Initial Report of
Outdoor Research Hydrolite Stuff Sack
By Michael Jay Lissner
7 January 2004
Contents of Review:
1. Biographical Information
2. Backpacking Background
3. Product Information
4. Product Description
5. Initial Impression
6. Plans for Testing
7. Conclusions
1. Biographical Information:
Name: Michael Jay Lissner
Age: 21
Gender: Male
Height: 198 cm (6’6”)
Weight: 88 kg (195 lb)
Email Address: yourmothership@hotmail.com
City of Current Residence: Depending on time of year: San Diego, Berkeley or
Claremont, CA
2. Backpacking Background:
I was first introduced to backpacking through the Boy Scouts, 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 in Boy Scouts, I had trouble motivating
myself to plan my own trips, and did not backpack for a few years, until I
realized that I should thru-hike the PCT. I am currently in a multi-year
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 suited to
ultra-light thru-hiking. My current style is a fairly minimalist one relying on
more intelligence and discomfort and less on safety gear and toys. I would
describe it as nearly ultra-light status, but not quite there yet. My usual
stomping grounds are the Laguna Mountains (when in San Diego), the San
Bernardino Mountains and deserts of southern California (when in Claremont),
and occasionally - when funds allow - the southern 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 (US)
Advertised Weight: Not Given
Measured Weight: 46 g (1.62 oz)
Size Tested: Number 4
Advertised Dimensions: 23 cm X 43 cm (9 in X 17 in)
Measured Dimensions: 23.2 cm X 48.6 cm
(9 1/8 in 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 measuring the inside
dimensions of the box (length and width), and the height of the peanuts inside
it, I could then determine the volume of the peanuts, and hence the approximate
volume of the sack.
4. Product Description:
At a glance, this appears to be simply another stuff sack, but further
investigation proves it to be otherwise. The most obvious difference between
this and other stuff sacks, is the very thin material that it is made from (the
people at Outdoor Research have informed me that the fabric has a denier of
about 40, weighs about 67 g/m2 (2.0 oz/yd2) with the
coatings on it and the finishes in it, and has about 59 threads/cm (150
threads/inch)). Outdoor Research calls this material, “Hydrolite Fabric,” and
touts that it is an “ultralight yet durable fabric with a waterproof coating
and a super DWR [durable water repellant] finish.” Because of a white rubbery
coating on the inside that reminds me of waterproof/breathable membranes more
than anything else, this fabric is a little peculiar to the touch. This coating
is identified by a small tag that has been sewn into the seam that holds the
dust flap in place that reads “100% Urethane coated nylon,” and has been tested
by Outdoor Research to withstand a water pressure of about 1.40 kg/cm2
(20 lb/in2). From what I understand from conversations with the
Outdoor Research support crew, this coating is intended to keep the water out
of the sack, and the DWR is designed to keep the fabric itself dry. On the
outside of the sack, sewn into the seam is another tag, this one has the
Outdoor Research logo on one side of it, and the words, “Outdoor Research” on
the other. All of the seams in the sack are sewn together using red thread at
about 3 stitches/cm (8 stitches/in). The dust flap, sewn into the top hem
across from the side seam, measures 25 cm (9.75 in) across, but is not hemmed
or otherwise visibly finished around the edges. Across the bottom of the sack
there is a long black nylon handle that has been sewn on to the body of the
sack (as opposed to the bottom of it)
using bar tacks on either end. And finally, there is a black assumedly nylon
drawstring laced around the top of the sack that to be used to close it.
Opposite the dust flap, it feeds out of the hem through what resembles a
buttonhole, and on it there is a black plastic cordlock to be used to keep the
sack closed.
5. Initial Impression:
My initial impression of the sack was surprise and annoyance. I was
surprised that the sack I was holding in my hands was so light, and I was
annoyed that I gone through the effort of making my own custom sacks just
months ago that were barely any lighter than this one when these sacks were
readily available. However, upon further investigating the properties of the
sack, and discovering more and more things about it that I was not too fond of,
I became less and less annoyed.
The first thing that reduced my annoyance level was that the seams of the sack
were entirely unsealed. Although the material that the sack is made from has
been proven by Outdoor Research to be a highly waterproof fabric, this means
absolutely nothing to me if the seams are not sealed, as water is the
sneakiest, most invasive liquid I have ever known, and wet feathers do very
little to insulate.
The second thing that reduced my level of annoyance was the number of stitches
that Outdoor Research has used in all of the seams. Although especial mention
of the seam strength is made online in the advertising, and reasonable seam
allowances have been used (they measure about 1 cm wide (about ¼ in)), this low
number of stitches is just asking for trouble when combined with such a thin,
gossamer material. During an initial test, when I somewhat gently tried to pull
one of the seams apart in a manner and force that is not especially forceful
for a stuff sack, the stitch holes could be seen to enlarge slightly, and quiet
ticking noises could be heard as tiny 40 denier threads popped one by one. I
recognize that this is a stuff sack designed to be light in weight, and I
respect the effort that has been made for its inception, but this element of
the construction seems noticeably weaker than I would consider appropriate for
the application. On a similar par, I have qualms about the strength of the
nylon handle on the bottom of the sack. It is sewn on in a sturdier fashion
(using narrow bar tacks) than how the seams are stitched together, but in this
case, I feel that the fabric will not hold up if significant weight is placed
in the bag (e.g. a week’s worth of food at about 1 kg/day (about 2 lb)), and it
is hung upside down (e.g. as a bear bag) for extended periods of time.
The final element of the sack that I have some worries about is the dust flap.
As I mentioned in the product description section, it is not hemmed or
otherwise finished around the edge. From what I have seen, this seems to be the
industry standard, but it has always seemed kind of unprofessional to me to
leave an edge raw. Indeed, if I take my fingernail and pick at the edge a
little bit, I can get a few threads to unravel ever so slightly. This does not
adversely affect the performance of the sack though, so I guess it is more of a
nit pick than anything else.
One thing that I especially like about the sack is the buttonhole through which
the drawstring is threaded. At this point this seems to be a rather durable way
for such a high wear point to be built into such a light fabric, but as usual,
further testing will be the real decision maker.
6. Plans for Testing:
Given the nature of this sack, I am having some trouble determining exactly how
best to use it. Given the fact that the seams are not waterproof, I believe
that the best way to make use of it is going to be to use it as a food bag. It
will probably hold all of the food I can eat for a week, but I worry that kind
of weight will be overwhelming for the seams and handle (I guess if I am going
to use it as a bear bag, I will avoid carrying eggs just for good measure).
7. Conclusions:
Outdoor Research has created an interesting sack whose concept I really
like, but I worry that some of the construction techniques used to make it will
not be strong enough for the concept to realize fruition. I really like the
material that has been used to make the sack, but even if it does hold up in
the field, I cannot see it as an especially useful item in my pack unless its
seams are sealed in some manner, or it is lined with another waterproof bag.
