Cycling UK Forum

Are you still looking for tent and or considering the vango helium. I have the helium carbon 200 with very light use. Think it weighs in sub 1kg. Used for a few nights on some walking trips. A couple of nights on peddars way and a week on sw coastal path.

https://www.ldmountaincentre.com/campin ... ent-p19704

If you pack the poles separately it compresses down to a very small size and weighs less than many bivi bags

pjclinch wrote:We have a Hubba Hubba HP and it's a good tent for what we want it for (short lightweight raids for two) but I'd be wary about using it for round the world, I'd choose something a bit stronger. ......

This summer tour I purchased a new MSR Hubba Hubba Shield (the model with composite poles). After a week I noticed the top cross pole was gradually taking a bend, a kink where the inner joining sleeves finished. After 2 weeks I was getting worried. After 3 weeks I contacted the retailer who were concerned. It was only a question of time. They contacted MSR who would inly do minimum legal obligation (replace broken pole sections only). On 4the week it broke. I had no confidence in tent and retailer went above and beyond allowing me to pay difference and get a Hilleberg. I was in Germany and next day I got a new Hilleberg (from UK retailer) and they "took the hit" on the useless MSR (MSR would only send them replacement sections for the broken pole).

I will never buy MSR again but I will always use the retailer at every opportunity (when they sell/have stock of what I need). Retailers providing such service inspire confidence and deserve business. Manufacturers doing the absolute legal minimum do not deserve business and after other MSR kit failures I have no confidence in them or their gear.

Ian

That is a shame to hear. I have a msr hubba hubba from around 2008 and it is still going strong.

ipswichcycler wrote:That is a shame to hear. I have a msr hubba hubba from around 2008 and it is still going strong.

Mine was the "Shield" variant, a new model that had composite poles that were claimed to be better. But after my experiences I think they are totally inadequate (it was a gradual failure with use not a catastrophic failure e.g. in bad weather). Also, that the two pole sections either side of the swivel were both going suggests to me a design issue rather than a faulty pole (faulty pole would likely only see one pole bend/break).

I suspect yours would have alloy poles which, given how long they have been around are probably "up to the job".

My disappointment was not only with the tent breaking (anything can break, that's life ...) but with MSR's total un-cooperation with their retailer (or with me through their retailer). To me that spoke volumes about MSR being a company to avoid, but the retailers "above and beyond" help and service marks them out as a company I can feel confident in (I suspect most will have guessed it was Ultralight Outdoor").

Ian

This thread has now got a discussion of RTW tents:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=133091

Psamathe wrote:

pjclinch wrote:We have a Hubba Hubba HP and it's a good tent for what we want it for (short lightweight raids for two) but I'd be wary about using it for round the world, I'd choose something a bit stronger. ......

This summer tour I purchased a new MSR Hubba Hubba Shield (the model with composite poles).

Composite poles, thus far at least, strike me as a weight-weenie option rather than a reliability option.
I haven't seen any expedition tents using them: pretty much everyone serious about reliability is using DAC, Easton or similarly expensive alloy poles.

One thing people seem to have not really grokked about poles is that the weak parts are at the joins, and since the whole thing is a goner if the weakest link in the chain fails it really pays to look at the joins. DAC have spent a lot of time and effort making the joins as good as they can, and whether or not carbon fibre is a wonder-material for a long pole, it's the joins that will almost always cause the problems. So at least for a few years yet I'll be far more interested in alloy poles than some super-duper composite replacement.

(Our HH has alloy poles, but even with them the hub construction means more joins, which means more potential weak spots, which means "no thanks" for a RTW selection from me. This is not saying it's a bad tent (it's a great tent for the money with excellent space at the weight), but it may not be the right tent for this.)

Pete.

pjclinch wrote:

Psamathe wrote:

pjclinch wrote:We have a Hubba Hubba HP and it's a good tent for what we want it for (short lightweight raids for two) but I'd be wary about using it for round the world, I'd choose something a bit stronger. ......

This summer tour I purchased a new MSR Hubba Hubba Shield (the model with composite poles).

Composite poles, thus far at least, strike me as a weight-weenie option rather than a reliability option.
I haven't seen any expedition tents using them: pretty much everyone serious about reliability is using DAC, Easton or similarly expensive alloy poles.

One thing people seem to have not really grokked about poles is that the weak parts are at the joins, and since the whole thing is a goner if the weakest link in the chain fails it really pays to look at the joins. DAC have spent a lot of time and effort making the joins as good as they can, and whether or not carbon fibre is a wonder-material for a long pole, it's the joins that will almost always cause the problems. So at least for a few years yet I'll be far more interested in alloy poles than some super-duper composite replacement.

(Our HH has alloy poles, but even with them the hub construction means more joins, which means more potential weak spots, which means "no thanks" for a RTW selection from me. This is not saying it's a bad tent (it's a great tent for the money with excellent space at the weight), but it may not be the right tent for this.)

Pete.

I don't know exactly what material the Hubba Hubba Shield poles are made of (I've just seen it described as "composite")

https://psamathe.net/msr-hubba-hubba-shield-review/
It's actually a bit more complex than bend, getting worse then break. As it was going through "getting worse" I happened to have an emergency repair tube with me (no idea why!) so thought best to fit it to the worse side (I was camping every night). But the bend had got so bad that I really struggled to get it on (for a long time I thought I would not be able to but continued struggling and eventually it got on). After a few days (other side still getting worse) I decided as it was likely a warranty issue I'd try and take it off in case "forces being transferred" and it slid-off really easily. i.e. relieving the strain for a few days allowed the pole to start recovering it's shape.

