When I was younger I had a high-adrenaline running playlist that I carefully curated: Arctic Monkeys, Jay-Z, Rage Against the Machine. It got my heart rate up, the same way drinking a lot of coffee made me more productive. As podcasts became a thing鈥攁nd I decided a more moderate heart rate has its upsides鈥擨 seized the chance to explore ideas while trying to hit my weekly mile goals. What remained constant was my appreciation for the evolution of earbuds, from wired to wireless, from basic to loaded, with features like active noise cancellation, and always toward better and better sound. So it is a delight to be able to test and select the best-performing sport earbuds on the market.

Update March 2025: We’ve tested and selected new sport earbud models in six categories, including a new best overall pick of the Bose QuietComfort.

The Hottest Trend in Sport Earbuds

This year鈥檚 hottest trend is open earbuds, which allow you to hear far more of what鈥檚 going on around you, and I can鈥檛 say I鈥檝e been sold on them. There鈥檚 no doubt that they make a lot of sense for people who run along the roadside or, even more so, cyclists who go anywhere near cars鈥攇enerally a very bad time to be canceling the noise around you. Open earbuds work in one of two ways: either with the transmitter positioned near your ear canal but not in it (see the VERIO 200 in our reviews below) or through bone conduction (found in the H2O Audio TRI 2 Pro below), which bypasses your eardrum, sending sound directly to your inner ear by way of your skull bones.

Since I live in the desert and rarely pass another living soul on the trails, I don鈥檛 need to hear what鈥檚 going on around me, and open earbuds will always be challenged to sound as good, or as loud, when they鈥檙e handicapped by having to reach your hearing by alternative methods. So for music, they鈥檙e not my favorite; for the spoken word, I鈥檓 learning to like them.

During this year鈥檚 tests, one of my fellow reviewers said he appreciated that the open design allowed him to hear not just passing cars but songbirds. Which sent me into a brief panic: Am I missing all the birdsongs? Sadly, there aren鈥檛 a lot of birds on my trail, but next summer when I鈥檓 hiking up at 10,000 feet and the dark-eyed juncos are chirping in the high branches, I鈥檒l put that theory to the test.

In the meantime, many closed-ear models these days (see Bose and Bowers & Wilkins below) let you employ a transparency (or awareness) mode that enhances ambient sound. This can be a nice in-between solution if your need for awareness isn鈥檛 so much life-and-death as it is a courtesy to the runner or biker 鈥渙n your left.鈥�

As our tests demonstrated, there鈥檚 a wide array of applications for those little pieces of tech we鈥檙e so fond of popping into our ears. We tried out a variety of models designed to optimize listening for every type of activity. Here are the seven we liked best in a range of scenarios: indoors or out, on land or in the water, on city sidewalks or remote trails where you can block out the noise and be in your own sound tunnel鈥攁s long as your remote trail doesn鈥檛 pass through bear country.

At a Glance

• Best All-Around:
• Best High-Fidelity:
• Best for Runners:
• Best Open-Ear:
• Killer Value:
• Best for Water:
• Most Innovative:
• How to Choose Earbuds
• How We Test
• Meet Our Lead Tester

Best All-Around

Bose QuietComfort Earbuds

Pros and Cons
鈯� That reliable Bose sound
鈯� Excellent noise cancellation
鈯� Case feels a bit cheap

The most surprising thing about the new iteration of the QuietComfort Earbuds is the price, which has dropped from $280 in the first generation to $180. Bose also offers a premium model called the QuietComfort Ultra, which goes for $300. Surely the new economy model is lacking something those other versions had? Not a whole lot, as far as we could tell.

The new model is anchored on what Bose is best known for: smooth, warm sound that鈥檚 well balanced, with no overblown bass-iness and nothing too tinny on the high end. The QC II also comes with active noise cancellation that performed well, for example, when running on a windy day. With various sizes of fins that help you find a secure fit, they proved above average as workout earbuds, although parkour practitioners will probably experience slippage. The charging case has a slightly cheap plastic feel but is perfectly adequate.

The QC IIs come with their own app, which testers found easy to use; one 鈥済reatly appreciated being able to modify the touch controls, which I tend to dislike in earbuds, via the app.鈥� If you鈥檙e one of those people, you鈥檒l like the options for voice control, which let you pause, answer calls, and even take a selfie just by saying so. The battery life is very good, at 8.5 hours on medium volume with ANC turned on, and the charging case supplies 2.5 extra charges. With IPX4 water resistance, they repel splashing water but won鈥檛 be happy if submerged. And Bluetooth Multipoint means you can connect a phone and a laptop at the same time, without needing to fuss with Bluetooth settings every time you make the transition.

There鈥檚 nothing unexpected here鈥攁side from the low price鈥攁nd that鈥檚 a good thing. The QuietComfort II performed like a champ and had a just-right feel, and it鈥檚 always nice to pick up some excellent Bose tech and still afford to take your partner to dinner on Friday.

Best for Audiophiles

Bowers & Wilkins Pi8 In-Ear True Wireless Earbuds

Pros and Cons
鈯� Pristine sound quality
鈯� Non-frustrating touch controls
鈯� Not cheap

鈥淭he most audiophile worthy of all the earbuds I鈥檝e tested,鈥� one of our veteran reviewers gushed after a month with the Pi8s. Through hours of listening sessions on planes, on trails, on couches, and on city sidewalks, this was the pair that invariably impressed everyone on our test team, with their 鈥渋ncredibly balanced and musical鈥� sound quality.

The $400 price鈥�$150 above Apple鈥檚 ubiquitous AirPod Pros and $100 north of the Bose QuietComfort Ultras鈥攎eans you have to be serious about your music, and about taking good care of them. They鈥檙e IP54-rated, able to handle sweat and a misty rain, but are not the pair you want to bring to the gym each day. While the four sizes of ear tips help them sit pretty securely and comfortably, they will fall out on occasion. All the same, we won鈥檛 discourage you from ever bringing them on a run on a sunny day, where their high-fidelity clarity is sure to put a little more oomph in your step.

The active noise cancellation on the Pi8s is excellent, similar to that on the Bose QCII, with touch controls for toggling between on, off, and transparency mode. The touch controls work better than in most earbuds we鈥檝e seen, with a satisfying light noise that鈥檚 akin to a mouse click. We also love the pearlescent finish on the outer surface of the Pi8s, which come in four colors. A robust companion app lets you turn off the touch controls and has a five-band equalizer so you can tweak the sound profile to your liking. Battery life here is an average 6.5 hours, and the charging case holds two additional charges (13.5 hours).

Another nice feature is something called retransmission. This allows you to use the included USB-C-to-3.5mm cord to plug the unit鈥檚 charging case into an external device like an in-flight entertainment system and the case will send the signal into the buds, so you鈥檙e not stuck listening on that plastic-wrapped pair the flight attendants hand out with the peanuts.

One reviewer reported, 鈥淚 listened to an album with two double basses鈥斺€淏ut Who鈥檚 Gonna Play the Melody?鈥� by Christian McBride and Edgar Meyer鈥攁nd I could hear their fingers and the pull of the bow on the strings in ways I hadn鈥檛 before.鈥� That鈥檚 a good example of what makes these shine like few have before them.

Best for Runners

SoundPeats Q35 HD+ Neckband Headphones

Pros and Cons
鈯� Impossible to lose
鈯� Lightweight
鈯� Struggles with heavy bass
鈯� Cord can annoy some

If impressive sound coupled with a secure fit is what you鈥檙e after, this is the model for you. The Q35 HD+s are held firmly in place by semi-rigid fins that position them snugly鈥攕omething we鈥檙e surprised more earbuds don鈥檛 come with鈥攚hile a barely there cord wraps behind your neck. If you drop and do push-ups and gravity pops the buds out, the cord makes it impossible for one to roll away into the shrubbery to be lost forever. It鈥檚 a satisfying package: light but with a sturdy build, and easy to spool into your pocket when you stop for coffee.

It鈥檚 a form factor that鈥檚 been around for years and, as one tester who runs routinely notes, has been perennially dependable. What we didn鈥檛 expect, for the bargain price, is something that sounds this good. The sound is not as detailed or as robust in the low end as the Bose or B&W models, but you鈥檙e certainly getting more than you paid for. For a heart-pumping track like the Who鈥檚 鈥淏aba O鈥橰iley,鈥� they sound good enough for hours on the trail.

And time on the trail is another thing they鈥檝e got covered: The company rates them at 17 hours on a charge, after which they get plugged back in鈥攏o backup power in the carrying case, which is flimsy but does fine at protecting the device and keeping the cord from tangling with the other stuff in your backpack.

IPX5 water resistance means they鈥檒l have no problem with a light rain and should not be impacted by moisture on a long, sweaty day on the trail. And the mic built into the inline control module means the Q35 HD+ handles phone calls well鈥攚ith the proximity to your mouth arguably capturing your voice better than the mic on a wireless earbud can. It鈥檚 an impressive piece of gear that could have just as easily slotted into our Killer Value category.

Best Open Ear

Beyerdynamic VERIO 200

Pros and Cons
鈯� Best-sounding open-ear model
鈯� No discomfort inside your ears
鈯� Ear hooks can be uncomfortable

Cycling on a city street while dialing in to the all-hands meeting? Hiking with a buddy and wanting to switch between conversation and catching up on your podcasts? Knocking out two chapters of Moby-Dick on Audible on your daily run? All these use cases have their perfect companion in the VERIO 200.

And this is leaving out music, which historically (in our test team鈥檚 estimation) has sounded too weak and tinny in the open-ear design but now, at last, is starting to approach the real thing. Rock 鈥檔鈥� roll will probably never shine with this form factor, but it鈥檚 never come closer than this. Thanks to the wizards at Beyerdynamic, classical and jazz came through with a clarity that one tester called 鈥渂etter sounding and generally more sophisticated than previous attempts at open ear.鈥�

The VERIO 200s play for eight hours on a charge and have a well-designed case that provides 27 more hours. (Some found the case a little large, but others appreciated that the earpieces slide in so seamlessly, without the multiple repositioning attempts required with some brands that use a smaller case.) The dual mics make them very effective for calls, and an IP54 rating makes them suitable for runs and walks in a light rain鈥攐r for a sweaty CrossFit workout, where they鈥檇 do a good job of staying in place thanks to an effective wraparound design. (Some reviewers, however, found them uncomfortable after an hour or so.)

