Dan here....a couple quick comments:
Wait TimeYeah 8 months is a bummer. The factory needs 6 months and then there's a bit of time for shipping, quality inspection etc. The factory needs 6 months because they have a bit of a wait, and then they get their machines dialed in (to cut fabric panels), then they send a few early production tents to us to ensure quality and then when they have the green light they make the bulk of the batch. Not much that can be done. I'd console you and say they'll be ready for hiking season in 2019, but I know the seasons are opposite from North America in Australia.
Sil/PU PolyFolks have been using various lightweight polyesters for several years now and we are seeing more and more companies switching to poly (e.g. SMD, Yama, UGQ). Certainly the tear strength isn't as high, but I think the field evidence shows that it's high enough. I'm not aware of a single 20D poly shelter that has failed. I'm sure one will eventually somewhere, but folks are generally quite pleased. Note that companies are using 20D, 15D and 10D polyesters and folks are widely pleased with the 20D and 15D fabrics. I do agree that 10D polyesters are pushing it a bit much. Those seem to fail occasionally.
It's also worth nothing that while the tear strength of poly is lower, the abrasion resistance tends to be the same or higher (see link below). And adding PU improves the abrasion resistance further. So for applications like a floor, a sil/PU polyester may outlast silnylon. With that said, I think the durability of both of quite sufficient so this is largely an academic point rather than a practical one.
https://ripstopbytheroll.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/article_attachments/218817688/Lightweight_coated_non-breathable_fabric_quick_compre_chart_1024x1024.pngThe nice practical advantages of sil/PU poly are that you get a non slippery floor, no sag in the rain and you can seam tape it so no user seam taping is required. I can understand sticking with silnylon for mountaineering shelters out of caution, but I think the practical benefits of poly outweight the academic loss in tear strength for lightweight bushwalking.
A final point here: the UV resistance of poly is far higher than nylon. So it is quite possible that poly ends up with a higher tear strength after a couple years. If you're interested in more reading on this, check out:
https://backpackinglight.com/forums/top ... urability/StratoSpire ComplexityI'll stay out of this topic, other than to say that it's not just me that thinks the StratoSpire is tricky to pitch. Okay a few more words....I think Franco got incredibly lucky in that video to guess all those angles and distances correctly on the first go. You can certainly stake out a rectangle to start as Franco did, but because the fly is a hexagon it doesn't have fabric panels dictating all of these stake points. Many of them must be estimated. Don't get me wrong I like the StratoSpire a lot - just not pitching it.
X-Mid vs Other TentsI'll comment explaining why the X-Mid is much different than the StratoSpire and Sierra Designs High Route 1, but first, here is that diagram again for reference:
![oKr0xk0xT9WYo0RAd06g_ScreenShot2018-07-07at9.42.10AM.png.jpeg (65.42 KiB) Viewed 70169 times oKr0xk0xT9WYo0RAd06g_ScreenShot2018-07-07at9.42.10AM.png.jpeg](./download/file.php?id=48131&t=1&sid=0a61ec934a2a3bd5196cc6a22f011f46)
The X-Mid doesn't simply delete the vestibules off the SS1 to achieve a rectangle shape (as SD High Route 1 does) because that would be fraught with the same downsides that led TarpTent to go beyond the rectangle in the first place (e.g. vertical walls, mandatory guylines, no vestibules). Instead, the X-Mid implements several new ideas so that for the first time, a twin pole rectangle can offer all the advantages of a twin pole hexagon (e.g. vestibules, no guylines) without the downsides of a hexagon (e.g. more stakes, more seams, heavier, pitching complexity). The key innovation here is the combination of the wider rectangle + rotated diagonal inner + peaks moved inwards to create a stable shape. Compared to the HR1 (or a StratoSpire with the vestibules chopped off), the X-Mid uses a wider rectangle which allows the inner to be rotated onto a diagonal relative to the fly. When the inner is rotated like this, it creates vestibules and allows the poles/peaks to be moved inwards from the edges to achieve that ultra simple 4 stake pitch without guylines. Thus it becomes the first rectangular tent to avoid all the common pitfalls of rectangular tents (e.g. lack of headroom, poles in the way, mandatory guylines, vertical side walls, lack of vestibules). Note that this rotated inner is unlike the rotated inner in the Stratospire: The inner of the StratoSpire is on a diagonal relative to the ridgeline but still square to the sides of the fly, whereas the X-Mid inner is diagonal to both the ridgeline and all sides of the fly. In that sense it is "double diagonal". So while both the X-Mid and Stratospire have some diagonals going on, they are very different designs.
I think the rectangular base + "double diagonal" inner concept results in a large improvement in design. Compared to the SS1, the X-Mid is much lighter (28oz seam taped vs ~34oz un-seam sealed), much simpler to pitch, packs smaller (stores horizontally in a pack), better snow shedding, far fewer seams and yet has similarly generous living space. It has almost as much inner floor area, slightly more vestibule area and notably more headroom than the SS1 because the ridgeline is about the same height but over a longer span of the inner. So basically simpler, lighter, more functional, more spacious and far more affordable. And since the X-Mid is poly there's no fabric sag in wet conditions, no seam sealing required (it's seam taped) and no slippery floor. Compared to the HR1, the X-Mid is again far lighter (28oz vs 37oz) and offers similarly generous headroom while solving all of the HR1s downsides (no vestibules, requires guylines, vertical side walls, struggles in high winds).
If you look at tent designs, you can find any individual feature in some older, pre-existing tent. What makes a tent unique is the combination of elements that it provides. Here, the X-Mid is the only tent in history (to my knowledge) to use a diagonal inner inside a rectangular fly. In an era with so many extremely similar tents, I think it is striking that the basic layout of the X-Mid is unprecedented.