Bushwalk Australia

What makes great gear? It is my personal belief that the best gear comes from people that do the same activity as I do and then say there must be a better way to design the stuff that they carted along. This means the gear reflects their design philosophy and we all been individuals will either agree or disagree with it. As said the sincerest form of flattery is mimicking so we see a lot of good ideas reappearing. What I like is a clear design philosophy. Below are my favourite design philosophies.

Western Mountaineering make sleeping bags and their approach is "pure". Use the highest loft rating that is readily available and the best case materials to design the absolute top class weight-size-strength bag. They do not play the game of fitting into price points and market segments. They have (or still do?) use three case materials, standard, light weight, and water resistant. They make multiple lengths as well in the same model and leave it up to us to decide what length and material best suits. The result is the standard case material is a great compromise of weight, toughness, cost and water resistance. If water resistance is important then Goretex Dryloft is used and the weight goes up. If gram counting is your thing then the case material is the lightest they are prepared to go to while maintaining enough strength to keep the down in plus the models using it are narrower. They make numerous models to deal with width as well as not all people like the bound in mummy bag experience. What does not change is the place of manufacture and the quality of the down. They are not cheap but then again true quality never is.

Hilleberg tents are largely designed by Bo Hilleberg. My only complaint is he should have been two inches taller as most designs are good for people 6'2" or shorter. By all accounts Bo has handed the day to day running of the company over to his children to spend more time with nature. This means his tent designs are not absolute specification bred killers but built to be used for long trips so compromise weight with strength and features. Sure, drop floor strength and thin down the fly and inner materials and you will better the weight. Likewise do away with the external pole sleeves and S fabric joins and you will coming in cheaper on price. Bo Hilleberg to me appears to design for using a tent in rough weather so sensible vestibule space and interior colour are things that attract me. It is interesting to compare Hillebergs to MSR tents. Both use top class materials and are put together like Swiss watches. I have a MSR Nook and Hilleberg Nallo. Both claim to be two people tent and based on inner tent space not much to argue one way of the other between them. But the Nallo can easily handle two large packs and not clutter the entrance while the Nook struggles with one. The multitude door zip options on the Nallo mean you can adapt to suit the conditions while the Nook is rather limited. The Nallo can handle any conditions I am likely to encounter while the Nook needs some thought when and where to take it. Sure the light weight of the Nook make it wonderful to carry. I see the same Hilleberg traits in my three man Katium and my now sold Akto. Basically, Hilleberg tents has a definable design philosophy, one that I like, even to the point all their tents I have owned pack to the same length.

One Planet have proven that Australian manufacturing can be world class. When in Norway an overnight train trip meant I lurched out of the train jamming a wayward strap and buckle in some crevice so lost the buckle. Off I went to an outdoor store for a replacement and when I handed over the pack the owner excitedly gathered his mob together and it turns out he was saying to them was, "this is how we use to make packs and still should do". After four months on the road my Bass travel pack was in excellent condition. What I like about One Planet is they do not play the harness game to fit a price point. Instead the harnesses are governed by maximum adjustment on all but the smallest day packs. Also, the harness carrying capacity is matched to the size of the pack so generally when run out of space you are just on the upper limit of the designed comfort weight. Sure One Planet with the likes of the Shadow are reducing weight but in a way that they are happy with and I can say for me the Shadow harness is great loaded to design comfort weight which is about as much as I can cram in the pack. The heavy weight crown goes to my McMillan that over the last two weekends has hauled thirty kilograms for a luxury camping experience. To me, One Planet's design philosophy for packs is perfect. Again they are not cheap but as I have said, true quality never is first up, but as the years go on the number of uses means that the packs get cheaper.

Occasionally companies that make a broad range of goods can nail an item but then I wonder if like Cascade Design it is due to specialist sub brands like Thermarest? No doubt that Cascade Design have lead sleeping mat design improvement for years. Exped have come out swinging but Cascade Design appear to better the weight for any given warmth. Black Diamond with the flick lock system on their poles have hit a massive home run over the jamming and failure prone twist locking system used by even the most expensive brands.

