Midge mesh for Saunders Space Packer

[SA_SA_SA]

On a different note, was the Spacepacker just silicon coated on one side (other side raw nylon) or was it doublecoated like modern silnylon. I had an ultimate hobo fan (like a tramp but cotton inner) and I wondered if it had a single sided silicon proofing as it didnt look like pu.

[pjclinch]

On a different note, was the Spacepacker just silicon coated on one side (other side raw nylon) or was it doublecoated like modern silnylon. I had an ultimate hobo fan (like a tramp but cotton inner) and I wondered if it had a single sided silicon proofing as it didnt look like pu.

I'm pretty sure it was (at least) double-coated or else the seams would very probably have been taped (Saunders taped his polyester fly designs, including the Spacepacker Mk 2). Where I say "at least", note that Hilleberg's current fly fabrics (and I imagine others') are actually triple-coated, two on the outside, one inside.

I don't know for sure if anyone in the UK aside from Saunders was using silicone flys in the last 80s/early 90s.

Pete,

[SA_SA_SA]

...... I had an ultimate hobo fan (like a tramp but cotton inner) and I wondered if it had a single sided silicon proofing as it didnt look like pu...

.....
I don't know for sure if anyone in the UK aside from Saunders was using silicone flys in the last 80s/early 90s.
Pete,

It appears the related Tramp was Pu coated so Presumably so was my Hobo Fan (which was still waterproof when I sold it).
http://www.outdoorinov8.com/ultimateimages.html(the Tramp magazine advert specifies PU).

[SA_SA_SA]

Yes, I have come across Trekkertent and noticed their Phreeranger tribute but it has less vestibule space than a spacepacker (backpackers seem to need less?).

I think it's really a case of the designer's (and customers') priorities. Bob Saunders clearly rated porch space (the Galaxy/Snowcat transverse tunnel for two had porch space equal to the entire ground plan of a Spacepacker), whoever does the design work at TN apparently not so much...
It's the relatively slim porches on the Tarptent Scarp (1 or 2) that put me off getting one as a Spacepacker replacement.

Pete.

With regard to the almost circular Spacepacker, I would have thought rotating its inner by 90degrees wouldn't have necessarily affected useful vestibule area much given that panniers etc laid flat etc wont need full height so the sloping fly isnt wasting space much, so the human occupents may as well have that space above their head?

[pjclinch]

With regard to the almost circular Spacepacker, I would have thought rotating its inner by 90degrees wouldn't have necessarily affected useful vestibule area much given that panniers etc laid flat etc wont need full height so the sloping fly isnt wasting space much, so the human occupents may as well have that space above their head?

You're thinking in two dimensions rather than 3. Porch area wouldn't change much, but usable volume would. Not much of an issue for a laid-flat bag, but very much an issue for e.g. someone trying to change in/out of wet waterproofs while keeping the inner dry or fire up a stove.

While the face-full-of-inner lying down put people off the Spacepacker it never bothered me that much, because if I was lying down I was going to sleep anyway. But directly supported (i.e., not likely to flatten in a gust) clear space I could cook in was worth having.

Arguably the most successful descendants of the Spacepacker have been the Akto and its numerous knock-offs, and they've kept the transverse layout but given a low wall to the ends supported by stub-poles rather than tapering to the ground. All that complication would have been unnecessary if all that was needed was sleep 90 degrees around.

Pete.

[SA_SA_SA]

With regard to the almost circular Spacepacker, I would have thought rotating its inner by 90degrees wouldn't have necessarily affected useful vestibule area much given that panniers etc laid flat etc wont need full height so the sloping fly isnt wasting space much, so the human occupents may as well have that space above their head?

You're thinking in two dimensions rather than 3. Porch area wouldn't change much, but usable volume would. Not much of an issue for a laid-flat bag, but very much an issue for e.g. someone trying to change in/out of wet waterproofs while keeping the inner dry or fire up a stove.

