Bad Advice

If there's one thing I hate (who am I kidding? I hate everything) it's people who give out bad advice, particularly those perceived to be somewhat of an authority on the subject of which they speak; people who believe everything they read or hear then repeat it as gospel, or those who confuse their own opinions with fact. People who, basically, talk sh*t.

One of the reasons we set up this blog was to give a little back. We've relied heavily on other people's reviews over the years, be that of a product or a hiking route, or a place in general.
We made our own bad decisions along the way, and will no doubt continue to make bad decisions, but by telling others hopefully they can avoid making the same mistakes, and so we write our own reviews so that we can help others in return.

But a bad review (when I say bad, I don't mean negative, I mean biased, ill-informed, inaccurate, etc) is worse than no review at all. If you can't find any reviews on a product or place or anything at all, you are left with two choices- take a punt and go for it, or leave well alone. You'll evaluate things yourself.
If you read a bad review that leads you to believe something is good, particularly from someone who appears to know what they are talking about, this may well make up your mind for you, or at least heavily influence it.

Unfortunately, 2014 Outdoor Blogger of the Year, The Girl Outdoors, is full of such bad advice. I'm sure it is not intentional or out of spite; I believe it's fueled by ignorance and a quest for free gear.

Such gems include suggesting "cheap and cheerful pop-up tents" are suitable to "face the elements" advocating the use of disposable barbeques and worse- lighting open camp fires*, recommending tin cups and plates (didn't they stop making those half a century ago?) and favouring marshmallows over a first aid kit in her "camping ultimate packing checklist".

The reviews, if you can call them that, read like marketing scripts, and despite stating that the reviews are 100% objective, she also states that she does accept corporate sponsorship and advertising, going on to list the brands that she has "worked" with which funnily enough often turn up in her product reviews.

I'd be hard-pushed to think of any product in any walk of life that I couldn't find a single negative point for (I've just got high standards), yet criticism is something that's distinctly lacking, as is any real detail or comparison to similar products, even within the same brand's own line.

Quantifying her stance, she states "I do get sent gear to test out by nice brands but I will only feature kit that I really like to use"; In other words, don't expect to read a negative review on her blog. Reassuring news to manufacturers considering sending her gear, I'm sure.

Much as an artist doesn't only use one brush, camping and hiking gear varies wildly depending on where and when it is to be used, but there is a lack of context to reviews and recommendations on The Girl Outdoors, which could easily result in people choosing the wrong equipment for the wrong task.

So, 100% objective reviews from someone who receives money from the brands she's reviewing and won't post reviews of products she doesn't like. Perhaps she should review the dictionary definition of "objective"?

Now it may seem I'm gunning for The Girl Outdoors, and that's genuinely not the case. She's obviously passionate about the outdoors, and that she tries to encourage others to enjoy it should be commended. That said, she is clearly ignorant of the basic do's-and-dont's, lacks any technical knowledge and writes reviews based on her own best interests rather than her readership's.
Had she not won Outdoor Blogger of the Year, I would dismiss it as just another load of old rubbish in the sea of tripe that is the internet. But that accolade gives an air of credibility to what otherwise may have been ignored, and so the bad advice gets lapped up, and no doubt passed on in turn, and people make bad decisions that could possibly have been otherwise prevented.
Her latest post- "Beginner's guide to camping", is quite clearly aimed at people who may not know much on the subject, yet once again she advocates lighting open fires, despite being previously lambasted for posting photographs of her wild camp in the Brecon Beacons where her and her companions had torched the ground with an open fire.

I'm loathe to post a link to The Girl Outdoors, but with any luck the back-links on Google will highlight this post and and stop people giving credence to her advice before the entire countryside goes up in flames.


The Girl Outdoors


**UPDATE**

After writing this post, and following comments between Sian and I on this blog (see below) and hers, to her credit she has updated her post to point out that not all campsites will allow disposable BBQ's or campfires.
While she is yet to make the position of campfires in the wild clear (i.e. not acceptable), at the same time the article no longer insinuates that it is OK to light one up. While this is a step in the right direction a clear statement on the legalities would be preferable to skirting round the matter, though I have to say fair-play to Sian for amending her blog and also for the polite and professional way she has conversed with me on the subject.