But Black Diamond are a classic example of committee design stuffing things up. Take their Storm headlamp. It is designed to tick every box, beam, flood, water resistant and even infra red. I have one and it is not bad. But look a bit closer and you will see corporate design teams with accountants in tow nobbling the design. With LEDs voltage regulation is key to light output and longevity. Hence, the "do not use lithium" warnings and the poor performance with NiMh batteries. Lithium's higher voltage will burn out the LEDs while the lower voltage of the NiMh will mean reduce light output. Voltage regulation design is expensive in design costs and materials. Easiest approach is to series up batteries and regulate down rather than regulate up. Many early LEDs needed 4.5 volts to get reasonable light output so three batteries were needed. As size and weight is important three AAA were used. In the Storm BD cram in four. Ok what is the problem? Well for the same weight and storage capacity two AA could have been used. Check out the price of AA versus AAA and it is about the same. So BD could have halved the running cost by going for two AA instead of four AAA. Why did they do this? Cheapen on the voltage regulation. Zebralight achieves some impressive performance due to an excellent voltage regulation system design to suck the most power possible out of a single AA battery. They and Spark lead the way in headlamps with Jetbeam doing it for torches.

Here with BD and other category killers price point and cost cutting reign supreme and the numerous design teams result in a confused product array. Admittedly, some great products drop out but they can be buried in a mass of mediocre products. Here the clear design philosophy breaks down and we suffer through price, weight, longevity and ease of use.

So best advice I can give is look long and hard at specialist manufacturers that concentrate on a few areas as that is where the true value is found. Does not mean that big is bad just likely to be lazy filling gaps in their range with ring ins. My most carried item is a Kathmandu packable pack as nothing else comes close to comfort, weight and toughness in that segment so yes many companies have something to offer, just that there might be better options with a specialist firm.

Cheers

Great topic.

I think the test of good design is that you don't notice the design - it just works. Some of the most brilliant ideas are never noticed - only the lack of them stands out.

i wouldnt write off BD entirely, their walking poles are pretty reliable, especially their eliptical ones are known for being very strong.
and i've gone on about how much i like their packs, not as robust as some but great comfort without excessive weight.
their latest offering have balistic nylon making their packs stronger than some.
how an outdoor company arrives at decisions on designing electronic designs is a mystery to me, they must take advice from electronics engineers who may not be full time employees of companies that don't specialise in electronics... it may just be about completing their arsenal in outdoor accessories.. so they have strayed outside of their real area of expertise. good design in one area is no guarantee of it carrying over in to other areas...

nq111 wrote:Great topic.

I think the test of good design is that you don't notice the design - it just works. Some of the most brilliant ideas are never noticed - only the lack of them stands out.

exactly, sometimes you change an item thinking you can get something better then you realise the beauty in the item you had was that it was so well designed you didnt have to think much about it and there wasnt much about it that iritated you to attract your attention to it...

+1 for exped sleeping bags, i have an ultralight 300, weighs 500gm, 300gm 840 loft down, i can move the down from the bottom to the top for more warmth, it's rated to five degrees limit, but i've found it can cope with colder, its a close fitting bag, no wasted air to heat... short zip saves weight. i bought it for a summer bag but it copes well as a three season bag.

nq111 wrote:I think the test of good design is that you don't notice the design - it just works. Some of the most brilliant ideas are never noticed - only the lack of them stands out.

Excellent point. It is often not until an items gracefully falls apart and you go looking for a replacement that you realize what you have lost. One Planet gaiters are a classic, nothing magical about the design and a few brands use similar quality materials but One Planet ones just work so well. I am told that the visible stitching is not the critical stitching as that is hidden away and well protected. WE and S2S stitching failure is a fact of life. Many of the old SLR cameras were designed just because of mechanical necessary but not until you go digital and have to dig through menus that you miss the simple lever driven shutter timer. I am finding some old stuff once discarded by trendy new items re-appearing in my pack as they work so well.

Probably the design that brings the missing design detail home is my MSR Nook tent compared to Nallo. The door feature on the Nallo is a work of art but unless you have ever used one and gone back to a less "nice" design you would never know how good it is. I find the Nook annoying in that aspect along with the missing Hilleberg tensioning points. The Nook has two while Hilleberg has four.

Often it can be something a simple as a sensible size zip, extra coverage on a flap, etc. I hated using my Canon S70 as most cases required vertical loading and then I brought a genuine Canon case that horizontally loaded the camera and it was great. Kick myself I did not get it earlier. Found the same thing with the Canon S90 when a small plastic waterproof hard case made the camera brilliant. It unlike the Pelican was a very molded design. When I thought I lost the camera I was more annoyed by the prospect of losing the case, as the camera could be got from anywhere but I have never seen the case again. Yet the case was less than one fifth the cost of the camera.