Of course, safety is the main motivator for going to an open-ear design, and even at full volume the VERIO allowed the sound of fellow bikers and pedestrians to be heard. Returning home, we loved being able to leave them on for hours more, listening to the news or a ballgame while being able to chat with family, with no pausing or bud removal required.

Killer Value

Mixx StreamBuds Custom 1

Pros and Cons
鈯� Compact
鈯� Surprisingly loud and clear
鈯� Small size means easy to lose
鈯� No IP rating

The Custom 1, from UK-based Mixx, delivers a really impressive sound at a great price. Out of the box, the first thing that charmed us was the size of the case, small enough to close your hand around. The earbuds themselves are small too鈥攁 fact that made them coveted by my wife, who can鈥檛 deal with anything too bulky sitting in her ears.

That tiny case is also tough, made of zinc alloy that looks sleek and can handle being dropped, stepped on (we tried it out), and generally tormented. Said case charges the Custom 1s for six hours of playtime and carries three extra six-hour charges: pretty impressive for such a wee thing.

But it鈥檚 the Custom 1鈥檚 well-detailed acoustic quality that won us over: 鈥淢usic sounded warm, with good lows, though sometimes a bit muffled,鈥� said one tester. Others also echoed the word 鈥渨arm鈥濃€攖hey seem to offer a certain rich quality that makes orchestral music shine through.

The Custom 1s sounded great on runs but are definitely not the most secure, and at their size, you鈥檒l be nervous about losing them. 鈥淚 preferred them for walking rather than more active running or hiking,鈥� one tester remarked. Nor do they come with any IP rating for water or dust resistance; this doesn鈥檛 mean they can鈥檛 handle moisture, but apparently the company didn鈥檛 do that testing. If you鈥檙e a fan of compactness, if you have smaller ears, or if you simply like discovering hidden gems at a bargain price, however, this is one to add to the mix.

Best for Water

H2O Audio TRI 2 Pro

Pros and Cons
鈯� Totally waterproof
鈯� Onboard memory
鈯� Song transfer is slow
鈯� Can cause tickling

Have you harbored dreams of funneling techno into your auditory nerve while windsurfing on San Francisco Bay, then voice-commanding to switch over to an incoming business call? One member of our review crew put three models of waterproof earbuds through this very test and, while the process stands to be improved through future innovations, it worked fairly well, with the TRI 2 Pro coming out on top.

H2O Audio has been selling good products for swimmers and the like for years鈥攊t takes a special approach, not least because they need to be IPX8, able to go 12 feet underwater for as long as you want them to鈥攍ike this model can. And, of course, a Bluetooth signal won鈥檛 travel under the waves with you, so tracks need to be stored locally, either on a waterproof MP3 player or an even better solution, like this unit鈥檚 8GB of onboard memory that can store 130 hours of tracks. (It can move your own mp3 files over or 鈥渞ecord鈥� music from a streaming service like Spotify, though this is a slow process.)

The TRI 2 Pros employ bone conduction technology, which makes them great for podcasts while out on a run or bike ride, but a little less ideal when trying to rock out in said open-air activities: Then they can start to tickle. Still, H2O Audio and other companies are making these units sound better every year. And it鈥檚 underwater that they really shine: When you use the included earplugs to neutralize the water noise in your ears, it鈥檚 surprising how smooth music sounds, and at much more moderate volumes. They鈥檙e a minor godsend for lap swimmers, snorkelers, and triathletes (presumably the core audience for the Tri line) who like to enhance their life aquatic by playing their favorite symphony or devouring an audiobook. The headset will play for up to nine hours in Bluetooth mode and six hours in memory mode and comes with a zip case (which is rather bulky) that provides two and a half refills.

Back to our windsurfer: The TRI 2 Pro worked under a helmet (and this success was replicated on the ski slopes), which also secured them in the event of a fall. Playing tunes when the wind was low was enjoyable, but in high wind it was a challenge: 鈥淚 could hear the music, but the output of the headphones had to compete with the roar of wind in my ear canals. It鈥檚 simply a matter of physics.鈥� This also meant the tester鈥檚 hopes of 鈥渢urning sales meetings into sails meetings鈥� by joining conference calls were largely dashed. Listening worked fine, but the microphone couldn鈥檛 pick up his voice from deep inside his helmet. Maybe one day.

Most Innovative

Denon PerL True Wireless Earbuds

Pros and Cons
鈯� Rich, dynamic sound
鈯� Impressive app
鈯� Customizable sound profile
鈯� Chunky size

鈥淓ach product is hand-tuned by our sound master,鈥� Denon says of the PerLs, and while we don鈥檛 know exactly what that means, it speaks to the Japanese DNA in these premium-sounding buds. Take the accompanying software, for instance: The first thing you do with these wireless buds is download an app that streams a series of sounds and frequencies into your ears to measure how you hear, then creates a personalized profile that transforms how good music sounds. It鈥檚 one of the best uses of a headphone app we鈥檝e seen.

The PerLs came across as lively but not piercing on the high end, with realism and verve. There鈥檚 even a high-gain option on the app that boosts volume for quiet recordings, which one tester called 鈥渁 welcome feature that I would love to see in a lot of sometimes anemic Bluetooth earbuds.鈥� These capabilities are made possible by a series of ultra-sensitive microphones, which probably explains their rather enormous size鈥攐ne reviewer called them 鈥渟harp-edged Alka-Seltzer tablet earbud bodies鈥� and noted, 鈥淚 had to remove the supplied fin attachment before these felt okay.鈥�

Others liked the fit and found them great for running, where they kept the adrenaline flowing with some of the best full-on rocking-out sound in the test. 鈥淪t. Vincent and Spoon sounded like I was listening to vinyl,鈥� one tester said. The active noise cancellation is decent, the six hours of battery is average (with two more charges from the case), and an IPX4 rating means they can handle a light rain. Given the quality and attention to detail, we consider these a true bargain at $139 or less.

How to Choose Earbuds

Earbuds are more like shoes than most other gear categories: so much depends on the right fit. What comfortably fits one person鈥檚 ears may not suit another鈥檚, and there鈥檚 more to it than size. The internal anatomy of the ear makes certain designs actually sound better to one person than the next. If you can鈥檛 try them out at a store or borrow them from a friend, it may be best to buy them from a retailer with a good return policy. Once you have them in hand, do some real-world tests with the different tip sizes, and trade them in if you aren鈥檛 in love.

If you want to get serious about the perfect fit, consider aftermarket foam eartips, like . In addition to helping with a more secure fit, they provide passive noise isolation, which can improve the experience with both ANC-equipped and ANC-less earbuds. Should fit issues persist, consider a model with behind-the-ear hooks like the .

Also give some thought to which features do it for you: Some people like sleek touch controls, others prefer old-school push buttons; some like to tap for quick pausing, others would rather forgo that feature and pull out one bud to ask for directions, so as to avoid the annoyance of unwanted pauses every time your fingers go near them. And if you live in a rainy climate, be sure to choose ones with an ending in 4 or higher (as all the models here do).

Finally, be aware that there are more specialized designs emerging and getting better each year鈥搇ike these earbuds for , others for , and for those who want to stay more tuned in to their surroundings.

How We Test Sport Earbuds

• Hours of Testing: 246
• Test Environments: Running, hiking, dog walking, cycling, windsurfing, skiing, rock climbing, yardwork, car camping, conference calls, video streaming, noisy coffee shops
• Highest Elevation: 10,152 feet, Leadville, Colorado
• Lowest Elevation: 5 feet underwater in Lake Pleasant, Arizona
• Most Listened-To Tracks: Childish Gambino: 鈥淟ithonia,鈥� The Cure: 鈥淎lone,鈥� Drugdealer and Kim Bollinger: 鈥淧ictures of You,鈥� Fontaines D.C.: 鈥淔avourite,鈥� J Dilla: 鈥淲orkinonit,鈥� Kenya Grace: 鈥淪trangers,鈥� Magdalena Bay: 鈥淚mage,鈥� Slowthai ft. James Blake and Mount Kimbie: 鈥淔eel Away,鈥� Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross: 鈥淐hallengers鈥�

The first thing we do with any earbuds, headphones, or speakers is attempt to pair them with our phones without consulting the user manual: the quicker, more intuitive, and easier the Bluetooth setup, the more points scored. Then we put them through rigorous hours of testing doing the kinds of things 国产吃瓜黑料 readers do鈥攆rom dog walks to HIIT workouts, from fireside listening to our day jobs, which for one of us is at the local woodworking shop. Our testers, who range in location from Alaska to Berkeley to Santa Fe to New York City, spent hours in them, bouncing up and down on trails, treadmills, and trains.

Our team turns in reports on each product tested, providing a score from 1 to 10 for five different measures: sound quality, pairing and connectivity, fit and comfort, rain and drop protection, and user friendliness. Scores are averaged, with more weight given to sound quality and (knowing our audience) how well they stand up to the elements. Note: Battery life estimates in these reviews are based on manufacturer specs; it鈥檚 difficult to confirm those numbers, given the time involved and variances among user habits (different volumes, different uses, different functions enabled). Actual results may be 10 to 20 percent lower, judging from averages experienced in general testing.

Meet Our Lead Tester

Will Palmer has been testing gear for 21 years for 国产吃瓜黑料, where he was managing editor and copy chief for nine years. Based in Santa Fe, he has been a runner since 1984, and while the mile counts have decreased over the years, he鈥檚 kept motivated to head out the door on the hottest, coldest, and wettest days by the opportunity to test the best new products鈥攁nd to commune with the junipers and pi帽ons.

The post The 7 Best Sport Earbuds (2025) appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

In 2021, business partners Charles McNall and James Linton brought us the Chuck Bucket ski-carry system. This year, they added crossbars to the hitch as a way to carry bikes instead of skis, and rebranded as .

I received an early production sample of the Chuck Bucket last year, and it was an immediate hit with my family for our many trips up to the local ski hill. This summer, I tested the bike rack conversion kit, and it鈥檚 just as solid. Here are my takeaways on using the whole system from season to season, sport to sport.

