Guest - Not logged in 

  /Browse ALL reviews
  /How to be a tester
  /Conversion Tool
  /About Us
  /Contact Us
  /Yahoo Mailing Lists
  /Registered Member Login

The Bylaws
v. 0609

Appendix 6

The Appendices are provided as detailed explanations and backgrounds of the policies and procedures of  Each Appendix contains delineated topic Sections that are not necessarily related.  Appendices are included to provide additional explanations, clarifications, and resources.  They are not required reading, but you may be referred to them if you require further information on a certain subject.  They represent the collected body of knowledge about many topics. 

The Appendices are written and edited by the Moderator Team of, with contributions gleaned from the email of the BackpackGearTest group.


Appendix 1 - How Works
Appendix 2 - Editing
Appendix 3 - About Rules and How to Change Them
Appendix 4 - Test Calls, Test Applications, Newbie Rule
Appendix 5 - The Apprentice Program
Appendix 6 - All About Report Writing
Appendix 7 - A Lesson in Pictures
Appendix 8 - Copyright, Fair Use, and Links Policies

Back to Bylaws

APPENDIX 6 - All About Report Writing


  1. Thinking Like a Tester
  2. POLICY - External Links
  3. POLICY - Gear Maintenance, Repair, and Alteration
  4. POLICY - Manufacturer Interference
  5. Notes on Projecting
  6. Summary of Report Content - Andy Mytys, BGT Tester
  7. Tester Biographies - Andrew Priest, Senior Edit Moderator
  8. Miscellaneous Notes - Jerry Goller, Chief Edit Moderator
  9. Fair and Balanced Reporting - How Tests

1. Thinking Like a Tester - Shane Steinkamp, BGT Moderator

Being a new tester, I am unsure as to what all would be nice to see in a report - I know what I like to see but I also know there are other things that others would like to see that I don't necessarily think of.

'Thinking like a tester' is a skill that you will develop over time. I always try to approach a report with the consideration that the person reading the report has never heard of such an item before. If you do that, you eliminate a lot of assumptions.

Let's use the insect repellents.  What if I asked you to describe the bottles and how the product came out?  If you're not thinking like a tester, you might say, "Well, DUH! It comes in a bottle and you squirt some out and rub it on you. It's insect repellent!"

Well, if I've never seen or used insect repellent before, I might not know what it is. I might assume that it's some kind of tape for instance, and I might imagine that insect repellent comes in a roll and I tear off a piece of tape and stick it to myself to be protected. While that seems kind of an inane example, it becomes very important for things like GPS units or other new technologies.

The second thing to keep in mind is that you should be writing reports that you would want to read. If you follow this, and the consideration above, you will rarely go wrong.

I also like to consider all the functions of the gear I am testing. There is some kind of inverse rule that says, "The simpler an item is, the more uses it will have." To illustrate that, a pack is...well...a pack. You put things in it and carry it around. There are only so many uses a pack has. A towel, on the other hand, is far simpler than a pack, but has MANY more uses. Of course, every item has a basic function. The basic function of a flashlight is to provide light. The basic function of a cigarette lighter is to make fire. The basic function of a tent is to provide shelter. You should evaluate the item based primarily on this function, but also consider ALL other reasonably possible functions, and how the item performs in different conditions and in different functions.

To use the cigarette lighter as an example, it's basic function is fire. How well does it do that? How well does it light or burn in different positions? In the wind? In the rain? In the cold? In the heat? Under water?

After that, you start considering other uses. Often these other uses will be dependent on the objects qualities. Is the case shiny? How might that be useful? Can it be broken into component parts? How might each of those parts be used independently of the others?

You might not include all those things in your report, but you may discover things that you do want to include.


2. POLICY - EXTERNAL LINKS - Shane Steinkamp, BGT Moderator

Can I include links to retailers or other resources in my reports?

With rare exception (like my HH video) they aren't allowed. You can link to internal bookmarks, other reports on, and you may also have a link to your personal hiking page.

Without paying too much attention, I have been the worst culprit when it comes to violating this rule, and I have been spanked for it. I'm in the process of removing all external links from my reports. I've got a lot of fixing to do...

With the Magellan IR, I stripped them all out and just left the Additional Resources link to a page on my personal hiking website that I maintain. I think that this is within the rules, but I've done it as more of an experiment to see how I like the idea. We may think about hosting something like this in the future on If we have an Articles section, then we could all contribute to it and simply have a link in our reports that says, "If you want to learn more about GPS, then see the GPS page in our Articles Section." Time brings all things...

