But, the weight efficiency is quite poor imho, and the design is not all that good either. The narrow width for one person clashes with the height requirement, unless you want a glorified bivy tube. I really cannot recommend it.

That's what I was thinking when trying to imagine a single version of the tents. That's why the Akto has a cross-sectional pole, and the Rainbow has a pole that goes over the entire longitudinal length of the tent. With two poles in the present iteration of the Caffin tents the height needed to sit up would make the shelter too tall in relationship to the narrow width desired for a single person tent... the design only starts to work at the width of two people, or Roger's stated 1100 mm width.

Very nice to see this come to fruition Roger. If they need help with winter beta-testing...

What! A tent with no DAC involvement? That has to be against some international law. ;-)

Roger,
Congratulations!

>I really am interested in everyone's comments about the size.

> >but the width at 1060mm (41in.) is going to be awfully tight for two.
>But even a 'big' 3/4 length Therm-a-rest is only 520 mm wide. How much extra width do you need at the sides? Answers please!

I can only give my opinion, but I know my wife would share it. We have never felt comfortable in any standard 2p tent with possible exception of the Hilleberg Kaitum 2 which has a width listed at 55". Even this felt "cozy". The Scarp2 (52") and the Lunar Duo (54") felt cramped. We usually buy 3p tents just to have a bit more room for "gear management". In my perfect world there would be more length for gear to go at the feet if having a side entry, or more width for it to be on the sides if an end entry. My perfect world does not seem to exist in the 2p realm.

Wow 43"? Not a chance for us. If I had to pick an ideal width, it'd be about 60", but that's just us...and we are probably not in the ultralight target group your tent is aimed at.

Regardless of your final dimensions, best of luck on your collaboration with Easton!

Edited by BER on 06/08/2012 06:55:20 MDT.

Roger you have been playing with these things a lot longer than us. If you find 1100 mm adequate for you and your wife, with space down the sides for gear - that sounds more than adequate. Great news by the way. Keep us posted :)

Congrats, Roger. I'm waiting in a line that I hope will be long. At least behind me :-)

"But even a 'big' 3/4 length Therm-a-rest is only 520 mm wide. How much extra width do you need at the sides? Answers please!"


Hi Roger,
Congrats on the tent venture!

With regards to width, I can only speak for myself, but on a single skin tent I like lots of width to be able to keep away from the walls and the condensation that will inevitably accumulate there. Regardless of the tent design, ventilation etc my experience is condensation is often an issue when there is no wind etc. If I was inches from a wet wall my bag would get wet.

I believe your tents have mesh along the bottom so that does help however.

That's a bit narrow for comfortable two person use imho. I too would like to see 55-60" for the width. Two large pads would be a no go.

Congratulations, Roger. It must be very satisfying to see your design and your efforts come to fruition. I can't wait to see the production version.

I am also in the camp wanting a 55-60" width. And I like a bit of extra length, like maybe 88-90". I hate being cramped and bumping elbows with my buddy. The bit of extra room is nice when we get tent-bound during a prolonged storm.

"Easton is really stepping up their game lately. Good on them, and a fantastic opportunity for you Roger to share your expertise with the world!"

I was thinking pretty much the same thing when I saw that Easton was the company that licensed Roger's design.

Easton may not have that much experience designing tents, but that doesn't make them stupid... they obviously know a good design when they see one :)

Congrats, Roger... this is definitely good news!

Congrats. That's exciting news for lots of folks hanging out around this site.

Can't say that I would ever have much need for one of your shelters for where I live and do most of my hiking, but I sure do admire them. They look like works of art and the attention to detail is top notch.

I wish you the best of luck with this endeavor and can't wait to see future trip reports from all the BPLers putting their new "Caffin Coffins" to the test.

I love sewing tarps, but this is a bit more than I can sew.

So I will be saving up. Good on you!

> What! A tent with no DAC involvement? That has to be against some international law.
Chuckle. But 10 - 15 years ago one would have said the same about 'a tent with no Easton poles'. There was Easton, and there were the rest trailing behind.

> Easton may not have that much experience designing tents,
Ah well, but they make some good carbon fibre. And that I think is where a lot of the tent pole market is heading today.