Phase One: The Chuck Bucket

Specifications

Base Post

• Made for 2鈥� receiver (1-1/4鈥� adapter available)
• Includes anti-wobble hitch wedge
• 36-degree tilt back (90-degree optional)
• Weighs 22 pounds
• $150, sold separately

Bucket

• Carries up to 8 pairs of skis, 4 snowboards, golf clubs, 2x4s, etc.
• Rubber pad in the bottom of the bucket to protect tails/edges of skis
• Weight limit of 150 pounds

Review

You may have seen something like the Chuck Bucket on the back of commercial ski shuttle vans driving around resorts. Those vehicles need to be efficient with their use of space when transporting clients with luggage and ski bags between the airport and the ski area. A simple bucket on the back of the van means shuttle drivers don鈥檛 have to hoist skis up to a box or rack on the top of the van, nor do they need to awkwardly slide the skis under the van鈥檚 benches and sacrifice the comfort of the passengers.

McNall and Linton realized these elements of convenience could be just as useful for everyday skiers and boarders heading to the mountains, and they were right. The Chuck Bucket not only made it easier for me to load and unload skis compared to using a roof box or rack, but鈥攚hen it was tipped back鈥攁lso allowed my 4-year-old son to also retrieve and stow his own skis from the bucket.

The tipping mechanism is a handy device that lets you听access an SUV tailgate, hatchback, or the trunk of a car. For pickup trucks and vehicles with swing-out tailgates, the 鈥淔ull-Tilt Upgrade Plates鈥� kit allows the rack to tip all the way back to lay flat, removing any impediment to access.

The Chuck Bucket may听be particularly useful for owners of private vans, conversion vans, campers, and RVs. On these rigs, creating roof access to skis and boards can be tricky and expensive, even with ladders bolted on.

Watch: Converting the Chuck Bucket to the Chuck Rack

There are some downsides to the Chuck Bucket, but they can be easily managed. First, there鈥檚 no integrated lock system to prevent the theft of skis or boards left in the bucket. The solution is a third-party MasterLock Python Cable Lock, to lock the skis to the rack, although it still isn鈥檛 as secure as a locked roof box or clamp-down roof rack. The rack itself can be locked to the vehicle with a locking hitch pin (not included).

Another downside is that skis and snowboards are exposed to the elements and road grime in the Chuck Bucket (something you don’t have to worry about with a roof box). This is true for any clamp-style ski/board rack. But with most听other roof-top racks, you cannot store your skis or boards in a ski bag. The Chuck Bucket, however, easily accommodates skis and boards in bags or even in a hard-sided case to protect them against the elements.

Final ding: The Chuck Bucket does not collapse flat for convenient off-season storage, so you鈥檒l need to find some space in your garage to house it when it鈥檚 not in use. Because it鈥檚 weather-tolerant, however, you could also store it outside if space inside is limited.

Phase Two: The Chuck Rack

Specifications

• Rack components weigh 24 lbs
• Holds 4 bikes
• 80 lbs limit on the two center hooks
• 60 lbs limit on the two outer hooks
• 40 lbs limit on extension hooks
• 275 lbs max load capacity
• $449 (base post not included)

Review

Once the snow melted, McNall and Linton reached for their bikes and figured out how to convert the Chuck Bucket to a bike rack.

They removed the bucket and upper cage, slid an extension bar over the base post, and added horizontal bars with handlebar and wheel connection points. The conversion kit was released in January and they submitted the new modification for review.

It required a little bit of wrench work to build out the extension and add the upper and lower cross bars, but soon the 24-pound rack was ready to hold four bikes.

The handlebar hooks are conveniently set at an angle and rubberized to protect the handlebars. Neoprene protective sleeves can be added for more protection (available from Chuck Rack). As bikes are heavier than skis, I found it a little more involved to get the bikes up on the rack than to get the skis in the bucket. And since the bikes hang on their handlebars, it required some practice to get comfortable with lifting the bike by the frame and the forks that twist. A stretchy rubber strap loops over the handlebar and hooks back on the rack to keep the bike from bouncing off. This is standard for this style of bike rack across a number of brands, and while it’s not the prettiest solution, it gets the job done.听The rear wheel crossbar simply uses a Voile strap to secure the wheels.

At 38 inches between the upper handlebar rack and rear wheel rest, the rack easily accommodated my 26.5-inch wheel bike as well as my son鈥檚 kid鈥檚 bike with 20-inch wheels. The two center hooks can take up to 80 pounds each, the outer two hooks can take up to 60 pounds each, and the rack extensions, which increase the capacity from four to six bikes, can take up to 40 pounds each. But all the hooks cannot be maxed out (360 pounds) as the total capacity of the rack is 275 pounds.

Like the bucket, the bike rack does not have an integrated lock system, but the same MasterLock Python Cable Lock will work in this configuration as well. For storage, once the bike rack components are taken off of the Base Post, I just had to remove a cotter pin from the upper handlebar crossbar to pivot it inline with the main stem sleeve then put the lower rear wheel crossbar next to it. The whole thing takes up less room than a pair of fat powder skis.

Transition: Chuck Bucket to Chuck Rack

Switching out the bucket that holds ski, snowboard, golf equipment, etc. for the bike rack bars is incredibly simple. Because the base post remains in the vehicle hitch, the individual components are easy to detach and light enough to lift with ease. Thanks to a clever series of cotter pins, it took me less than two minutes to remove the bucket and the upper retainer cage, then slide on the upper handlebar crossbar and the rear wheel crossbar.

The Chuck Rack vs. Other Convertible Gear Racks

What else is out there like this? Not much. Sure, there are plenty of modular rack systems like the ($589 base price) which has ski ($349) and bike ($499) attachments, but no bucket for skis or snowboards. The closest thing to the Chuck Rack is the $1,800 , but that does not include a bike-carry option.

Pros and Cons of the Chuck Rack Ski/Bike-Carry System

Pros

• Lightweight
• Easy ski or board load & unload (even for kids)
• Easy transition from bucket to bars: base post stays hitched to the vehicle
• Bike rack bars fold down to stay out of the way

Cons

• Skis/boards are exposed to elements
• No integrated lock
• Bucket does not collapse for convenient storage

From the first iteration of this product, which was simply a five-gallon bucket strapped to a hitch-mounted bike rack, to the current version, McNall and Linton have landed on a winner. For my family, the pros of the Chuck Rack ski/bike carry-system outweigh the cons.

The design is simple but effective, and the system is useful year-round. While I鈥檓 not looking to replace my Chuck Rack anytime soon, I am excited to see what else the masterminds behind this system come up with. McNall and Linton are actively working on configuring new attachments to accommodate more kinds of gear, and they are keenly aware of making everything compatible in reverse, so current users will always be able to take advantage of the upgrades in design and components.

The post This Do-It-All Rack Can Carry Your Skis and Bikes appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Every year, tents get lighter, stronger, and more sustainable. 2023 was no exception. The seven winners of this year鈥檚 exhaustive testing process proved themselves over and over in wind, rain, and even snow.

The Winners at a Glance

Best Space-to-Weight Ratio: NEMO Hornet Osmo 3P

Most Affordable Weather Protection: The North Face Trail Lite 2

Most Comfortable: Sea to Summit Ikos TR2

Most Comfortable Alt-Hammock: Tentsile Ocean UNA 1-Person Hammock Tent

Most Affordable Tarp-Tent: Outdoor Vitals Fortius

Best Beginner Tent: Coleman Peak1 2 Person

Best Mid: Big Agnes Gold Camp UL3

How We Test

Number of Testers: 11

Number of Products Tested: 13

Number of Miles Hiked While Testing: 308

Number of Nights Slept 国产吃瓜黑料: 76.5

Our testing group spanned the country, in wilderness areas from Maine to Hawaii. Testers come from a variety of backgrounds, genders, and professions, from public school teachers to park rangers. Over the course of two months, these testers evaluated the following tents on a multitude of criteria, including livability, ventilation, design, weather protection, setup, and price, among other intangibles. Those that didn鈥檛 stand up to the elements, were uncomfortable to live inside for weeks on end, or simply weren鈥檛 worth the price tag didn鈥檛 make it into our final round of testing.

Meet Our Lead Tester

Will McGough has been writing about the outdoors and testing tents for Backpacker and 国产吃瓜黑料 since 2015. Specs aside, he believes the most important thing about a tent is how it makes you feel鈥攁 good tent should make you feel at home, regardless of climate and conditions.

The Reviews: The Best 3-Season Tents of 2023

Best Space-to-Weight Ratio: NEMO Hornet Osmo 3P ($550)

Weight: 3.3 lbs
Interior Space: 40 square feet
Peak Height: 44 inches
Pros: Space-to-weight ratio; portability
Cons: Pricey

NEMO鈥檚 top-selling tent, the double-walled Hornet, expanded this year to include a three-person version that boasts an elite space-to-weight ratio. It adds more than 12 square feet of interior living space to its two-person layout at a cost of just 13 ounces, earning it the best space-to-weight ratio in test and within its own lightweight tent line. The tent body compresses down to the size of a Nalgene, and with just one hubbed pole, packability is exceptional. At less than three pounds, it鈥檚 light enough to pack for long miles while providing adequate space for three tall backpackers thanks to its 88-inch length. 鈥淢y 6鈥�4鈥� partner could lay down without hitting his head or feet on the ends of the tent,鈥� said tester Chelsea Gardner, a Durango-based Wilderness Medical Instructor. 鈥淚t was the roomiest, most comfortable backpacking tent he鈥檚 experienced.鈥� Two 8.6-square-foot vestibules are decently-sized, although storage space is tight for three people carrying big packs (each vestibule will easily swallow a big pack plus boots and daypacks, though). Even with a trio jammed inside, condensation is well-managed thanks to a three-quarter mesh body and pop-out vents. The two-door tent is made of NEMO鈥檚 100-percent recycled Osmo fabric, a proprietary combination of nylon and polyester that鈥檚 relatively lightweight and strong. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a three-season tent, but it still handled a surprise snowstorm with gusty winds around 25 miles-per-hour,鈥� reported another tester from Mt. Taylor鈥檚 11,400-foot peak in New Mexico. 鈥淚 stayed dry and comfortable inside.鈥�

Bottom Line: The Hornet is one of the lightest semi-freestanding three person tents on the market.