So, to answer your question directly, the policy as it stands is that NO external links are allowed EXCEPT for links to:
  • A Manufacturer's HOME page.
  • A vendor or distributor's HOME page, when that vendor or distributor is directly responsible for the Manufacturer's product.
    • in the Magellan reports.
  • RETAIL links like are NOT allowed.
  • A link to a testers personal hiking website, and with rare exception, this should be the HOME page of that site as well.

Active testers should try to remove external links that do not fit this policy from their existing reports at their continence. This is not a requirement, but the policy will be enforced more stringently in the future.

BGT Moderator

3. POLICY - Gear Maintenance, Repair, and Alteration - Shane Steinkamp, BGT Moderator

Can I modify gear that I received for testing?

The short answer is, "No.  Gear may not be altered in any way before the close of the LTR."

The clever folks, of course, want to know the definition of 'alter', so here is the policy:

  1. Gear should be tested, as far as possible, as delivered from the manufacturer.
    1. If the gear is unserviceable without the modification, the Moderators will make a determination.
  2. No destructive or permanent modification should be made to the item.
    1. EXCEPTION 1:  Some gear is designed to be altered by the end user.  Pack straps, for instance, are always provided over-long so that they may be trimmed to a user's packing preference.  It is OK to trim such straps, because the gear is designed for this.
    2. EXCEPTION 2:  The manufacturer will sometimes recommend a modification under certain conditions or circumstances.  Such a modification should only be made with Moderator approval.
    3. EXCEPTION 3:  Some gear is specifically designed to be fitted to the user.  Footbeds are sometimes an example of this, and the fitting process is not considered a modification, per se.
  3. A destructive or permanent modification is anything that fundamentally changes the function of a piece of gear.
    1. When in doubt, ask the Moderators.
  4. This policy is suspended whenever a situation arises in the field that is a matter of life and limb, or a matter of health and safety.  Safety considerations are always a priority, and no tester should at any time place himself or herself in any danger or jeopardy while testing gear.
    1. Such a circumstance may be minor, such as taping the straps on a pair of sandals because they are causing blisters.
    2. Such a circumstance may be major, such as burning your tent in order to create a signal to rescuers.
    3. Such a circumstance may fall in the middle.  A good example of this was the Keen Newport H2 test, where Colleen was forced to cut the straps on the Newport H2s as a matter of health and safety.
    4. Where the circumstance is such that the gear itself created the situation, a determination will be made by the Moderators if the action was warranted, and if the tester acted reasonably, then the tester will not have to replace the gear.
    5. Where the circumstance is such that the gear itself did not create the situation - as in burning the tent to get rescued - the gear will have to be replaced by the tester.
  5. Minor repair of damage is allowed.
    1. "If I put a small hole in 30 denier nylon because I dropped my crampons into the bag, I would go ahead and patch it." - David Anderson
  6. Repair in the field is allowed if the repair is essential to the function of the gear.
    1. If the shoulder straps pull out of a pack, you're obviously going to have to try to fix that in the field, otherwise you're going to have to carry it in your arms.
QUESTION & ANSWER - David Anderson, BGT Moderator

I know we're not supposed to alter the gear we're testing until we're done with the long term report...but how far does that go? Can we repair small tears, etc. that our gear might suffer or do we have to let it go? As a normal user, I'd re-sew torn seams or mesh but as a tester can I do that?

It depends on the nature and severity of the failure. If the failure was minor, easily fixable and obviously my fault due to some sort of abuse, I would go ahead and fix it as long as I was really confident in my ability to work with the material.

If I put a small hole in 30 denier nylon because I dropped my crampons into the bag, I would go ahead and patch it.  If a strap starts pulling out of the same nylon, the moderator should contact the manufacturer about it.  A torn seam, we should get in touch with the manufacturer.  A hole in the mesh, you should just sew up, but mention in your report.

If you are not sure, then ask.

Also, can I make non-permanent modifications and then comment on their utility? Specifically, I'm testing the Moonlite pack and I can use the vest harness as a full-chest version of a fanny pack if I get a few sliders to run the back straps through when it's not attached to the pack. They're not permanent so they'd not affect the use of the harness when attached to the pack but would allow me to use it for more than just carrying the pack. At about $2 for the sliders, it would provide a lot of additional utility for little effort/investment.

This is fine. It's like trying a larger tarp over your hammock. It's nice extra information, but the test should still be mostly about the hammock with the supplied fly or the vest harness with the pack.