Cheers

PS Black Diamond poles rock and some of their other stuff is excellent but electronics appear to be a thing that they do not understand but they are far better at it than some of their rivals. In fact, once you use a Zebralight or Spark you are left wondering why the likes of Kathmandu, Macpac, Mammut lights can be sold at their RRP.

See Dieter Rams quotes in this attachment. I think no discussion about design philosophy is complete without the 10 commandments http://www.macpac.co.nz/our-company/design-philosophy

Edit. Remind me to shoot the person who uploaded the copy with comments annotated.

blacksheep wrote:See Dieter Rams quotes in this attachment. I think no discussion about design philosophy is complete without the 10 commandments http://www.macpac.co.nz/our-company/design-philosophy

Interesting read.

At the risk of annoying the living daylight out of you lets look at Macpac tent design. The Olympus is a classic tunnel tent design that has been around many years. I have noticed it seems to change and then revert back over time. If I am correct I think at one stage it only had one entrance but could be wrong. I have only ever had to pitch one once when a group of novices were struggling with one so I lent a hand. The Hilleberg approach to pole sleeves is having one end blocked off so it is a simple matter of feeding in a pole and then locking it into its bucket on the feeding end. Macpac design required that you walk around the tent and position the pole in a hole and then repeat on the other-side, and Murphy being a close friend meant it managed to slip out a few times until I developed the knack. Is this a good design?

I am not sure of the name but at least one Macpac tent has been christen a bed-wetter design as when you open the door rain can fall on the tent floor. No Hilleberg I have struck makes such a mistake as the door can be opened but there is still enough overhang on the fly to shed rain. Ok, windblown rain is another issue but my Nallo for a single door design manages quite well even in windy conditions. Even the Akto was impressive in this regard especially given weight and compact size are its driving design considerations.

What I am getting at is Hilleberg appear to have considered ease of pitching and keeping the inner dry on all its designs while Macpac is all over the shop on these two points where a simple design change (ok stealing Hilleberg's design for blocked off pole sleeves which no doubt could have come from some other long forgotten design/company) would at least on the Olympus make life easier and pitching quicker.

Cheers

Hi Ent.
It's no secret that you have a gripe with Macpac for something that happened some time ago. Having said that, I have not owned or set up an Olympus so cannot comment on its design changes.
I currently use a Nallo2 and it's fine for my purposes, but if I wanted a bomb-proof tent at the expense of weight, it would be the Olympus.

The Macpac microlight uses the same sort of pocket as the Hilleberg Akto.

Roger

about 18 years ago when I started as a designer in outdoor maybe 50% of tents used the continuous pole sleeve to ball end in pocket that you speak of. You are right, it makes setup fast and easy. You are wrong , it is not better designed, it is a different design. This system does fail. Tents pitched on rocky terrain wear through this point from constantly vibrations of the pole weight and wind load on a 2cm patch. If the fail in the field it is a big problem ...Fairydown made a good solution (we all thought) in 95 or 96 when they made a rubber boot to hold the pole, but ultimately that failed and they returned to pole in eyelet design. TNF also quit this idea by the late 90's.

we use a similar system, but not on alpine/mtn/ expedition style tents.

Design is often about choosing where compromise is best made to best meet a goal.

Yes, I believe the olympus has had a few small changes in its almost 30 years in production. In the last 7 years we made 2 changes- 1.we changed the anodising process to be "green anodising" to minimise chemical run off, and 2.we made it in yellow.

tasadam wrote:Hi Ent.
It's no secret that you have a gripe with Macpac for something that happened some time ago. Having said that, I have not owned or set up an Olympus so cannot comment on its design changes.
I currently use a Nallo2 and it's fine for my purposes, but if I wanted a bomb-proof tent at the expense of weight, it would be the Olympus.

As your personal views are equally well known so hence your post I assume I do wonder if I start a thread and Blacksheep posts that I am expected to run and hide? Blacksheep opened the door with a link to his commercial website (not a generic one with reference to the ten design commandments) and I am sure that he can give the logic behind the design decisions of those two tents, if he chooses, (which he has on the pole looking system) rather than assuming there is something wrong with the design decision? The comments are fair and might even result in improved designs, after all is that not one goal to aim for on this site?