Most Affordable Weather Protection: The North Face Trail Lite 2 ($300)

Weight: 5.1 lbs
Interior Space: 30 square feet
Peak Height: 43 inches
Pros: Excellent weather protection; price
Cons: Weight

Finding a budget tent is easy. Finding a budget tent that can weather shoulder season storms? Not so much. The North Face Trail Lite 2 is the exception thanks to 9.5 millimeter aluminum poles, a 20-denier nylon ripstop fly with a 1,200 millimeter water-repellent coating, and 75-denier polyester floor. That burly bathtub floor adds weight, but allows the tent to withstand abuse on rough terrain and keep dirt and water at bay. 鈥淭his is a three-season tent that I would feel comfortable pushing into the early winter,鈥� said tester Dan Rinard, chief ranger at Baxter State Park in Maine. 鈥淚t would perform fine in a snow event.鈥� (The 20-denier fly, while a strong performer in inclement weather, prevents the Trail Lite 2 from being a true four-season tent.) Still, testers reported the Trail Lite 2 stood firm in sustained winds and deflected gusts up to 45 miles-per-hour, with pre-attached guy lines that make hunkering down a breeze. The lack of a fly vent emphasizes the focus on weather protection, but an all-mesh body allows for adequate ventilation. Overhead and side pockets make it easy to stay organized. Two eight square-foot vestibules sit outside the two oversized doors, big enough for large packs or foul-weather cooking. Inside, the peak height of 43 inches is average for its class, but the interior volume is maximized by the pre-bent poles. 鈥淚 was able to sit up straight in all four corners of the tent without touching the tent body or ceiling,鈥� said Rinard, who is 6 feet tall.

Bottom Line: If your idea of three-season camping includes early spring, late fall, and high altitude, the Trail Lite 2 delivers at a relatively affordable price point.

Most Comfortable: Sea to Summit Ikos TR2 ($429)

Weight: 5.2 lbs
Interior Space: 31 square feet
Peak Height: 41 inches
Pros: Comfort; livability
Cons: Weight

Weighing in at over five pounds, the Sea to Summit Ikos TR2 is one of the heaviest tents in our testing class and walks the line between a backpacking and car camping tent. But our testers found its livability to be among the best for two-person tents that could still be pressed into backcountry use. That鈥檚 thanks to a generous 31 square feet of living space and high-arching cross pole (although peak height is just below average), which allowed testers to change out of sweaty clothes without banging into the ceiling. Four pockets and two overhead storage slings made organization a snap. Vestibules on either side are just shy of nine square feet each, big enough for a pack, boots, and accessories with plenty of space for a clear path out of the tent at night. The pointed ridgepole design is key to its livability, but it also enhances the tent鈥檚 weather protection underneath the PFC-free, DWR-coated 68-denier ripstop polyester fly. It successfully deflected wind and encouraged rain to run off the top of the tent on a stormy trip to Yellowstone National Park. The polyester floor (also 68-denier) stayed bone dry on a rainy weekend atop the Grand Mesa in Colorado, while the bathtub rim kept dust from blowing in during a canyoneering outing in Moab. 鈥淭he vestibule walls come down quite low to the ground, so when we woke up to 4 inches of snow on the ground, the vestibule area was still 90-percent snow-free,鈥� reported a New Mexico-based tester.

Bottom Line: The Sea to Summit Ikos TR2 is a spacious, user-and-eco-friendly backpacking tent if weight isn鈥檛 your foremost concern

Most Comfortable Alt-Hammock: Tentsile听Ocean UNA 1-Person Hammock Tent ($299)

Weight: 5.1 lbs
Pros: Lay-flat sleeping; recycled materials
Cons: Complicated pitch; heavy

Tentsile has made a name for itself with its line of 鈥渢ree tents鈥濃€攅ssentially a deluxe hammock with three straps instead of two, the ability to lie flat, and a single arch pole for structure. But, at 15-20 pounds, these luxe hammock-tent fusions have never been appropriate for backpackers. Enter Tentsile鈥檚 new Ocean UNA, a relatively lightweight, one-person tree tent made entirely from undyed 20-denier polyester sourced from recycled ocean plastic. Weighing five pounds and packing down to the size of a paper towel roll, it鈥檚 still heavier than a backpacking hammock or lightweight tent. But its glut of creature comforts impressed our testers on multi-day mountain adventures, from an easy-to-use, built-in bug net to multiple internal and external storage options. As with all of Tentsile鈥檚 tree tents, its three-anchor suspension system offered a wide range of sleep positions for testers. Under the tall ponderosas of Coconino National Forest in Flagstaff, Arizona, we experienced no tacoing or slumping into the banana shape that often occurs in a simple hammock. 鈥淚t was the 鈥榝lattest鈥� night sleep I鈥檝e ever had in a hammock,鈥� said one Colorado-based tester. (Ding: Taller testers found their feet to be a little cramped). As with all hammock-style tents, it takes time, knowledge of knots, and patience to pitch the Ocean UNA properly. But for hammock-curious campers, or folks who find both traditional tent camping and hammock camping to be uncomfortable, the eco-friendly Ocean UNA is an excellent option for overnights or short trips into the backcountry.

Bottom Line: The Tentsile Ocean UNA is a sustainable 鈥渢ree tent鈥� for finicky sleepers and hammock-curious backpackers on short missions.

Most Affordable Tarp-Tent: Outdoor Vitals Fortius ($340)

Weight: 2.2 lbs
Interior Space: 29 square feet
Peak Height: 46 inches
Pros: Weight; packability
Cons: Requires trekking poles; learning curve for proper pitch

In the category of silicon-nylon tarp-style tents鈥攁 popular choice for budget thru-hikers and ultralighters鈥攖he single-walled Outdoor Vitals Fortius is an excellent, middle-of-the-road newcomer. At just over two pounds, this trekking pole-assisted tent packs down to the size of a loaf of sandwich bread, making it ideal for experienced backpackers who travel long distances and prioritize portability and weight above all else. The two-person shelter is airy thanks to the 10-denier all-mesh tent body, and, once pitched correctly, the 15-denier ripstop nylon fly and bathtub floor do a surprisingly good job of repelling inclement weather. On a very wet trip near Alaska鈥檚 Kachemak Bay, the Fortius kept testers (and their gear) well-sheltered from relentless all-day rain with only minor condensation, while guy lines held down the fort during 15-mile-per-hour gusts. The 29-square-foot floor plan is a bit small on paper, but a best-in-test maximum peak height of 46 inches means space doesn鈥檛 feel cramped overhead. Two large 10.5-square-foot vestibules offer ample room for packs and boots, and two doors provide each camper their own entry and exit鈥攍uxuries for ultralight tarp-tents. And while overall weight and square-footage are just average for the category, the Fortius is more affordable than most. The main downsides to this tarp-tent? To help cut weight, it has no internal pockets, and, like many trekking pole-required tents, it takes experience and patience to master the perfect pitch. That finicky pitch, owing to adjustable trekking pole height and a multitude of extra-long guy-out points, also means the Fortius can easily contort in varying weather conditions and terrain.

Bottom Line: The Outdoor Vitals Fortius is a solid two-person tarp-tent at an excellent price point

Best Beginner Tent: Coleman Peak1 2 Person ($269)

Weight: 6 lbs. 1 oz.
Interior Space: 32 square feet
Peak Height: 42 inches
Pros: Price; fully-featured; livability
Cons: Weight; packability

While Coleman is better known for its propane stoves and car camping palaces, its Peak1 tent proved to be an ideal beginner backpacking shelter thanks to ease of setup, a spacious interior, low price, and well-designed 鈥渕oonroof.鈥� With a heavy, 75-denier polyester (2,000 millimeter waterproof coating) and 8.7-millimeter-thick aluminum poles, the tent hardly budged in the 30 mile-per-hour winds testers experienced at Carlsbad State Beach in California. With 32 square feet of interior space鈥攖he most of any two person tent this year鈥攔iding out the weather was a breeze. 鈥淚t was roomy enough for two squirmy sleepers, jackets, and gear,鈥� reported Emma Veidt, Backpacker鈥檚 assistant editor. 鈥淲e were able to sit up and chat without feeling like we were on top of each other.鈥� But that weather protection comes at the expense of both weight and packability. At more than six pounds, it鈥檚 at the very upper limit for what we鈥檇 still consider to be a 鈥渂ackpacking鈥� tent. And the smallest we could pack it down was to the size of two paper towel rolls, necessitating a two-pack carry. But the Peak1 is feature-rich, with multiple pockets per-person and a triangular 鈥渟tar view window鈥� that鈥檚 easily unzipped from inside the tent (with the added bonus of extra ventilation). While we often find 鈥渟targazing鈥� options gimmicky, we found the Peak1鈥檚 approach to be just right鈥攎uch easier than rolling back the fly from the outside or trying to peep through a distorted plastic window. And at less than $300, it鈥檚 an affordable way for newcomers or weekend-warrior backpackers who don鈥檛 pile up the mileage to score their first shelter.

Bottom Line: The Coleman Peak1 offers a good balance of price point, features, and livability for new backpackers.

Best Mid: Big Agnes Gold Camp UL3 Tarp and Mesh Inner ($470)

Weight: 4.2 lbs
Interior Space: 45 square feet
Peak Height: 80 inches
Pros: Versatility
Cons: Limited vestibule space

It鈥檚 unusual for a veteran tent brand like Big Agnes to branch out into a niche category like pyramid-style tents (mids, for short), but we鈥檙e glad they did. A mid-style tent offers an unrivaled peak height, weather-protection, and space-to-weight ratio that only gets better with additional occupants. The three-person Gold Camp UL3 boasts 45 square feet of floor space and over six-and-a-half-feet of height at its peak鈥攆ar larger and taller than any traditional three-person tent. During a stormy trip to Coconino National Forest in Flagstaff, Arizona, our testers were able to pitch the 20-denier polyester ripstop fly as a camp kitchen during a rainstorm while also lounging in four backpacking chairs. 鈥淏eing able to stand up inside a tent when you鈥檙e six feet tall is a real treat,鈥� said one Colorado-based tester. Come nightfall, they attached the all-mesh tent body and 20-denier polyester ripstop floor (with a 1,500-millimeter waterproof coating) without ever taking down the fly. A few weeks later, while visiting the bone-dry Muley Twist Canyon in Capitol Reef National Park, Utah, another group of testers pitched just the inner mesh body for a bug-free night of stargazing. Its tall stature and non-freestanding design mean the tent body and tarp must be carefully guyed out to stand strong against wind鈥攕omething our testers reported was easier in teams, but doable alone. One downside of many mid-style tents is that they lack a vestibule entirely, but the Gold Camp UL smartly provides a small, 8.5-square-foot space in front of the door, capable of holding three sets of dirty boots. Our testers appreciated the storage option, although most things still had to sleep inside, requiring a quick game of Tetris before bedding down for the night. With a total weight just over four pounds, though, no one argued about who had to carry the tent.

