Cycling UK Forum

Whilst looking for a possible non hoop replacement to suit a Berghaus Peak 3,1 inner* (or no inner) I came across this nice simple non-sloping ridge From DD hammocks.. As well as the peak 3.1 inner, I think their own https://www.ddhammocks.com/product/xl_pyramid_mesh_1_man?from_cat=43 would be a better (transverse) one man inner than their official A frame 2-man one (https://www.ddhammocks.com/product/dd_a-frame_mesh_tent?from_cat=43) as it would allow nice large bell space(s).

I wonder why it is so rarely mentioned in tent discussions when a reasonable price?

Also , I think (spec matches pictures but not jpg image diagram of dimensions....) their https://www.ddhammocks.com/product/xl_pyramid_tent?from_cat=43 is the same size as the luxe minipeak II for those who only want to buy the flysheet without luxe inner.




*I broke the peak 3.1 hooped fly's zip ....

After 16 years the zip on the inner of my Terra Nova Voyger went. I sent it back to Terra Nova and it cost £45 to replace, the flysheet zip would have been £30.

I don't quite see what it gets you that's different from any other - all tents tend towards similar weights as they all need similar area of cloth.
My gripe about it is that the mesh inner would be cold and that it wouldn't pitch well on uneven ground. Personally I prefer something long and low. Pyramid designs look big but there is a lot of wasted space with the low height close to the edges. Curved pole designs excel in usable space.

But horses for courses and no two people have the same blend of priorities. Just because it isn't right for me doesn't mean it's universally wrong. I like its flexibility from overgrown tarp all the way to full tent.

hamster wrote:I don't quite see what it gets you that's different from any other - ....

The differences that interested me were----

1) the ridge isn;t sloping (unlike the conventional sloping ridged 'lightweights' such as a la Saunders jetpacker, ultimate tramp / Hobo Fan etc) which means I can live with it: I eventually couldn't cope with my old fashioned sloping ridge and replaced it with a transverse hoop Berghaus Peak 3.1:
but I find the long single flexible pole more awkward to pitch than two uprights (eg uprights would allow quick pitch of outer for lunch compared to that long single hoop).

1.5) The complex curves of a single hoop tent seem to need a lot of tension to get a nice pitch, the simplicity of a simple ridge appeals to me.


2) The outer is sold individually so you can choose what inner you want / use none / a DD or other make mesh inner of choice / use your own non-mesh inner: eg I think the inner from my Peak 3.1 would fit within the footprint gaining the pitching advantage of (1): the side entrance is unusual in such a traditional (non-hoop) ridge tent and suits the peak 3.1 inner..... It also has the usual front and rear bell entrances...

Its not a pyramid design, its a two pole non-sloping ridge offering at least the same space as my peak 1 (but more bell space).

3) Its a reasonable price..

Very little wiggle room in the single, mosquitoes bite through mesh. Better fitting the double for comfort.

it's a reasonable price and looks fine to me. A simple design that used to be very common, but there's good reasons they no longer are. The points hamster made about pyramid tents also apply to a ridge, they don't always pitch well on uneven ground and there's a lot of wasted space along the long edges.
I've never had a single hoop tent to compare, but I've tried several two hoop designs, a dome and a tunnel before settling on the semi geo TN Solar 2.2. They've all been straightforward to put up. particularly the dome and TN as they're pretty much free standing.

PH wrote:... design that used to be very common, but there's good reasons they no longer are. The points hamster made about pyramid tents also apply to a ridge, they don't always pitch well on uneven ground and there's a lot of wasted space along the long edges.....

But the single hoop peak 3,1 I was comparing it to/considering as alternate outer to is essentially a ridge but with the curved pole along the ridge line.....
The ridge uses more material in exchange for more bells and avoiding the need to handle a very long (cos transverse) bendy pole when pitching and allowing walking poles as poles...

I don;t see why a ridge is worse on rough ground compared to a single hoop?

SA_SA_SA wrote:

PH wrote:... design that used to be very common, but there's good reasons they no longer are. The points hamster made about pyramid tents also apply to a ridge, they don't always pitch well on uneven ground and there's a lot of wasted space along the long edges.....

But the single hoop peak 3,1 I was comparing it to/considering as alternate outer to is essentially a ridge but with the curved pole along the ridge line.....
The ridge uses more material in exchange for more bells and avoiding the need to handle a very long (cos transverse) bendy pole when pitching and allowing walking poles as poles...

I don;t see why a ridge is worse on rough ground compared to a single hoop?

Some valid points and as I said I've never used a single hoop tent to compare. I have used some ridge tents, both lightweight camping and some larger tents. The difficulty is keeping both the ridge and the sidewalls taught if the line of one doesn't follow the other, plus you're relying on the end tensions for the tent to take shape. If that apex is rigid, as with a hoop but probably whatever it's shape, it should become easier to get a taught pitch - I say should because I don't have the experience to demonstrate it, but I would be shocked if it wasn't the case on two otherwise fairly similar tents.
It's just opinion of course, I bought a Saunders Jetpacker based on a friends opinion and sold it after one weekends use, I thought it an awful tent.

I wonder if its the tension band on the hoop tents that helps uneven pitching (my sloping ridge had one between the A-poles) which may have helped pitching even with the upright pole I later used to save weight?