Ultrahike on BPL

One reason that I took the plunge on the Ultrahike was the state of the market review of lightweight (not SUL) packs by Roger Caffin on backpackinglight.com. Whilst this has been an informative series, I was looking forward to the reviews of the individual packs, in the last of the series. I have to say I’m a bit disappointed in the reviews, which are mainly descriptive. I had hoped for a bit of compare and contrast and personal experience.

It actually reinforces my view that bloggers generally do a better job of gear reviews because they are willing to give a personal appraisal and are happy to give an honest and often forthright opinion. If you are interested, the Ultrahike gets a “recommended” tag, as does one of my other packs, the Exos 58. I promise I will give you a decent in-depth opinion when I’ve used the Ultrahike in earnest.

By Robin Posted in gear

Salomon Quest 4D GTX boots

Most of you will be aware that Fitness Footwear have been sending bloggers samples of footwear to test. I am only interested in testing gear that I really want. I didn’t fancy the shoes that have been on offer. However, I did want to test a pair of Salomon Quest boots. Adam at Fitness Footwear was not willing to give me a pair, but very kindly let me have a pair at a discounted price.

The reason for wanting a pair of Quests is that winter is approaching and I fancied a pair of proper boots for the colder months. My Fastpackers are great boots for 3 seasons, but can be a bit cold for winter. Although the Quests are quite a substantial boot, they are still very light. The Fastpackers weigh 500g per boot, while the Quests are 675g, which is very light for a full featured boot.

Out of the box, they impress by the quality of the finish and attention to detail. The top three pairs of cleats are all self locking, with a satisfying “snap” as the lace is pulled in place. This allows for different patterns of tightening on the upper boot. The heel locking cleats are substantial and well positioned. This is something HiTec could learn a lesson from.

The upper is a combination of suede and nylon mesh with a substantial rubber toe bumper and a heel strap. Salomon win the prize for silliest description of colours. Autobahn and Flea…er what? Basically they are grey.

The sole unit is more substantial than the Fastpackers but retain some of the characteristics, being based on running shoes. Although quite flexible they are definitely stiffer, particularly laterally. The sole itself is a grippy rubber with a sort of wave pattern. I suspect the pattern owes more to cosmetics than science, but we will see. The grip is good on the stone paving on my front path, which tends to be quite slippery when wet.

Quest on the left, Fastpacker on the right

 I’ve worn them on few dog walks over the weekend and they feel very comfortable. Salomons tend to fit my feet well, so this is no surprise. They definitely feel like boots whereas the Fastpackers feel like shoes. The top of the boot finishes well above the ankle. However, there is a reasonable amount of flexibility, especially if you vary the tension of the lacing.

Quest on the right, Fastpacker on the left

The lining has a slightly fleecey feel compared with the mesh like feel of the Fastpackers. Obviously there is also a Gore-Tex lining. My overall initial impression is very favourable. I’m off for another trip in a couple of weeks, but I’m not sure whether to use them. It’s probably still a bit too early in the year. However, I’m planning a jaunt in November, where they ought to be ideal. I’ll do a proper review when I’ve used them.

If you want to see Fitness Footwear’s selection of Salomon shoes and boots, click here.

For general walking boots click here.

 

By Robin Posted in gear

The red

I was puzzled about the red haul loop on the Ultrahike. The answer has been supplied on the OM forum.  “… the red colouring is to very quickly show owners, and, more importantly, baggage handlers, the best  place to grab the sack as it’s whizzing past on a luggage carousel”. Makes sense.

By Robin Posted in gear

Lightwave Ultrahike 60

Regular readers will know that my ideal rucksack has been elusive. Recent experiences with the ULA Ohm and the Gossamer Gear Mariposa Plus have brought me to consider a slightly more traditional design: the Lightwave Ultrahike. While not as light as the Ohm and Mariposa, it is still not heavyweight. On my scales it weighs 1150g (compared with a claimed 1250g by the manufacturer). This makes it virtually the same as the Osprey Exos 58.

The extra 400g or so of weight over the Mariposa/Ohm brings some significant advantages:

  1. It is virtually waterproof, so there is no need for a pack cover. The Ultrahike has sealed seams except for the back panel. Apparently it is not possible to seal these seams. There are no exposed seams here and the back panel is largely protected by the wearers back anyway. The lack of water resistance of all my packs has been a constant irritant to me. Hopefully, the manufacturer’s claims will be borne out.
  2. The Ultrahike has a proper hip belt. The hip belt is much more substantial than on lighter packs. The unusual feature is that it has a gap in the middle to fit over the crest of the hip bone. It is secured by beefy but flexible fingers of plastic. Further minor adjustment to the tilt of the belt can be achieved by two webbing straps and buckles on either side of the belt.
  3. There is a substantial hollow aluminium frame rod. This is an “n” shape, but the base of the frame is narrower than the top. It follows the outline of the foam back panel. Although the frame is accessible though the top of the rucksack, it doesn’t appear to be removable.
  4. The volume is claimed to be 60l, although in a test backpackinglight.com suggested the volume is 55l. Hence, the Ultrahike should easily be able to swallow gear for multi-day hikes and extra gear for winter. In the past I’ve had to squeeze gear into my smaller sacks. Now I can be more relaxed. It means that I won’t have to compress my sleeping bag so much. It also means that I can be more flexible with the food that I carry.
  5. The Ultrahike can carry up to 18kg comfortably (according to Lightwave). Both the Mariposa and the Ohm have an upper limit of around 13kg, in my experience, before they start to feel a bit unstable. This is generally what my pack weighs with consumables. The Ultrahike gives me a bit more flexibility to carry more food to give me a longer time without re-supply. I reckon 4 days is about the limit for the Mariposa/Ohm. Given the extra volume and carrying ability, I expect the Ultrahike to be able to carry 6-7 days food if I want.

When I was looking for information on the Ultrahike, I was surprised how little there was available. There was a preview on OM, limited information on the Lightwave web site and some pictures on some German backpacking forums. Very few retailers seem to stock it either. I bought mine from Ultralight Outdoors Equipment.

Until I take it out for a few days, I won’t be able to give a full appraisal, but here are some first impressions. The level of finish and workmanship seem good. All the seams are well finished and there are no obvious faults. Given my obsession with hip belts, the hip belt feels very comfortable. I like the split configuration, which sits nicely either side of the crest of my hip, with comfortable but firm padding. It seems to support the sack well. Despite a fairly solid plastic stay arrangement, it does have some flexibility. Overall the pack retains some flexibility in the harness compared with the Osprey Exos, which feels more constricting. Obviously it is not quite as flexible as the Mariposa.