Bottom Line: Big Agnes鈥檚 first real foray into pyramid-style tents offers an excellent space-to-weight ratio with a large floor plan and high ceilings for larger groups

How to Buy a Three-Season Tent

Capacity, size, and vestibules

The first thing to consider when buying a tent is its size. You鈥檒l want to know the number of people it鈥檚 designed to hold, but also look closely at the square-footage to ensure it will work for your specific needs. Check the length of the tent if you are more than 6 feet tall鈥攁 couple inches of head and leg room are critical for a good night鈥檚 sleep, and not all tents are created equal. Pay attention to the amount of vestibule space a tent offers, especially if you plan to backpack in colder, more gear-heavy months.

Weight vs. durability and weatherproofing

While the best tents offer a lightweight balance of livability, weather protection, and durability evenly, those qualities often come at a weight penalty. Consider how far you鈥檒l be hiking and how much weight you can comfortably carry over that distance. Some folks are happy to carry a five-pound tent that has a large floorplan and ample headroom, while others will prefer to minimize weight at the cost of comfort. Once you get a sense of your maximum weight, think about the weatherproofing you鈥檒l need in the environments you plan to visit. Campers in Florida have different needs than campers in Colorado. An all-mesh tent body will improve ventilation in hot climates, but let heat escape in cold climates. If heavy rain or bad weather is the norm for you, invest in heavier-weight, more waterproof tent fabric and thicker, stronger poles. Burlier floor materials also add weight to the tent, but offer more durability on abrasive ground.

Freestanding vs. semi- vs. non freestanding

Another thing to consider is the type of pitch a tent uses. Freestanding tents are supported by a set of structural poles and can be pitched anywhere, without the use of guy lines or added tension. They are the easiest to pitch, but offer minimal customization in foul weather. Semi and non-freestanding tents all use poles of some sort (structural aluminum poles or trekking poles), but need to be staked out using guy lines. This requires more patience and know-how when pitching, however it also allows the tent to be pitched in a variety of ways, making it easier to fit into tight spaces. Non-freestanding and semi-freestanding tents also typically weigh less than freestanding tents because they don鈥檛 come with as many鈥攐r any鈥攑oles.

Finally, a pro tip:

Know the return policies. The only way to truly know a tent is to spend a couple of nights in it. Some stores and brands allow you to return used products without a penalty.

When it’s time to upgrade your gear, don鈥檛 let the old stuff go to waste鈥揹onate it for a good cause and divert it from the landfill. our partner, Gear Fix, will repair and resell your stuff for free! Just box up your retired items, , and send them off. We鈥檒l donate 100 percent of the proceeds to .

The post The Best Three-Season Tents of 2023 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

A solid backpacking pack is the foundational piece of gear for all overnight adventures. Without one, you won鈥檛 get much further than your driveway. Without a good one, you might not want to leave that driveway ever again. Here are the year鈥檚 very best haulers, guaranteed to keep you comfortable, pain-free, and stoked even under the heaviest loads.

The Winners at a Glance

Editors鈥� Choice: Osprey Exos/Eja Pro 55L

Lightest: Gossamer Gear Fast Kumo 36L

Best for First-Timers: Gregory Zulu/Jade 43/45L

Best for Long Trails: Outdoor Vitals Shadowlight 45L

Most Weatherproof: ULA Ultra CDT 54L

Best Budget Pick: Decathlon 50+10L MT900 Ultralight / 奥辞尘别苍鈥檚 45+10L MT900 Ultralight

Best for Big Missions: Blue Ice Stache 60L

Most Versatile: ZPacks Arc Haul Ultra 60L

Biggest: Kelty Glendale 85L

How We Test

Total Miles: 2,950

Total Vertical Feet: 394,000

Coldest Temp: 21掳F, Antuco, Chile (Kelly McNeil)

Hottest Temp: 115掳F, Escalante Canyon, UT (Jeanelle Carpentier)

Highest Elevation: 14,505 feet, Mt. Whitney Summit (Zettie Shapey)

Highest Winds: 40 mph, Chugach State Park, AK (Diane Van Dommelen)

Heaviest Load: 125 pounds, Chugach National Forest, AK (Lang Van Dommelen)

Longest Water Carry: 14 miles, Clearwater Forest, ID (Jim Pierce)

Gnarliest Bushwack: 9.5 miles of alder and devil鈥檚 club in Alaska鈥檚 Glacier Creek (Dorn Van Dommelen)

Backpacking packs are among the toughest items to fully test within the course of a season. They鈥檙e more complex than apparel, they take longer to show their weak spots than boots, and all the bells and whistles can take dozens of miles to evaluate. That means each pack needs two testers and 50 to 100 miles on the trail at a minimum鈥攁ll in just a four-month span. Every testing season is a madcap race to drive as many packs into the ground as fast as we possibly can.

Samples usually start trickling into the office in July. From then on, it鈥檚 a game of hot potato: we rush to ship them to our hardest-charging testers鈥攁s far as Canada, Alaska, and Peru. When one trip ends, the pack flies back to the post office and into the hands of the next tester.

This year, we evaluated 20 total packs. The ones without technical features, load-bearing hip belts, or suspensions appropriate for their carrying capacity, we eliminated from the test. From there we distributed our candidates to 19 testers across eight states and four countries. Those that broke, tore, or left our testers aching were either re-tested or cut from the running. As for those that lightened loads, kept us moving, or made us forget we were wearing packs at all? You鈥檒l find those listed here.

Meet Our Testers

Corey Buhay () started backpacking in college and has been wearing a pack of some kind pretty much ever since. She鈥檚 a former Backpacker editor and co-author of the hiking guidebook and is currently based in Boulder, Colorado. She鈥檚 been managing the packs category for Backpacker since 2019 and has developed very strong opinions about hipbelt pockets.

Dorn Van Dommelen is the ringleader of a family of gear testers based in Anchorage, Alaska. He鈥檚 infamous for his ability to put holes in even the most durable packs via rigorous multiday bushwhacks in the Alaskan backcountry. Van Dommelen is currently a professor of geography and anthropology at the University of Alaska, Anchorage.

Zettie Shapey is a gear tester and climate organizer based in Brooklyn. When we need someone to put serious miles on a pack, this is who we call. This summer, Shapey (trail name 鈥淶iploc鈥�) hiked the entire 2,650-mile Pacific Crest Trail and brought the Shadowlight 45L along for most of it.

The Reviews: The Best Backpacking Packs of 2023

Editor鈥檚 Choice: Osprey Exos/Eja Pro 55L ($290)

Weight: 2 lbs (men鈥檚 S/M), 1.9 lbs (women鈥檚 XS/S)
Size: XS/S and M/L (women鈥檚), S/M and L/XL (men鈥檚)
Pros: Outstanding comfort, breathability, and durability for a pack this light.
Cons: Load-carrying capacity maxes out around 35 lbs

Looking at this pack鈥檚 plush hipbelt, tensioned trampoline backpanel, and plentiful pockets, you鈥檇 be forgiven for expecting it to weigh twice as much as it does. But that鈥檚 the magic of the new Exos/Eja Pro: it鈥檚 more comfortable and durable for its weight than any other pack we鈥檝e tested in its category. In other words, it鈥檚 the Holy Grail of backpacking packs.

The Pro is composed of 100-denier ripstop nylon reinforced with a 200- denier ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE)鈥攁 stronger-than-steel fiber often used by ultralight cottage brands. The pack鈥檚 dorsal pocket is woven with that same blend, rather than the usual stretch mesh, further boosting durability. (Its two elasticized hipbelt pouches and deep lateral water-bottle sleeves still use stretch mesh.) Even after a long season spent section-hiking the Colorado trail and brushing through rocky gaps on peak-bagging missions, the material has yet to see a tear.

The Pro鈥檚 3.5-millimeter spring-steel perimeter frame is lighter than that of many other packs this size, but was still strong enough to support up to 35 pounds on overnights in the Colorado Rockies. Thanks to plush, EVA-foam padding on the hip fins and shoulder harness, we were able to carry that weight without experiencing any soreness (though loads around 45 pounds did leave us with bruised hip bones). The lighter wire provides better torsional flex, which meant the pack moved with us on rocky scrambles and hairy ridge traverses alike. The frame also provides a scaffold for the taut mesh that lines the backpanel, lending support without inhibiting airflow across the back. 鈥淸It鈥檚] the most breathable pack I鈥檝e ever tried,鈥� gushed Reid Kalmus, a Colorado-based tester, after a string of 75-degree days in full sun.

Finally, the Pro features a ridiculously user-friendly torso adjustment system: a series of toggles on either side of the backpanel click easily into place with a quick tug, providing four inches of adjustment per pack. That made it easy to find the right fit for both bigger-bodied and thinner testers. 鈥淭he adjustment system was easy, fast, and intuitive,鈥� notes one beanpole tester, who was able to dial in the fit well enough for sway-free scrambling on third-class terrain.

Bottom Line: A fully-featured multi-day pack designed for the ultralight- and lightweight-curious.

Lightest: Gossamer Gear Fast Kumo 36 ($190)

Weight: 1.26 lbs (S/M)
Size: S/M and M/L (unisex)
Pros: Extremely light and easy to organize
Cons: Fiddly buckles and small pockets

Compact, comfortable, and featherlight, the Kumo 36 is a fastpacker鈥檚 dream. The weight savings come from stripping unnecessary features (like long zippers and excessive pockets) and using high-end materials. The pack body and boot are made from polyurethane-coated 70- and 100-denier Robic nylon, respectively, and the fastenings are all downsized to shave even more weight. We loved the Robic nylon, which emerged tear-proof at the end of the season, but found the small buckles fiddly. In lieu of a frame, the Kumo relies on a removable foam back panel which supports up to 25 pounds (and also doubles as a sit pad).

The Kumo鈥檚 features are tailored to fastpackers鈥� needs, from the dual-zippered hipbelt pockets, which were each big enough to fit several granola bars, to the wide, vest-style shoulder straps, which spread loads evenly across the upper body. Thru-hiking testers also appreciated the removable hipbelt, trash stash pocket, and D-rings for lashing foam sleeping pads to the top of the pack. The four chest pockets kept snacks, lip balm, a PLB, sunscreen, and smartphone handy, which made it easy to stay moving and log long miles, reports Emily Watson-Cook, a field biologist who used the Kumo for an 118-mile section of the Pacific Northwest Trail this summer. 鈥淚 also appreciated how compact and maneuverable the pack was during dense bushwhacks in Eastern Washington,鈥� she adds, noting the svelte, back-hugging silhouette.

Bottom Line: Ideal for seasoned fast-packers and true minimalists

Best for First-Timers: Gregory Zulu/Jade 43/45L ($200)

Weight: 3.68 lbs (men鈥檚 S/M), 3.37 lbs (women鈥檚 S/M)
Size: S/M and M/L (men鈥檚), XS/S and S/M (women鈥檚)
Pros: Great organization and load-carrying capacity at a reasonable price
Cons: It鈥檚 on the heavier side for its volume

If we had to recommend a first backpacking pack from this year鈥檚 crop, it would be the Zulu/Jade. It鈥檚 unfussy and user-friendly, while providing all the features and capacity a new backpacker needs for their first overnights and weekend trips. The pack鈥檚 three entry points make it easy to load in a hurry, and the three exterior pockets are perfect for stuffing tent poles and layers. The capacious main compartment swallows sleeping gear, cookware, and a bear canister鈥攎ore than we thought possible for a pack of this volume.

Fortunately, the Zulu/Jade鈥檚 robust suspension provides a little extra wiggle room for overpackers: it can handle up to 40 pounds of gear without straining. A thick, 4-millimeter steel-alloy perimeter frame provides enough vertical rigidity to transfer those loads to the hipbelt, where a cushy lumbar pad and seamless, wrap-around hip wings spread the weight across the pelvis. 鈥淚t only seemed to get more comfortable with more weight,鈥� reports Alaska-based tester Diane Van Dommelen, who stuffed her Jade with 30 pounds during a drizzly 12-miler in the Talkeetna Mountains this summer. Her gear stayed dry, thanks to its DWR coating, and safe: the 420-denier nylon and 400-denier recycled polyester emerged with nary a scratch.

Bottom Line: A perfect bag for entry-level backpackers and weekend warriors alike

Best for Long Trails: Outdoor Vitals Shadowlight Ultralight Backpack 45L ($200)

Weight: 1.87 lbs (regular)
Size: short, regular, and tall (unisex)
Pros: All the support of an internal-frame pack at the weight of a frameless
Cons: Fussy pockets and a 35-pound load limit

More supportive and fully featured than many ultralight packs of this volume, the Shadowlight 45 is an ideal pick for thru-hikers who don鈥檛 want to sacrifice too much comfort by making the leap to a frameless pack. We sent one on a six-month journey with Pacific Crest Trail thru-hiker Zettie Shapey, who was able to fill the main packbag with 35 pounds of gear鈥攊ncluding a bear canister鈥攖hanks to the vertical aluminum-alloy stay and a stiff foam backpanel. (She notes that this is the pack鈥檚 upper limit; at around 40 pounds, she experienced some upper-back soreness.) Testers also loved the Shadowlight鈥檚 capacious hipbelt pockets and bottle pockets, which let us access our snacks, water, and sunscreen without stopping. The two large, stretchy dorsal pockets鈥攚hich had small tears by the end of Shapey鈥檚 six-month journey鈥攚ere easily bypassed when setting up camp, thanks to a full vertical zipper that opened the pack鈥檚 main compartment. Despite extended bushwhacking, the pack鈥檚 Robic nylon material鈥�100-denier reinforced with 200-denier UHMWPE on the body and 210/400-denier at the base鈥攕uffered no damage.

Bottom Line: A strong contender for thru-hikers looking to minimize both weight and cost

Most Weatherproof: ULA Ultra CDT ($280)

Weight: 1.75 lbs (M torso, M hipbelt)
Size: S-XL torso and XS-XXL hipbelt (unisex)
Pros: Lightweight, durable, nearly waterproof
Cons: Suspension is a little skimpy

Think ultralight packs are flimsy? The Ultra CDT puts that myth to bed. Though the pack weighs in sub-two pounds, its 200- and 400-denier Ultra fabric (an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, similar to Dyneema) neatly survived a season of scrapes with willows, pine branches, and granite ridgelines. 鈥淚 would hear those ominous abrasion sounds when I was squeezing through gaps in the rock, but no holes,鈥� reports gear tester and thru-hiker Robin Mino after a season of hiking in Rocky Mountain National Park. The pack also suffered no leaks: thanks to a waterproof RUV laminate on the Ultra fabric, Mino鈥檚 gear stayed dry even during full-on downpours. When the sun came out, she was able to utilize the pack鈥檚 dorsal stretch pocket to stash her wet tent fly without worrying about it soaking the rest of the gear.

Other organizational features were equally thoughtful. The removable hipbelt sports generous twin pockets: one fits a day鈥檚 worth of snacks, while the other fits bug spray, lip balm, and sunscreen (and, with a little wriggling, an iPhone 11). As for load-carrying capacity, the Ultra CDT performed about average for a frameless pack; Mino was able to pack 25 pounds (including a small bear canister) for long weekends. At that weight, though, she found herself wishing for load-lifters, available from ULA for an additional $50 by custom request.

Bottom Line: Ideal for light-and-fast backpacking trips in rainy or off-trail zones

Best Budget Pick: Decathlon Forclaz MT900 UL 45+10/50+10 ($180)

Weight: 2.87 lbs (men鈥檚), 2.87 lbs (women鈥檚)
Size: one size (men鈥檚), one size (women鈥檚)
Pros: Unbeatable price and well-rounded feature set
Cons: Unwieldy shape and substandard durability

This one won鈥檛 break your budget or your back: at under three pounds, it鈥檚 one of the lightest packs we tested in this price category, and it can hold its own on the trail, too. Thanks to a rectangular perimeter frame and broad, lightly-padded hipbelt wings, Alaska-based cartographer Puck Van Dommelen was able to carry 30 pounds鈥攑retty standard for lightweight packs鈥攐ver multiday trips in Chugach State Park without any soreness.

The MT900鈥檚 pear-shaped silhouette makes it difficult to fit an Ursack and impossible to fit a bear canister, but its other organizational features won us over. Each roomy water-bottle pocket fits a Nalgene, and a durable fabric dorsal pocket accommodated our rain layers with ease. It鈥檚 also one of the few packs in the test that comes with a built-in rain cover. While the MT900鈥檚 100- and 210-denier ripstop polyamide fabrics stood up to several days of casual hiking in Alaska, they were no match for the deep backcountry: On a bushwhack in Prince William Sound, alder and old-growth hemlock managed to tear a few small holes in the pack鈥檚 exterior. But hey鈥攆or a pack this inexpensive, avoiding heavy bushwhacking is a sacrifice we鈥檙e willing to make.

Bottom Line: A budget-friendly pick for longer trips that won鈥檛 involve too much wear and tear

Best for Big Missions: Blue Ice Stache 60L ($260)

Weight: 1.81 lbs
Size: one size (unisex)
Pros: Light, low-profile, mountaineering-ready
Cons: Prone to abrasion, only comes in one size

Designed for 8,000-meter peaks, the Stache 60 quickly became the darling for our mountaineering testers this season. The pack鈥檚 external features were made for the alpine: dual ice-axe toggles, helmet-holder loops, and compression straps that accommodate an A-frame ski carry. The internal layout, however, is refreshingly simple. The main compartment is big enough to swallow overnight gear, and the reservoir pouch fits either a three-liter bladder or oxygen bottles for high-altitude pursuits. The small toplid fits snacks, a hat, and gloves. Lightly padded hip fins transfer weight without getting in the way of a harness or impeding motion, even on exposed, fourth-class scrambles. Some testers missed having hip pockets, but most appreciated the low-profile waist belt.

The other benefit of the straightforward layout is that it ensures a tight, bullet-shaped silhouette, which hugs the spine and eliminates sway. 鈥淚 was surprisingly comfortable while moving and scrambling with 45 pounds on board,鈥� reports Seattle-based mountaineer Mickey Silger. (Thank the three-millimeter spring-steel perimeter frame, which provides just enough support for those kinds of loads without adding too much weight.) More of a minimalist? The frame and toplid are both removable, which let us shave the pack to a stunning one pound, five ounces for more weight-conscious objectives. The only ding: the pack鈥檚 light weight comes at the expense of durability; at the end of the season, we found a few small nicks in the 210-denier ripstop UHMWPE fabric on the base of the pack after some boulderfield spills and butt scooches.

Bottom Line: A streamlined choice for overnight trips in technical terrain

Most Versatile: Zpacks Arc Haul Ultra 60L ($400)

Weight: 1.3 lbs (M torso and M hipbelt)
Size: S-L torso and XS-XL hipbelt (unisex)
Pros: Light weight, decent breathability, and customizable features
Cons: Price

Whether you need to climb a mountain or ski a couloir, hop on an airplane or hit the trail, the Arc Haul Ultra has the customizable features to match the challenge. The hipbelt and shoulder strap pockets are removable (as is the hipbelt itself), which let testers strip it down for technical mountaineering or beef up the organization for more traditional hikes. Hipbelt and chest pockets (sold separately) are easy to add, and both the backpanel and frame are removable if you need to roll the pack into a suitcase for adventure travel.