While the face-full-of-inner lying down put people off the Spacepacker it never bothered me that much, because if I was lying down I was going to sleep anyway. But directly supported (i.e., not likely to flatten in a gust) clear space I could cook in was worth having.

Arguably the most successful descendants of the Spacepacker have been the Akto and its numerous knock-offs, and they've kept the transverse layout but given a low wall to the ends supported by stub-poles rather than tapering to the ground. All that complication would have been unnecessary if all that was needed was sleep 90 degrees around.

Pete.

But isn't that more of a backpacking viewpoint, compared to touring cyclist viewpoint (at least in summer). The bell ends of the jetpacker and my hobo fan would have the same slopingness for waterproof removal, perhaps that Spacepacker advantage was undersold bsck then?, I found the slopingness of the hobo fans ridge* a disadvantage once inside it (eg when changing trousers etc)so the akto and its tributes makes me think of two hobofan wrong (low) ends connected together....

*It was actually easier if one slept with head at the low end but that made other things more awkward, like moving around in tent, so I didnt do that much.

[slowster]

The Phreeranger was considered superior in many respects as far as sleep layout and e.g. separation of inner and outer went, but using more traditional fabrics was weaker and heavier

Pre-1988 models had silnylon flysheets and weighed ~1.5kg for the fly, inner and poles.

http://maceachain.blogspot.com/2009/04/ ... er_22.html

[pjclinch]

But isn't that more of a backpacking viewpoint, compared to touring cyclist viewpoint (at least in summer).

I don't understand the distinction to be honest. However I arrive I want the tent to do the same thing as regards keeping me comfortable.

The bell ends of the jetpacker and my hobo fan would have the same slopingness for waterproof removal, perhaps that Spacepacker advantage was undersold bsck then?, I found the slopingness of the hobo fans ridge* a disadvantage once inside it (eg when changing trousers etc)so the akto and its tributes makes me think of two hobofan wrong (low) ends connected together....

The Jetpacker bell is a clear bell, as are the Spacepacker's porches and both are set out in line with the tent ridge. The Spacepacker is very much a ridge-tent at heart so taking the sides rather than the ends as porches would give you a slab rather than a bell. I don't think the doors would work very well either. If you think of the Spacepacker as a ridge tent the placement of the doors and porches make sense. Other single hoops (transverse and end on) are (relatively) closer to domes and tunnels than the Spacepacker, which has a very different profile from ends and sides, much like the Jetpacker.

The Spacepacker was IIRC successful and generally well liked for giving plenty of liveable space for one (and just enough but genuinely enough for 2) at under 2 Kg with the Plus giving plenty of room for 2 at just over 2 Kg. The Jetpacker (and Plus) was more pushed at "this is as light as you can get in a practical tent, but don't expect to be troubled by agoraphobia".

Pete.

[SA_SA_SA]

But isn't that more of a backpacking viewpoint, compared to touring cyclist viewpoint (at least in summer).

I don't understand the distinction to be honest. However I arrive I want the tent to do the same thing as regards keeping me comfortable.

.....
Pete.

A backpacker crossing wild land like mountain ranges is much less likely to have the option of an occasional hotel to dry off in after a wet mountain camp(s) or just for weather avoidance, or a warm dry pub near the camp site. But before hooped tents, surely most solo mountain tents were sloping ridges, so would be worse even than a 90degree spacepacker but people put up with it. If the spacepacker was completely symmetrical perhaps the inner could have had 2 or 3 positions and if partially unhooked more space could be gained for changing. I slightly prefer my peak 3.1 over the hobofan for removing a cycling jacket, it seems sheltered enough to me but thats open in the inner
toand and sit leaning forward in inner, torso and legs in vestibule, some water may transfer to mat or groundsheet but can be wiped up.

Cyclists have more luggage bags to store rather than one rucksac per person (My tents were all for one person...me). Also, modern backpackers seem to prefer dehydrated meals and thus require only waterboiling stoves which means less porch space required possibly.

