Drop X-Mid 2P Tent Designed by Dan Durston Discussions | Drop

Free Standard Shipping in the US on orders over $99

Showing 1 of 357 conversations about:

Drop X-Mid 2P Tent Designed by Dan Durston

Jul 23, 2019

This may come across as inflammatory but I'm genuinely asking this question to help inform my own purchase here. I've been waiting on the final specs to be released for this one and now that they're out, I'm comparing it to the Gossamer Gear "The Two". They are very similar in most specs (inside area, peak height, width, and length) but there are a few key differences that are important to me:

Packed weight. The Two seems to be about 7oz lighter than this tent (when comparing the tent + fly).
Vestibule size. The Two has a total vestibule area of 32sf vs 25sf with this tent.
This one is subjective but from what I can tell The Two has a single layer tent design, which would make it easier to pitch while this tent appears to be a typical two layer design with a separate fly, which means more steps and time to pitch the tent.
Price. Definitely The Two is the more expensive tent at $375 vs $250, but once the money is spent, all I'm concerned with is how well it performs for me when I'm in the woods.

I'd love to hear others thoughts on this comparison. For me, I'm leaning toward The Two based on the reasons above and despite the 50% higher price (buy once, cry once) but I'd love to be challenged on that. Also, does anyone know if the seams are taped on this tent?

Jul 23, 2019

dandurston

5116

Dan Durston

Jul 23, 2019

gimpsterThanks for the thoughtful questions. You raise some good questions and I am happy to explain further, because I think there is a lot more to this than first meets the eye. First, I'll show scaled images of these tents, then talk about the basic shapes/designs, and then go into other differences like material choices. Below are these two tents roughly to scale, but with the caveat that it's hard to create a scaled diagram for The Two because the diagram that GG provides on their website is really inaccurate. For example, their diagram shows the peaks located over the sleeping area and thus with heavily inward sloping side walls, but their tent photos show the opposite where the peaks not over the floor and with vertical or slightly outward sloping mesh walls. So my floor area is accurate. The rest is more of an estimate but pretty close:

