Field Report

Field Report of
Outdoor Research Hydrolite Stuff Sack
By Michael Jay Lissner
13 March 2004

Contents of Review:
1. Tester Biographical Information
2. Backpacking Background
3. Product Information
4. Product Description
5. Description of Tests
6. Comments
7. Plans for Further Testing
8. Conclusions

1. Tester Biographical Information:
Name: Michael Jay Lissner
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Height: 198 cm (6' 6")
Weight: 86 kg (185 lb)
Email Address: yourmothership at hotmail dot com
City of Current Residence: San Diego, California / Claremont, California

2. Backpacking Background:
I was first introduced to backpacking through the Boy Scouts of America, and it was my love of backpacking that made me stick all the way through and get my Eagle. After becoming too old to continue with the Boy Scouts, I had trouble motivating myself to plan my own trips, and did not backpack for a number of years, until I realized that I should thru-hike the PCT. I am currently in a multiyear training program, practicing techniques, studying backpacking literature, getting in shape, planning the many wee details and perhaps most importantly, converting my ultra-heavy Boy Scout techniques into ones more well-suited to ultra-light thru-hiking. My current style is a very minimalist one relying more predominantly on intelligence and slight discomfort and less on safety gear and toys. At this point, I feel safe saying that my 5.5 kg (12 lb) summer base load weight makes me a budding ultra-light hiker. My usual stomping grounds are the Laguna and San Bernardino Mountains and the deserts of southern California. Occasionally, when gas prices allow, I make my way up to the Sierras.

3. Product Information:
Manufacturer: Outdoor Research
Manufacturer's URL: http://www.outdoorresearch.com
Product Name: Hydrolite Stuff Sack
Year of Manufacture: 2003
Suggested Retail Price: $13.00 (USD)
Advertised Weight: Not Given
Measured Weight: 46 g (1.62 oz)
Size Tested: Number 4
Advertised Dimensions: 23 x 43 cm (9 x 17 in)
Measured Dimensions: 23.2 x 48.6 cm (9 1/8 x 19 1/8 in)
Advertised Volume: 18.0 L (1100 cu in)
Measured Volume: 19.3 L (1180 cu in)*
Color Tested: Inside: White, Outside: Red
*The volume was measured by filling the sack with packaging peanuts (without adding pressure) until it could no longer close with the dust flap in place, and then dumping out the peanuts into a square box. By then measuring the inside dimensions of the box (length and width), and the height of the peanuts inside it, I could determine the volume of the peanuts in the box, and hence the approximate volume of the sack.

4. Product Description:
As mentioned in much greater detail in my Initial Report, this is an ultralight stuff sack made of 100% urethane coated nylon.

5. Description of Tests:
Since the initial report in early January, I have used this sack in a few slightly varying conditions. Generally, I use it while backpacking, but I have also used it during a few more recent hiking trips. In the past few months, I have used the bag in the Laguna and San Bernardino Mountains in temperatures ranging from about -12 to 29 degrees C (10 to 85 degrees F) and altitudes from 610 - 1980 m (2000 - 6500 ft). I have used it as my food bag, and, with some caution, as my clothing bag.

6. Comments:
Thus far, I have very few actual complaints about the sack that have resulted from the field testing. Overall, in the conditions experienced, it has served me well, but during some in-home testing, I have been able to better identify the weaknesses of the sack.

Opened Seam

In regards to the element of the sack that had worried me the most, namely the long stitch length and resulting weak seams, it seems at this point that my initial speculations (that the seams seemed rather weak) were more or less correct. Although the holes did not open up much more during the field testing, during some home testing, I have been able to see their weakness more clearly. In order to fully test the seams, a week ago I stuffed as many of my old clothes as I could into the sack so that there would be a prolonged force pressing against the sack. Today, upon checking the seams, I am sad to say that the needle holes have indeed stretched out under this force. At this point, at the top where the clothes inside the sack form a corner of sorts (see picture), the primary seam has opened up about 3 mm (.12"). In Roger Caffin's field report there is another very good picture of these seams that I recommend looking at to get a better idea of what these seams look like from the inside. Because of the large needle holes that are visible in the picture, this sack is very clearly unwaterproof. I experienced some light rain on my most recent trip while using it as a food bag, but the rain did not significantly penetrate my backpack, and so the sack's capabilities in this function were not thoroughly tested. Of the very little rain that did enter my backpack, none of it was noticeable in or on the sack itself. On the trip prior to this one, when I cautiously used the sack to hold my winter clothes, with the knowledge of the large needle holes, I was rather nervous that a rain storm was going to come down.

Another concern that I voiced in my initial report was that the material that the handle on the bottom of the sack was sewn into would not be strong enough to stand up to a prolonged force. I had mentioned that I would use the sack as a bear bag, but as it is winter here, and the bears are hibernating, as of yet, I have not really tested the handle's strength over prolonged periods of time. I have used the handle to jerk the bag up off the ground from time to time, and that has not had any negative effects on it, but until I have it up in a tree overnight supporting 5 kg (11 lb) of food by its handle and its cordlock, I will not be confident in its abilities.

A third issue that I raised in my initial report was that I worried that the unfinished edge on the dust flap would fray over time. As of now, it continues to be more or less unfrayed.

The one other place aside from the seams that this bag has failed - if one would even consider it failing - is in the size department. Initially, I had planned on testing out this bag as a stuff sack for my sleeping bag, but the seams seem to be so unwaterproof that I did not feel safe using it as such, and had to use it for smaller items, resulting in excess unused bag, and an inability to really test out the dust flap. The closest I have come to actually filling it up occurred on one of the winter trips, when I had my down vest, polyester shirt, gloves, balaclava, rain pants, rain jacket, extra socks and microfiber towel all inside it. Even with this much gear in it, there was still room for another couple of items. On the upside though, with this extra room at the top of the sack, I have been able to rely less on the dust flap to keep water out, and have been able to twist the top section of the sack closed.

7. Plans for Further Testing:
In the months that come, I plan on continuing using this sack as a food bag, but I do not believe I will be using it anymore for my clothes, as it was too much stress on my backpacking mind to worry about my precious clothes getting wet. As a food bag, I will soon have to begin bearbagging, at which point I will be better able to test the cordlock and grab handle. For the next couple of weeks, I am going to keep the sack filled with my extra clothes to see if the stitch holes will stretch out any farther.

8. Conclusions:
At this point, I am happy with the performance of the sack in the field, but as a result of in-home testing I see that the seams need more reinforcement than what they currently have. In regards to the waterproofness of the sack, I knew upon receiving the sack for testing that only the material, and not the sack itself was waterproof, so I do not mind that so long as I do not want to use it for something that cannot get wet. Given the current stretching of the stitch holes, the seams continue to worry me a good deal. This size is a bit large for most purposes, but by allowing me to twist the neck of the sack closed, it does allow a greater level of waterproofness. However, because of the long stitch length that is resulting in weak seams, if asked if I would buy this sack, my ultimate and unfortunate answer would be a no.

Read more reviews of Outdoor Research gear
Read more gear reviews by Michael Lissner

Reviews > Stuff Sacks > OR HydroLite Stuff Sacks > Michael Lissner > Field Report

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