********


*Lighting fires on private land is illegal in the UK without the landowners permission, and generally forbidden on campsites. Given that wild camping is technically illegal anyway (apart from Scotland), lighting an open fire in the countryside is not only stupid, but a sure-fire way to get yourself kicked off the hill.
Many campsites don't allow disposable barbeques because they scorch the ground and pose fire risks (not to mention the dangers of using them inside a tent), although some provide designated areas or paving slabs upon which to use them, and you should be allowed to use them if elevated off the ground on a camping table or cook stand. Check with your intended campsite first if you are relying on a barbeque as your primary cooking source.

Andrew White

A short time ago I wrote about a walk around Elsecar organised by Radio Sheffield and Andrew White, and what was initially slated as a one-off event has blossomed into a short series of walks tied in with Radio Sheffield's "Love Where You Live" feature.

Unfortunately prior arrangements have prevented me attending all but the final walk, today, around Barnsley. Under normal circumstances this would have been a write-up of that walk, but I thought I would take a different tack and write about the architect of all the Radio Sheffield walks, Andrew White.

Now its doubtful Andrew would regard himself as a celebrity, though many people with a lesser résumé have masqueraded under that banner. Andrew is a writer, presenter and film-maker, but above all that he is a thoroughly nice bloke who enjoys what he does which, ultimately, is being outdoors.

Its impossible not to like someone who's enthusiasm shines through in such a way; here is a man guiding a walk not because he has to or because he's being paid to, but because he wants to- because that is what he enjoys.
His local knowledge is outstanding; the kind of guy you could spend the evening in the pub with and never get bored of hearing accounts of his adventures or interesting facts, yet whom manages never to make it all about himself.

With any luck the Radio Sheffield walks won't end today, and- with any luck- Andrew will be the orchestrator of all their future walks, for I can't imagine a nicer and more informed man at the helm- even if he spends most of his time leading from the back!


Andrew White

Review: TrangoWorld Skin Micro Lite Sleeping Mat

Therm-a-Rest, Exped, Multimat. Some of the first names that might come to mind when thinking of sleeping mats. Then perhaps Alpkit, Mountain Equipment, Vango. Maybe even Snugpak, Outwell or Coleman. What about TrangoWorld? Probably not.

For those who have never heard of TrangoWorld (I hadn't before embarking on my sleeping mat quest), they are a Spanish outdoors company with a history stretching as far back as the 1920's, and if their website is to be believed in the 70's and 80's they had a 40% market share of camping goods. So they've been around. In the UK today they may be best known for their trekking/mountaineering trousers which have become highly regarded.

One thing that's evident when looking at TrangoWorld's substantial line-up is that they put some effort in. These aren't just mats that are picked up from some Chinese OEM manufacturer and then a name slapped on, there is research and design involved, with materials and technologies consistent throughout the range. Their sleeping mat catalogue covers both inflatable and self-inflating mats, in full and 3/4 lengths.

The Skin Micro Lite is their top model of self-inflating mat, and gains its name, one assumes, from its fairly low 540g weight*, and its "skin" covering. This "skin" is their ArtiStretch polyurethane material, which is extremely thin and no doubt helps to keep the weight down to a minimum. This also means you are closer to the foam inside.
Another of their technologies, ArtiStop, is a coating (or something in the PU mix) that creates a non-slip surface on the mat, and I have to say this works a treat- once I'm on the mattress I stay on it.

 Photo courtesy of TrangoWorld

The Skin Micro Lite is 30mm thick, which offers a 20% increase over the 25mm that is common amongst its competitors. And while it isn't like sleeping on a memory foam mattress, its thick enough to not feel like you are sleeping on the floor. It packs down to a reasonable size, and the included stuff sack is for once just the right size, rather than being slightly too small as most manufacturers of anything that goes into a stuff sack seem to prefer.

Now, for anyone who doesn't know how a "self-inflating" mattress actually works, here's a little explanation: Self-inflating mattresses are essentially foam with a cover on. When the mattress is rolled up and put away, the foam is compressed and air that sits within its structure is forced out through a valve. This valve is then closed. When the mat is unrolled for use (and the valve re-opened), the foam expands and draws air in though the valve, which is then closed to stop it escaping when you lay on the mattress. It is normal to have to give a couple of blows into the valve to "top up" the mattress. And this leads me to my only criticism of the Skin Micro Lite:

It does not self-inflate. Not at all. When I first got it I left it a full 24 hours and it was still flat as a pancake. Neither has this improved with use- every time I use this mat I have to blow it up myself. That said, I'm talking maybe 4-5 good blows- certainly better than blowing up an air mat, and with all the added bonus of foam insulation- so it really isn't a big deal.