If we look at the basic designs, we see they are both dual trekking pole designs, but the key differences are that The Two is hexagon based (vs rectangle), smaller, and single wall (versus double wall). These differences have important effects on size and simplicity. In terms of size, some of the specifications for The Two appear similar to the X-Mid 2P, such as the inner height which is 46" vs 45.5". However this is misleading because of the single versus double wall nature of these tents. The Two is a single wall, so it is 46" until you contact the potentially condensation covered fly, whereas the X-Mid 2P is 45.5" until you potential connect the mesh inner, which is still several inches away from the fly. So with a double wall all of the area/volume is useable, whereas with a single wall you want to take precautions to stay well away from the fly since there is a penalty if you touch it. As a general rule, the dimensions of a single wall need to be about 6" larger to feel similarly spacious because you want to to stay comfortably back from the walls. The same thing is true for other dimensions: If you exceed the length of the X-Mid you brush the mesh, whereas if you exceed the length of The Two you are likely pressing your sleeping bag against potentially wet walls. So the X-Mid has a modest advantage in the specs since it is longer (92" vs 89"), wider (50-51" versus 52" tapering to 42") and similar height (45.5" vs 46"), but actually feels much larger because the "usable dimensions" are much greater. With regards to the vestibules, I'm not sure how GG is coming up with a 32 sq ft specification because it looks very inaccurate. The area (footprint) of the X-Mid fly is 63 sq ft, while the footprint of The Two is clearly smaller (see diagrams). I calculate the footprint of The Two at 52 sq ft. It's hard to be precise since their specs/drawings are inconsistent but I'm confident it's in the range of 50 - 55 sq ft. If we take 52 sq ft and subtract the floor area (29 sq ft) we get 23 square feet left - well short of their 32 sq ft claim - and that still includes the narrow strips of unusable area at the ends of the tents. So the actual useable vestibule are of the GG vestibules looks to be about 18 sq ft. How they got 32 sq ft is baffling to me, but I wonder if someone said it was 16, and then someone else assumed that was 16 per vestibule and thus concluded 32 sq ft. With the X-Mid 2P we have 63 sq ft of footprint and 32 sq ft of floor area, so we could claim 31 sq ft of vestibule area. It's not uncommon for manufacturers to do this (subtract the floor area from the footprint to get "vestibule area") but it is misleading because it includes area like narrow strips at the end that are not in the vestibules, which is why the X-Mid 2P is spec'd at an honest 25 square feet of vestibule area. I think it's pretty clear that the X-Mid 2P has substantially larger vestibules - they appear to be about 50% larger than the Two. With regards to simplicity, I think you'll find the X-Mid is a substantially easier tent to pitch. If you have a look at the video for the 1P, you can see it's simply a matter of staking a rectangle and then inserting the two poles and extending until taut. So four stakes and nothing to measure or guess other than one 90 degree corner. The double wall nature of the X-Mid doesn't present any additional difficulty because you can leave it connected to the fly if you wish (as shown in the video). So it can pitch as one unit like a single wall tent, or pitch separately if you'd like to use only part of the tent or if you wish to pack the components separately to keep the inner drier. The pitch of The Two is much more complicated because it's hexagon based. It requires guessing a lot more angles (and less intuitive ones), distances between stakes, and measuring your poles rather than the pole heights being naturally limited by the tent. It also involves steps where the tent is vulnerable to wind gusts when partially erected, unlike the X-Mid. So more stakes, angles, measurements etc. Simplicity is the strong suit of the X-Mid and it exceeds any other dual trekking pole tent in this area. Besides being a simpler tent, and also quite a bit larger, the basic design of the X-Mid offers other advantages. The offset poles are further apart, so you get more volume (headroom) out of the two poles. Even if the peak height was the same, the X-Mid has more headroom because it retains that height over more of the tent. The offset poles also enable larger doorways because the poles aren't right in the middle of the sides. The X-Mid geometry further saves weight because it requires fewer seams, seam taping, stakes, guyouts etc. So to sum up the geometry, the X-Mid is a simpler and more weight efficient design that provides advantages in space (headroom), ease of pitching, and usability (e.g. doorways). The X-Mid is heavier but not because of the core geometry. Rather the more efficient core geometry minimizes the weight so there is only a modest penalty for a tent that is larger, more capable, and double wall tent. Moving on from the basic geometry, a key difference between these two tents is the balance they choose between being light and being functional. The Two is a lighter tent (32 vs 39oz) because it compromises durability and function to save that weight but that also makes it less of a well rounded tent. Most notably, it is a single wall so it saves the weight of that mesh but it also means it's not modular (you can't use just the fly or inner) and that you're not protected from contacting potentially wet walls. That's a major trade off in wet/humid conditions. The Two also foregoes any vents, which increases condensation - so you have a tent where the user is vulnerable to condensation and the tent also foregoes opportunities to reduce that condensation. Additionally, the Two uses a fly shape that is trimmed around the bottom so it doesn't extend to the ground. This does partially compensate for the lack of vents but also makes for a tent that is exposed to drafts and rain splatter. So all of these compromises save weight at the expense of function. The X-Mid 2P is a substantially more capable tent for challenging conditions by virtue of being a double wall, dual vents and a full coverage fly. Another relevant topic is the material choices. Here you'll find the X-Mid uses more durable, functional and higher end materials which give a wide range of advantages. The X-Mid uses a 20D polyester with a 2500mm sil/PU coating whereas the Two uses a 15D nylon with a 1200m coating. So the X-Mid fabric is more durable (20D vs 15D), more waterproof (2500 vs 1200mm), and because it's polyester it has the key advantages of (1) not sagging in the rain, (2) not absorbing up to a pound of water weight in the rain, and (3) being resistant to UV degradation that substantially weakens nylon tents after a few years. On the topic of water resistance, this is also a bit of a murky spec in the tent industry because waterproofness degrades over time. We're using a spec of 2500 or 2000 mm but really the tent is about 5000mm when new and then closer to 2000 mm after substantial wear simulating years of use. Conversely many companies will list the spec of the new material, as I think GG is doing, so their 1200mm fabric is unlikely to offer anywhere near the water resistance of the X-Mid material. They are likely using thinner coatings because it is cheaper and lighter. Another material difference is the zippers, where the X-Mid uses water resistant #5 zippers while the Two uses basic #4.5 zippers with fabric flaps. Water resistant zippers are more expensive but much more weather resistant than flaps, which also routinely snag in the zipper and frankly should be banned from tent design. The tent maker saves $5 and the user gets a lifetime of frustration. So the X-Mid zippers are more durable, functional and higher end. This extends throughout the tent, where you'll find the X-Mid choosing premium materials and hardware like genuine ITW buckles. So I've think I've answered your questions except the seam taping one, so yes the X-Mid is seam taped (as is the Two). I'll finish by summing up some key advantages of the X-Mid:

