Reviews > Stuff Sacks > OR HydroLite Stuff Sacks > Roger Caffin > Field Report

Field Report - OR HydroLite Stuff Sack
Roger Caffin

Product Information

Product Claims

By way of summary, I wrote in the Initial Report: 'these are basic round-bottomed stuff sacks for gear, made from HydroLite fabric, and closed with a draw cord and toggle at the top'. I also listed some key claims below with my assessments of those claims. I believe that all three of these claims fail, at least in my own opinion. This surprises and saddens me since I have otherwise much respect for the Outdoor Research brand.

• Superior durability
  The fabric is good, but the stitching is inadequate for the very lightweight fabric for this application.
• Superior or truly waterproof
  The fabric is waterproof, but the seams are not waterproof by any stretch of the imagination.
• Ultralight
  The bags are light, but not quite 'ultralight' by my definition. The fabric is fairly light, but the cord is too heavy and the cord lock and the handle at the base are both unnecessary.

Testing

I have made many stuff sacks using rather more common nylon cloth bought in a local shop, and the fabric in some of these does get a bit dirty sometimes. Not so with this fabric so far: it has stayed very clean and new-looking. The fabric has a fine ripstop pattern, not quite visible in the picture above but visible through the white waterproofing layer in the picture to the right. It is very robust and waterproof, and I quite like it.

I reported in the Initial Report that I had already tested the 'waterproofness' claim, and I had found that the sack as a whole was very leaky down the seams. This is due to the single row of overlocker stitching used, as shown in the picture to the right. This photo shows the inside of the bag, looking at the seam. It may look as though the real seam is separate from the overlock down the edge, but there is actually a connection on the other side of the hem. In between each stitch down the seam a bright spot will be seen: this is daylight coming through the holes. Three of the holes in the middle of the picture have little black lines drawn in to highlight them. The holes completely ruin any claim of 'waterproof' (but do make a good field shower).

In addition I also mentioned in the Initial Report that I thought the stitch length is too long. This means the load on the holes is high, and they tend to open up under load and then stay open. The stretched hole size can be seen in the picture. This meant the bag could only be used as a general purpose stuff sack and had to be lined with a plastic bag if the contents were to be protected. This put it on a par with cheap commercial stuff sacks and my own homemade stuff sacks. As such, the premium price seems unjustified.

I had planned on testing the strength of the seams by 'stuffing' the sack with gear on a few trips. Given the weakness of the seams I was not willing to really risk serious damage to the bag during a trip: it would have been rather inconvenient to have it fall to pieces. This meant I was always careful to avoid really loading or filling the bag. In consequence both the thread in the stitching and the fabric around the stitch holes have survived so far with this gentle treatment, but the holes do seem to have grown slightly all the same. The bigger holes make the leaks even more pronounced. I do not take this care with my other stuff sacks. I may test this further at home.

I also questioned the strength of the stitching on the handle at the bottom of the bag in the Initial Report. The inside of this connection is shown in the picture to the left. The stitching in question is that done with a black thread, and the stitching style is called a 'bar tack'. However, the amount of fabric enclosed is only a single layer and the area is very small, making the join quite weak. The many holes created are all just as leaky. For the same reasons of not wanting to damage the bag during a trip I have avoided using this handle while the bag is full. My other stuff sacks don't have such handles anyhow so this was not a big problem. This means the handle could be removed, with a reduction in weight.

The drawcord is fairly tough - far tougher than needed here. It has survived well. The cordlock proved to be a very 'grippy' one: it holds the drawcord shut very well. It has shown no signs of wearing out. It adds weight of course: my other bags are done up with just the drawcord around the top.

The #4 size was supplied for this test. The bag is being promoted as 'lightweight' so I assume it is aimed at 'lightweight' walkers. This description fits me, but I never really managed to fill the bag and so could not properly test out the dust seal at the top. The #4 size is quite large and I never carry that much spare clothing. I could fill the bag with food, but since my food is already packed in smaller waterproof nylon bags, why bother? My conclusion here is that the smaller sizes might be more suited to my style of walking. This is not a criticism of the bag; rather it is a reminder that one needs to check exactly what use is planned for an item being bought.

Possible future

The fabric itself is waterproof and robust, and the basic design is good. It is the stitching which lets the product down. If this was not an organised testing process I would remove all the current stitching, replace it with my own using a proper overlapped seam with two rows of shorter-pitch stitching, and I would waterproof the seams. For the latter I could use some seam sealant but more likely I would use some waterproofing nylon tape. However, it seems a lot of work to have to rebuild a bag which would have been so expensive to buy.

Summary

Likes	Dislikes
Very nice fabric	Seriously misleading marketing claims
Fairly light weight	Poor quality seams
Good dust seal	Leaks 'like a sieve' at the seams

Would I buy one?
No, and if I had bought it myself I would have returned it for a refund.

Reviewer Details

Reviewer:	Roger Caffin
Age:	58
Gender:	M
Email address:	r dot caffin at acm dot org
City, State, Country:	Sydney, NSW, Australia

Backpacking Background

I started bushwalking (the Australian term) when I was about 14 yrs old, took up rock climbing and remote exploration walking at University with the girl who became my wife, and later on we took up ski touring and canyoning. These days my wife and I do all our trips together, very often by ourselves. Our preferred walking trips in Australia are long ones: up to about a week in the general Blue Mts (east coast of Australia) and Snowy Mts (alpine region), and up to two months long in Europe and the UK. Ski touring trips would also typically last up to a week. We favour fairly hard trips of some length and prefer to travel fast and light. Many of our trips are explorations in wild country which sees few other walkers. In between these long trips we do some day walks, often exploring the start of longer trips. On average, we would spend at least two days per week walking or ski touring. Over the last year or two we have become converted to the concept of ultra-lightweight walking, and have been cutting our combined pack weight down from 36 kg (80 lb) total to about 25 kg (55 lb) for week-long trips. We have also been designing and making our own ultralightweight gear for our own use.

Reviews > Stuff Sacks > OR HydroLite Stuff Sacks > Roger Caffin > Field Report