-fold since I first saw another hiker using it on the trail. He was following a track someone had given him, recording his own track with all the real time stats, all the while viewing his current location on a clearly visible fully-zoomed USGS topo.

The ease of use, features, and clarity of GaiaGPS rivals any dedicated mapping GPS on the market. Maps and routes are easily loaded. On this screen I have loaded four routes and GaiaGPS shows them at the same time in different colors. With Gaia, my phone serves as a GPS, camera, notepad, and reader.

Questions immediately came to mind: What does it cost? How much are the topos? How large is the app? How do you get other people’s tracks? Does it eat up your smartphone battery and what was that name again? (It’s GaiaGPS).

I’ll have to admit I had to look up “gaia” on the internet; its The ancient Greek goddess of the earth, mother of the Titans, in case you’re clueless as well.

I’ll also admit more than once I’ve been “off track” when hiking and backpacking. Now with GaiaGPS on my smartphone it happens less often, or more to the point, for not as long.  Having a real-time GPS cursor following my footsteps is a pretty amazing feature to have in my pocket. 

GaiaGPS on a smartphone doesn’t use or need cell tower availability or coverage, rather it uses the phone’s internal GPS chip.  It works anywhere in the world, unless you’re in a deep dark canyon with walls that obscure most of the sky.  My GaiaGPS recorded tracks seem to do just fine in dense forests and wooded areas but will jump diagonally off track when it’s bouncing off steep walls and cliffs, righting itself once it can “see” more sky.

The phone stays in my pocket (or hip belt) until I’ve sensed I’m off track, have an intersection choice to make, or just am curious how far we’ve gone.  But GaiaGPS can tell you much more if you choose: such as knowing the distance, altitude, moving time versus your total time, average speed, and stopped time, to name a few.

What really pleases me is that I now have all those GPS features combined with a camera and phone.  I’ve eliminated my Garmin Trek’s 5.1 ounces (that I rarely used) along with 4.75 ounces for my point-and-shoot camera and consolidated those functions into my iPhone. The 9.85 ounce savings allows other gear, or better yet cutting my base weight down closer to that elusive 10-pound number.

And just as preparing for an adventure is enjoyable and rewarding, checking out my tracks and stats after the hike has added to my overall joy of backpacking. Sharing the track is fun as well.  You can export the track via email or text message as well as import it into Google Earth or other mapping applications like Garmin Base Camp.  I often take a screen shot of the imported Google Earth track and place it in my blog to give folks a sense of where I’ve been hiking.

Just buying the app can be a little intimidating and even frustrating if you don’t know how to use it to its full potential.  GaiaGPS offers you all the USGS topos for the United States for free, as long as you are online (connected to WiFi).  You must select an area (draw a box around and Save) the region you’d like to have on your phone while you’re still online. 

The features and operation are very straight forward, but it takes a little exploring to figure that out without someone showing you or watching the numerous very short how-to videos offered in the Help Section of their website.

You can certainly Record a Track without a single bit of help and download the map tiles after-the-fact, but if you’re actually trying to navigate with a topo offline you need to have those USGS (or other versions of the many maps provided) loaded beforehand.  Users new to the app complain of “blurry” topos when in reality they haven’t downloaded the actual map tiles and are just seeing the default low resolution overview map.

There is a long list of features provided with the basic version, but the overall beauty of the app is having a super clear, zoom-able topo of where you are traveling and the GPS cursor arrow marking your current location.  If you’ve started recording your track, the line of travel is shown in a contrasting color telling you where you’ve been and possibly how far off track you might be. 

I especially like loading up someone else’s track for a hike or ride, and using that to show me the route I’m planning to travel.  That feature is as easy as emailing yourself the previous track (from a friend or off the internet), tapping the attachment and selecting Import to GaiaGPS. It loads in your GaiaGPS Folders section and you can “Show on Map” with the press of a button.

After using GaiaGPS and collecting numerous tracks, I really appreciate the easy way I can organize the various tracks into Folders, making finding and utilizing previous tracks far easier.

This app could be something you didn’t know you needed, but it soon will be something you can’t live without.  Especially if it helps get your pack weight down by eliminating an extra device.  As mentioned earlier, GaiaGPS has numerous short and to-the-point video tutorials (https://help.gaiagps.com/hc/en-us/categories/202519108-iOS), in the Help section of their website online, for each feature.  Check it out; you’ll like it.