The shoulder straps are nicely contoured with similar foam and finishing to the hip belt. There is a sternum strap with vertical and horizontal adjustments. On the top of the shoulder straps there are load lifter straps. Above those there is a very substantial haul loop. Bizarrely this is in red. The foam back is relatively thin with a knitted surface, rather like that on the Osprey day sacks I own.  The frame has quite a pronounced “S” shape. I’ve gently reduced this shape slightly. My overall impression of the “carry” is that it is quite comfortable. However, I only loaded it with a few sleeping bags to bulk it out, so I don’t know how it feels with a heavier load.

Turning to the main body of the sack, the main compartment has a closure in a lighter material (silnylon?) with a draw string. The base is a fairly heavy weight material. The main body is a combination of medium grade nylon fabrics. Overall it feels fairly robust.

There is an internal hydration pocket. The exit for the hydration tube is through a rubber dome located between the shoulder straps. There is a conventional top pocket with water-resistant zips. Strangely one zip puller has a red and black puller, the other grey and black. There are two stretch mesh pockets at the base of the pack on either side. These are substantial enough to hold a Scarp 1 tent (phew!). On each side there is a laced compression cord. On the top of the lid there is some shock cord.

There are attachments for two ice axes. Oddly the shock cord for securing the shafts is directly below the webbing to secure the pack lid. There are also four small loops on the front of the pack that could take some further shock cord (perhaps to secure a crampon bag?). And that’s about it. The overall impression is a clean, unfussy, robust pack.

As you might expect I’ve already added some extras. On one side I’ve added some shock cord with a cord grip to secure the top of a tent. I’ve also added some shock cord on one shoulder strap to hold a water bottle. Unfortunately, this carries the bottle a bit high so I may have to try to adjust this. There aren’t many options for attaching shock cord to the shoulder straps, though.

Time will tell whether this is the right pack, but it does feel good. Here’s some more pictures.

 

By Robin Posted in gear

Priorities

Family comes first! One consequence of my last Lake District trip is that it is clear that my wife is not ready for me to be away for two weeks. She was glad that I had returned early, even though I had planned originally to be away for only a week. We discussed the feasibility of a two-week absence next year and it’s probably too much. Reluctantly, I’ve decided that I won’t enter next year’s TGO Challenge. Hopefully, we can experiment with some longer absences with a view to an entry to the 2012 Challenge. While it’s disappointing, I’m still very lucky to have a partner who doesn’t mind me nipping off to the hills on a regular basis. I’m counting my blessings rather than cursing my luck. While her health is improving, it’s a gradual process. This year I’ve missed Scotland. Next year I need to return, perhaps twice if I’m lucky!

Gear reflections: bits and pieces

Just to round up some last thoughts on the gear I took to the Lakes.

Aku NS 564 boots and Rocky Gore-Tex socks

While these are good boots, especially when it comes to clambering over rocks, they don’t have much cushioning for road walking. They have no membrane, so I used some jacket wax on the forefoot of the boot to enhance the water resistance. This worked quite well. Occasionally there was a slight dampness but for the first two days my feet were comfortable.

On the Friday when it was raining and conditions under foot were very wet, I used my Rocky Gore-Tex oversocks.  The Akus were overwhelmed and I could feel the water inside the boot. However, the oversocks kept my feet reasonably dry. Initially there was some bunching beneath one foot but this seemed to clear after a while.

While this was a good combination, I’m probably going to return to my Fastpackers for most conditions. For me they seem to be almost ideal. For colder months I’m investigating a slightly more robust alternative.

Super Delios water purifier

This was a real star. It’s so much easier than the Travel Tap. I was slightly sceptical about the bottle supplied as it seemed a bit small at 300ml, but it was ideal. I also used the filter on some Source collapsible water bottles. It was very easy to squeeze the water through the filter. This is a real find and solves the water filtration issue once and for all. I shan’t be taking anything else again. Why bother with pumps and chemicals when you can use this?

Turboflame Turbo 2 lighter

I bought this on a whim. I like a back up lighter for my stove. I also use it for burning toilet paper and sealing dyneema cord. It is very robust with a metal body. It gives a double jet of flame that makes lighting anything a doddle even if you are holding it horizontally. It’s not exactly SUL at 65g.  I really liked it, although I know some people will think it’s a bit superfluous.

By Robin Posted in gear

Gear reflections: carrying

ULA Ohm

Boots and rucksacks are the most difficult bits of gear to get right. I reckon rucksacks are more difficult than boots. Boots can be tested through test walks near home (for me dog walking). However, rucksacks often need to be carried for two or three days before shortcomings are apparent.

Such was the case with my ULA Ohm rucksack. After all the hassle of getting one, I was hopeful that this would be the “one”. I bought the Ohm to see if I could improve on my Mariposa Plus, which has begun to show a bit of wear and tear. I felt the design looked more robust, using Dyneema Gridstop fabric.

The volume of the Ohm was very similar to the Mariposa. I managed to fit all my gear with three days’ food reasonably comfortably (total 12.75kg). The Scarp fitted easily into a side pocket with some Velcro webbing to secure the top. A little more care has to be taken to ensure that lumpy objects do not dig into your back. I use two sections of a GG NightLight sleeping pad for the back panel of the Mariposa, so it is a bit more forgiving.

On the face of it the harness of the Ohm seems better. The shoulder straps are more substantial and the hip belt is better positioned with superior padding. On day one it felt better than the Mariposa. It felt more secure on my back, but retained some flexibility. The back panel is a bit sweatier as it is plain nylon with no mesh.

Photo courtesy of Jeff

On day two, some shortcomings became apparent. I wasn’t careful packing and the load felt a bit lumpy. After some adjustment it was OK. About half way through the day it became apparent that the padding on the hip belt was not quite long enough to cover the tightening buckles for the webbing. An extra half an inch would have done it.

Under tension the buckles are pulled forward to protrude just beyond the hip belt padding. Because I was wearing a Paramo jacket, the discomfort wasn’t too bad, but if I had been wearing just a T-shirt, it might have been worse. I don’t want to make too much of this. I think under most circumstances it should be OK, but it’s something to be aware of.