The minimalist layout鈥攂asically a single huge compartment鈥攎ade it easy to fit a wide range of gear, from bulky layers to climbing equipment to a full-size bear canister. 国产吃瓜黑料 traveler and guide Kelly McNeil loaded the Arc Haul Ultra up for mountaineering trips to Chile and Argentina this summer, and found the pack鈥檚 carbon-fiber stays (also removable) were rigid enough to provide weight transfer to the hips under 40-pound loads. The stays are also curved to arch away from the back, permitting more airflow than other ultralight packs we tested. The other good news: our sample withstood all its international travels without so much as a scratch to the 100- and 200-denier UHMWPE. 鈥淚 put that pack through the wringer and it still looks like new,鈥� says McNeil. Biggest bummer: price.

Bottom Line: Our pick for adventure travelers with big mountain plans

Biggest: Kelty Glendale 85L ($260)

Weight: 5.25 lbs
Size: one size (unisex)
Pros: Great load-carrying capacity, breathability, and cushioning
Cons: Only comes in one size and gender

Equal parts brain and brawn, the Glendale 85L has the load-carrying chops to support your heaviest cargo鈥攁nd a smart layout to keep you organized no matter how much you pack. A J-shaped zip on the main packbag provided quick access to food and layers, and bottom zipper access made setting up camp a breeze. Two enormous hipbelt pockets each fit a smartphone and several snacks, and twin mesh shoulder-strap pockets fit water, sunscreen, and lip balm. Plus, we loved the zippered side pocket for tent poles and other camp gear.

A burly, 5-millimeter, lightbulb-shaped spring-steel frame (supported by a cross-stay just behind the scapulae) stabilizes the top and middle of the load while transferring the force to the center of the lumbar spine. With it, guide testers were able to hump 60-pound loads over the Continental Divide without issue. 鈥淓ven when I had the pack completely packed to the gills, it still felt balanced,鈥� says Arizona-based trekking guide Samantha Cooke. That meant she was able to move quickly and spot her clients on sections of loose, exposed terrain without worrying about her own pack sway.

The Glendale鈥檚 300- and 600-denier polyester canvas also exceeded expectations on off-trail descents: 鈥淚 got it snagged on branches and scraped across rocks in Colorado鈥檚 East Inlet Valley, but the pack held up great,鈥� Cooke reports. Final gold star: the slight curve to the Glendale鈥檚 foam back panel permitted significant airflow, which earned it high marks for breathability. Testers never found themselves swamped out, even when putting down big vertical in full sun. One caveat: the pack only comes in a single size, though it adjusts to fit 17- to 21-inch torsos and 30- to 56-inch waists.

Bottom Line: The best choice for guides, heroic parents, and expedition leaders

How to Buy a Backpacking Pack

Pay no mind to the bells and whistles: here are the features that actually matter.

Capacity

Your first step is to figure out how much capacity (usually measured in liters) you鈥檒l actually need. Target 45 to 50 liters for two-to three-day trips and 55 to 60 liters for half-week excursions. For a week or more, bring out the big guns: at least 65 liters.

Suspension

Next, ensure your pack can handle your expected load. If you鈥檙e new to backpacking, look for a wide, well-padded hip belt and an internal frame, which adds support and stability. Frameless packs come with a learning curve, so it鈥檚 usually best to save the minimalist designs for later in your backpacking career.

Fit

Before you buy, try on as many packs as possible. If you don鈥檛 know your size, get a professional fitting at your local gear shop first. Then, load each pack with your maximum expected weight (many local gear shops have sandbags on hand for just this purpose) and carry it around the store. The hip fins should wrap your iliac crests, and you should feel the load settling around your pelvis鈥攏ot against your shoulders.

Features

Make sure the pack has pockets that match your hydration method of choice鈥攚hether that鈥檚 a water reservoir or bottles. It should have a place to stuff layers quickly when you鈥檙e on the go, and a system for easy snack access while hiking. That said, it鈥檚 hard to tell what pockets, straps, and toggles you鈥檒l love鈥攐r hate鈥攗ntil you鈥檝e used a pack for a while. If you can, rent or borrow a few to get a feel for your needs before you pull the trigger.

When it’s time to upgrade your gear, don鈥檛 let the old stuff go to waste鈥揹onate it for a good cause and divert it from the landfill. our partner, Gear Fix, will repair and resell your stuff for free! Just box up your retired items, , and send them off. We鈥檒l donate 100 percent of the proceeds to .

The post The Best Backpacking Packs of 2023 appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

Basics

dehydrated meals are flavorful, lightweight, and nourishing, with easy-to-pronounce ingredients. All of their meals are gluten-free and are primarily vegan and vegetarian. The meals have a maximum five-year lifespan, are packaged in a durable plastic bag, and require boiling water to prepare.

Pros

No preservatives // Real, recognizable ingredients // Durable packaging // Dehydrating food is less energy intensive than freeze-drying // Delicious

Packaging is not recyclable // Relatively short shelf life鈥�5 years compared to ~25 for freeze-dried foods // Slower to rehydrate and slightly heavier than freeze-dried foods

Our Thoughts

Good To-Go is a worthy option for overnight climbers and campers who want to eat real food with a finite lifespan. The company鈥檚 celebrated chefs are on display at each meal, with offerings ranging from spicy Korean bibimbap to hearty Mexican quinoa bowls, providing 13 different entr茅es that accommodate a range of ethnicities, taste preferences, and dietary restrictions.

When I first began reading up on 鈥渂ackpacking meals,鈥� as a minimum-wage-earning high-school graduate, my overnight alpine food was little different from what I ate at home: pre-seasoned rice, macaroni and cheese, and baked beans. The cheap food fit my cheap lifestyle, my impatience for cooking, and, most importantly, my utter indifference to nutrition. This 鈥渄iet鈥濃€攊f such a term can be used here鈥攕erved me well for the first several years of my alpine-climbing life: I鈥檇 slam as much processed food as my budget would allow, climb a long 5.7-or-so ridge, and drink Alberta Premium back at the car.听

As time went on, however, I began to want more output from my body. And my body, in turn, wanted more from me. It wanted vegetables. And protein. And a lighter backpack that didn鈥檛 hold a glass jar of tomato sauce and tin cans of baked beans. (There was a summer when I subsisted almost entirely on expired military rations, lightening my pack and saving money, but my digestive system is still recovering from that one.)

These days, having learned the importance of nutrition and recovery, I鈥檝e been reaching for Good To-Go鈥檚 meals for overnight trips where I need lightweight, nutritious food that I look forward to eating. Sorry, Spam, we were bound to grow apart.

Good To-Go is headed up by Jennifer Scism, a professional chef of 20-plus years, graduate of Manhattan鈥檚 French Culinary Institute, and, in 2005, winner of the TV Food Network鈥檚听Iron Chef听program. Scism and I exist at opposite ends of the culinary spectrum (or did at one time) but I can wholly appreciate the effort her team puts into these dehydrated meals. Each of the five meals I ate鈥攂ibimbap, mushroom risotto, quinoa bowl, oatmeal, and granola鈥攚ere thoughtfully flavored, nutrient dense, and preservative free. (The most difficult-to-pronounce ingredient was quinoa!)听

Good To-Go鈥檚 meals are handmade in small batches in Kittery, Maine, where they鈥檝e opted to dehydrate their meals instead of freeze drying them like most big-name brands (Backpacker鈥檚 Pantry, Alpine Aire, Mountain House, etc.). The main benefit of this: dehydrating food requires less energy than freeze drying it, making for a lower carbon impact. The main counterpoint to this debate is that dehydrating food sucks out its nutrients鈥攁nd it鈥檚 a worthy concern, too. However, Good To-Go brings all of their meals to 165 掳 F for several carefully measured seconds, to ensure shelf stability, without reducing nutritional value.

Taste

Before Good To-Go, I鈥檝e never once bought freeze-dried or dehydrated food for the flavor. I鈥檝e lived the good life, remember? Expired ravioli in an 鈥渋mpact-proof鈥� military baggie, electrolyte drinks lovingly named 鈥渙range beverage,鈥� the rare on-brand Pop-Tart.鈥� But now? I am actually excited to tuck in for dinner. The mushroom risotto, well-balanced with basil, walnuts, and white wine, was a satisfying finish to a full day of steep quartzite sport climbing. The next day began with a hearty oatmeal (standout flavors included Zante currants, pumpkin seeds, banana flakes, and cinnamon) and ended with the bibimbap: a spicy yet sweet mixed rice dish with sesame, Gochugaru (a Korean red chile pepper), shiitake mushrooms, and brown sugar. Indeed, I went to sleep that night a happy camper.

Final Thoughts

When shopping for your next lightweight backcountry meal, there are a few drawbacks to dehydrated foods to keep in mind鈥攏amely, they are slightly slower to rehydrate than freeze-dried meals. (The average entr茅e took about 20 minutes to fully cook, compared to the 10鈥�15 minutes of several freeze-dried brands.) While cooking Good To-Go, I found that the water had to be boiling before dumping it into the pouch鈥攏ot a moment sooner鈥攆or that cooking time to ring true.

Dehydrated foods also have a shorter shelf life than freeze-dried options鈥攕ome freeze-dried brands boast a 25-year lifespan!鈥攚hile Good To-Go maxes out at five. This may not be important for most climbers (just go shopping every five years?) and Good To-Go believes this to be a plus. As their website says, 鈥淲e do not use preservatives in our meals. We believe firmly that real food cannot and should not endure 鈥榯il the end of time!鈥� I tend to agree.

The post Field Tested: Good To-Go Meals, a Lightweight Climbing Food appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.

If you鈥檝e glanced at our annual Winter Gear Guide before, then you know the name . If you鈥檝e leafed through our all-mountain and powder ski reviews, you know Blizzard鈥檚 legendary Rustler and Sheeva freeride line. Just this last year, all three Sheeva and Rustler models made the ten-best skis list in our digital gear guide. So why then, you might ask, did Blizzard decide to this year? We had the same question. This fall, I flew to Blizzard鈥檚 factory in Austria to find out.