About the Author: Tom Galbraith has a long and varied outdoor history, including living on a sailboat, mountain biking the Great Divide Mountain Bike Route, ultralight backpacking in remote beautiful places, rafting western rivers, spending winters in Thailand, trekking in Switzerland, and hiking the Colorado Trail. You can read about his adventures at http://www.tgsgblog.com/

GEAR REVIEW: 2016 Gossamer Gear Gorilla Backpack

By Will Rietveld

With some very significant improvements for 2016, the Gossamer Gear Gorilla is an outstanding backpack for lightweight backpacking, and it weighs just 2 1/4 pounds.

Author’s Note: Some readers may be confused because I published an earlier review of the 2016 Gorilla Backpack with a top flap rather than its present floating top pocket. The latter and other changes were implemented because of a decision to move production to a different factory. New features planned for 2017 were incorporated as the new factory set up to manufacture the Gorilla. In response, I have re-written this review for the real 2016 Gorilla Backpack.

The final version of the 2016 Gorilla adds a floating top pocket that is removable. Other important improvements include anchoring the frame to a stiffened hipbelt, lighter fabrics, and larger hipbelt pockets. (Gossamer Gear photo)

Introduction

Since its introduction in 2009, the Gossamer Gear Gorilla backpack is now at gen 4. I have consistently given this pack an outstanding rating, so how can Gossamer Gear make it even better? Once more, the changes are both significant and functional, but the pack gains a little weight. How does that additional weight relate to performance?

At 40 liters the Gorilla is a medium size backpack ideal for lightweight backpacking, or ultralight backpacking with larger volume loads or longer trips. In either case it’s designed to comfortably carry up to 25 pounds; 30 pounds max. More on that later.

Interestingly, the Gorilla was previously rated at 46 liters, but the present version is specified at 40 liters. Has the pack been downsized? More on that later as well.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Gossamer Gear (www.gossamergear.com)
Model	Gorilla 40 Ultralight Backpack
Materials	70 denier Robic ripstop nylon body, 100 denier Robic nylon in high abrasion areas, Air Mesh shoulder strap and hipbelt lining, Power Mesh fabric in sleeping pad sleeve, stretch mesh front pocket, tubular aluminum frame
Weight	Measured weight (size Large) 35.6 oz with stay and hipbelt; manufacturer specification 35.7 oz
Features	Large mesh front pocket, 2 durable fabric side pockets, fitted floating detachable top pocket, 2 zippered hipbelt pockets, 4 side compression straps, hydration sleeve with 1 center hose port, 9-inch extension collar, drawcord top closure, trekking pole holders, removable corrugated Sitlight pad backpanel, sternum strap, ice axe loop, haul loop.
MSRP	$245 with hipbelt

What’s New

There are six main changes in the new 2016 version of the Gorilla, and all of them are significant:

1. The contoured tubular aluminum frame now connects to the hipbelt
2. The hipbelt has been stiffened to make it more supportive
3. The top flap has been replaced with a fitted and floating top pocket
4. The hipbelt pockets are larger and gusseted
5. Lighter weight Robic fabrics are used in the pack’s body and reinforcements
6. One center hydration tube port replaces two corner ports, and there are three reservoir hang loops rather than one

Description

In previous versions of the Gorilla, the one-piece U-shaped tubular aluminum stay merely resided in sleeves on the backpanel. It served as a pack stiffener, but it was not an integrated internal frame. The 2016 Gorilla is finally a true internal frame backpack, with the ends of the stay anchored in sleeves on the back of the hipbelt.

 A layer of semi-stiff plastic has been added to the hipbelt to make it stiffer, so it now works in concert with the connected stays to improve weight transfer and carry comfort.

The former Over-The-Top closure system (a top flap with a shallow zippered pocket) has been replaced with a floating top pocket that is removable. This adds some additional volume.

The hipbelt pockets are a big improvement over the old ones. While the previous pockets were two dimensional, the new ones are three dimensional with a 1.5-inch gusset. The overall dimensions are significantly larger.

Lighter weight Robic fabrics are used to partially offset the weight added by the top pocket; 70 denier in the pack body (previously 100 denier), and 100 denier for reinforcements and high abrasion areas (previously 200 denier).

Eliminating one hydration tube port also saves a smidgen of weight.

Overall, these are very significant improvements. The previous versions of the Gorilla were really good, now it is outstanding. The Gorilla is now a very refined backpack, and still retains Gossamer Gear’s DNA for lightweight and functionality.

However, adding features and design improvements adds weight. While the original Gorilla weighed just 24.2 ounces, the gen 3 (2014) upgrade added about 4 ounces, now the gen 4 improvements add another 7.4 ounces and bump the weight up to 2 pounds 3.6 ounces (for size Large). That’s acceptable, if the increased weight translates to improved performance. Read on.