[pjclinch]

The Phreeranger was considered superior in many respects as far as sleep layout and e.g. separation of inner and outer went, but using more traditional fabrics was weaker and heavier

Pre-1988 models had silnylon flysheets and weighed ~1.5kg for the fly, inner and poles.

http://maceachain.blogspot.com/2009/04/ ... er_22.html

I imagine that's better documented than my memory, but I don't see anything in there about it using silicone coatings? I'm also quite probably confusing different models, never having owned one (I had nothing in my head about an "EB" version, for example). I'm trying to remember why I went down the Saunders rather than Phoenix route all those years ago... I think it was ultimately porch space and better provision for a second camper... but it was a long time ago!

Pete.

[pjclinch]

A backpacker crossing wild land like mountain ranges is much less likely to have the option of an occasional hotel to dry off in after a wet mountain camp(s) or just for weather avoidance, or a warm dry pub near the camp site.

I think you're trying too hard to characterise usage patterns to particular modes of transport. There's relatively little wild land in the UK that is more than a day's hike from paid accommodation. It's really more down to how much space a given camper likes: weight weeneis will make do with less whether or not they're on foot or on wheels. If anything our own example runs contrary to your suggestion as we're more likely to take the big tent cycling as the extra weight has less effect on us pedalling than if we're walking.
The only cycling specific marketing I've seen for cyclists' tents is shorter pole sections so they can stow in panniers.

But before hooped tents, surely most solo mountain tents were sloping ridges, so would be worse even than a 90degree spacepacker but people put up with it.

Just because they put up with it doesn't mean it was any good, just better than nothing!

If the spacepacker was completely symmetrical perhaps the inner could have had 2 or 3 positions and if partially unhooked more space could be gained for changing.

I don't really understand this point. It is symmetrical, rotationally so in all respects and mirror-symmetrical in all but the placement of the zip-out mesh panels on the inner doors. And since the only contact between inner and outer are the 2 (later 3) hanging elastics on the ridge there's no great problem moving it around a bit or unhooking it (I had a fondue party for 6 in mine once with the inner down, it was cramped but the rain was heavy!)

Cyclists have more luggage bags to store rather than one rucksac per person (My tents were all for one person...me). Also, modern backpackers seem to prefer dehydrated meals and thus require only waterboiling stoves which means less porch space required possibly.

A Jetboil stands taller than a lot of other stoves and requires the same space, protection and ventilation. How many bags is less relevant when you've taken the contents out. In other words, porch space is really about preference rather than activity: people like me like a lot of it, other folks are happy with less. I never liked Quasars because the porches are (to me) pathetic: as soon as you've put one big thing or a stove in one it's full and a terrible faff to get out without resorting to the other door. But I've heard others eulogising them for their amazing porch space...

Pete.

[SA_SA_SA]

..... If anything our own example runs contrary to your suggestion as we're more likely to take the big tent cycling as the extra weight has less effect on us pedalling than if we're walking.

I dont understand how that is contrary when I was suggesting cyclists wanted more vestibule area for their panniers etc(which I prefer outside the inner).

I don't really understand this point. It is symmetrical, rotationally so in all respects and mirror-symmetrical in all but the placement of the zip-out mesh panels on the inner doors. And since the only contact between inner and outer are the 2 (later 3) hanging elastics on the ridge there's no great problem moving it around a bit or unhooking it (I had a fondue party for 6 in mine once with the inner down, it was cramped but the rain was heavy!)

According to my printed out saunders webpage in my compiled touring info binder, the mk1 was 267cm long and 254cm wide, the mk2 was 295cm long and 254cm wide, ie not symmetrical. To allow a choice of inner at 90 and 45 degrees to standard extra hanging elastics woukd be needed? and the effective diameter the same at thise positions?
Nb I woukd have

A Jetboil stands taller than a lot of other stoves and requires the same space, protection and ventilation.

