UKC

Hello

A tent manufacturer has claimed that there is nothing they will do to repair or replace a tent's flysheet because it is a previous design (I think the new design would fit but I won't buy the tent in order to find out). Beyond that, they have yet to respond to follow-up emails, but having read around the net, the parent company has previously stated that the expected 'lifetime' or predicted 'life' of their flysheets (PU-coated) is "6-7 years". I am not sure whether or not it matters that this sounds like a cop-out, compared to other manufacturers of mountain tents or any other coated waterproof thing?

Now if this is the case, and the company was, at the time, aware of this but are still right to claim this level of durability, surely they then are responsible for keeping the flysheet itself in production longer than the rest of the tent, in order to provide 'spares' for their customers? I gather there is no law and that the 10-year spares thing is a myth? As far as I know, and in my own experience, the inner tents this company makes, with a PU-coating, last for decades.

Another thing that bothers me, is the fact that they are letting their short-lived tents be stocked for as long as the production cycles (coincidentally, about 7 years, which means that the earliest failures are becoming the 'old designs'), so that a retailer may be selling a tent that nears the end of its 'life' shortly after purchase!

I have PU-coated tents that are twice as 'old' as this one without any problems, so I am sceptical, to say the least. The manufacturer used to have an expression that went something like, "we stand behind everything we make" but checking their website now, it appears they only guarantee their tents (the most expensive costs over a grand) for 3 years. The parent company have a general statement, now familiar to outdoor gear users, about the "lifetime" of the product ...

Thanks for any help.

Sometimes you're just stuffed.  I had a Hilleberg tent whose fly sheet failed due to UV damage after 7-ish years and Hilleberg offered to replace it at nearly the cost of a new tent.  Given it was such an expensive tent in the first place, I'd hoped it would last longer (I know people with cheaper tents that have lasted for over ten years) or at least Hilleberg would offer me a new fly at a reasonable cost.  A friend with a Terra Nova Quasar had his fly replaced by Terra Nova for a couple hundred quid.   It was not to be.  Their fine print says their guarantee doesn't cover UV damage, and I was advised that I should have pitched the tent in the shade, totally doable in Scotland.

Not having £800 to spend on a new tent or a new flysheet, I bought an Alpkit tent at half that price.  The Hilleberg is still in the attic -- I can't bring myself to chuck out a perfectly good inner tent, poles, etc even though it's useless without the damn flysheet. 

Not that this is of any use to you.  Other than knowing you're not alone. 

As it happens, my Hilleberg is the most durable tent (about 60 days use), but it is one of the earlier ones, made in Sweden. I always thought silnylon was more resistant to UV than PU-nylon is? Did you get a lot of use out of it? I think that is the worst thing about our tent, that we only used it for a week or less.

I think if my tent was a simple tunnel, I would just try and make a fly. Or maybe I wouldn't - I can't bear the fact that this companies name is on the outside of two good tents which we also own, and now the inner is going to sit here because no one is ever looking to buy an unwanted inner for these tents on ebay ...

We might have purchased a brand new fly if the company had offered - they claimed to not have any because it was the old design and instead sent us instructions on how to remove the PU and seams and re-coat it ourselves. One would expect them to sell their own kits for doing this, given the expected 'life' of their high-end products, LOL.

Edit: the predicted 'life' of this company's tents, or the fly, is the same whether it is used or not, in the bag or in the sun! (Ours was stored inside the house in two mesh bags, from the beginning).

Difficult one. The problem with things like tents, is that certain usage can wear the tent out in a few short weeks worth of camping, other usage and the same tent will last for hundreds of nights worth. A difficult thing for the manufacturer to judge.

Typically a manufacturer will order a percentage of spare parts for a range they design. These will be added to the initial order with the factory and then, if necessary, a percentage will be added to future orders. Let's say this will be around 3-5%, these figures would be in line with a fairly pessimistic view on failure rates in my own experience of outdoor retailing. 