Photo Tour

Frontpanel View: With its new top pocket the new Gorilla is a bit taller; I measured it at 32 inches with the extension collar full. Note the large capacity mesh front pocket,and durable fabric side pockets.

Backpanel View: The backpanel retains the signature egg crate patterned Gossamer Gear SitLight pad in a stretch nylon sleeve. The pad is easily removable for sitting on during breaks as well as camp use. The shoulder straps are contoured to fit both men and women and are lined with Air Mesh for ventilation. Note the much larger capacity hipbelt pockets.

Side View: This view again shows the size of the front mesh pocket and side pockets, as well as a good look at the new top pocket. Each side has two compression straps that provide excellent pack volume adjustment.

Top Pocket: The top pocket is floating, meaning it's height can be adjusted depending on how full the pack is. It is also removable when it is not needed. In that case the top straps are connected in an X-pattern. The pocket has a full width zipper for easy access. It adds some significant volume to the pack in a very convenient location.

The side pockets are large enough to hold two water bottles, and have an elastic binding to help keep them from sliding out when you bend over. The photo also shows the size of the hipbelt pockets when fully expanded.

Performance

I tested the Gorilla on 14 trips, carrying loads ranging from 15 to 30 pounds. (Photo by Tom Galbraith)

From my testing, I can say unequivocally that the upgrades (1 and 2 above) in the new Gorilla’s frame and suspension system result in a very noticeable improvement in the pack’s load transfer and carry comfort. With loads under 25 pounds, the pack will transfer all of the weight to my hips and carry it very comfortably. At 30 pounds the pack puts about one-fourth of the weight on my shoulders, which is still comfortable, but I can feel the weight more. The sweet spot is 20 to 25 pounds.

The new hipbelt pockets are wonderful compared to the old ones. I could barely get my compact camera in the old ones, but the new pockets have loads of room.

And the new top pocket is golden. The net weight increase is small, but it adds some very useful volume in the right place. The top pocket is perfect for stowing a jacket or rainwear.

Another less obvious benefit of the new floating top pocket is it actually increases the usable volume of the pack (see the frontpanel photo above). While the previous Over The Top flap shielded the top of the pack well, it was also part of the closure system which included the upper part of the extension collar. The new floating top pocket and drawcord closure allows the extension collar to be completely filled, and the top cap sits on top of that. In summary, the floating top pocket plus the additional usable volume in the extension collar contribute significantly to the Gorilla's volume, and it's space not apparent in the pack's 40 liter volume specification.

I don’t mind the switch to lighter fabrics. Robic fabric is extremely strong; see my description here. Frankly, its hard to tell the difference from the previous Gorilla.

Assessment

This latest version (2016) of the Gorilla really rocks. I was impressed with most of the previous versions (except gen 2 which eliminated the side compression straps), but this latest version simply gets everything right. It’s clearly more comfortable to carry and transfers weight better. The previous top flap, which kept water from entering the pack, was an improvement, but the zippered pocket in the lid was not all that useful because it’s flat and tight. The floating top pocket is the right solution, and it adds some needed volume.

One quandary is the volume of the pack. As I mentioned, the previous Gorilla was claimed to have 46 liters and the latest version is specified at 40 liters. I checked the volume of the main compartment compared to the Gen 3 Gorilla to verify that the pack has not been downsized (actually I found it to be 2 liters larger). So what gives? Much of the confusion, I believe, resides in applying the ASTM F2153 standard, which specifies that an internal frame pack’s volume is based on the volume of the main compartment; the volume of attached pockets (which is variable) is not included.

However, it’s common practice for manufacturers of ultralight gear to detail the volume of the main compartment and all pockets, so a potential buyer can determine if her gear kit will fit in the pack and where specific items might go. I believe Gossamer Gear should stick with that practice to help buyers with the pack selection process.

But the volume conundrum begs more clarification. As specified, the Gorilla at 40 liters is only 4 liters larger than the Murmur, but it is clearly a larger pack. In practice, the Murmur is right-sized for ultralight backpacking, and the Gorilla (in my opinion) is right-sized for lightweight backpacking. However, the 40 liter specification gives the impression that it is smaller than it actually is. We at least need more complete information on the actual volumes of the main pack body and all pockets.

The Gorilla is just right for a summertime backpacking trip with lightweight gear and shorter trips. I should disclose, however, that there were occasions with the previous Gen 3 Gorilla where I came up short on volume when packing bulkier loads. That should be less of an issue with the roomier Gen 4 2016 Gorilla. One technique to free up interior space is to attach tall gear bags to the sides of the pack, under the side compression straps. That technique will allow the Gorilla to suffice for most lightweight backpacking trips.