I was assuming when in use the porch door would be open . I read one reported advantage of the jetboil was that the heatsink fins and burner style made it inherently more windresistant than other simple 'backpacking'* canister top stoves that are /were supplied with warnings against using a windshield. * if it cant have a windshield how is it a backpacking stove?

In Modern tents with narrow small vestibules (eg zephros <N>) the narrow space looks tall enough for a cooled jet boil Storage, assuming usage in open porch as above.

How many bags is less relevant when you've taken the contents out.

Apart ftom thinking multiple bags need more area tgan one,
When hillwalking my rucsack came in the inner with me (it was only partially unpacked as needed), now when cycling, my mainly emptied panniers etc stay in the vestibule (but when I started cycle camping, the hobo fans vestibule was smaller but inner floor area was bigger (than eg my peak3.1) so I had to reluctantly put them in a bin bag (cos of road crud on their backs) in the hobo fan inner. On camp sites, to me, it always looks like panniers outside the inner is the norm. I definitely remember a Cycle article mentioning cyclists (general?) preference for vestibule space for their multiple panniers.

Perhaps I think I shall agree to disagree as a time saving feature

[pjclinch]

..... If anything our own example runs contrary to your suggestion as we're more likely to take the big tent cycling as the extra weight has less effect on us pedalling than if we're walking.

I dont understand how that is contrary when I was suggesting cyclists wanted more vestibule area for their panniers etc(which I prefer outside the inner).

I was misunderstanding your intent. IME one big rucksack needs more continuous space than two panniers of the same total size. It's harder to find space for one big thing than two half-big things.

According to my printed out saunders webpage in my compiled touring info binder, the mk1 was 267cm long and 254cm wide, the mk2 was 295cm long and 254cm wide, ie not symmetrical.

That's not what "symmetrical" means. For example, an Akto is not symmetrical as front to back you have a porch one side but not the other, and side to side you have an opening door at one end but not the other. If you stand at the door and rotate it 180 degrees you now don't have a door, so it's not rotationally symmetrical either, With a Spacepacker, any side you take is mirrored by the other. If you turn it 180 degrees it appears the same. So it's symmetrical.
I think you need a different form of words for what you're trying to say. Perhaps order 4 rotational symmetry rather than only 2?

To allow a choice of inner at 90 and 45 degrees to standard extra hanging elastics woukd be needed? and the effective diameter the same at thise positions?

What I was meaning was you can move the inner back along the ridge so rather than having two big porches you have one very big porch and one smaller one. And that's easy to do because it's symmetrical and there's not much linking between inner and outer.

I was assuming when in use the porch door would be open .

One of the reasons I prefer bigger, structured porches is because they don't need to be open, so if it's wind-blown Rainageddon or When Midges Attack! etc. you can cook fully sheltered. If you only feel happy cooking with the door wide open that seems to remove a lot of the advantages of being inside if it's nasty out.

I read one reported advantage of the jetboil was that the heatsink fins and burner style made it inherently more windresistant than other simple 'backpacking'* canister top stoves that are /were supplied with warnings against using a windshield. * if it cant have a windshield how is it a backpacking stove?

I prefer to cook outside when it's not unpleasant: more space and safer, and when I'm outside some sort of wind shielding is almost always welcome, and this goes for just stopping along the way for a brew. You want a windshield for a mobile stove in a great many cases, but that's not much to do with cooking inside a porch. Just because I can cook fully inside with the door shut doesn't mean I will, and indeed I typically don't, but I do want the option.

In Modern tents with narrow small vestibules (eg zephros <N>) the narrow space looks tall enough for a cooled jet boil Storage, assuming usage in open porch as above.

Again, this rather assumes how everyone uses a tent. The reason there are so many successful designs out there with different compromises in different places is because different folk have different preferences, and that isn't just because they arrive at the campsite on a bike or by foot or in a canoe or whatever. I want a porch bigger than a Zeph/Laser, but there's clearly lots of happy Zeph/Laser users who are just fine with their porch as it is.