As my experience has shown (to me at least), with the appropriate redesign to handle the change in material, carbon fibre now replaces even 7075 T9 at the high-quality UL end of the market. (OK, I am biased!) Granted, for the novice market a softer aluminium might be still a good idea, to handle the inevitable prangs and mistakes - maybe.

Comment: it may not sound all that glamorous, but the continuing advances in fabric and fibre technology even today are still quite exciting. Compared to the cotton japara fabric of my youth ...

Cheers
PS: I am still reading all the comments about dimensions.

Roger, how long will it be before you have lost all of your objectiveness?

I mean, if those royalty checks are slow to flow, will you become the pitch-man for the CAFFIN-O-MATIC TENT? Will we start to see late night television commercials with your smiling face?

--B.G.--

Hi Daniel

> condensation is often an issue when there is no wind etc. If I was inches from a wet
> wall my bag would get wet.
> I believe your tents have mesh along the bottom so that does help however.

I most certainly agree. This is a key point. When your bag rubs against the wall it will get wet, but I dealt with that problem ages ago. The fly itself is a long way from the bucket edge of the groundsheet, and condensation does not transfer. A diagram will help.


The groundsheet bucket wall is about 150 mm high. Above that, going up to the fly, is the (pale blue dashes) netting wall shown by A. The netting leans back so that water does not run down it from the fly onto the groundsheet. That means that the width of the fly is noticeably larger than the width of the groundsheet. If the groundsheet is 1100 mm wide, the fly is more like 1260 mm wide. The extra volume inside the tent is significant.

What this looks like in practice is something like this.


Note that this shows V7, which was just a bit too big for good wind resistance. The current design has advanced to V10, with the top dropping from a peak of 1100 mm down to about 950 mm. Not a lot of changes, just small refinements.

The big question is whether to go for palatial luxury with the extra weight, or for a lighter and slightly more compact and stable design. Comments invited.

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 06/08/2012 16:54:24 MDT.

Roger- about widths. I would need/use a tent like this when hiking with my wife or one of the kids and my wife demands a wide pad (for comfort) and I'm 6'2" so I need some length. I also use a large/wide pad so the pad heights match up. We usually take NeoAirs unless it is shoulder season and then its the Expeds (true 25 inchers).

Given that, I would want the inside dimensions to be at least 1400mm -/+ in width and the length to be 2000mm +/- or more. This is of course doesn't include the vestibules.

I can see that sizing issues can be a make or break deal for success.

I'm excited to see what you come up with- I'd be happy to be one of your testers!

Congratulations on getting your tents to market!

I do agree that they sound a bit narrow for us North Americans (large fellows). My Big Agnes UL2 is 52 inches wide across the top and 42 inches at the foot end. Unless you are trying to limit your market to "intimate companions" only, I'd suggest adding a bit of width. My son and I occasionally share the Copper Spur and the 52 inch width is about as tight as we could endure. We are both 6 ft tall and 190+ pounds.

In comparison, my Fly Creek UL1 is 42 inches wide across the top end. I can't imagine trying to squeeze another person into that width.

Aren't those pre bent poles a bit fiddly to insert?

The Caffin Coffin name game is unfortunate and too much like Melville.I think the Tunnel Vision Summer , and Tunnel Vision Winter, are more like it.

From the look of Roger's photo of the V7 interior I think that the width is plenty wide enough for anyone who uses the tent, including "bigger" folk. I really don't see why I, who am not "big", should carry all that extra unnecessary weight just so some bigger people can live in palatial luxury. This is BPL, after all, and I'd like to keep the weight down as much as possible, while still accommodating basic spatial needs of bigger folk. Remember, for anyone who is smaller (and there are smaller folk out there, probably just as many as bigger folk), especially women, all that extra width weight adds up, and one of the defining factors of Roger's designs is their light weight. Please think of the smaller folk, too, and try to bow to a compromise. You can't have one design and only design for the biggest and strongest. In checking about 10 different tunnel tent designs around the Web, from a number of different manufacturers, 52cm to 53cm width of the inner seems to be about average.

Also, it would be nice to, for once, not only cater to the American market.

>Also, it would be nice to, for once, not only cater to the American market.
A big plus one from me.

Edited by roberth on 06/08/2012 19:32:49 MDT.