The other alteration I had in mind was to add buckles to the straps and move them outside the pad pocket. The Moonlite's straps feed into the pad pocket and into sliders attached to straps sewn to the pack. This keeps attachment points inside where they don't get snagged. But it also means adjustments can only be made with the pack off (or by someone else while you're wearing it). I would like to try to evaluate the utility of moving the attachments out of the pocket by adding a few lengths of nylon web strap, sliders, and buckles. Then with the attachments outside the pack I could make adjustments on the fly as I'm hiking without taking the pack off. This alteration would also not be permanent or destructive.

This is getting outside of what we do. We are testing what the manufacturer provides, as a customer without the skills to add straps would use it. You certainly should not do this before the field report because you need to review how well it does work as designed. After the field report, you can bring it up again, but it will probably only get approved if the modifications are minor.

I've seen reviews where people make suppositions about whether a modification might be useful for the gear they're testing but they don't actually have any field experience with the modification so it's up to the manufacturer or user to decide whether it's worth changing. By trying the alterations I've noted I can test the pack as designed and delivered but also with my bright ideas incorporated and then report whether they worked or not. I would think that's more helpful than just presenting a "wish list" with a presumed value to it.

But if you like your modifications too much, you might not put in the time to learn how to use the pack as designed. Read how things went for us with the Hennessy Snake Skins in the Explorer Deluxe reports. If we tried making our own larger ones, we never would have figured out how to get them to work as supplied.

4. POLICY - Manufacturer Interference - Shane Steinkamp, BGT Moderator

If ever, in the process of testing any gear, any tester receives any email from a manufacturer that attempts to influence, intimidate, or threaten any tester, then that tester should immediately forward that message either to the Test Moderator or to Jerry directly.

Manufacturers should NOT normally be in contact with the testers directly.  (Except for exchanges, etc.)  That isn't to say that manufacturers can't offer explanations, answer questions, provide additional information, or make suggestions.  *IF* they do so, however, that should be done on list and in the open.  (Aaron at Brasslite is a good example of an involved Manufacturer who is involved here in an open manner.) Manufacturers are actually encouraged to participate on the list, and to make comments, etc.  What we're talking about here is one of a few things:

1. Bribes
2. Threats
3. Anything else that you feel is inappropriate.

If you think a Manufacturer is bullying you, refer them to us.  Ya'll don't get paid enough for that kind of thing...

If a Manufacturer approaches you after the conclusion of a Report Series, or in reference to a posted Owner Review and offers something to you or requests something of you, you should also clear that with the Moderators.  Testers, Moderators, and Manufacturers alike are held to a high ethical standard in this regard, and it is best to do something in the open than to do something in secret.

Shane Steinkamp, BGT Moderator

5. Notes on Projecting - Various

The policy on Projecting is found in Appendix 2.  These notes are provided as additional information for Testers.

I have noticed a trend in my reports about using "you". It gets edited out as projection. I would like some more clarification on this so I can eliminate some edits for my Long Term Report. I guess I don't know what projection is? When do I use it, when not?

Reply by Andy Mytys, Veteran BGT Tester

The way I get around the "you" issue is twofold.

First, I try as hard as I can to always use "I", "me", "My experience has been", etc.  But, there are some things that I want to say is going to happen to YOU, but I don't want to use YOU because it's projecting.  What I do is just write the report, projection aside. Then, when proofreading, I search for all instances of "you" and rewrite those sections using "one".  For example:

"This characteristic can be frustrating, as it tends to pop out just when you think it is successfully installed back into its position.

rewritten as

"This characteristic can be frustrating, as it tends to pop out just when one thinks it is successfully installed back into its position."

Other examples -

"The bite-valve is designed with the intent of assuring that water only exits when one desires" - from "...when you desire."

"One has to pull the bite-valve up in order to turn the flow of water on." - from "You have to pull..."

"In order to draw water from the tube, however, one not only has to make sure the bite-valve is in the "out" position, but one also must bite down on the valve, opening the access hole and releasing the water within" - from "... you not only have to make sure the bite- valve is in the "out" position, but you also must bite down..."

"regular inspection of the feet and prompt mending of any issues encountered is paramount to being able to keep one's feet comfortable over long hikes in the field."

"That said, one should not make the mistake that the Bite X-Trac OS Sandals, or any sandals for that matter, come close to offering the level of protection to one's foot that boots, or even sneakers, do."

You get the idea. I hope this helps!