Had it not been for this issue, I think I would say that the Ohm is better than the Mariposa. As it stands, they are both good rucksacks but suffer from some small drawbacks. Both have some issues with their hip belts. The Mariposa hip belt sits too low. The Ohm has this minor problem with the buckles.

It seems to me that rucksack manufacturers don’t pay enough attention to hip belts. The most comfortable I’ve worn so far have been from Osprey (Aether 60 and Exos 58). The worst have been from GolIte (Trek and Quest). The Mariposa and Ohm are somewhere in the middle.

I suspect the Ohm will vie with the Mariposa for summer trips, but I think I’m going to need something with a better hip belt for cooler months and longer trips.

It’s probably also worth a quick word on stuff sacks. I changed my packing technique from the last couple of trips. I had taken to using two large waterproof stuff sacks (one roll top, one without). The base of the rucksack was filled with the roll top bag. In it I put my sleeping bag (loose, sleeping mat and clothes that I wouldn’t need during the day. In the second large stuff sack (an old F&T neoprene lined one) I put everything else, inside Alpkit Apollo bags to keep thing tidy. This meant I could guarantee that everything would stay dry.

This time I put my sleeping bag in one Outdoor Designs air permeable sack and spare clothes in another. These went at the bottom of the pack. I found that this method meant I could compress my sleeping bag and clothes smaller. The rest of the gear was packed on top in various stuff sacks (Apollo bags except extra clothes, which went in another Outdoor Designs air permeable bag).

I found this system worked well and gained me a bit of extra space. The only downside was that the stuff sacks got a bit wet as the Ohm is not totally waterproof, especially at the base. The Outdoor Designs bags kept everything dry inside. However, some of the gear in the Apollo bags was a bit damp, but it didn’t matter as nothing needed to be kept totally dry.

In conclusion, I still don’t feel I’ve got it quite right in the rucksack department, so I’ll keep looking.

By Robin Posted in gear

Gear reflections: sleeping

Sleeping bags: Cumulus Quantum 350, Alpkit Pipedream 400

Ok I’ve got too many sleeping bags, seven at the last count (five down, two synthetic). On this trip I used two, the Cumulus Quantum 350 (just purchased) and the Alpkit Pipedream 400. The Quantum was used in the fells and the Pipedream at base camp.

At £250 list price (I bought mine for £220 from downsleepingbag.co.uk), the Quantum 350 is nearly double the cost of the Pipedream 400 (£130). I must give a little plug to downsleepingbag.co.uk. They were very efficient. I rang them to see whether the Quantum was in stock. They took the order over the phone and it arrived (free P&P) the next day, less than 24 hours after placing the order.

Quantum 350

The down quality in the Quantum is higher at 870 vs. 750 fill power, but there is slightly less 350g vs. 400g. Calculating the fill volume, the Quantum is marginally higher at 10,150 cu.in., compared with the Pipedream at 10,000 cu.in. (how to calculate fill volume). The total weights are 727g for the Quantum and 740g for the Pipedream. It’s important to note that the weight advertised on the Cumulus web site is a very optimistic 665g. The swing tag claimed 695g. I’ve posted on this before, but I think it is very poor that manufacturers advertise inaccurate weights, when the weight is part of the selling proposition.

Quantum 350

On weight and effective loft, the bags are quite similar. However, there are some significant differences. Firstly, the shell material of the Quantum is Pertex Ripstop Quantum, which is a beautiful silky material. The Pipedream shell is a fabric from Toray. While it is perfectly pleasant to the touch, it is not as smooth as the Quantum. The Pipedream feels functional, whereas the Quantum feels luxurious. Interestingly, the Pipedream uses slightly lighter fabric (29gm/sq.m) compared with the Quantum (34g/sq.m).

For me the silkiness is important. I’m a side sleeper and tend to turn quite a lot in my sleep. In the Pipedream the bag tends to grip and turn with me. On the other hand, the Quantum allows me to turn within the sleeping bag, which I prefer. It also has a better “drape”, making it feel warmer.

Quantum 350

The second difference is the baffle construction. The Pipedream has a box wall construction throughout. Occasionally cold spots where the down is thinner develop. In contrast the Quantum has a trapezoidal baffle on the top and box wall on the base. I’ve found that trapezoidal baffles (also on the Cumulus Ultralight 350) to be very good at eliminating cold spots. Because it is easy to turn within the sleeping bag, I can also keep the trapezoidal baffle on top of me.

The different material, the drape and the baffle structure of the Quantum makes it feel a slightly warmer bag, in my view. I am sceptical about it being a -6c bag, but I sleep cold. I would expect it to be OK for me to slightly below freezing, but I can’t confirm this as the lowest night time temperature was +8c. The cut of both bags is quite similar.

The Pipedream has a generous neck baffle, whereas the Quantum has a small neck warmer baffle on the top side. I found the Quantum baffle to be adequate but the Pipedream is functionally better. The draw cords in the Pipedream are simple cord. The Quantum has elasticated draw cords, which I prefer.

Pipedream 400

Another reason for buying the Quantum is pack size. I found my Ultralight compressed to a smaller volume than the Pipedream. This is also true of the Quantum, which compresses to a smaller volume. I did find a couple of small irritations with the Quantum. Occasionally the zip would dangle in my face and I had to tuck it behind the zip baffle. The bag also had a slight smell of damp feathers (it wasn’t damp though).

Overall, I am pleased with the Quantum 350. It is a very pleasant bag to sleep in and compresses well. The colour is an attractive electric blue with a silver inner lining. Is it better than the Pipedream? There’s not much in it. The Pipedream is much better value, but I like the baffle design of the Quantum and the shell material is more to my liking. It will probably be the bag I go to first from now on, except in high summer or winter.

Sleeping mat: Exped Downmat 7, POE Ether Elite 6

I used the Exped Downmat 7 for base camp and the POE Ether Elite 6 on the fells. The Exped Downmat remains the Rolls Royce of mats. It is supremely comfortable and warm, but at nearly 1kg, it is more than double the weight of the Ether Elite.

The Ether Elite is now my mat of choice for backpacking. At 390g it is amazingly light for the comfort it gives. It also packs down to a very small size. I’m constantly surprised at how warm it is. I’m a huge convert to air mats as they are so much more comfortable than foam or self inflating mats. They do a great job of ironing out lumpy pitches.