I thus suspect my problem was that I was using the tent every day (for 4 weeks until the break) so the pole bend was never getting a chance to "recover". Guessing but maybe occasional weekend use might be ok as they'd bend slightly over a weekend but then "recover" in the following weeks left packed away in a cupboard. But the "recovery" is a guess based only on the repair tube difficult on, easy off.

Ian

I don't have a recommendation for the OP, my dream tent would be an Allak, though I'm never likely to spend that sort of money for the use I'd have. I know if I ever did an extended tour the care I would be taking with equipment after six months is unlikely to be the same as at the start, so part of my requirements would be robust and easily repairable or replaceable, which doesn't go well with lightweight. I might go for a pyramid or ridge design, straight pole/s that could be replaced with anything and straight panels that would be easy to patch, likewise straight zips that are under less strain than many curved ones. I'd probably also want a removable bathtub groundsheet. This might not appeal to the OP, which is fine, it isn't my trip, have fun.

This is from my take from Hilleberg about their Red Label tents (of which the Allak is one) on the other thread:

Red Label tents are built for both short and longer trips in generally less demanding conditions in all seasons, such as less exposed mountain terrain, forests in both winter and summer, and the like, but where you still may encounter severe situations. Their emphasis on lighter weight makes them less than ideal for harsh environments and extended adventures in demanding conditions. They are, however, quite capable of withstanding heavy storm conditions. Experienced users sometimes choose these tents for more demanding adventures because they knowingly accept the trade-off of strength for lighter weight

I personally would have gone for the Staika:
https://hilleberg.com/eng/tent/black-la ... ts/staika/

horizon wrote:This is from my take from Hilleberg about their Red Label tents (of which the Allak is one) on the other thread:

Red Label tents are built for both short and longer trips in generally less demanding conditions in all seasons, such as less exposed mountain terrain, forests in both winter and summer, and the like, but where you still may encounter severe situations. Their emphasis on lighter weight makes them less than ideal for harsh environments and extended adventures in demanding conditions. They are, however, quite capable of withstanding heavy storm conditions. Experienced users sometimes choose these tents for more demanding adventures because they knowingly accept the trade-off of strength for lighter weight

I personally would have gone for the Staika:
https://hilleberg.com/eng/tent/black-la ... ts/staika/

As ever, we all have our lines in different places.

Promotional pics of the Staika include, for example...


When they say "harsh environments" they really mean it!

That's probably tougher on the tent than a typical cycle tour pitch, but having said that it is worth bearing in mind that you can pay for tougher and that's what you get with Black Label, so the zips will stand up to day-in, day-out sand better, and the poles are thicker and less liable to break and the groundsheet will take days of rocky pitches better and so on.
But also you'll be carting 4 Kg of tent every day of the trip.

Perhaps worth noting that Black Label options like the Staika are about as tough as tents get (at least off the shelf) and they're designed for extreme environments. Red label aren't as tough, but they're still stronger than most tents on the market. Our Kaitum is clearly a whole different level of ball game to the Hubba Hubba when you think how it'll stand up to repeated abuse. And our Tarra is another level, but I only have that because the weight and bulk don't bother me out of a boat.

Pete.

Are all those staika's that colour?

If so may be handy if you want to be spotted in the wilderness/wild camping by a jet fighter.

But not otherwise.


Worth pointing out that Vango also do some toughened versions of their standard designs.

Like those referred to above, heavier of course.

Ivor Tingting wrote:Indeed. Temp ratings on sleeping bags are just guides. They have to comply with EN reg what ever number I can't remember now. If you are a bit sensitive to the cold then go for a warmer bag.

The standard produces three figures, referred to as comfort rating, limit rating and extreme. I think the first two are measured with female and male bodyforms respectively - at least that's how they're often mentioned - but in practice it's so much down to individual physiology rather than simple man-woman divide. And the extreme figure just means you might not die above that temperature! Bear in mind all the ratings are measured with hood drawn, baffles snugged up, etc. In practice not many people actually sleep like that.

Sweep wrote:Are all those staika's that colour?

No, for £1000 you get a choice of three colours - just click on the choices.

Sweep wrote:Are all those staika's that colour?

If so may be handy if you want to be spotted in the wilderness/wild camping by a jet fighter.

But not otherwise

All Hilles come in a choice of red, dark green or "sand", a medium brown.

My two are both red, the first because Tiso had end-of-lined the Tarra and I could save a lot of money on their last one, which was red. The second as I'd grown to like the red on the first: the light inside has a warmer quality I like, and if you think that sounds daft it's worth noting that orange Force 10s are orange for that exact psychological reason rather than being hi-viz.
Never yet come across a Sand one in the flesh (it's relatively recent) but I'd like to see how it looks inside. The green for the last few years has been very dark and I'm not keen so if I wanted to be a bit less ostentatious I'd go for Sand.

Pete.

As an aside and maybe relevant to the OP, question:

When I got my replacement, a Hilleberg Rogen 2, I did feel the inner bottom was a bit thin and wondered if I should have purchased a footer at the same time. I didn't have any problems with it but am now wondering if for tours beyond a few days if I should be talking a footer with such a tent.

And I'd assume the same question would apply when the trip is RTW.

Ian