6. Summary of Report Content - Andy Mytys, BGT Tester

The IR is a good place to limit your "out of box" experience, spit out your emotions upon opening the box, measure your stats (hard numbers, no opinions) against the manufacturers, critique the website, outline your test plan, etc.

The field report should be heavy in field data.

The long-term should continue with field data, perhaps in new conditions as the additional four months have exposed you to new seasons.

I also save my final reservations as to what I like/don't like to the LT report now. There was just too much of "now I get the design" going on as the tests progressed for me to be comfortable with making any statements that could possibly by retracted by a subsequent report.

By limiting the field test to what actually happened in the field, there's really not much to retract.

There will always be exceptions, but in general this is the format I am using. It also helps to give me something to focus on and write in each report, rather than having one HUGE report and little to say in the others.


7. Tester Biographies - Andrew Priest, Senior Edit Moderator

Please remember, bios are not to be your life story, we don't need to know every track you have hiked, or how long you have been a scout, scout leader and so on. We don't need to know your pack content.

We do need a brief (read concise) overview of your hiking experience and a brief (read concise) overview of your backpacking style.

For an example of a good bio, please take a look at Rick Allnut's Fanatic Fringe Thompson Peak Pack Field Report. Rick's bio is repeated here:

"Over the last several years, I have become an ultralight camper with a three-season base pack weight of about 11 lb (5 kg) and skin out weight of
20 lb (9 kg). I have completed many section hikes on the Appalachian Trail (AT) in all four seasons, with a total mileage of nearly 450 miles (725 km). I am a gearhead, a hammock camper, and make much of my own equipment." [65 words]

For an example of a bio pushing the limit, take a look at mine, which is repeated here:

"I have been hiking in Western Australia for approximately five years. For the past four years I have been regularly walking and now leading walks with the Perth Bushwalkers Club. These bushwalks range from all on-track to all off-track pack-carries. I consider myself as moving towards being a lightweight tent-carrying bushwalker with my pack base weight in the 8 to 12 kg (18 to 26 lb) range. In 2003 I completed my End to End of the Bibbulmun Track. I have also end to ended the Cape to Cape Track and the Coastal Plains Walk Track." [91 words]


Andrew Priest
Senior Edit Moderator and List Moderator

8. Miscellaneous Notes - Jerry Goller, Chief Edit Moderator

A.  No Standard Format

There is a reason that we don't insist on a standard format. Shane likes to write long, detailed technical reports. That's fine. Some people like to read long, detailed reports. Is this the new bar for Initial Reportss? NO! Write your own report! Include what *you* think is important and nothing else. If your Monitor or Moderator tells you the report is thin, then you're going to have to expand on some of it. Does that mean that it has to be as big and detailed as Shane's report? NO. As Shane will be the first to tell you, the variations in styles of and content in the reports is one of the strengths of That's how we relay all the info we do. Different style reports from different testers and for different readers. Do I think Shane's report is too long? Well, it is a bit wordy...but then, so is Shane..... ;o) I don't want report length and detail to get out of hand. We still get teased on other lists about describing the UPS man the delivered the package. The reports should be as small as they can be and as big as they need to be.


9. Fair and Balanced Reporting - How Tests

A. GENERAL COMMENTS - Andy Mytys, Tester - March, 2003

First, [some backpacking magazines have] publicly admitted to not printing reviews that trash gear. So, they won't tell you what's bad, only great, good, and so-so gear.

Second, [those] reviewers are paid... it's their job. Forget about [magazine] revenues for a while. If you were making your bread and butter doing something cool like testing gear, wouldn't you want to keep that job? If you slammed every piece of gear that came across the table, most likely [the magazine] would dump you as you would have no value. They would be paying you for work that would never get published.

Sounds like a flawed system.

Here, nobody controls what I put in my reports so long as I justify the results. I can't say "this pack sucks". But I can, and did, say that "the weak materials used in the construction of the pack's bottom and draw cord are of great concern. My experience shows that this pack has short-term durability issues. Entertaining a conversation on 'long term uses' is, at this point, senseless." That's pretty much a WARNING to the consumer if I ever heard one, and can definitely have a negative impact on sales. But, if you read my report it is totally justified.

Furthermore, we have multiple reports that are published... not just one. So, for the Granite Gear Ozone pack for example, Andrew Priest's review might have me bypassing the pack. He SHREDDED it. Well, the pack just isn't made for bushwhacking. I can read another report, of a hiker who just used it on regular trails, maybe something I identify more with, and they had NO issues. So, the pack is a dud for bushwhacking, but maybe it's great for other types of hiking.