More than happy to debate the merit with any seller re the merits and improvements or reason for their design. I have learned a lot thanks to many manufacturers responding. The classic was Hillerberg to my request for a lighter tent, "we could but then it would not be a Hilleberg" was their response. Hard to argue with that

As for bomb proof I would suggest it a bad day before a Katium failed before an Olympus http://www.livestrong.com/article/15102 ... ing-tents/ and I wish I could find the link to the video of one pitch in a howling wind on a glacier. We live in an age of materials where impressive performance can be achieved with remarkable light materials, assuming designers keep up, to the point that most of our tents are probably way over engineered for the conditions that we use them in. I did agree with one poster writing in tongue in cheek that for arctic conditions the ideal tent is an arctic tent But the poles await you

Cheers

Ent wrote:As your personal views are equally well known so hence your post I assume

Not sure what you mean by that, or your assumptions for my post. Not sure whether you are referring to something personal (about you), if so then I will not discuss openly, but feel free to contact me if it's something you have a need to discuss something with me.

The comments are fair and might even result in improved designs, after all is that not one goal to aim for on this site?

True, though your comments (after a quick read) about every product mentioned (apart from BD) relate to what makes it great, and because of the aforementioned history, it seems a bit obvious to me that you are quick to point out what you consider are flaws in an otherwise well proven product.
Then I guess that's the point isn't it, everything said is just that - what you consider, and as such, is subjective as it is with the rest of us.

tasadam wrote:

Ent wrote:The comments are fair and might even result in improved designs, after all is that not one goal to aim for on this site?

True, though your comments (after a quick read) about every product mentioned (apart from BD) relate to what makes it great, and because of the aforementioned history, it seems a bit obvious to me that you are quick to point out what you consider are flaws in an otherwise well proven product.
Then I guess that's the point isn't it, everything said is just that - what you consider, and as such, is subjective as it is with the rest of us.

Tasadam over the years I have been culling my equipment and as more than few know Garmin, Kompadell (or what ever spelling) plus Sunnto have endure my stern critiques but when I mention Macpac you seem to automatically post about ill feeling colouring my words. In fact, Sunnto or Garmin have experienced the hotter flame of discontent. In fact one resident forum wit attempted to list brands that I found issue with and gave up on the length of that list. I have a dislike of poor gear and gear failures, and as bad as it having brought junk is the "thrill" of carrying it for many days as a reminder of how bad it is until you can dump it is worse. Millions of dollars gets spent on gear and a remarkable amount has design issues that results in it being under used. I challenge our gear freaks to use every bit of gear that they have brought until it wears out before they do. Simple fact is a remarkable amount of stuff gets brought and used only a couple of times by more than a few people due to some designed flaw or because it is simply not them.

What this thread was intended to be is about a design philosophy that companies adopt, especially philosophies that people like. As mentioned WM have a clear approach as does Hilleberg and One Planet. The idea was to be positive with the caveat that broad brush sellers can not be chosen on brand name alone. Muddled thinking and price point designs of one brand fits all is not my thing. Black Diamond poles great but for headlamps see Zebralight or Spark. I have mentioned on more than one occasion of holding One Planet packs as the finest example of pack design but I have not been thrilled by their tents. To their credit their latest tents are massive improvements but a person who's opinion I respect sold his simply because the design philosophy was not him as the solid inner was a bit too breezy to be called solid yet other love it. He likes MSR's approach and while he might respect say Hilleberg he is unlikely to buy one over a MSR equivalent. I am bit the reverse on the MSR versus Hilleberg issue.

My question is why are some thing designed a particular way. A bed wetting design tent appears for Tassie conditions to be poor design. Ok I now understand why a certain tent pole locking system is adopted but honestly after numerous nights in my Hillebergs not found the problem that Blacksheep mentioned. You have a Nallo and have you seen the same issue Blacksheep raises? Is it not better to use a captive pole system for all but the most extreme use? Honestly, if I was planning to conquer Everest I would not be using this site as my reference point, no disrespect, but Everest is not what this site is about, or at least yet.

I have been told numerous times brand X twist lock system for walking poles works great only to see people gritting their teeth trying to undo a jamb pole of the exact same "great" brand. By contrast BD pole owners I personally know re-buy the flick lock system.