Some buyers will opt for the larger Mariposa pack to ensure they have enough pack volume. The Mariposa, 60 liters and 34.8 ounces, actually weighs one ounce less than the Gorilla and costs only $10 more, which makes it very tempting. However, a partially full pack does not carry as well as a fully expanded pack, and the Mariposa does not have side compression straps to adjust it for smaller loads, so I caution against getting the Mariposa “just to make sure I have enough volume”. Better to determine the actual volume of your gear kit, add 25-30% for food, water, and fuel, and then purchase a pack with that volume.

GEAR REVIEW: Berghaus VapourLight Hyper Smock 2.0

By Will Rietveld

This hyperlight smock is the lightest rain top in the world, it’s flawless, and lands on my list of favorite gear for ultralight backpacking.

This is the lightest rain jacket in the world. It’s even lighter than a breathable Cuben Fiber rain jacket, which weighs around 6 ounces (and costs twice as much).

The new Berghaus VapourLight Hyper Smock 2.0, at 2.65 ounces for size men's medium, is the lightest rain top in the world. Its available in men's and women's versions. (Berghaus photo)

 The original VapourLight Hyper Smock, a pullover style, came out in 2014. Only a year later it was replaced with the Hyper Smock 2.0 in 2015. Berghaus redesigned it and made it lighter yet. According to Berghaus, the weight dropped from 100 grams to 75 grams (3.5 ounces to 2.65 ounces for a size Medium).

Now it is also available as a jacket (with a full height front zipper) weighing 3.5 ounces (size Large).

Obviously the fabric on this rain jacket is very thin, so the key questions to address in this review are whether this jacket provides sufficient rain protection, breathability, and durability.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Berghaus (http://usa.berghaus.com/)
Product	VapourLight Hyper Smock 2.0 (men’s and women’s versions)
Fabric	Hydroshell™ Hyper; 10,000 MVTR, 15,000 mm waterproofness
Weight	Manufacturer spec 2.65 oz (men’s Medium; measured weight 3.2 oz (men’s XL)
Features	Attached fitted hood; elastic binding on hood, cuffs, and hem; tie-back on hood; 16 in front zipper; 1 front pocket; dropped tail; stuff sack included
MSRP	$150 (pullover style), $155 (jacket style)

Description

I had the opportunity to test both the original Hyper Smock and the latest version 2.0, and I definitely prefer version 2.0. The most obvious difference is the location of the pocket; it was on the left sleeve on the original, and now it is just below the front zipper. Berghaus cleverly uses one zipper with two pulls and added a bar tack to create two openings: one for the pullover entry and one for the pocket. The lower pocket is more convenient and larger than the original sleeve pocket. It's 9.5 inches deep at the top tapering to 7.5 inches deep at the bottom, which is large enough for small clothing items or a camera.

However, the weight savings goes deeper than the pocket. Version 2.0 drops two mini-cordlock hood adjusters, uses thinner seam tape, uses a different panel design to reduce seams, uses lighter weight elastic bindings, and shortened the zipper one inch – a lot of subtle changes throughout the garment.

An important detail that you need to know about the Hyper Smock is that it runs about one size small. I tested the original in size Large (my usual size) and found it fit more like a Medium – the body is a trim fit that barely layers over an ultralight down jacket, but the sleeves are adequately long. So, I got version 2.0 in size XL and I am much happier with the fit – it is easier to donn and layers nicely over a lightweight down jacket. Bottom line, you need to go up one size for a good fit. If you do that, the pullover style is not that hard to put on.

In version 2.0 a drawcord on the front of the hood and two adjusters were dropped in favor of a fitted hood and simple elastic binding. I prefer to wear the hood over a billed cap so it doesn't block my vision.

 Some hikers will prefer the jacket version of the VapourLight (with a full-height front zipper) because it’s easier to put on and provides more ventilation by adjusting the zipper. However, note that the jacket version does not have a pocket.

Field Testing

I tested the two versions of the Hyper Smock on 15 backpacking trips in mountain and canyon terrains and wore it in different ways on every trip: in the rain as needed, as a windshirt while hiking, and as an outer shell layer in camp and in my sleeping bag.

 Berghaus’s Hydroshell™ Hyper waterproof-breathable fabric technology was developed in their own Mountain House Design and Development Center. Its waterproofness rating of 15,000 mm is adequate. The breathability rating of 10,000 MVTR is at the lower end for a waterproof-breathable rain jacket, equivalent to a typical polyurethane laminate rain jacket. What is remarkable is that they achieved these properties in a very thin nylon fabric construction.