POE Ether Elite 6

I thought the NeoAir was good but the Ether Elite suits me even better. One little tweak is to apply some lines of tent seam sealant to the underside of the tubes to give some grip on the groundsheet. The Ether Elite has some competition, though, if you are watching the pennies. Alpkit have launched the Numo, which is a bit heavier at 505g, but cheaper at £40. It is also slightly more generous in dimensions and doesn’t taper quite so much. I’m not going to buy one, but if you are in the market, it’s worth considering.

By Robin Posted in gear

Gear reflections: tents

I’m going to split my gear thoughts over several posts just to drag it out a bit. Feedback on gear is, along with trip reports, the most important function of a backpacking blog in my view.

Let’s start with tents, a subject close to my heart. I actually took four tents with me but used two. I camped in the Force Ten Vortex 200 at Hollins and used my Tarptent Scarp 1 up in the fells. I also took my Duomid and Laser Competition (the last was a just in case thing).

Scarp 1

Taking the Scarp first, it performed impeccably. Sealing the loop for the crossing poles and the pole arch seems to have cured the minor leak problem that I suffered on my previous trip. Some of the sealant around the pole arch has become a bit flaky, so I may reapply some sealant. I think I packed the tent away too quickly without letting the sealant cure properly.

The Scarp is a very stable tent due to the pitchlock support system at the ends of the tent. In most circumstances, the crossing poles are not necessary. The other feature that makes the Scarp so good is living space. The inner tent has plenty of space for sleeping and for gear storage. The two porches give ample room for further storage and cooking as well as the option of storing wet gear separately.

I think the venting is the best of any one man tent I’ve owned. The opposing roof vents really do seem to cut down the condensation compared with the Laser Competition or the Akto. I’m not sure about the efficacy of the vents at the ends of the tent, but they can’t do any harm.

In the past I have questioned how waterproof the groundsheet is. However, in my flooding incident, the groundsheet proved to be completely watertight. I am still inclined to use something under the groundsheet to add a bit of protection as it is quite thin. I am currently using a space blanket, which only weighs 50g. This is probably being over cautious, but it also adds a bit of insulation.

The flooding incident raises some interesting issues over shelter type and design. The bathtub groundsheet of the Scarp gave me valuable protection and bought me some time to pack in the dry as the waters rose. Had I been in the Duomid, I would have been in a more difficult position, especially without a bivvy bag. The first I would have known about the rising water would probably have been a wet sleeping bag!

It probably would also have been more tricky in the Laser Competition as it doesn’t have the protection of a bathtub groundsheet. Now I freely admit that it was poor camp craft to pitch where I did. I can’t remember ever having been flooded like this, although I can remember times when rivulets have flowed under my tent.

The pitch at Green Hole, my Scarp is on the left

It seems to me that in places like the fells in the Lake District it is wise to take a shelter that can handle adverse weather and ground conditions. I feel confident that the Scarp can handle most things that nature can throw at it. Similarly, the Akto is pretty bombproof. The Laser Comp, while still good, has some shortcomings regarding stability (mainly noise) and is more vulnerable to ground conditions as it doesn’t have a bathtub groundsheet. 

The pool of water where my tent was pitched (picture courtesy of Jeff)

I’ve not yet slept in the Duomid, but it is clear that the position of any pitch needs more care, both from the perspective of the lie of the ground and from wind conditions. I think the Duomid is an interesting option for low level and sheltered conditions. It’s not a tent I would want to be in half way up a mountain in a gale and torrential rain.

Of course, the penalty you pay for security and space is weight and my Scarp with tweaks, extra pegs and space blanket weighs about 1.6kg. Everyone has a different trade off between weight and safety/comfort. At the moment the Scarp represents my optimal trade off.

Force Ten Vortex 200

Turning to the Force Ten Vortex 200, it had a difficult act to follow after my Marmot Thor, which was like sleeping in a nuclear air raid shelter. Like all gear there are tradeoffs. While it is not quite as stable as the Thor (what tent is?), it is certainly strong enough to handle most conditions. It rocks slightly in the wind, but it would take a hurricane for it to be in any trouble.

It is certainly watertight. The rain on Friday night was quite ferocious at times and there were no leaks. A very small pool of water was prone to collect at the apex of the door arch and a little bit of care was needed not to dislodge this when exiting the tent. All the seams are sealed.

The vents seem to work well. There are four mid level vents (two each side) and the end doors can be used as vents with protecting hoods. The side vents can be virtually closed with a flap of material and a Velcro tab in cold, windy conditions. The top of the door flap can be secured with a toggle and loop so that it can be opened as a vent but the material can be prevented from flapping.

There are doors at either end of the tent. They unzip on one side and curve over at the top. They can be unzipped from the top or the bottom. However they are not like the Terra Nova doors which have full zips on both sides. Only one side can be fully unzipped. There are two toggles and loops for folding back the door. Although I prefer the Terra Nova arrangement, the doors were more than adequate and it was easy to enter or exit the tent without getting wet from the flysheet (something that was more difficult in the Thor). The zips were slightly sticky where they coincide with the taped seams.

Erecting the tent requires a bit of patience. The flat pole sleeves on the flysheet mean that inserting the poles requires a bit manipulation. The pole sleeves appear to be more robust material than the rest of the flysheet. I can foresee the possibility that the constant pushing of poles through the sleeves might cause a wear and tear issue in the future. The main poles are straight but the poles over the doors have a slight arch in the middle.

The key is to be gentle and to get all the poles inserted and lined up before pushing the ends into the eyelets. Once the two main crossover poles are up the rest is easy. Clips are used to secure the lower part of the fly to the poles and there are some buckles to tension the poles. With a bit of practice, it’s quite easy. The inner is attached to the outer, so all that remains is to peg the fly sheet. The pegs supplied are mainly solid alloy pins and some “Y” pegs. The “Y” pegs have no cord loops, so are difficult to pull out.

The inner tent is a dark orange and the outer is green and black (orange and black is also available). This combination made it darker inside than the Thor, but not unpleasant. The bathtub groundsheet was not as deep as the Thor but perfectly adequate. Along each side of the inner there are a series of very useful mesh pockets. Further storage is provided by a small mesh gear loft. There are also four “D” rings half way up each arch to hang lamps etc.

The doors at either end are an almost complete “O”. The upper third has a mesh vent which can be completely closed by a flap of material and a zip. When open, the door can be folded away in a mesh pocket to one side, which is quite a neat feature.

The inner seems slightly bigger than the Thor, but that may be an illusion as the Quasar groundsheet protector that I used exactly matched the tent floor (as it did for the Thor). For one person, there’s ample space for a sleeping mat and gear.