It should not surprise that after years of gear buying and culling I have a collection of stuff that I am delighted with and it only electronic gadgets such as cameras and GPSs that are being brought nowadays by me. Hence, my gear reports should be in the main very positive with a tinge of sadness and frustration if I can not replace items that I like that I have lost or worn out. I have a few items that I am unsure of, like my MSR Nook tent. Not sure to praise it as being a remarkable space to weight trade off or slam it as a rather useless design for Tassie. If I write a negative report about MSR Nook will people about my ill feeling to that brand? PS, I am not the Australian Distributors biggest fan but do think Cascade Design itself cares about quality.

So please chill on my mentioning of your pet brand in anything but the most favorable terms. My experience of the product and support has been not as yours.

Cheers

possibly off subject, but bad selection of gear is as big a problem. some shops like kathmandu dont help regarding design, a lot of what they are selling isnt suitable for bushwalking in all weathers, its for urban wear or for back packers who dont brave the elements as much as bushwalkers... people dont understand what they are looking at when they buy it, raincoats with woven nylon linings that aren't suitable for storm conditions since the lining gets saturated and holds the cold in cold weather..., i've noted a fair few of these types of raincoats hanging inside huts.
i'd like to know what gear the people were using the other week who abandoned their packs on the kepler track to get to the hut faster when they were walking along the exposed ridge in a storm,, no doubt they were getting cold and if they saw the hypothermic person who was being carried to the shelter what would have fed any desire to get to the hut as fast as possible...
i see a lot of people selecting softshell jackets and not bothering with hardshell jackets.
the vendors may list on their websites the purpose of the garment but in the shop you dont see similar sot of information... its pretty rare for shop staff to ask "what are you looking for AND what are you wanting to use it for?"
unfortunately hte truly dedicated shops that only sell gear designed for long distance bushwalkers are dying out... in nz if you look around theres a significant percentage of people in the bush wearing kathmandu gear now of widely varying designs. and we're talking in a lot of cases with people wearing kathmandu head to toe or not wearing any kathmandu. i've noted the younger people not accompanied by older adults are more likely to go for incorrectly designed gear for the conditions. just like the fashion of the young today is to wear down jackets year round on the street, its just one example of choosing gear for the wrong reason if you apply that logic to the bush.

Ent wrote:The Olympus is a classic tunnel tent design that has been around many years ... Macpac design required that you walk around the tent and position the pole in a hole and then repeat on the other-side, and Murphy being a close friend meant it managed to slip out a few times until I developed the knack.

My 10 year old Olympus has the pockets at one end of the pole sleeves so no need to walk around to the other side while inserting and securing the poles. My Father's 25 year old Olympus does not (has eyelets for both ends of the pole as you described). I'm not sure what the current model has. Mine also has two full-sized vestibules and two entrances.

Son of a Beach wrote:My 10 year old Olympus has the pockets at one end of the pole sleeves so no need to walk around to the other side while inserting and securing the poles. My Father's 25 year old Olympus does not (has eyelets for both ends of the pole as you described). I'm not sure what the current model has. Mine also has two full-sized vestibules and two entrances.

Good thread, the OP rings very true to me.

I picked up my Olympus last year and it has the pockets on one side and eyelets on the other, so I'm guessing this is the current design. I would kill for a rear vestibule as the rear entrance is a bed wetter in rain, so it only sees use when it's dry. As such loading in and out of the tent with two people and full gear can get fiddly. If I could make any changes to this tent it would be...

* Lower the stitching that closes off the pole sleeves by about 10-25mm. The fly always seems to pitch slightly lop sided. (With a pitch like this and some sagging in the fly due to temp changes etc... I feel that the rear inner and the fly get a wee bit too close together. I'm at the point now where I think I'll get remote repairs to pop a guy out point on the back door to save adjusting the guys when the fly sags)
* Add a rear vestibule.

Apart from that it's a pretty good tent and has handled the three season conditions it's seen.

Back on topic-ish. In my experience the stores that stock only their brands have gear that is hit and miss. I seem to have had a better run with stores that stock a variety of brands, and am quite partial to independently owned stores for this and other reasons. Given we're discussing particular products I suppose I'll chime in (a lot of my early gear was Macpac, so I'll mention them a bit, this is a selection bias I can't avoid)...:

*I had a pair of Macpac poles fail badly on me and moved to the BD distance Z-poles (aluminum) which have been fantastic. One exception is that the hand strap for one came loose. The reliability of the z locking system over an elliptical out weighs any inconveniences for me.