Is Granite Gear pissed at I don't know. I don't care. They gave us gear, we tested that gear, and we reported the results fairly and accurately. Nobody said "don't take this pack bushwhacking".

I have yet to receive communication from the people controlling that, due to my negative tone in my product reviews, I will no longer have the opportunity to test gear in the future unless things change.

On the contrary, I have been told by many that my reports are thorough and well written, and I have been selected to participate in the Western Mountaineering Flight Jacket and the Leki Air Ergo Ti trekking pole test.

This is the second time that Leki has come to us. If you read their first experience, they got slammed. Not only did the testers get to keep the gear, not only did Leki get some negative remarks in the reviews, but now they've come back for more punishment (just kidding) and have come to the table with 3 products... a total of 9 sets of poles and more than $1000 worth of product. Why? Perhaps they fixed the problems that CLEARLY IDENTIFIED in our last test, and they value us not only for our ability to test gear and be honest and impartial, but for the free engineering feedback that we provide.

Do you think [other magazines have] time to get into such detail? Certainly not in their published reports. Any manufacturer will bow down and give BP gear because they are BP. If they won't publish a negative review, you have nothing to lose. However, if they put a mention of your product in their mag[azine], you're in the money.

[Those magazines are] there to service the [backpacking] community at some level... I really do believe this. However, you have to dovetail "service" with "profit". If it is non-value added, they don't do it. I would think that any relationship that [the magazines] would have with manufacturers would be very one-sided. testers are not paid. We deliver fantastic tests (well, we try to) and deliver WAY MORE in terms of information to the manufacturer than just a rehash of their features and a "thumbs up" (read any of the current "Editor's Choice" reviews in BP for an idea of what I'm talking about). All [the magazine] does is describe features. The don't have the space for detail. Poor, poor, manufacturers.

Lets say we did give a manufacturer back their gear. In many cases, it would come back dirty, torn, bent, etc. Off to the dumpster in most cases, I would suspect. It just isn't worth the trouble for the manufacturer. I would hope that, in some cases, the manufacturer would recall a test product after reading about damage, in the interest of seeing firsthand what occurred. As a tester, I would be more than happy to support this.

The free gear is out of practicality, more than anything else. I suppose it could be viewed as "gratitude" for the time spent testing. But, once again, because many of our reviews highlight the poor quality of gear, I don't see how anyone can say that we are biased. They're just saying, "Thanks for your time".

There's absolutely nothing in writing or pressure put on testers for good reviews here.

I challenge someone to find something to the contrary.

Getting back to my upcoming tests. Let's think about this for a second. Read any test I have done in the past 6-months. They are LONG, thorough, and I go out of my way to use gear in ways that are not straight forward. I'm ANAL. If there's something wrong with the gear, I'm going to find it and report on it.

Western Mountaineering is a prized company for, I would think. They make awesome products. Certainly, any tester here drools at the thought of getting one of their bags or jackets for free. Jerry also gets lots of credibility, because they are a fairly large, well known, company. This is the first time WM has come up to the plate with - you would think Jerry and the gang would want to impress them.

Yet, who's testing the product? An a-hole like me. It's not like I need another piece of gear... by basement looks like REI. I also have a well paying job... $175 is not like winning the lottery to me. I'm not going to kiss anybody's a$$ here. I have a free jacket in hand. As long as I write three reports, nobody can take it away from me (well, the vendor is free to, based on defects we find, stop the test and pull their product... that has happened before).

I have not gotten a letter from anyone saying "hey... go easy on these guys... we want to make a good impression so that they give us more 'stuff' in the future". I got fed the jacket because I had a thorough and interesting test plan laid out and, based on previous reports, the staff of feels that I will do a great job, irrespective of any conclusions that I might reach.

The jacket that I'm getting is a winter parka. How much testing is really going to be done my most? Even if winter was in full swing... if you use it as a jacket you say how warm it is, how light is is, report on down leakage and material wear... not much else. I'm proposing carrying it in the 3-season as well, using it to augment my 45 F bag. It will see a lot of trail miles over the next 6-mos, and the jacket will not be shielded under some Gore-Tex parka. My test unit is going to get a TON of use, and I will be expecting a lot from it.

If wanted a sure-fire positive report and brown nose Western Mountaineering, there's no way in "you know where" I would have been selected as a tester. Too much risk.

