Reviews > Stuff Sacks > OR HydroLite Stuff Sacks > Roger Caffin > Long Term Report

Long Term Report - OR HydroLite Stuff Sack
Roger Caffin

Product Information

Preamble

I wrote in my Initial Report that 'these are basic round-bottomed stuff sacks for gear, made from HydroLite fabric, and closed with a draw cord and toggle at the top'. In my Field Report I listed some key claims made by OR for the stuff sack, all of which I believe it failed. (Not all these claims appear on the web site; some are just on the packaging.) I also wrote that this surprised and saddened me since I have otherwise much respect for the Outdoor Research brand. I have to report here that the stuff sack survived the Long Term test period more or less intact, but I believe that is partly due to a reluctance on my part to really stress-test it. I was not willing to really risk serious damage to the bag during a serious trip: it would have been rather inconvenient to have it fall to pieces.

Detailed assessment

The HydroLite fabric is excellent, and meets all the claims made for it. It survived very well. The basic ripstop nylon fabric was strong and resisted dirt very well, while the white polyurethane proofing layer on the inside was also effective and robust. Neither fabric nor coating seemed to take stains easily. Despite being crumpled up many times, it did not show a lot of creasing. I do not know who made the fabric, but the label says it is '100% urethane coated nylon', and that the bag is 'Made in the USA of foreign materials'. I have no complaints here.

The design of the stuff sack was pretty good. The model tested (#4) was fairly large, and even with two people I did not normally manage to take enough clothing on a trip to fill it, but that is hardly a criticism. The cord and cordlock may have been a little heavy for a lightweight unit, but they worked well. The handle on the bottom was irrelevant, and I think it could have been omitted with no loss, but others might think otherwise. The top flap was rarely seriously tested, but was a good idea and very light.

However, the detailed construction was not so good. The stitching on the handle survived, but it was starting to unravel as can be seen at the right hand side of the upper picture here. This was despite the handle being treated quite carefully.

The stitching down the side also survived, but it did not look very pretty at the end. There were larger holes for the thread and there was also a large amount of thread showing between the two parts of fabric where the sack was under tension - stuffed full of clothes for instance. This is illustrated in the lower picture, between the black and blue arrows. The large holes may be seen at the black arrows. This is a shade hard to see as the thread was an exact match to the fabric in colour. At least the thread did not break anywhere. The ends of the stitching were not tied off in any way but in my experience the overlock stitching usually gets in a tangle rather than unraveling. The straight stitching around the top was clipped short: in my experience this can lead to it slowly coming undone, but it hasn't so far.

It must be admitted that the pictures are at high magnification. However, given the rather hyped specifications for the sack on the packaging I felt entitled to look at the stitching in detail. Furthermore, I repeat what I said above: the sack was not stressed very hard during the testing. Would this sack survive the average walker for a reasonable length of time? Possibly so, and perhaps I am being harsh in my judgement. However, when I buy an expensive sack which is advertised on the packaging as having 'superior waterproofness and durability' I expect to be able rely on that claim. Especially as those claims were backed up with claims of laboratory tests, as I quoted in the Initial Report. This stuff sack was simply not waterproof, nor was the seam strength all that robust. The stuff sacks I make myself out of cheap nylon fabric are more durable and more waterproof than this one.

The drawstring at the top is unnecessarily thick for such light fabric and there is a cordlock on the end. A fairly minor point I noticed on my stuff sack was that the drawstring was not long enough to allow the top of the bag to be fully opened. This can be seen in the picture at the top: that picture was taken with the draw cord at full opening. It probably does not make any difference to my ability to stuff gear into it, but it seemed indicative of a poor quality of manufacture. When a stuff sack is only half full I usually seal the top by pulling on the drawstring to close the top end and then tying the sring around the neck. In this case the short thick drawstring and the cordlock on the end make it difficult to do this with any ease. A poor selection of materials in my opinion.

Summary

A good design and a lovely fabric, but a failure in construction. My detailed criticisms hinge on two matters. The first is the claim on the packaging that the 'HydroLite stuff sack features ... superior waterproofness and durability'. Perhaps this is just a case of the marketing guys going one step too far in designing the packaging. However, when I look at the product in a shop with a view to buying, that is what I read. The second is the quality of manufacture, especially the sewing. I just don't think it matches the quality I normally expect from the Outdoor Research company.

Would I buy one?
No, and if I had bought it myself I would have returned it for a refund. Once this test is over I shall disassemble the bag and rebuild it with better stitching and a longer drawcord. I will also tape the seams so the bag is waterproof.

Addendum 2004

While outside the scope of this test, the following may be of interest to owners of one of these sacks. I did disassemble and rebuild the bag. I sealed the seams with some of the scraps cut off from the old seams and some 3M 9485 'seam stick' tape. My wife and I then took the bag to Europe for an eight-week walking trip along the Pyrenees. The rebuilt bag was used extensively as a 'bread bag', to hold loaves of Spanish and French bread we bought for our lunches. The large size of the bag was just right for this purpose. We lined the bag with a plastic bag as the bread had very sharp crusts when new. The plastic bag was damaged in a couple of places by the crusts, but the OR bag (essentially the fabric) survived very well.

Reviewer Details

Reviewer:	Roger Caffin
Age:	58
Gender:	M
Height:	170 cm (5' 7")
Weight:	64 kg (140 lb)
Email address:	r dot caffin at acm dot org
Location:	Sydney, NSW, Australia

Backpacking Background

I started bushwalking (the Australian term) when I was about 14 years old and took up rock climbing and remote exploration walking at University with the girl who became my wife. Later on we took up ski touring and canyoning. These days all our trips involve just the two of us. Over the last few years we have become converted to the concept of ultra-lightweight walking, and we have been cutting our total pack weights down from 18 - 20 kg (40 - 45 lb) to about 12 kg (26 lb) for week-long trips. That's not counting climbing rope or extra water for a dry camp - both happen. Our preferred walking trips in Australia are long ones: 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 exploratory 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. In addition, I spend a lot of time designing and making ultralightweight gear for Australian conditions.

I am also the maintainer of the Australian aus.bushwalking FAQ web site www.bushwalking.org.au/FAQ/.

Reviews > Stuff Sacks > OR HydroLite Stuff Sacks > Roger Caffin > Long Term Report