*Similarly to Ents comments on the BD storm headlamp, I have an icon and my criticisms are pretty much in line with his.

*I love my Aarn pack, firstly it fits my rotund body better than all packs I've tried. Easy access to all gear is just awesome for me - I seem to be taking a standard pack off way too much and just start looking for ways to attach stuff to my front. The harness is very customisable, and they sell enough variations of their packs to be able to get a big and bush bashing type pack so small and lighter weight, very versatile.

*So to be fair on Macpac their packs appeal to me (although they don't fit me quite well enough) and I haven't had any complaints from my hiking group about them yet... a lot of them seem to have Macpac packs. I think their merino tops are probably the best of their equipment I've used. In particular I'm fond of the merino 280 L/S plain zip men's, it's ideal for putting on during short rest breaks to prevent over cooling, has a zip to help with ventilation for when you're getting worm whilst walking, and thumb holes for a little bit of added warmth. In a nutshell - It's simple but does its job well and perhaps this a philosophy I would like to see applied to a lot of gear

Mod note: Can we add spoiler tags at all? This post is a bit fat, it would help it's readability if I could shrink it down. TY

wayno wrote:possibly off subject, but bad selection of gear is as big a problem.

I think this is very much on topic.

We live in a time where research is extremely easy. I think the trouble is that sometimes the idea of a particular product grabs our interest and we fail to get or even absorb appropriately negative comments from other people.

I think that after we do our research, if we are unhappy with our selection then there is only a couple of possibilities, and one of them is that we failed to research and select a suitable product. That could be because we only ever read positive reviews or perhaps we read balanced reviews but failed to absorb the negatives. There is also the possibility that our use of the product is markedly different from the reviewer's. It could also be that the item we bought is not of the same standard as the one reviewed due to version change or quality control. Lastly, it could be that the review is tainted - the reviewer gets gear for free if they post favourable reviews.

With me, when I look at bushwalking items I bought that I am unhappy with (there are very few of them) I can clearly see that I failed in my research and therefore paid the price. I would point out that my Suunto Core is not in that list.

Ent wrote:So please chill on my mentioning of your pet brand in anything but the most favorable terms

Now at least I see the problem, you think my association with Macpac is one that offers me some bias, and you feel "picked on" as a result.
Not so.

I do not hide the fact that I have an association with Macpac, it's linked in my profile - I have an "association". I have in the past taken some photographs they liked, in exchange for better pricing on some products I purchased. I have seen a photograph in a Macpac newsletter, and on the wall of a Macpac store.
The entire extent of Macpac product I had with me on my recent 15 day walk was a pack and a sleeping bag (and a second hand japara purchased not through Macpac). While my agreement between myself and Macpac does not need to be open, I make this open so that you can see the extent of my association and judge for yourself whether my association might favour my opinion of Macpac.
I first owned Macpac product over 20 years ago - long before any association, and the product then was excellent, so like you I stick with what I consider to be good brands. Nothing wrong with that, is there? Isn't that what the topic is about?

When it comes to moderation of topics concerning Macpac (I'm being careful here - discussion of specific moderation in public is forbidden by the rules), I do not make the decision on what action (if any) is taken in those topics, I instead open it to discussion by the moderation team and allow them to decide what is done.
This is not a requirement of me because of my "association" with Macpac, instead it is a self-imposed direction I choose to take, so as to be seen not to be biased.

When it comes to commenting on Macpac product, I do so based on my own experiences (as you so readily do) as a member of this forum, not as a moderator or admin, and not because of any "association".

As far as integrity goes, I do not enter photo competitions on this forum because as a forum administrator, I am now able to (though I do not) view entries to the competition as they are made. Should I choose to be so petty I could decide what image I want to enter based on what others have entered. However I do not enter because I do not want the accusation of any lack of integrity on my part.

I say again, I am aware of past history between you and Macpac, so I (as a moderator) am very cautious when you are commenting negatively on Macpac product - we the moderation team have had enough to do in the past sorting out various issues in similar regard.

So, you go treading carefully when you consider what you might like to call my "pet brand" - don't go putting words in my mouth.
Do I like Macpac product? Yes. And I like my MSR Simmerlite stove, and MSR fuel bottles, and Source bladders though I have just upgraded to MSR, and my current Hilleberg tent (though it has its issues too), and my Exped mats, and Sea to Summit Quagmire gaiters and the iPood with the silly clip removed and replaced with a small stainless steel bolt, and... Lots of brands make lots of stuff and I have a vast collection of what I consider works well for me, for various reasons.