The official list price is £350, but I bought mine for £230 at Complete Outdoors, which is a bit of a bargain for a four pole geodesic tent. Overall I’m very pleased with it. I think it’s a great base camp tent and should stand up to anything that can be thrown at it. Is it better than the Thor? The Thor is even more stable, but I like having two porches and the entry and exit to the tent is better. On balance, I think it is slightly better so I’m very happy. 

By Robin Posted in gear

Lake District Sept 2010

I should have known that my plans would be blown off course. As I loaded the car on Tuesday morning, I felt a pain in my lower back. I’ve hardly ever suffered back problems. I decided that it was not bad enough to cancel, besides which I had arranged to meet Jeff (aka Trentham Walker) for the first three days. The plan for the week was to leave the car and base camp tent at Hollins camp site in Eskdale. We would do a three day walk around Eskdale taking in Scafell Pike, Esk Pike, Bowfell and finally Scafell, then return to Hollins. The second leg was to be a solo three day trip covering all the major tops in the Coniston Fells.

The drive up was uneventful and the traffic mercifully light. Driving over Birker Fell wasn’t too taxing and certainly easier than the route over Wrynose and Hard Knott. Jeff had arrived at Hollins before me and had erected his conspicuous orange Force Ten. I positioned my F10 Vortex 200 next to his car and Jeff was suitably impressed by my new “fortress”.  After checking out the excellent facilities, we repaired to the Brook House Inn for a very good evening meal.

 The itinerary for the next day was to walk up Eskdale, past the Esk Falls on the more arduous west bank and camp near Sampson’s Stones under Scafell. As it wasn’t a particularly long walk, we had a leisurely start around mid-morning, walking down to the church opposite the Brook House Inn. After a pause for a few photos, we walked along the northern bank of the Esk for a while until crossing the bridge to the southern bank.

 It was absolutely delightful walking amongst the trees and the dappled sunshine. At one point we had to indulge in a bit of limbo dancing to get under a fallen tree. We ambled along in no particular hurry, drinking in the beauty of the landscape. We passed through some farms before crossing the Esk again by the road bridge just after Wha House Farm.

A minor navigational cock up took us on the wrong side of Birdhow, but it didn’t matter as we followed another farm track, climbing over a gate to rejoin the route proper. From here the scenery started to change from gentle pastures to rougher hillside. However, the track was reasonably easy to follow.

At the bridge over Cowcove Beck, we stopped for a bite of lunch. Some inquisitive sheep stared at us as we tucked into our food. It was quite hot in the sunshine and I put on some precautionary suntan lotion. After a short rest, I refilled my water bottle and we resumed our walk. As the path rejoined the Esk, it became more broken and slowed our progress somewhat. Not that this mattered as we had plenty of time.

Drawing level with the bridge over Lingcove Beck, we had a good view of the waterfalls above the bridge. The path over Throstle Garth looked like a motorway compared to the sketchy path that we were following. My hope was that the western bank of the Esk would provide a more interesting walk and better views of the many waterfalls leading up to the gorge between Green Crag and Throstlehow Crag. We were not disappointed.

Just before the main gorge we were overtaken by an Australian pair with day packs who were on their way to Scafell Pike. It seemed a bit late in the day to be attempting this, especially as they would have to drive over Hard Knott pass on their return, probably in the dark. The path along the edge of the gorge was exposed and rocky in places but not too taxing. It was more interesting than the path on the other bank, although a lot slower going, despite Wainwright’s suggestions to the contrary.

Passing Scar Lathing on the opposite bank, the going became a lot wetter and a bit of bog hopping ensued. We encountered another walker who was attempting to find a dry way across the river to his friend on the other bank. Just before Sampson’s Stones, we saw what looked like the ideal pitch on the opposite bank in the loop of the river.

I had given Jeff a spare pair of Drywalker waders against the eventuality of wading the Esk. However, he declined to use them and paid the price with a boot full of water. On the other hand, I used mine and avoided getting wet, even though they are not the most stylish bit of backpacking gear!

Although the ground was a bit stony, it was flat and an almost ideal place to pitch. The surrounding scenery was spectacular, with a glorious impression of wilderness. We enjoyed the last of the sun, and then it started to turn a bit chilly. After a meal it was time to repair to the tent to listen to a bit of music before sleep.

As usual, I had to get up in the night, but the reward was a beautiful starry night. Even so there was some noticeable light pollution from the south. However, the morning brought a change of weather. Rain threatened and the tops of the fells were under hill fog. We decided to wait a bit to see if the cloud would lift. I had a wander up the Esk a little way to explore. Wandering around Great Moss, to my surprise was a small herd of cattle.

The hill fog showed little sign of dispersing, so we elected not to stick to my original plan of climbing Scafell Pike via Little Narrowcove. Instead we decided to climb Esk Pike by Pike de Bield. The ground was quite marshy before we hit the ridge proper.  As we ascended, the wind picked up. While the views were good, the ground under foot was a bit soggy in places, making the going hard work.

About two thirds of the way up, we stopped for lunch. The weather was OK, but the Scafell range and Bowfell were still under cloud. We felt we had made the right decision not to go up Scafell Pike. The view up Little Narrowcove was spectacular and confirmed that it would have been hard work. This was an ascent to leave until another time.

The crags around Esk Pike were quite confusing, giving a number of false tops. By now the cloud had descended, so Jeff took out his SatMap for a bit of navigational assistance. It still wasn’t clear which of the two highest rocky outcrops the true peak was. Suddenly, the clouds parted and we were treated to a stupendous view down Langstrath and the Langdale Pikes. Scafell and Bowfell, however, were still under cloud.

From Esk Pike we descended to the Ore Gap. Bowfell was still under cloud and Jeff warned that the path up was arduous, so we decided to head south from Ore Gap to Green Hole. The track down was indistinct in many places, but following the stream down meant no navigational issues.

At the confluence of the Lingcove Beck and an unnamed beck from Three Tarns, there is a pleasant triangle of grass, perfect for a couple of tents to pitch. The soil was quite rocky. Jeff wisely chose a slightly higher patch of ground, while I was in a slight hollow. The error of this choice was to manifest itself the next morning. However, for the moment it seemed idyllic.

The cloud started to descend somewhat and the wind became chillier. After dinner, we zipped ourselves into our tents for the night. Just afterwards I felt a “crunch” in my mouth. The front of one of the crowns on my front teeth had come off. While it wasn’t painful, it meant I would have to cut short this trip to get back home to the dentist by Monday.