As rainwear, its intended use, the Hyper Smock does the job just fine. I live in the Southwestern US, where rain usually comes as showers rather than an all-day rain. The longest I wore it in the rain was a steady drizzle for a half day in the Grand Canyon, and it kept me dry.

The Hyper Smock is thin enough that it performs quite well as a windshirt. Because it’s coated on the inside, it’s not as comfortable as a dedicated windshirt, but it suffices as long as it’s cool and windy.

 

One thing I noticed is the jacket’s thin fabric is less insulating compared to a heavier rain jacket, so I am more likely to wear a midlayer under it to stay warm. Here I am wearing a microfleece midlayer under the Hyper Smock.

I also wear my rainwear as a shell layer over my insulating layer in camp and in my sleeping bag. Its remarkable how well an outer shell holds the heat in to keep me warm and comfortable with less total weight. The Berghaus VapourLight Hyper Smock works very well for that purpose, and it doesn’t feel clammy inside in camp or in my sleeping bag because I am inactive.

Because it’s made of very thin fabric, the Hyper Smock can be expected to be less durable than heavier rainwear. However, nylon is very strong and surprisingly resistant to damage. Even so, all ultralight gear requires extra care, and if you treat it right it will last a long time.

Assessment

There are two contrasting situations requiring different types of rainwear: 1) for wetter climates, choose highly breathable air permeable rainwear for maximum comfort in prolonged rain, and 2) for drier climates, choose the lightest reliable rainwear you can find and wear it as needed. In the former situation, these jackets are heavier, expensive, and require maintenance to sustain their performance. In the latter situation, the rainwear is much lighter weight and less expensive, requires little or no maintenance, and breathability is less of a need because you typically wear the rainwear for a short time.

Besides this, an inconvenient truth about rainwear is that all rainwear will steam up inside if you are hiking uphill carrying a pack in warm temperatures. The difference is that air-permeable rainwear will allow you to hike further before it steams up. The end result in every case is you will gradually get wet from the inside.

The Berghaus VapourLight Hyper Smock fits in the second situation. It adds very little weight to your pack, and it performs admirably when it’s needed. If you are a lightweight or ultralight backpacker, this is my recommendation for rainwear.

Overall I have nothing but praise for the Berghaus VapourLight Hyper Smock, meaning it’s all good and I don’t have any reservations at all. It performs just fine as a rain jacket, especially in shorter duration showers, as good as any other polyurethane-laminate rain jacket, and it does it with minimal weight. Its extreme light weight also makes it more versatile – it’s more packable, doubles as a windshirt, and it’s an effective outer shell layer to keep you warm in camp.

In my 12 years of gear testing I have found very few perfect pieces of gear, and this is one of them. I suppose one negative is that it runs one size small, so you need to size up to get a good fit. That adds a smidgeon of weight, but it’s still the lightest rain jacket in the world.

GEAR REVIEW: Six Moon Designs Deschutes Cuben Fiber Tarp Shelter

By Will Rietveld

Six Moon Designs calls it a tarp, which may deter some hikers because they don’t want a tarp, they want an enclosed shelter. But this is an enclosed shelter, albeit floorless like a tarp. Some call it an enclosed tarp or shaped tarp. And it is also similar to a Mid (short for pyramid), but it’s six-sided rather than four-sided. Confused? Just look at the photos below.

Deschutes Tarp at 12,500 feet in the Southwestern Colorado Mountains.

The beauty of the Cuben Fiber version of this shelter is it provides reliable shelter for one person and weighs just 7 ounces. Just think of the weight savings compared to any other 1-person shelter! It’s also available in silnylon (13 ounces, $165) and silnylon with perimeter netting (16 ounces, $175, formerly the Wild Oasis), and as a two-person version called the Haven Tarp (10 ounces, $475).

There is no question that the Deschutes Tarp is very, very lightweight, but how livable is it, does it provide adequate protection from weather, and how much protection from bugs does it provide? I will address those questions in this review.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Six Moon Designs (sixmoondesigns.com)
Model	Deschutes Tarp (Cuben Fiber)
Materials	Cuben Fiber 0.74 oz/sq yd
Included	Shelter, guylines, stuff sack (stakes not included, requires 6)
Protected Area	44 sq ft
MSRP	$330

Description

The Deschutes Tarp is 6-sided (the backside is one panel, but it divides into two sides when the shelter is staked out; and the entry doors each comprise one side) and requires one trekking pole and six stakes to set up. The trekking pole can set between 45 to 49 inches; the shorter height provides more protection but less headroom, and the taller height provides more headroom and raises the edges of the shelter above the ground for more ventilation.