You want to talk fair??? I don't see how anyone can claim that is biased? Look at the facts. is the big league, in terms of testing. Based on our readership, vendors are enticed to participate. If they're smart, they send only the best gear they have so it has a chance of getting a good review. If they're smart, they'll start asking to beta-test products in the pipe so they can get them right, and not have to worry about picking "only the good stuff". has made a glorious stadium for testing gear. We've got a first rate team. The manufacturers are invited to step up to the plate. Whether they hit a home run or strike out is up to the batter - the piece of gear - it has nothing to do with the owner of one team or another (Jerry -vs- the gear manufacturer) and the testers are not their to coddle the product. They're not their to strike it out either, but they will pitch their best fastball and, at times, pitch a curveball or a slider in an effort to see if the batter should be in the big-leagues, or sent back to t-ball.

I said, for one, Jerry pays for the site out of his pocket (that is correct right?)

That has nothing to do with the tester getting free gear. It's not like I slip Jerry a "fiver" at the end of the test period.


I would like to make a point here and this is an excellent post to do it with. I have to admit, I cringed when I saw Andy's name as a tester. He certainly goes out of his way to push a product to the limit. I have no problem with long as he doesn't go *over* the limit. While I like to know the limits of a piece of gear too, using a piece of gear beyond it's intended purposes is simply demonstrating ignorance. We've all read the posts from people that felt their pack should be replaced free because it failed even though they threw it off a cliff or out of the back of a moving pick up truck. That doesn't demonstrate testing the product to it's limits and beyond. That is just showing ignorance.

I don't think Andy is going to do that. He knows his gear and understands the concept of "intended use". I'd be surprised to see him wear a Flight while bushwhacking, even though WM doesn't specifically say you can't. They don't say you can't pour gasoline on it, light it, and expect it to survive either. All light and ultralight gear has limitations in the amount of abuse it will take. It's all part of the trade off. Hell, heavy weight gear does too, for that matter. When you're testing gear keep in mind that this isn't destructive testing. I have absolutely no problems with taking an item to it's obvious limits. Just don't go beyond those limits then express surprise when the item fails. This is true in both testing and in regular ownership use. I own a Flight personally. I love that jacket. I would never abuse it and do take care of it...almost to the point of babying it. But I did the same thing with my 4 pound Gore-Tex jackets when they came out. I realize I may well be unusual in how easy I treat my gear. I certainly don't expect testers to do the same thing. I do expect them to use the gear in a fairly reasonable way while still finding out what it can do. It's just fair and reasonable.... ;o) That is also why I have sleeping bags that are almost 15 years old and look brand new. With that said <crosses fingers and winces>, take your best shot, Andy.


C.  FOLLOW UP COMMENTS - Andy Mytys, Tester

> While I like to know the limits of a piece of gear too, using a piece of gear beyond it's intended purposes is simply demonstrating ignorance.

I totally agree.

As a tester, I hardly get a piece of gear and say "Oh boy, free gear, let's beat the crap out of it and use my report to complain".

I treat test gear in the same manner that I would if I bought it. I value my gear. If you were to look at the majority of the gear that I own, you would think I never even go hiking with it. It all looks so new. That's because I clean my gear after every trip, store it in a dry place, and follow any instructions given to me by the manufacturer... at times even the vendor.

For example, when I bought last my WM sleeping bag, my outfitter told me not to store my bag in the basement as there's too much moisture in the air. That same vendor told me not to keep my bag in the trunk of my car, in it's stuff sack, when traveling in the summertime. He suggested that, as soon as I get to the car, I store the sleeping bag in the back seat and, if possible, take it out of it's stuff sack. This guy clearly felt that the more a down bag could breath in a dry environment, without experiencing temperature extremes or excess amounts of moisture or packing, the better. It all made sense to me, and this is what I do to this day.

I've honestly only had a couple pieces of gear ever fail on me as a result. Two returns due to issues with material, and one product that works, but not always, and I keep because it works enough of the time and there have not been any perfect designs to hit the market yet which would guarantee better results.

I'm hardly the gear ogre that some may take me for.

Dual use just makes sense though and, where applicable, I recommend it in order to obtain a lower pack weight, and get the most bang for you buck.


Product tested and reviewed in each Formal Test Report has been provided free of charge by the manufacturer to Upon completion of the Test Series the writer is permitted to keep the product. Owner Reviews are based on product owned by the reviewer personally unless otherwise noted.

If you are an avid backpacker, we are always looking for enthusiastic, quality reviewers. Apply here to be a gear tester.

All material on this site is the exclusive property of
BackpackGearTest software copyright David Anderson