Around midnight, the rain started. Although it wasn’t too windy, the rain was heavy at times. Not too long after dawn the space blanket that I was using to protect my groundsheet made an odd rustling sound. A few minutes later, I opened the right hand inner door tent to find the ground in the porch under water. Fortunately the other porch was still clear of water, so I moved my water bottles and peg bag to the other side.

It was clear that I was going to have to move. The rain was persistent, so it seemed sensible to pack completely and head back to the camp site rather than moving the tent. After making sure I was dressed in my waterproofs, I packed my gear as carefully as I could, mindful that the water was getting deeper. The bathtub groundsheet proved it worth in keeping the water at bay until I had packed.

I quickly went over to Jeff’s tent to let him know I was going to head back to the camp site. Fortunately there was only a modest wind, so while the tent was soaked from the rain, I didn’t have to contend with packing a flapping tent. As quick as I could, I started down the valley.

It was very, very wet underfoot. I was glad that I had some Gore-Tex over socks which kept me tolerably dry. The rain sluiced over me, but started to ease slightly after about half an hour. I hadn’t given much consideration to stream crossings but over the next hour, crossing streams in spate became a serious issue. At the first one I tried the Drywalkers but backed off after one step. The stream was too high and fast. I headed upstream to see if the stream was narrower. After a few hundred yards, it bifurcated and I found some crossing points.

I had to cross about five or six stream on the way down. I was glad I had a trekking pole to help balance on crossings where I could use stepping stones. Most of the way down the path was under water, forming a shallow stream. The approach to Lingcove Beck Bridge is especially tricky. I took my time finding a safe route over the slippery rocks.

At the bridge I took a few photos of the river in spate. By this time the rain was no more than drizzle, but I felt quite damp. From here the path improved. I encountered a large flock of sheep heading up the valley and stopped to have a quick chat with the shepherd.  Soon I reached some fields. Even here the ground was sodden. Under normal circumstances the path by the river would have been delightful, but I was focused on getting back.

I decided that it was better to walk along the road from Brotherikeld Farm than take the footpath. While it made for rapid progress, it was certainly harder on the feet. At around ten o’clock I finally arrived at Hollins. The rain had stopped and I unloaded my dripping pack into the car. About half an hour later Jeff arrived. After sorting out gear and having an early lunch I had a reviving shower.

To use up a bit of time we went down to Boot to have a cup of tea in the afternoon. As we sat it the conservatory of the Boot Inn, it heaved down again. In a lull, it was back to the camp site for a rest and then a return to the Brook House Inn for an evening meal. Back at the camp site there were some recent arrivals, including one couple noisily arguing over how to put up their tent.

After dark, the heavens opened again and it rained, sometimes heavily, all night. By morning it had eased off with the occasional light shower. Jeff was up and away relatively early. I was in no hurry, so I had a leisurely breakfast, sheltering from the occasional light shower of rain. The rain held off for me to pack and leave by ten o’clock. The hills were still shrouded with mist as I drove round the coast road. The Saturday traffic on the way home was heavy in places, but overall it was not too bad.

Overall it was enjoyable trip, despite being cut short. The dentist saw me on Monday and I now have some temporary crowns with brand new permanent ones fitted in two weeks’ time. Despite a sore back, it made very little difference to me and that is now easing as well.

Two firsts

I have returned early from a very wet Lake District today with two “firsts” under my belt. It’s the first time I’ve had to abandon a trip because of dental problems and the first time I’ve had to abandon a pitch because of flooding.

On Thursday night, I felt a crunch in my mouth and the front of one of the crowns on my front teeth fell off! Fortunately it is uncomfortable rather than painful, but an emergency visit to the dentist is required. Ironically I had a dental appointment on Monday, where I pointed out the crack in said crown, but the dentist was relaxed about it!

On Friday morning, after six hours of heavy rain, the slight hollow where I had pitched my tent started to fill with water. I shouldn’t have pitched there, but the ground was appealingly flat. Gear was hastily packed into my rucksack and I walked back to my base camp tent at Hollins in the rain, crossing some seriously full becks. However, it did prove that I have solved the leaking pole sleeve issue and that the silnylon groundsheet of the Scarp really is waterproof.

More on my trip and gear over the next few days!

Two more tents

I think tents are magical. It’s the concept of some bits and metal and fabric that keep the wind and the rain out that appeals. I love it when I’m tucked up in my sleeping bag inside a tent and the wind is blowing and it’s tipping down with rain. Magic.

Over the summer I bought two more tents. One was a necessity, one was a whim. The Force Ten Vortex 200 was a necessary replacement for my late lamented Marmot Thor. I thought long and hard about buying another Thor. It is still available from Ellis Brigham, despite being discontinued by Marmot. However the Vortex 200 was available at a substantial discount (£230 vs. list price of £350) at The Complete Outdoors. A replacement Thor would also have been £350. The whim was to buy a MLD Duomid and net inner.

Force Ten Vortex 200. I don’t have any photos of the Vortex yet as it was very gloomy when I put it up in the garden. My initial impressions are that it is a sturdy and well made base camp tent. Erection is easy, although the flat pole sleeves require a bit of patience when threading the poles. Once the poles are in, it is very easy to erect. The two pairs of poles are easy to differentiate as one pair has an arch.

The colours may not appeal to everyone. The outer is a green and black patchwork, while the inner is a dark orange. This makes it considerably darker inside the tent than the Thor. The outer tent has six guying points that add to the stability of the tent. There are four mid level vents to allow air circulation. There is a door and reasonable sized porch at either end of the tent. The top of the door can be used as a further venting option as it is protected with a wire hooped cover. The porches also have snow valances.

The inner feels slightly larger than the Thor and is spacious for two and palatial for one. The inner door is brilliant. It is virtually a complete “O” shape and can be folded away in a small pocket on one side. It has a mesh vent with a zipped cover. Opposite the mid level vents on the outer there are mesh vents on the inner. The vents on the flysheet have a flap of material that can close them off to prevent excessive draughts. There are large mesh pocket along the length of both the long inner walls as well as a small mesh gear loft.

The pegs supplied are a mixture of alloy pins and “V”s. The guys have linelok runners. As usual with Vango tents, there is a useful repair kit. For £230, it’s a bargain. It’s not quite as solid as the Thor, but with the guys extended it feels very robust. I’ll give some further feedback after I’ve used it this week, but at first blush it seems like an ideal base camp tent.