A tent range will be updated more often than you suggest by most manufacturers I suspect. Vango is probably 2-3 years for instance. OK, sometimes its just a minor change, other times a re-design that will require different spares. So once the last order of a design has been placed, no more spares of that specific part will be ordered. Once they've gone, they've gone, and no manufacturer is going to buy spares to last for many years into the future "just in case" as it would be uneconomic to do so without changing the pricing structure of the tent to cover it. That percentage of spares is just their best guess, based on experience v financial commitment.

They are in no way responsible for carrying spares for a continuing period of time, but they are responsible for ensuring they deal with any faults or design issues within a "reasonable time" of purchase. This could mean a repair, it could mean a part replacement, or it could just be money back. The issue here is what is viewed "reasonable". Its difficult for anybody to put a length of time on something like a tent, as it depends so much on usage, and in more general product areas I suspect you're never going to get anything back over about 6 months to a year old unless there's a specific additional guarantee. I'm quite surprised if any supplier has every said "our typical lifespan is 6-7 years", that's asking for trouble.

Not sure how they're supposed to solve this one! They're hardly going to do without turnover for a season or two between product ranges, of course its going to be stocked up until the new one becomes available. For any business, the perfect stock plan will have the last of a model run out the day the new one arrives in the warehouse. They should still have spares at that point, but it'll only be that small percentage of the last order. I'd estimate that might typically mean that they have 1 year's estimated stock of spares at that point, which would cover their responsibility under the "reasonableness" test. And one other note here; the more specialist tents will only perhaps be selling a few hundred pieces per season, so 5% might only be a 10-20 spare flysheets. A sudden unexpected run on them might wipe that out, or they might go a whole year with no spares used.

It does sound as if the communication from this brand is poor, and that is unforgivable. They should at least be making an effort to help you out, not ignoring e-mails, and you would hope they would at least be recommending repair specialists. They should also be able to 100% tell you if the new fly sheet would fit the old model and if they don't know, they should be finding out for you.

What is the nature of the actual problem? A rip in fabric made thin and brittle by UV?

Thanks; that is a lot to digest but I see where you are coming from and it makes sense.

I am bothered by the fact that they know about the problem, or it would appear, and that they have apparently stated the 6-7 years 'life' (5 years onset of decline) without worrying about whether or not it would be helpful to put a date number (such as the year number you find on gear like Patagonia?) on their flysheets, so the buyer can make an informed choice regarding the 'expiry date'. As above, I don't believe this is generally the case with high-end PU-coated fabrics used in tents, based on personal experience with several tents and through my reading of the different defect-warranties such as Hilleberg or Crux (the latter is stated online at 10 years), so I am being partly rhetorical.

If a tent is designed to be used a few times a year and put away, then I guess it comes down to 'how many years'? But if people aren't aware of the risk involved in leaving a tent stored correctly, then they would be better advised to purchase a tent that resists natural ageing, even if UV-ageing cannot be avoided? Or they could sell extra flysheets, as 'spare parts', if they know all of the above?

Here is a link to the nature of the actual problem:

http://www.trailspace.com/gear/msr/stormking/#review38435

My partner did try to leave a one-star review on MSR's own site but it wouldn't accept it.

Edit: I see where you are coming from, but is 'lifetime' going to include non-use or use in it's definition. For instance, motorcycle helmets should be replaced after five years but that is five years use, not five years of non-use or sitting on the shelf. Of course I am arguing here that I don't believe it should have an expiry date at all, just a reasonable usage life, as in 'wear and tear'. Age deterioration through storage would seem to have been defined by the history of other PU-tents, except for MSR, who have said, even in the mesh bag, it is 6-7 years.

Hmm. Surprised to find out the brand. Who were you dealing with, retailer, UK distributor, or MSR direct? Cascade, for instance, have arguably the best customer service record I've heard of. It does sound like they might well have known about a flysheet batch issue. I'd assume its the fact of how old yours is that is the problem, even though it sounds like you've stored it correctly. Typically, seam problems come first from putting away damp and mould getting into the seam glue, which doesn't sound likely when you've been drying it well by the sounds of it.

The advice they've given should allow you to repair the tent, no? Not saying they shouldn't be helping, but at least you should be able to re-seal the seams and get your tent usable again. Sealing them with a silica based glue is a fairly simple process which I've successfully done on one of my own tents.