Substantially more spacious tent with a longer/wider floor, more space by having the peaks further apart, and ability to fully utilize that space because it's a double wall
About 50% more vestibule space
Larger, easier to use doorways
Double wall design is modular and protects users from contacting condensation
Dual vents (vs none)
Fabric is more waterproof and durable
Higher end materials, hardware and construction
Simpler 4 stake pitch
No sag and UV resistant fabric
Fabric doesn't absorb water weight

So yes having a larger, more durable and double wall tent does make it heavier, but the weight cost of this is relatively modest (32 vs 39oz) for what you are getting because the X-Mid makes very efficient use of seams and materials. Also, this weight difference narrows substantially in real world usage because the Two requires more stakes and because the nylon used in the Two absorbs water/moisture which can add a pound pretty easily in humid or rainy conditions which doesn't happen with polyester. Outside of usage in the desert, I wouldn't be surprised if the Two packs up heavier than the X-Mid on most mornings because of how substantial water absorption is with nylon. I can see a good argument for using the Two in low humidity conditions where both condensation and water absorption are minimal and venting is unimportant, because the Two is more of a niche tent that is optimized for this. Conversely the X-Mid is designed to be a well rounded tent capable of usage in any conditions. That really sums up the difference between these two tents. The Two is a lighter but more niche tent that is suited to a subset of conditions, whereas the X-Mid is designed to be capable in a much wider range of conditions including excelling in sloppy conditions by virtue of being spacious, double wall, simple to use, fly first pitch, protected doorways, no sag fabric etc.

(Edited)

Jul 23, 2019

gimpster

Jul 23, 2019

dandurstonThank you, that's a very helpful and thorough reply. It's great to hear you talk about the reasoning behind specific materials decisions and design, as I know those reasons are almost always more important than the spec list can easily represent. This really helps a lot in my decision making. I didn't catch the difference of the nylon material for the Two and that makes a good argument for me to go with your design, since I will mostly be using this in wooded (read: moist) environments and nobody likes packing wet gear into their pack.

Jul 23, 2019

dsowden13

Jul 23, 2019

dandurstonThanks for taking the time Dan, every step of the way haha, very informative and this post certainly sealed the deal for me. I'll be picking up your X-Mid in the near future for sure!

Jul 23, 2019

Sweetjond

Oct 17, 2020

dandurstonI'm with @dandurston - doing some basic geometry with GG's own floor diagram, I come up with a little over 11,000 sqcm per vestible or 24.1 square feet of total vestibule area. So GG's claim of 32 sq ft seems to be a 33% overstatement if their diagram's dimensions are labeled correctly. Their diagram is certainly not to scale, as you can see comparing the 90cm edge (upper left) to the 110cm edge (right side). Given that Dan & I computed nearly the same vestibule area via two totally different approaches, I'm inclined to believe their diagram is labelled correctly, and the 32 sq ft vestibule area claim from their site is what's wrong.

Oct 17, 2020

Vote

View Full Discussion

Company

About Drop Studio Student Discount Privacy Policy Terms of Use Cookie Settings

Drop Refurbished

Like-new products you can trust

Drop Rewards

Get $5 for every 500 points you earn! Learn more

Drop Keyboard Club

Become a member and expand your keycap collection

Collaborate With Us

For Brands & Designers

Support

Contact Community Guidelines Help Center Sitemap

Follow Drop