MLD Duomid. I have to admit this was not such a well thought out purchase. I was attracted to the Duomid after the various favourable reviews as a potential way of reducing my pack weight further. Generally I’m not that keen on single skin tents for the UK as they are potentially draughty and condensation is an issue. However, I wanted the opportunity to try something different. As well as the Duomid, I also purchased the net inner.

One of the first things you notice about the Duomid is that it is very well made. Like ULA, MLD has a very high standard of finish. The first job was to attach the guys to the various points around the perimeter of the tent and on the side panels. Instead of the supplied cord, I used some rather attractive red dyneema that I purchased a while ago from backpackinglight.co.uk, which looked a lot smarter.

Erecting the tent was easier than I had anticipated. I pegged out the rear corners, then one of the front corners. As a pole I used my Leki carbon fibre poles, joined by one of backpackinglight’s ingenious pole connectors. I estimated that the right length was about to the bottom of my chin. Next I inserted the pole to the apex and pulled out and pegged the fourth corner. I then adjusted the four corners to make the fabric reasonably taut. Then it was a case of pegging the midpoint guys (both at the hem and part way up the panel).

Even on a slope, I found it reasonably easy to get a taut pitch. While I’m sure the Duomid wouldn’t collapse in a strong wind, I suspect it would distort and flap considerably. My feeling is that this is generally more suited to sheltered pitches rather than exposed mountain sides.

There’s not much to explain that hasn’t been covered in other blogs. I was pleasantly surprised by a couple of features though. The door zip is waterproof but still quite free running. There is also a double set of poppers half way up the doors so that the zip can be opened for venting.

The net inner is easy to secure. The four corners attach to shock cord loops on the flysheet. The apex has some shock cord that attaches to a hook at the apex of the flysheet. The groundsheet is silnylon and quite slippery, so I’ve added some lines of seam sealant to stop a sleeping mat slipping. I have also sealed all the seams on the flysheet with a tube of McNett silicon sealant that was supplied with the tent. One thing I don’t like about the net inner is the door. It only opens half the side of the tent. I would prefer an inverted “T” so the whole side could be opened.

Overall, the Duomid is very well made and easy to pitch. While I will be taking it to the Lake District with me tomorrow, the weather forecast is a bit mixed. If it’s too windy, I probably won’t use it.

Here’s a slide show of photos:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

By Robin Posted in gear

ULA Ohm first impressions

Notwithstanding the trials and tribulations of obtaining my pack, not to mention the astronomical cost, I like it! The weight is around 750g (difficult to weigh accurately on a small post room scales). The quality of workmanship and finish is first class.

 

The suspension system reminds me of my Osprey Aether 60. It has a carbon fibre/delrin hoop as a frame. Unlike the Mariposa, it is attached to the outer edges of the pack. Although it is not very flexible, the pack cloth between the uprights moulds to the shape of your back. I’ve only loaded it with a couple of sleeping bags, but it seems very comfortable. It retains some flexibility (like the Mariposa) rather than feeling like a solid lump attached to you back (like the Osprey Exos).

The volume of the main sack seems very close to that of the Mariposa. The Mariposa has larger mesh pockets, but the side pockets of the Ohm are very substantial. Fitting a packed Scarp is easy. The mesh pocket on the front of the pack is stretchy but quite small. Inside the pack body there is a removable hydration sleeve and a mesh pocket for valuables. The hip belt pockets are quite small, but useful for bit and pieces.

 

The shoulder straps are contoured with a mesh underside. They feel comfortable but only trail testing will confirm this. The hip belt has some modest padding and fits well over my hips. To tighten the hip belt, the webbing is pulled inwards like the hip belts on Osprey packs. This is a much better system than most packs. There are load lifter straps to pull the top of the pack closer to your back.

Also supplied are some hand loops which attach to some D rings on the pack shoulder straps. I’m not sure I’ll be using these, but they are detachable. There are some useful yellow bungee loops on each shoulder strap for water bottles, which can be detached as well. This suits me as I like to carry a water bottle in this way.

 

The Ohm has side compression cords. These are attached by thin loops to the frame. I would be cautious about pulling too hard on these. The pack material is green dyneema rip stop mixed with normal black rip stop nylon. All in all, it feels quite substantial for such a light pack.

Naturally, any piece of gear needs a bit of modification! There is a thin piece of foam which is held between the frame uprights on the inside of the pack by two pieces of elastic. I replaced the foam with a slightly more substantial piece cut from a Multimat sleeping pad. This added a whole 2g to the weight, but should give my back better protection from lumpy objects and a useful sleeping mat extension.

Next I added a couple of loops of cord with a cord grip below the ice axe loop retainers. These give an extra lashing point to secure a tent in the side pocket. I’ve used an elasticated and Velcro strap looped through the carbon fibre rod of the pack frame and through this piece of cord. I stole the cord and cord grip from my late lamented Marmot Thor tent which has gone to the great camp site in the sky.  I’m also going to add a loop of shock cord to the hip belt so I can stow my walking poles like the Osprey system, using the bottle shock cords on the shoulder straps.

Lastly, the webbing for the load lifters is quite long. To stop them whipping into my face in strong winds, I’ve added a loop of shock cord to act as a keeper.

What would I change? Well, I would have some “D” rings on the side of the pack and the top to give options for lashing a tent. The single strap across the top of the pack is not very secure for a tent. I would replace the cord compression system with one or two straps. This would be more robust and also help with lashing options. I prefer the “Y” strap on the top of the Mariposa to a single strap. I would continue the spacer mesh on the hip belt to the main body of the pack. I think the Ohm is probably quite a sweaty pack as it hugs the back. I wouldn’t bother with spacer mesh on the rest of the back but some on the waist area might help.

Overall, I like this pack very much. I suspect it will carry better than the Mariposa (which would be high praise indeed), but I’ll only be able to confirm this in a couple of week’s time. It certainly feels more robust and looks well made. Hopefully it will last long enough to justify its cost.

By Robin Posted in gear

The saga of the Ohm

It all seemed so simple. I’d already ordered a couple of items from the US (the Scarp and some waders). I wanted a more robust rucksack than my Mariposa but a similar design. Instead of ordering a GG Gorilla, I was attracted by the ULA Ohm (featured by Hendrik a while ago).