The fly is 'stretchy' as well as the crumbling tape. It would need a serious make-over and then I wouldn't want to use it without testing it for a few days. The massive job would just be extra fun, I guess, but you are right, it is perhaps salvageable.

As for drying the tent, I have a digital photo of us stopping for lunch and hanging out the tent just to make sure it was kept in tip top condition. I use zip lube. The room, which also had my camera gear in, was dehumidified every now and then if I thought the summer was a bit damp. I know a bit about caring for gear, LOL.

Personally, I think my partner was too polite with Cascade in Ireland, but that is neither here nor there.

Yes, MSR/Cascade can show their willingness to stand behind their products, such as thermarests and water bags, when pushed.

BTW, have you ever seen a tent fly degraded in this time frame, to this extent, after correct storage?

I think I'd have to know a thing or do about sewing and sealing nylon to have made a new fly.  It had lots of straps on it that connect to the poles and tighten the thing up.  I have friends who have ancient Hillebergs which have bleached due to UVs, but those haven't yet gotten massive holes in Reiff wind as a result. 

Mine had moderately heavy use, I would say.  Usually one to two week-to-two week camping trips in the Highlands and/or Ireland as well as assorted weekends -- maybe once a month, maybe more -- through the spring and summer.  It was certainly getting out and about, but I wasn't living in it for months on end, either.

The people at Hilleberg suggested that those longer trips contributed to its premature demise.  Their suggestion?  Take the tent down before you go hiking or climbing that day, then put it up again on your return.  Uh, no.  Kind of defeats the whole point of having a base camp somewhere with a tent advertised as a base camp tent. 

I bought a tarp last year, which I erect over the Alpkit tent if it's set up for more than a few days.  It gives you more space to get in and out of the tent if it's raining; it stops your tent from becoming an oven at 6am on those sunny mornings; and it might save the Alpkit from suffering the same fate as the Hilleberg.  My mountaineering club liked my tarp so much in Reiff that three more tarps appeared over tents on our Alps trip a month or so later.  

Tarps may be the solution to tent longevity on long camping trips.

Well, this won't make you feel better, but I have seen reports of Hillebergs outside for at least six months, in the USA - it was a shop display - and apparently the tent was 'doing fine'. I noticed some manufacturers using polyester flys instead of nylon, which is better able to resist UV I think, so that would be my only reason for ever purchasing a non-silnylon tent again. I also know of cases where Hilleberg replaced an inner due to the connection elastics going, which means they are not consistent, IMO; this guy was a 'famous backpacker', so that may have played a part in it.

We have replaced the elastics on our Hilleberg ourselves, and it is on its third set of poles, so perhaps we were lucky or perhaps using it in the UK is almost equivalent to using it in the 'shade' as they proposed ... If it 'dies' next week I will be ok with that, especially considering the life expectancy of it's stablemate, though it would be even better if there was a movement to 'fix your gear' around outdoor products, as there is with some electronics, and then we could try and fight obsolescence if we chose, with a bit more confidence.

Maybe I had a duff tent.  Hilleberg owning friends have not had theirs suffer the same fate.  But for whatever it's worth, Hilleberg didn't want to know about it. Other gear companies(not tents, though) have been a lot more cooperative with replacing/repairing stuff but maybe those tents cost so much that it's not worth their while.  Unless you're a famous hiker/climber.  I am very much not!

I had one of the elastic thingies go the second year I had it but I sent it to Scottish Mountain Gear, who sorted it out.

That would be annoying. When we saw that someone on ebay had sold their new replacement Stormking to recover its exchange value, it just made us even more angry with MSR, even though the events were unconnected and it was his right.

It is a shame that there isn't a system where replacement parts (I think it's self-evident that the 'life' of a tent is now composed of differently-ageing parts) are offered at cost and the company takes it out of their taxes the next year. Nobody wants to see a company go bust but if it does suffer financially somewhat, it is only as a 'fictional person', and the earth might prefer such a system of ordering ... Perhaps we're looking at the political economy of outdoor activity in the Anthropocene

I agree....  When you have an expensive tent, where one bit is totally f * cked, the rest of it is in good nick, but the cost of replacing the f * cked bit is basically the same as a new tent (or less), what do you do?  I haven't figured it out yet, hence the Hilleberg sitting in an attic. 