If you would like me to refrain from commenting on your posts so that you can have the be-all and end-all of comment, not going to happen - I am a member of the forum as much as anyone and am entitled to my opinion. My difficulty comes in that I am also an admin and moderator, and cop a fair bit of criticism for this volunteer position for my efforts at making this place better for all of us. That I can wear, but be careful when making accusations of my integrity or bias.

More on topic - this post and other posts in the topic discusses efforts made in improving the Quagmire gaiters.

seems on this site the more someone defends any product or brand the more they are open to attack... defending a brand is a debateable thing to do as comments in this thread show regarding black diamond as just one brand example, one one hand several people love various ranges of items they make but others hate other items they make. brands all have their strengths and weaknesses, i might like my black diamond packs but am i going to like black diamond as a whole? not necessarily. the wider range of items a brand makes the harder it becomes to make a generalised statement about liking a brand. large companies have different design teams that can specialise in different ranges of gear, one team could be mediocre another could be brilliant...
nothing can be all things to all people... i buy items of various brands with caution, some items i like a lot i wouldnt trust.

Agree with you on this wayno. Flat out finding 2 things of the same brand in my pack. Ok, both socks are the same brand

Tasadam, have you documented your iPood mod? Can you still collapse it? The clip is annoying, but the collapsible design is otherwise good.

brands i currently own in no particular order

macpac
black diamond
kathmandu
outdoor research
montane
icebreaker
mountain designs
exped
fairydown
the north face
salomon
columbia
MSR
Lorpen
everwarm
snowgum
sea to summit
thermarest
camelbak
platypus
source
inov8
lowa
rab

other brands i'd be happy to own if i can convince myself to pay what they charge
arcteryx
mammut
haglofs
norrona
66 north
mountain equipement
scarpa
hillberg

It is easier for companies focused on specific items to maintain common design philosophy than brands that try to be everything to everybody, well at least in my opinion. I agree with Wayno and reinforced by Photohiker that gear selection is critical. To me it is finding companies' who's design philosophy mirrors mine.

The problem is in part marketing hype masking a designer's view. A designer may have a clear idea of what they are aiming for but the marketing side aiming for the biggest market share can set expectations that will fail resulting in dissatisfaction. A classic example to me is Montane. Montane to me now are a company that seeks to minimize garment weight while covering off on expected high wear points. For many uses such as track walking this is an excellent design approach as you get a lighter garment that will wear well. But the when heading off track the weak points become apparent and an expensive garment gets labelled a failure as holes appear.

The problem is in part what is the definition of bushwalking. Back in Paddy Pallin's day it was heading somewhere by compass bearing so gear had to be simple and solid and if that mean it was not as comfortable as some expected then tough. A friend originating from Scotland mentioned fellwalking where open moors means no epic battles with scrub. So if Montane, being from the UK, considers this bushwalking then it is not surprising that they will not understand horizontal scrub and the harsh scratchy plants that make up Aussie bush.

The problem is what happens when you buy a product that is not suitable based on marketing and reviewers glossing over points? For me it is how much spin was spun. Brands I like take great effort to point out products that differ from their main stream items. Hilleberg for example make a single skin shelter but point out is not a tent so does not have the twin layers of protection. Forewarn you can consider this.

My puzzle is the MSR Nook. It is typical MSR having a hub that some people see as a weak point and a few typical MSR design approaches. By that, non closeable mesh to name but one. I knew all that when I brought it and in an autumn camp it was a great place to be and remarkable light plus beautifully built. However, pitched at Lake Sandra in a freezing wind it was a very unpleasant place to be. A friend impressed by the specifications was keen to buy one but after I lent him it at Lake Myrtle in snow he lost interest. He is a very experienced walker but still fell for the paper specifications. I suppose I am use to Hillebergs design so MSR trade-offs are not to my liking but to a MSR convert it is a brilliant bit of gear.

A designer I respect commented that getting wrapped up in metres of water head for a tent fly is a joke. Yes 10,000mm water head sounds great but that ten tonnes of for one square metre so what pole design is going to support that? His approach is work on what is the maximum water head you need to survive the fastest windblown rain that the tent will stand up in and then put the weight saved into beefing up the floor.