It looked perfect. It is a similar size and weight but in tougher Dyneema ripstop. I was also attracted by ULA’s reputation for quality. At £117.48, it certainly wasn’t cheap but not outrageous. I sized myself up. I’m a medium back length. The website suggested a “large” hip belt as my waist is over 33” (I’m a 34” waist). I also ordered a packcover at £13.42. The postage came to a hefty £40.11, but, hey, it’s from the US.

My first inkling of trouble was an email exchange with Jeff who had bought a ULA CDT rucksack. He is also a 34” waist and had ordered the “large” hip belt. Unfortunately, the hip belt was too large. The Ohm was on its way, so there was nothing I could do but wait. Just over a week later, I went to collect it from the Parcel Force depot (an hour’s round trip!). I had to pay £34.07 (£26.07 VAT and £8 handling charge) for the pleasure. With P&P, the cost of the Ohm was now up to £191.66.

On arriving home, I eagerly unpacked the Ohm and tried it on. The hip belt, indeed, did seem too large. I filled the sack up with a couple of sleeping bags. It was cinched right up to the stops. Zut alors! Too large.

Jeff had arranged with Chris (owner of ULA) to mail him (Jeff) a smaller CDT. Rather than incur the return cost Jeff had arranged to sell the surplus CDT and remit the money to Chris. A quick email exchange set up a similar arrangement for me. Another wait of just over a week and the replacement Ohm appeared. This time there was no customs and handling charges and it could be collected from my local Post Office.

Off I duly trooped. When I got home, I opened the parcel I put the sack on. Yes the hip belt was the small, but the pack didn’t feel quite right. I fiddled about with it, convincing myself that is was OK. Then I had a closer look and it was a “small” back length. I looked at the invoice and it was meant from someone else.

Another email exchange ensued. This time, I was to send the packs back to the US. My postage costs were refunded. Another agonising wait ensued. Would they get it right a third time? To my horror, a Parcel Force letter arrived requesting me to pick it up from their depot and pay some more duty and handling, this time £23.23.

I couldn’t be bothered to argue at the depot. My Ohm had now cost me £214.84! I drove round the corner and opened the parcel. It seemed this time it was the correct sack. At home I unpacked it and it was the right size. Phew!

Chris at ULA has been pretty good about this, although the second lot of duty is frustrating and I’ve not heard back from him yet. It has given me the opportunity to inspect three ULA packs and they have all been of a very high standard of finish. The only blemish being some Velcro sewn slightly off centre on the second pack.

If you look at the ULA website, they have now changed the guidance on hip belt sizing. This would have saved a lot of angst if it had been correct in the first place. It has taught me to be a bit more cautious about ordering from the US, especially where sizing is crucial. The other lesson is be careful with the sticker price. Once you add P&P and VAT & handling, the costs soon balloon. Nearly £215 is a lot of money for a rucksack.

If you need to return stuff, the costs mount even more. Once you go international, it gets very costly. Recently I have had to return my home network server with a fault. The parcel was 4.2kg. With insurance cover of £850, it cost me £22.50 to send (in the UK). The rucksacks I returned to the US weighed just over 2kg and cost £40.69 (with insurance).

My advice is to think carefully and do the sums before committing yourself. I was a bit impetuous and had I totted up the charges, it would have been a much finer judgement whether to purchase.

The big question is: what’s the Ohm like and was it worth the cost and hassle. Tomorrow I’ll give you a first view.

 

By Robin Posted in gear

The return

After six weeks of not blogging, there was a temptation not to return, but I did miss it! It has been enjoyable just relaxing and surfing other blogs. The traffic on my blog has hardly been affected by the lack of postings. Perhaps the back catalogue of posts has been more useful than I had thought.

Although I have been extremely lazy, things have been happening. Gear has been purchased and plans have been made. I’m hoping to go to the Lake District next week for two three day trips around Eskdale and the Coniston fells.

I will be taking some new gear. During the break, I have taken delivery of a Force Ten Vortex 200 tent, a ULA Ohm pack (there’s a bit of a story behind this one), a Cumulus Quantum 350 sleeping bag, a Super Delios water purifier (thanks, Alan), a Duomid shelter with net inner, MLD Event gaiters and head net. Over the next few days I’ll give some initial impressions of these.

The Outdoor Retailer Summer Market show seemed to have had more interesting items on show than the Friedrichshafen Trade Fair. Perhaps this was due to backpackinglight.com’s excellent reporting. That’s not to knock Bob’s excellent podcasts of Friedrichshafen, which were very interesting, but the reports both in the press (well TGO) and online were a bit thin.

One item at the ORSM caught my eye in particular, which was the new Terra Nova Solar Photon 2. A two person tent similar in design to the Big Agnes Fly Creek UL1 (presumably with a solid inner), weighing under 1kg, looks very attractive.  The structure looks very stable. The cost is $440. It will be interesting to see whether this translates into £440.

Terra Nova are also releasing a Cuben fibre version of the Laser Comp, (the Laser Ultra), weighing a crazy 539g. At $700, even if it’s translated directly into sterling, I shan’t be buying this one. Is it just me, or is the thought of being in a transparent tent a bit off putting? It must be like a sauna in the sun.

TGO magazine landed on my doorstep yesterday. It is one of the better recent editions with interesting articles on a trek in Sarek in Sweden, an alternative West Highland Way and mad Eddy making his own pied d’elephant.

However, the most exciting thing is the pull out supplement on the TGO Challenge. I shall be submitting an entry for next year’s event. This is something I’ve wanted to do for the last three or four years, and now I have the time.

I know the Challenge excites some debate. Why not just go and do a traverse of Scotland anyway?. I guess for me, I like the idea of bumping into a load of nutters doing the same thing. It provides an ideal way of mixing solitude with company. Whether I would become a regular Challenger, I don’t know. However, I’ve already worked out three routes!

At a later date, I would be tempted to do an east-west traverse of Scotland. As Cameron McNeish mentions in the supplement, this seems a more “natural” configuration, but is logistically impossible for an event like the Challenge. I’ve also been watching the DVD of Wainwright in Scotland and was very taken with the panoramas of Sutherland. The Cape Wrath trail beckons at some stage.

I’m also very tempted to do some treks outside the UK. Scandinavia looks fantastic, so does the Pyrenees. I’m also mulling over whether to go on an organised trek in Morocco or Jordan early next year.

Any way that’s enough for now. There’ll be some more waffle over the next few days and then a bit of silence again next week when I’m in the Lakes. By the way, thanks for the comments that have been posted while I’ve not been actively blogging.