The Deschutes Tarp is fast and easy to set up: lay it on the ground in the desired location, stake the four side corners, insert the trekking pole’s handle into the tent’s pole pocket at the peak, stake the backside, and stake the vestibuled entry side. I use four titanium hook stakes for the sides and two aluminum tubular stakes for the front and back.

Entry is through a zippered vestibule that is now nearly full height for easy entry/exit. My test shelter in the photos is an earlier model with a shorter zipper that required more stooping over, so the longer zipper is a good improvement. The updated current shelter also has a vent at the peak.

The back side is one panel that divides into two sides when it is staked out

Since the shelter is floorless, you also need to carry a lightweight groundsheet fitted to the tent; I use one made of thin cross-linked plastic. The complete shelter, with groundsheet and stakes, weighs 10.5 ounces.

Field Testing

My testing consisted of several summer backpacking trips in the Southwest Colorado Mountains, and fall backpacking trips in Canyonlands and Grand Canyon National Parks.

These were very diverse conditions. Camping above 12,000 feet is often cool and breezy at night, so I often pinned the edges of the shelter to the ground for more protection. For warm calm nights I raised the edges of the shelter above the ground for more ventilation. For calm rainy nights or afternoon bivouacs I pitched the shelter higher to provide more room inside and lessen contact with condensation on the inside of the shelter. When camping on sand I put rocks on top of the stakes to make them hold, and at one campsite in the Grand Canyon I had to put rocks on top of the guylines to secure the tent because I couldn’t get a stake into the ground.

Livability  

I’m right at 6 feet tall, and found that entry/exit required me to stoop way down and crawl into or out of the tent, which was cumbersome. Fortunately that issue is now overcome with the lengthened zipper on the vestibule. With the edges of the shelter raised up, interior roominess is no problem; 44 square feet of protected is a lot for a 1-person shelter. A typical 1-person tent has only about 18 square feet of floor space for comparison. However, when the edges of the shelter are pinned to the ground for more weather/bug protection, headroom and footroom actually depend on how thick my sleeping pad is. The orange pad in the photos is 2.5 inches thick, which results in brushing my head on the sidewall of the tent when rising up, and headroom is limited too. Using a thinner sleeping pad makes a noticeable difference under the same conditions.

That said, note in the photos that there are tie loops on the two sides of the tent, so you can attach a guyline to the sidewall and connect it to your second trekking pole to pull out the end of the tent where your head will be. Simply run the guyline from the shelter to your trekking pole and then to the ground. That feature provides enough interior room so my head doesn’t brush against the sidewall when I sit up. Overall, I still wished for a little more interior room.

Each side of the shelter has an attachment point (black square) where a guyline can be attached to extend the sidewall above the sleeper's head to provide more clearance. It is shown tied out in the second photo.

The entry vestibule is a really nice feature. It prevents wind-driven rain from entering the shelter and is big enough to store all of my gear and keep it dry. Note the short zipper on my test shelter; the zipper on the current version is 10 inches longer and the peak has a vent.

Weather Protection 

Many people fret about the adequacy of such a minimalist shelter in stormy or windy conditions. It all gets down to experience. I have previously tested Six Moon Designs’ Gatewood Cape and Wild Oasis shelter in the rain on many occasions, and was impressed with their stormworthiness. The Deschutes Tarp is basically the same design and is just as secure. So, I didn’t begin this review with any skepticism; I already knew from past experience that the Deschutes Tarp would do the job. It kept me dry through all night rains and wind-driven rain and hail from thunderstorms.

It’s always best to orient the back of the shelter to the direction that storms are most likely to come from, but of course you don’t always guess right. Calm rains are no problem, and you can even use a high pitch if you like. But for wind-driven rain, or just wind, it’s important to stake the bottom edge of the shelter to the ground. In that situation I don’t use the guylines, I stake directly to the loops on the shelter.

Bug Protection 

This is where my review of the Deschutes Tarp is less definitive. Bugs are usually not a big issue in the Southwestern US. In the few occasions over the years where I did have a bug issue, I noticed that mosquitoes and flies do not readily come in under the bottom edge of a floorless shelter. It doesn’t absolutely keep them out, but not enough of them get in to make it a problem. Also, I note that the mosquitoes usually go away when the temperature drops under about 40F, so the bugs are gone by bedtime in the mountains. So, for me, I get by quite well with a floorless shelter.

However, I realize that is not the case everywhere. For situations where bugs, mice, and other creepy crawlers are a real problem, SMD has their Serenity NetTent (11 ounces/$175) which fits inside the Deschutes Tarp to make it a double-wall shelter weighing 18 ounces. The combination provides a lot of versatility.