Behind the Brand

I arrived on the train from Salzburg to Kitzb眉hel in mid-October, where I met a few members of Blizzard鈥檚 marketing team and two other journalists. We caravanned through the countryside of the Austrian Alps until we turned a bend at the top of a peak and found the quaint village of Mittersill nestled in the middle of the valley. The majority of Mittersill鈥檚 5,464 occupants work on the mountainous, near vertical farms that surround the village, or in the tourist shops and cafes in town. But around 300 of these people commute every morning to one of the largest buildings in the village, the Blizzard ski factory鈥攁lso known as the Tecnica Group Ski Competence Center.听

Built in 1946, the factory produces around 230,000 skis per year, including skis for a few other brands. Inside the factory, fast-moving workers greeted us with warm and busy smiles as they moved efficiently around massive metal machinery. There were the people in charge of molding the skis, who oriented each layer of material just so that the machine pressed them down at an extreme force to meld them together. There were the ski finishers鈥攐ne of whom was working the band saw to remove excess raw material from the ski after it had been molded. He grinned and waved at us with one hand while his other hand moved at the speed of light, fingers inches away from an absurdly sharp blade. There was the woman whose sole duty it seemed was to carefully watch one conveyer belt, simply to make sure each ski received Blizzard鈥檚听 鈥淟ive the Moment鈥� motto stamped onto the sidewall.

Then there鈥檚 the man who presides over them all: Blizzard鈥檚 head of product development, Stefan Moser. Austrian and soft-spoken, I had to tilt my ear about a foot away from Moser鈥檚 face to hear him above the roar of the machinery. Once I did though, I realized his quiet nature belied his expertise.听

Moser, an expert skier himself, is the one who takes testing feedback from Blizzard athletes like Marcus Caston and Cate Zeliff, makes sense of it all, and translates that into actual physical changes in ski design. Moser, Blizzard鈥檚 product team, and Blizzard athletes in collaboration played the central role in the redesign of the Sheeva and Rustler collections.

2023鈥�24 Blizzard Rustler/Sheeva Tech and Changes

Ever since the Rustler launched in 2017 and the Sheeva in 2014, the skis have dominated the freeride marketplace鈥攚inning rave reviews and awards in 国产吃瓜黑料鈥檚 and Ski鈥檚 gear tests as well as from professional athletes and consumers. Last year, I wrote that though our testers felt the Sheeva 10 hammered 鈥渙n the hardpack due to its responsiveness and energy, they were equally impressed by its off-piste abilities.鈥� Simply put: they鈥檙e excellent skis.

But throughout the years, Blizzard athletes and testers noted one small but consistent shortcoming in these skis鈥� performance: their flex profiles. 鈥淚t was the hinge points in the tips and the tails that would break down in certain conditions,鈥� said Caston as we took a lap up the Kitzsteinhorn glacier. 鈥淟ike if you were on a groomer, it was initiating or finishing the turn, and in powder, the [Rustler] 11 would push up.鈥�

After some tinkering, Moser and his team pinpointed the cause of this hinge point: it started with the DRT (Dynamic Release Technology) plate inside the ski. The DRT plate is essentially a layer of titanal in the binding area of the ski, which is supposed to add stability underfoot while allowing the tips and tails to remain soft and playful. While the DRT plate accomplished just that, its position underfoot created issues when skiers attempted to smoothly transition energy from the center of the ski to the tips and tails.

To combat this, Blizzard added its FluxForm technology to the new Rustlers and Sheevas, which allows the frame of the ski to reach all the way from the tail to the tip. In this tech, two pieces of titanal run all the way down either edge, while a third solid platform of titanal remains underfoot. The idea is that the platform underfoot will help provide stability, while the gap in the middle of the ski towards the tip and tail will keep it playful and soft. The Sheevas and the Rustlers have slightly different FluxForm patterns per model (for example, the 9 models have more titanal than the 10鈥檚 and 11鈥檚.)

To create a more consistent feel within the ski, Blizzard also applied its Trueblend Freeride Woodcore technology. The technology behind Trueblend is in the name: three different types of wood (paulownia, poplar, and beech) are blended together at different lengths within the 9, 10, and 11 skis, which creates a more precise flex profile in each model. Again, the result is a ski that鈥檚 softer in the tips and tails and harder in the center while maintaining a medium flex in front of and behind the bindings. Past iterations of the ski also achieved this to a certain extent, but the Trueblend helps to create a more seamless transition.

From the outset of this redesign, the goal was never to entirely scrap the old Rustler or Sheeva construction. The Blizzard team recognized that they already had a good thing going; they just realized they had an opportunity to make a great thing even better.

鈥淲e didn鈥檛 change the goal鈥攚e didn鈥檛 change the idea of the ski鈥攚e created a better way of getting there.鈥�

鈥淭he idea of our technology in the first [Rustler-Sheeva] theoretically was the right theory. We didn鈥檛 want to change the theory on what we were trying to do, we wanted to improve on how the tech was reaching that goal,鈥� said Blizzard鈥檚 animated North American director of marketing, Frank Shine. 鈥淔luxForm is the next step in achieving that same goal. We didn鈥檛 change the goal鈥攚e didn鈥檛 change the idea of the ski鈥攚e created a better way of getting there.鈥�

But if there鈥檚 one aspect of the brand I took away from the trip, it鈥檚 just how athlete-driven Blizzard is. Caston, like other Blizzard athletes, has been intimately involved in the 2023 Rustler and Sheeva redesigns (Blizzard鈥檚 athlete-driven research and design approach to ski development is partly why Caston has stayed with the brand for so long). From touring the factory to testing the skis on the glacier to recapping our response to skis over Witbier at the end of the day, Caston was always part of the conversation.

鈥淸Blizzard] knows how I ski. When I talk with Stefan he knows like okay鈥攈e skis like a racer at the front of the boot, whereas the other guys are more playful, so the feedback they get is different,鈥� said Caston. 鈥淭hat was the success that Blizzard had to begin with鈥攖heir skis weren鈥檛 just for experts or beginners鈥攁nybody could use those skis. They were easy to ski, but they didn鈥檛 have a speed limit. So that鈥檚 kind of like the Rustlers now.鈥�

First Review: 2023鈥�23 Blizzard Sheeva听

I first tested the new Sheeva and Rustler skis at Austria鈥檚 Kitzsteinhorn glacier, one of the main resorts closest to Mittersill. After a thirty-minute drive and three separate gondola rides, the Blizzard team and I arrived at a tow rope at the top of the glacier, which took us up to the only two runs open at this time of year in October. Europe had experienced a warmer-than-average summer and fall, and as a result, we encountered spring-like conditions, even on this year-round glacier at 10,509 feet. Variable conditions like these don鈥檛 usually inspire confidence, especially not when it鈥檚 your first run of the season. But the new Sheeva 9, 10, and 11 handled the mix of ice and slush with ease.

The first thing I noticed about the new Sheeva 9 was how much more intuitive it felt compared to the previous iteration. The ski turned smoothly through a mix of icy and slushy moguls鈥攚hile the older versions felt more hooky and less forgiving. In a way, this made the ski feel more energetic because it was easier to turn. When I attempted to chase Caston and Anne Wangler, a German Blizzard athlete, down the last variable run of the day, I didn鈥檛 notice a speed limit. The ski felt more stable than before, but the responsiveness that the previous Sheeva is known for is still there.

There鈥檚 no denying that the Sheeva is still a rather stiff ski (metal, which adds torsional rigidity, will do that), but after a few runs, it felt like an approachable ski that wanted to move with me. It was excited to go where I wanted to lead, as long as I stayed relatively on top of it.

I got on the 10 and 11 for a few runs as well and was surprised at how easy to ski it felt in the conditions (the 11 is 112 millimeters underfoot, and the 10 is 102). The 11 held its own in the choppy snow, and I got a couple of good carving turns in there, although it didn鈥檛 want to stay on edge on the hardpack quite as long as the 9 and 10.

After I flew back to the U.S., I got back on the new Sheevas about a month later in Vail, where Ski hosted its annual Ski Summit to meet with brands about their upcoming products. Vail had just received around 10 inches of snow in the days before, so we had those perfect, soft groomers that the resort is known for. We didn鈥檛 get to test the skis as much off-piste, but the general consensus seemed to be the same: the new Sheevas are as versatile and lively as ever, but more stable and intuitive than before.

It鈥檚 hard to change a product that鈥檚 been consistently doing well. And yes, it will take more testing and more skiers to decide if the change was worth it. After all, we all know that if it ain鈥檛 broke, don鈥檛 fix it. But should good sales and good reviews halt progress? Ultimately, Blizzard answered that question with a sound 鈥渘o鈥� in its revamping of the Sheeva and Rustler collections. Maybe the old collections weren鈥檛 broken, but what also isn鈥檛 broken is Blizzard鈥檚 strategy to listen to its athletes, and to continue its innovation.

2023鈥�23 Blizzard Sheeva Specifications

Blizzard Sheeva 9

• Lengths: 152-156-162-168-174 centimeters
• Sidecut: 129-96-118,5 millimeters (174)
• Radius: 12; 13; 14; 15; 16 meters

Blizzard Sheeva 10

• Lengths: 156-162-168-174-180 centimeters
• Sidecut: 133,5-102-122,5 millimeters (174)
• Radius: 13,5; 14,5; 15,5; 16,5; 17,5 meters

Blizzard Sheeva 11

• Lengths: 168-174-180 centimeters
• Sidecut: 140-112-130 millimeters (174)
• Radius: 16; 17,5; 19 meters

2023-鈥�23 Blizzard Rustler Specifications

Blizzard Rustler 9

• Lengths: 162-168-174-180-186 centimeters
• Sidecut: 131,5-96-121 millimeters (180)
• Radius: 14; 15; 16; 17; 18 meters

Blizzard Rustler 10

• Lengths: 162-168-174-180-186-192 centimeters
• Sidecut: 134-102-123 millimeters (180)
• Radius: 14,5; 15,5; 16,5; 17,5; 18,5; 19,5 meters

Blizzard Rustler 11

• Lengths: 168-174-180-186-192 centimeters
• Sidecut: 142-114-132 millimeters (186)
• Radius: 16; 17,5; 19; 20,5; 22 meters

More 2023 Gear Reviews

The post Blizzard Is Fixing What Ain鈥檛 Broke鈥攁nd We鈥檙e Loving It appeared first on 国产吃瓜黑料 Online.