Also what kills most tents? More than few people have found it is age when they after their kids get to bushwalking age find that their tent has fallen apart in storage. Sure it ten years ago might have withstood Everest but not today. Maybe in retrospect a designer for the majority of users would have been better selecting a material that was less likely to breakdown in storage?

I am very wary of "expedition" marketing. "Fred Nerk goes extreme places and we fitted him out so our products are great for you." Honestly, who believes that a F1 car is a practical form of transport? I am not the Bear. I much prefer to see designers heading bush and coming back wiser than learning from after expedition close out meetings. It is great to see your pack designer slogging over the OLT as her or she has a new understanding how annoying that slipping buckle can be. On day I hope all pack designers will look upon the Berghaus flap waist buckle as a design worth stealing. There is a little bit of Berghaus pack design on more than a couple of my packs.

Cheers

Interesting, Ent.

You read and absorb designer/manufacturer blurb, and hold them to it when it fails to meet the blurb, ie Montane.

I hardly even look at the blurb. I look at the product if I can and I read owner comments about it. If it's all positive, I then may read the blurb, before I buy, but not guaranteed.

If a product fails to meet my expectations, I blame me. (Well, unless there has been a material failure that should not have happened, ie warranty fault.) A failure does impact my ideas of future purchases from that manufacturer though, so I guess I do blame them somewhat.

Different strokes for different folks I guess. Lots of choices out there and life's too short to go around ranting about a failure that is probably more my fault than the manufacturer's. I don't have many failures though, and I generally have lighter gear than you. Maybe I'm just lighter on my gear, or don't thrash about in the rough stuff as much.

somethings wrong with a brand if they can't make gear that functions according to their blurb, it means either they dont really understand how to design the gear correctly or they are just selling on hype... there are brands out there who pretty much make what they say they make, htey know it and they tend to charge extra for what they make for whatever reason... e it extra cost in making better gear or getting more back for the hard work they put in getting the gear that good in the first place

True, but that shouldn't be the reason we buy it.

Blurb is blurb. There has to be an essence of truth about it, but no way I'm trusting blurb. I know marketing people. Much better to make choices on visible product features and other user's reviews.

I am fairly sure that marketers of outdoor products are no more (or less) 'honest' than the marketers of toothpaste, fitness products or other things that catch our eye every day.

I liked the initial premise of this thread: that the ideal design philosophy is one that includes real life testing by manufacturers (ie the individuals, not just the organisation) of their own products. It's also known as 'eating your own dog food' (yuk). I don't know that having the key design staff is a prerequisite for producing products that better meet user needs - although I am sure it helps!

I feel we can get a bit hung up on specific feature comparisons. Perhaps having the best/most features is a test of fitness for purpose, or more exactly, for a particular purpose. ie. the needs of one hiker will be different to another. But (1) features can and do change regularly and (2) not all features are equal.

If we are going to attempt to categorise a manufacturer according to the design philosophy we will need to come up with a better means for making the comparison. Maybe features to come into it , but not at a micro level. It would be more about a general view of how the manufacturer adds/removes features. IIt would have to relate to the utility of the features. And it would have to relate to the quality and durability of the products.

One last thing. I think the design philosophy of a manufacturer is a major component in defining their brand. Eg A commitment to ruggedness is what defines Hilleberg.

ideally its a good partnership with the designers and as many testers as you can get who can use the gear in the way intended, the designers listen to the testers and give them what works, and they keep changing the design until they have what works in the conditions it was designed for..

Not sure whether we are talking about design philosophy, or design method now, but personally I can't understand how someone can possibly design with understanding unless they are a user of product. That's I why I have filled the rooms here with outdoor enthusiasts. When the persons are playing with their toys they make better toys.

I know Brett loves to go 180 degrees the other way with pretty much everything I say, but his first 3 sentences in the original post are spot on when it comes to method. (not sure how you'll find fault there..) And the link I posted sums up a good philosophy for design.

I certainly don't subscribe to a belief that one company can only make one product line well. Most medium to large size companies have multiple teams working on projects in different product streams, with a creative director ensuring the brands character (philosphy) is captured in the different products. Macpac for example has 8 designers/ product developers involved on collaborative and indiviual projects. They each have specialty areas where they take the lead roles, and collaborate on other projects.

Can this approach create greatness in different categories? Sony do ok, apple do ok, nike do ok, bmw do ok, porshe do ok, terence conran does ok,arcteryx do ok as do many many more compaines that do more than one item.