Talking of insulation, the TrangoWorld has an R-value (the rating for thermal resistance often quoted in sleeping mat specs) of R= 3.41. The trouble with R values is there are two formulas for calculating them- imperial and metric. American companies and those with something to hide use the imperial method, which gives a higher value, so unless you know by which method an R value has been calculated it is impossible to compare them. With TrangoWorld being Spanish, one would assume that they use the metric calculation which means 3.41 is a very good figure indeed, but it seems almost too good to be true for a mat of this weight and price, so they may indeed be using imperial measurements.

There is a lot of competition in the sleeping mat market, and far too many for me to start listing competing products, so suffice to say that when I bought this mat a few months ago, at the price I paid (about £30), it was hands-down the best mat when taking the four factors of weight, thickness, insulation and price into account.  

2021 UPDATE: Having recently been asked by a friend to spec them a hike/camping kit, it's incredible to find that in the six years since I wrote this review no-one has come close to touching the Skin Micro Lite in this price range. There is literally nothing that compares to it (even the Decathlon Quechua A100, which came a close second to the shorter version of the Skin Micro Lite, has been discontinued - see my original review here). Even Therm-a-rest's brand new 2021 Trail Scout mat - which will hit your pocket for about 50% more than the Trangoworld - is thinner, heavier and a few centimetres shorter, even if it does match the R-value.

NOTE: In 2020 the way of measuring R-values was standardised across the industry, making comparisons between mats a lot easier now.




*The mat's advertised weight is 540g, however mine weighed in at 600g in its bag and 570g out of it. I've heard this is a common issue with self-inflating mats for some reason- that they vary considerably in weight and manufacturers take an average for their product specs.


TrangoWorld Skin Micro Lite

Product Weights

Its about time I had a rant about product weights, having just bought yet another item that was well over its advertised weight.

So let me flesh this out. When I say "yet another", I say that because the vast majority of gear that I have bought tips the scale above what the manufacturer's claim. Now the odd gram here or there doesn't bother me (despite the fact that it all adds up)- I expect and accept that. I'm talking about when a product is significantly over the limit.

For example, the 380g sleeping mat that actually weighs 440g, or the 540g sleeping mat that actually weighs 600g, or- wait for it- the 700g rucksack that actually weighs over 1200g! Those are my three most recent purchases that have pushed me over the edge.

So why is weight so important? Well, for me personally I look to lighten my load because I have bad knees, and the less they have to lug around the better. Many ultralight campers will be in a similar boat. Because I've saved 30g here and 100g there, my pack now weighs over 2kg less than it used to. So when you're talking about saving weight, weights really are important. But that aside its the simple principle of getting what I paid for.

Somehow, manufacturers seem to get away with this practice. Often the get-out involves weighing "incomplete" items- a sleeping bag without its stuff sack, a water bottle without its lid, a tent without its pegs- without disclosing this fact, of course. That, or just outright fabrication of figures.

This "manipulation" of weights seems commonplace yet at the same time accepted. However, lets reverse the concept and transpose it to a different scenario: Imagine a big supermarket was overestimating product weights and were, on a daily basis, selling 1kg packs of beef that actually contained just 700g of meat. There would be a huge scandal, watchdog's would be involved, share prices would plummet and criminal proceedings would possibly take place. Yet when the opposite happens in the outdoor gear industry, nothing happens. Surely false advertising is false advertising?

Now I've heard that self-inflating sleeping mats can vary wildly, so manufacturer's take an average weight. If so, that means if my 380g mat weighs 440g, then somewhere there is one that weighs 320g. If that's the case you need to sort your manufacturing tolerances out. 

Its refreshing to be able to report that not all manufacturers feel compelled to succumb to these shady practices, however, and I do have many items that were not just the correct weight advertised, but actually less than that, and that really is the mantra of good business:

If you over-promise and under-deliver, you're only going to piss people off and create distrust in your brand. Maybe you'll gain a few extra sales that you wouldn't have got by being honest about your product, but you'll destroy your repeat-custom potential and risk your reputation by word-of-mouth. Far better to under-promise and over-deliver, and gain customers for life.