Assessment

It would be hard to find a fully enclosed shelter as light as the Deschutes Tarp. Weighing just 7 ounces (about 10.5 ounces with groundsheet and stakes), the Deschutes eliminates a huge amount of weight from one’s gear kit.

It also provides plenty of rain and wind protection to enable a good night’s sleep, which is important on strenuous backpacks. I personally don’t care to sleep under a regular tarp anymore because nighttime breezes go right through it and it’s hard to get a good night’s sleep. The Deschutes is more like a tent, it’s fully enclosed and you can keep breezes out.

For locations where bugs are an important issue, the SMD Deschutes Tarp pairs with the SMD NetTent to create a bugproof double wall tent weighing just 18 ounces, which is still a weight that is hard to beat.

As mentioned above, overall I found the Deschutes to have adequate interior space for minimalist backpacking, but I often wished for a little extra interior volume so I could avoid brushing against the sidewalls when they had condensation. That was especially true when I used a thicker sleeping pad and had the shelter pinned to the ground. Another option that will appeal to many hikers (including me) is to move up to the SMD Haven Cuben Fiber Tarp. The Haven is a 2-person version of this shelter that uses two trekking poles for support, has 2 doors, and weighs only 10 ounces. That’s right, just 3 ounces more. The Haven would be a delightfully roomy shelter for one person, and accommodates two when you camp with a partner. It would also be a great choice if you hike with a dog. However, at $475 it costs $145 more.

Overall the Deschutes is a perfect shelter for a super-ultralight gear kit for backpacking in the mountains, where more protection is needed. It is well designed and constructed, and fairly priced for a Cuben shelter. The only drawback I found is the tight quarters inside under certain conditions, but moving up to the Haven easily solves that issue, and provides more versatility to boot.

It sure would be nice if the cost of Cuben Fiber (now Dyneema Composite Materials) would finally come down. It has proven itself (in terms of durability and longevity) for lightweight backpacking to reduce weight, but it comes at a big price. The Deschutes is $330 and the Serenity is $475, which is the typical cost for a Cuben Fiber shelter. Only a select few avid backpackers are willing to plunk down the money to buy a Cuben Fiber shelter, and that’s unfortunate.   

GEAR REVIEW: Kora Shola 230 Zip-T Baselayer

By Will Rietveld

Kora Shola baselayers are made of Yak wool, and Kora is the only company that purchases Yak wool from Tibetan nomadic herders and processes it into fabric. Yaks are the cattle of the Tibetan Plateau; they are raised for their milk, meat, hides, and wool, and are used as pack and work animals as well. Yaks survive at 4000 to 5000 meters due to their soft wooly undercoat that protects them from the winter cold. The yaks naturally shed their wooly undercoat in summer, and herders simply pluck the wool as it is shed; there is no shearing as with Merino sheep.

Why Yak wool? Research by Kora has shown that, compared to an equivalent weight of merino wool fabric, Yak wool fabric is 40% warmer, 66% more breathable, and 17% better at transporting water vapor, as well as being lighter and softer (like cashmere).

The Kora Shola 230 Zip-T is made of Yak wool and is claimed to be 40% warmer, 66% more breathable, and 17% better at transporting water vapor compared to a similar weight of merino wool.

 

I tested the Kora Shola 230 Zip-T to evaluate the performance of a Yak wool baselayer. FYI, a Kora is a devotional practice of trekking around a sacred mountain. I didn’t exactly do that, but I tested the baselayer on numerous trips (mostly snow sports) in the Southern Rockies to check it out.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer	Kora (www.kora.net
Product	Shola 230 Zip-T
Fabric	100% Yak wool, 230 grams/square meter
Weight	10.15 oz (men’s Large)
Features	12 in front zipper, stand up collar, extra long body and sleeves, flat-locked seams, set-in sleeves, dropped tail
MSRP	$160

Description

Kora is a British company launched in 2013. They purchase fair trade Yak wool from a cooperative of nomadic herders on the Tibetan Plateau, then ship the wool to three factories in adjacent China for processing, knitting, and sewing.

Presently Kora offers a Yak wool zip-T and crew neck in men’s and women’s versions, bottoms, and a hooded jacket. The base layers all use 230 grams/square meter fabric, which is mid-weight. Sewing details, sizing, and fit are excellent. Other fabrics and garments are in the pipeline.

Because of its thermal benefits to the original Yak, and its claimed superiority over merino wool in terms of warmth, breathability, and moisture transfer, the Kola 230 Zip-T is primarily intended as a cold/cool weather baselayer. The focus is clearly on warmth and comfort. For its premium quality and price, an avid outdoors person should be able to detect significant warmth and extended range of comfort benefits from a lighter weight garment, compared to merino wool.