Apart ftom thinking multiple bags need more area tgan one,

It's the opposite. Panniers can nest inside one another when emptied, or sit on top of one another, or back to back, or be split apart in to different low crannies, but backpacking rucksacks generally have frames that won't fold so you are stuck with something a couple of feet long by one wide even when empty, and that's harder to find a place for than two separate bags half the size.

When hillwalking my rucsack came in the inner with me (it was only partially unpacked as needed), now when cycling, my mainly emptied panniers etc stay in the vestibule (but when I started cycle camping, the hobo fans vestibule was smaller but inner floor area was bigger (than eg my peak3.1) so I had to reluctantly put them in a bin bag (cos of road crud on their backs) in the hobo fan inner. On camp sites, to me, it always looks like panniers outside the inner is the norm. I definitely remember a Cycle article mentioning cyclists (general?) preference for vestibule space for their multiple panniers.

Again I don't really see how this assigning stowage preference to mode of transport works. I always keep luggage in the porch whether I arrive by foot, bike or boat and leave the inner for stuff I only want in there. And that's part of why I like big porches.

Perhaps I think I shall agree to disagree as a time saving feature

It might be easier!

Pete.

[SA_SA_SA]

....
That's not what "symmetrical" means.

I concede that: I suppose I could have said something like you said, but wider than long or a squashed octagon/circle might be more likely for me to say; as the most common use of assymetrical I come across on this forum is describing the cutoff front stzvo dynamo beams when compared to the simple round beam of a simple mountain bike lamp cone of light ,(ie circular in a 2d slice ), hence assymmetrical was at the top if my stack when I thought of the almost round (octagonal) Spacepacker which is "squashed' in one axis.
Assymetrical is technically incorrect unless qualified for approved Stzvo lamps too....

I actually expected the transverse sleeping width to be the wider part to give more space above sleeping head by allowing a wider or stepped inner, but maybe some other reason not to?

you can move the inner back along the ridge so rather than having two big porches you have one very big porch and one smaller one. ...

A nice feature, I did not know of, sort of converting inner into a one-man inner. I still think.a modern version mighy need a way to avoid 'inner on face' mode to sell well.

.....
One of the reasons I prefer bigger, structured porches is because they don't need to be open, so if it's wind-blown Rainageddon or When Midges Attack! etc. you can cook fully sheltered. If you only feel happy cooking with the door wide open that seems to remove a lot of the advantages of being inside if it's nasty out

I thought the gaps needed for ventilation when cooking would let the midges in unless one has addef a netting sod cloth, I presume only gas stove models known to be low CO would allow enclosed cooking burning meths being good at making it as well as some gas burners. I would limit windblown rain by closing door zip top partially.

...
I prefer to cook outside when it's not unpleasant: more space and safer, .......... Just because I can cook fully inside with the door shut doesn't mean I will, and indeed I typically don't, but I do want the option.

In bad weather I thought the general view was that you cooked with the porch open or partially open, so that the occupant was as sheltered as possible
Cooking completely undercover using involved 'don't do as I do, do as I say' disclaimers etc

....It's the opposite. Panniers can nest inside one another when emptied, or sit on top of one another, or back to back, or be split apart in to different low crannie

Arggh ,I'm not putting one manky on outside pannier inside another, for me they wont stack well more than two high (I have abandoned front panniers...), . Plus they still have some stuff in them that doesnt need to be on tent.
If backto back they will fall over for me ...

[pjclinch]

I actually expected the transverse sleeping width to be the wider part to give more space above sleeping head by allowing a wider or stepped inner, but maybe some other reason not to?

As noted previously, the Spaepacker's DNA comes from a ridge tent, and the sideways dimension is off the ridge. If you extended it then you'd have more unsupported fabric, more weight and more bulk. The design is to give (most) campers just enough space to lie down. Headroom more or less determines the length of the pole, and thus the ridge length.