In my mind, a conscientious outdoor gear company with an interest in sustainability would try to discourage people from throwing gear out unnecessarily, and either repair or replace parts.  But that's a whole different philosophy from the planned obsolescence that our economy has come to rely on.  

Well, the economic ideology is not 'universal' thank heaven and earth: the Fairphone is a modular, self-upgradable/repairable phone, and works great, so there is at least something that people who can afford an iphone may do with their voice and money-power. (Just to use one instance of a company that is helping things instead of obsessing about the short-term.)

Maybe one day Patagonia will make tents, LOL. I noticed MSR's facebook page has a lot of similar complaints and it seems the information they are giving, but only after one's tent disintegrates in storage, is a 6 year 'lifespan'. If only we had known about this predicted mortality when we made a purchase, then we could have let the market decide in our favour ...

But even with the warranty's UV degradation information on the Hilleberg site and others, it states that repairs will be made 'at reasonable cost'. I think most people would reasonably conclude that a double-walled tent comprises inner, outer, poles, and pegs. So the 'reasonable cost' should be less than half of the adjusted cost of the entire tent if a person was forced to purchase only the outer. Therefore I don't understand the reasoning behind them charging so much for a part that makes up less than half of the total tent's value? Plus, the repair in your case requires only packaging the replacement outer, not sewing anything together like a broken zipper etc.

Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps the outer on the Hilleberg is so expensive and hard to sew that the cost of it dwarfs the rest of the parts' cost?

MYOG has never looked so rewarding, in hindsight.

In fairness, Osprey and Arcteryx have done me well with replacing/repairing things.  But they don't make tents, either. 

The fly wasn't repairable through sewing because the material was too weakened by UVs to withstand it.  After that diagnosis, I taped it together myself with the better part of a roll of Tenacious Tape and got it through two more trips, where it then ripped next to the bit I'd taped. 

Hilleberg more or less told me that the cost of producing a new fly alone is so high that it's not worth their while giving you one for, say, half the cost of the tent.  From their point of view, they're losing an entire tent, so they charge you what the tent, in its entirety, cost. 

That isn't the way all tent companies do things.  As I said earlier in this thread, a friend had to replace the fly on his Quasar and Terra Nova charged him circa £200 or £300 for a new fly, roughly half the cost of a new Quasar. 

I bought the Alpkit tent in the end because it's cheaper than the Terra Nova and their reputation for customer service is pretty good.  Time will tell!

Well, it's obvious that I think, and others might agree, that the damage caused by the big burning disc in the sky to nylon is predictable, given the nature of the sports these tents are supposed to facilitate. So if they ran production for spare flysheets, longer than the line they run for the rest of the parts, it would make sense and probably bring the price down. They probably order extra poles from China, so why not extra flysheets from Estonia?

But to charge so much for the outer flysheet alone begs the question of the inner's relative pricing. I can't find much online about costing a replacement inner tent for a Hilleberg, but nothing suggests that it should cost any less than about a third, which leaves two thirds for the outer, poles, bags, pegs (and ubiquitous 'free footprint'). In other words, if the silnylon fabric and sewing, without seam sealing, is so costly, then the replacement inner should be quite cheap? Plus, there is the obvious point that the outer of the tent is more likely to sustain sun-damage and need replacing, so 'economies of scale' would actually work against lowering the price of the inners: more people need the outers, so the inners are going to be more scarce, thus higher predicted replacement price?

I'd be interested in the price of a replacement inner tent from Hilleberg, just to see.

Edit: plus, what happens to the 'seconds' that all production entails? Don't they keep the 'seconds' of the flysheets at Hilleberg? Do they get taken apart and remade, are the sewers robotically perfect, or do the get destroyed? I am betting they end up as replacements that cannot be sold at full retail in the first place.

Anyway, at least silnylon has a storage life of longer than the MSR's six years for PU. Good luck with the Alpkit, Emily.

I'm in exactly the same position with a hilleberg akto.  I have an inner, groundsheet and poles in perfect condition, but no fly.