pete75 wrote:pjclinch wrote:pete75 wrote:Actually a tent isn't the only thing I take. A thermarest, sleeping bag, spare clothes, some food and cooking stuff often comes in handy I've found.
Aye, me too. But it just
might be the case that I have more of that stuff than you. There's always more stuff I'd like to take if I had TARDIS panniers, but I don't so there's always a trade-off and tent volume is part of that. That might be the case for some other people too.
So why use a phrase like "If the only thing you're taking is a tent, fair enough"
Because I was being facetious. I'm too old to put smileys on everything that needs an irony detector, sorry.
pete75 wrote:pjclinch wrote:As I said arlier, I'm someone with a footprint that doesn't always use it. But I get the idea that some people do because I've seen them say on the Interweb etc. that that's what they do.
If someone who has bought a footprint wants to use it all the time that is their concern not yours.
Indeed, just as it's no concern of mine if people want to ride/hike everywhere in a Goretex jacket no matter what the weather, but similarly there exists the possibility their life might be a little better another way.
pete75 wrote:
Having one vent low down and one higher up will provide better ventilation than a pair at the same height because of warmer air rising. So no insects can enter the Nammatj porch from ground level? So what if a vent is opened from the outside.
It's because of warm air rising you want the vents as chimneys and that means high.
As it notes in Hille's literature, the Black Label tents are the most comfortable and the Red Label ones make concessions to comfort to trim the weight a bit.
For your second point, I suspect either you're not very familiar with midges and mozzies, particularly in the "dense cloud" formations of the former that exist in prime Scottish camping territory, or have blanked the horrors from your mind when composing your post. There is no problem with masses of midges entering under the fly. There is a big problem with them getting in to a porch. So what if a vent is open from outside? If, for example, I want to shut it in the night because it's got very cold I'd much rather not have to get out of bed. It's certainly not insurmountable but it goes back to the comfort distinction between Black and Red. If all else is equal, more comfort and convenience is better than less. Or that's how it works for me.
pete75 wrote:pjclinch wrote:As for "larger", I'm meaning volume rather than area, what with being 3 dimensional myself, and since the Nammatj's roof doesn't taper downwards between the poles there's more space inside.
You must have bloody big feet if you're bothered about height at the foot end of the tent. Personally I'd rather have the Nallo one metre at the door end and sloping down a bit rather than 95cm all the way along. At least I can sit up at one end without my head touching the inner sometimes. Anyhow my Nallo is a decent enough tent for the £150 it cost second hand in excellent condition.
I don't see what my feet have got to do with the overall volume of the inner. Because the tunnel section of the Nammatj is a half cylinder against a half truncated cone there's more of it. And you don't get 100 cm sitting height at the door in a Nallo because it's a peak point and not a sustained height. This wouldn't be much of a problem with one, but it's not unreasonable to assume that such a tent might be brought for a pair, what with being sold as a two person tent, and in that case the extra volume of the inner makes much more of a difference (why we have a Kaitum and not a Nallo GT, despite overall size being very similar, and why the more comfort-oriented Black Label Nammatj doesn't taper in the tunnel section).
meic wrote:There are perfectly good reasons for always using a footprint with your tent compared to buying a tent with a heavier duty groundsheet. You can replace the scuffed, worn or holed footprint anytime you want, with no hassle and less expense ( free with old shower curtains) than replacing a groundsheet. You can separate off the muddy footprint when you get home to leave outside for hosing down sometime later, while taking a comparatively clean tent into the house to dry. If you find a nice spot under shelter you can just lay out the footprint to protect your mat for the night
No argument with those, but back at the head of the thread the OP particularly worried about the modern trend for very flimsy groundsheets that need protecting in any case. And I think with some modern tents where the design goal has been minimising the final weight at the expense of some practicality that's fair comment. With something like a Laser Comp there's good reason: it was designed for mountain marathon use where every gramme really does count, plus TN know what they're doing and threw some money at the materials, but there's plenty of cheaper very light things these days where the reasoning seems to be marketing bullet points. Something like a Nallo has its design compromises set much further up the robustness scale and you can use it without a footprint with every expectation of not damaging anything. Yet I've seen quite a few posts over the years indicating e.g. Aktos and Nallos (i.e., the most well known best-sellers that turn up the most in Top 10 Best Tents lists) would always be used with a footprint on the assumption that they'd be damaged if they didn't.
Pete.
Often seen riding a bike around Dundee...