With something like the Akto, despite also being a tansverse single hoop, it's really a tunnel tent with a side door at heart rather than a ridge (a Spacepacker has a very definite aerodynamic profile in one direction but not the other, the Akto not so much, and the degree to which it does is 90 degrees round from the Spacepacker's), and that's what makes the design more amenable to volume round your head lying down, by way of a stepped inner. The stepped inner is a good solution, but it does mean you catch the wind more, suffer more from snow loading and probably add a bit to the weight and bulk. In other words the classic tent design dilemma: you choose, you lose.

A nice feature, I did not know of, sort of converting inner into a one-man inner. I still think.a modern version mighy need a way to avoid 'inner on face' mode to sell well.

The market agrees which is why most single hoops these days tend to be Akto-inspired rather than Spacepacker-inspired. Change sleeping direction 90 degrees and there's very few single hoops left, they mostly seem to have taken the road of the Hubba family with more elaborate jointed pole systems (top and bottom). Again, this is a good solution with working, popular designs... but a Hubba has far more points of failure than a Spacepacker and only manages to get lighter by virtue of a third as many pegs and a crisp-packet groundsheet that's a condensation magnet. The inner is (if the floor isn't soaking...) undeniably nicer than the Spacepacker, especially as two sitting campers can take an end each rather than a side each if that works better, but the porches are smaller, harder to get in and out of, and with so few pegging points, no streamlining to speak of and not great guys it really doesn't do so well in a blow.

I thought the gaps needed for ventilation when cooking would let the midges in unless one has addef a netting sod cloth, I presume only gas stove models known to be low CO would allow enclosed cooking burning meths being good at making it as well as some gas burners. I would limit windblown rain by closing door zip top partially.

I don't know why, but the wee beasties don't seem to that keen on coming in through chimney holes left at the top end of zips or under the fly edges, while if you open the door much at all they feel very welcome.
(Edit- added paragraph) I've never seen CO measurements on stoves. I've seen people in fowl weather, particularly in winter, using whatever stoves they had (meths, gas, paraffin, petrol) inside whatever lightweight tents they had for > 30 years and haven't come across any CO poisoning cases outside of news reporting. It appears to be the case that fairly basic precautions are all you need, while also noting that over those > 30 years everyone always seemed to be going on about how important it was to have some sort of venting of cooking areas and I can't think of any cases who made a point of cooking fully inside when they didn't have to, so it's not simply ignorant people doing silly things. Cooking outside or at least with an open door is an easy, sensible precaution for most people most of the time, a bit like using the handrail going down stairs. But also like not using the handrail going down stairs (stair falls kill far more folk than bike accidents) it's far from out-of-the-question stupid for experienced users.

In bad weather I thought the general view was that you cooked with the porch open or partially open, so that the occupant was as sheltered as possible
Cooking completely undercover using involved 'don't do as I do, do as I say' disclaimers etc

If you ever end up doing winter mountaineering you learn that what one is told by legal departments about never cooking inside isn't something many people adhere to too rigidly. And once you know that if there's a blizzard out you don't need the door open it turns out you don't need it open in a cloud of midges or gale-powered rain in summer either. One takes appropriate extra care, but cooking inside is, IME, far more common than official guidelines would seem to want it.
Certainly if an open door is viable, go for an open door or better still get outside and cook there, but once you have serious wind powering bad weather it is often a good idea to be completely out of it. Also, if it's just damn cold why let out all that nice warm air?

Ultimately, it's nice to have options. I find big porches give me more of them.

....It's the opposite. Panniers can nest inside one another when emptied, or sit on top of one another, or back to back, or be split apart in to different low crannie

Arggh ,I'm not putting one manky on outside pannier inside another, for me they wont stack well more than two high (I have abandoned front panniers...), . Plus they still have some stuff in them that doesnt need to be on tent.
If backto back they will fall over for me ...

But you can still put them in 2/4 small places rather than one big one.

Pete.