Field Testing

I tested it in winter in temperatures ranging from -10 to 55F and a range of weather conditions. I tallied a total of 36 outings testing the Shola Zip-T: trail running, snow hiking, cross-country skiing, skate skiing, backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, and warm weather hiking.

In Southwestern Colorado, winter days start out cold but the sun is strong and highs can reach 50F. I wore the Shola by itself under a very breathable hardshell jacket a good part of the time for aerobic activities in cold temperatures, and by itself in balmier conditions above freezing. And then there were those days when I wore it with a midlayer and shell in near blizzard conditions.

For comparison, I wore an Icebreaker 260 weight merino zip-T while trail running to see if I could detect a noticeable difference between it and the Kora Shola 230 (Icebreaker doesn’t have a 230 weight baselayer for a direct comparison). On those days I ran a 3.5 mile loop with 1000 feet of elevation gain and loss on packed snow in 20-35F temperatures, and then weighed the baselayer when I got home to determine moisture accumulation.

I know this is a subjective evaluation, but I will relate my experiences with the Shola as accurately as I can.

I found the construction quality and fit to be excellent. I like the extra long body; it doesn’t pull out when I bend over. And the sleeves are plenty long for my long arms. The cuffs do not have thumb loops. The fabric feels soft and warm against my skin and is not itchy. The flat-locked seams prevented any skin abrasion.

From testing the Shola Zip-T in snow sports and hiking, my impressions are that it is softer next to skin, remarkably warm, and has a broad comfort range. When worn under a highly breathable hardshell made of eVent DVS fabric, the combination provided warmth and sustained comfort while actively skiing or hiking in cold/cool temperatures down to about 15F; below that I added a fleece midlayer. What was remarkable was 1) the baselayer never felt clammy with the jacket fully zipped, and 2) its extended comfort range, out to about 50F before I had to open the front zipper of the jacket, and eventually take the jacket off.

On several warmer February days I was able to test the Shola by itself while skiing or snowshoeing at high altitude. It was delightful to wear a single layer on 40-50F days with a light breeze while skiing on five feet of snow.

I wore the Shola on 23 outings before I washed it for the first time, and there was no detectable smell. The garment smelled like a wet dog when it was wet, but that smell went away when it dried. After the washing I wore the Shola full-time for four days on an 8 mile ski trip to a mountain cabin and daily backcounty sojourns from the cabin; still no smells. The Shola also does not have any detectable pilling after wearing it on 36 outings.

My comparisons of the Shola Zip-T with an Icebreaker 260 Zip-T were all done on trail runs, as described above. With a breathable jacket worn over the Shola, the moisture accumulation in the baselayer was 1.9 ounces, compared to 2.3 ounces for the Icebreaker 260. For the baselayers worn by themselves (no jacket over them) the Kora accumulated 0.6 ounces of moisture while the Icebreaker accumulated 0.45 ounces. The results are very similar.

Assessment

The Kora Shola Zip-T is clearly a premium and elegant baselayer that is exceptionally well designed and sewn. And it has a premium price tag, about one-third more than a comparable merino wool baselayer.

So, does it perform better? Well, from my experience, it feels softer against my skin and softer to the touch, like cashmere. It is finely woven, and shows no signs of pilling. For active winter sports in colder weather, worn under a shell jacket or alone on warmer days, I was very pleased with its warmth, breathability, and comfort. In my opinion, it’s a measure better than a comparable merino wool baselayer.

However, when I pushed it to its limits by wearing it under a hardshell jacket while trail running, it accumulated a lot of moisture by the end of my run, the same as the merino wool baselayer. So they both accumulate moisture when confined under a shell, which is understandable. When either one was worn alone while trail running in cool temperatures, they accumulated some sweat but were still comfortable and warm.

Overall, from a performance standpoint, the Kora SholaYak wool baselayer lives up to its claims. It’s remarkably soft, warm, breathable, and moisture transmitting during moderate aerobic activity in cold/cool weather. However, I did not directly compare the Kora to a merino baselayer for snow sports. When I compared the two while trail running, the performance was basically the same.

From a weight standpoint, the Shola provides more warmth and performance in a lighter weight garment, about 3 ounces lighter than a merino baselayer.

From a cost standpoint, the Shola costs about $40 more than the Icebreaker 260 Zip-T I compared it with. People reading this review will ask if the extra warmth and performance is worth the extra cost. My response is you basically get what you pay for; you will not be disappointed with the Kora Shola. A high-tech cycling jacket or fleece top costs about the same, so the $160 cost is not unusual.