What are the Pros and Cons of a Full-coverage Rainfly?
I've been researching tents to replace some low-quality dome tents that each have had a partial rainfly. Every tent I've owned that has had a partial rainfly has performed horribly in the rain (I pitched them correctly and used guylines when available). I have a tent that has a full-coverage rainfly and has performed quite well.
What are the pros and cons of a full-coverage rainfly?
I'm mostly interested in three-season responses aimed at temperate and subalpine climates, but wouldn't mind four-season/winter responses, as well as other climates.
Disclaimer: The images linked were chosen arbitrarily to illustrate my description. I have no affiliation with the tents or brands pictured.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/q/9520. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
1 answer
The obvious cons of the full-coverage rain fly (FCRF) are the added weight and volume in the pack. And, it probably takes a bit more time to pitch and take down simply because of the added material to manipulate. Because your bio says you want to go ultralight, these cons may be very important to you.
A possible con is that snow may weigh down the FCRF more and faster than the partial because it has more area, but banging from the inside to clear off snow usually works OK (my experience is only April through Nov.)
Another con to the FCRF is that you are more disconnected from the outside. Being connected vs not getting wet is a personal decision.
(Curious: If you want to go ultralight, why aren't you asking about bivvy sacks vs tents?)
Pros: The FCRF will not only keep you drier, but warmer, especially if it is windy.
A pro to the FCRF that I like is that, except in heavy, driving rain you don't have to bring your boots inside to keep them dry -- the overlap of the fly protects them very well. My preference is for the FCRF.
This post was sourced from https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/a/9526. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads