| | |  | 1 Person Solo | | Home » » » | | | | | | | Product Details: | | | Product Length:
| 20.5 inches | | Product Width:
| 4.0 inches | | Product Height:
| 4.0 inches | | Product Weight:
| 3.65 pounds | | Package Length:
| 20.7 inches | | Package Width:
| 4.3 inches | | Package Height:
| 4.3 inches | | Package Weight:
| 3.8 pounds | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 55 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 55 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
206 of 208 found the following review helpful:
 Eureka Spitfire Solo vs. REI Chrysalis ULJan 12, 2008
By D. Paradis
In January of 2008, REI put their Chrysalis UL single person backpacking tent on sell (115 dollars). I had just received an Eureka Spitfire (not UL) tent as a Christmas gift (89 dollars). Both of these two wall tents received many favorable reviews on the internet. Both tents advertise a weight of ~3 lbs. I decided to do a non-outing tent to tent comparison. If you look at all the web reviews available, it is clear both these tents can handle weather that you would prefer not to be out in. That was not my concern. I was more interested in which of these tents worked best for me and if there were any show stoppers between the two.
Component weights (ozs):
--------------------------------------------------------
Eureka Spitfire
Poles:................8.875
Fly:...................18
Body:..................17
Stakes:...............6.25
Stake Bag:............0.375
Pole Bag:.............0.625
Stuff Sack:...........1
Guy Lines:...........0.5
---------------------------
Total wt:...........52.625
Ti Stakes:...........2.5 (8)
Total wt. with
Ti Stakes:..........48.25
---------------------------
Min wt. (poles,
fly, body,
Ti Stakes,
Guy Lines):..........46.875
................(2 lb 14.875 oz)
--------------------------------------------------------
REI Chrysalis UL
Poles:.................12.125
w/o pole repair tube:..11.75
Fly:...................16.125
Body:..................17.375
Stakes:.................3.375
Stake Bag:..............0.25
Pole Bag:...............0.5
Stuff Sack:.............2.75
Guy Lines:,.............1.375
------------------------------
Total wt................53.875
Ti Stakes................2.25 (7)
Total wt. with
Ti Stakes...............52.375
-------------------------------
Min wt. (poles,
fly, body,
Ti Stakes,
Guy Lines)..............49.25
....................(3 lb 1.25 oz)
--------------------------------------------------------
The component weights show some of the compromises that were made in packaging the tents for sell. The fact that the Chrysalis is free standing results in a higher pole weight. The steel stakes that are standard with the Spitfire weigh too much. The Chrysalis UL's stakes are lighter, and of better quality, however I personally do not like the design. I strongly suggest the stakes for both tents be replaced with Ti stakes. The stuff sack used on the Spitfire is a simple no frill sack. The Chrysalis UL stuff sack has provisions for compressing the radius of the sack. This results in extra weight without any real advantage. If you wanted to use a tent compression bag, it should be the tent fabric parts only, and compress both the radius and length.
Both tents have a vent in their fly to help control condensation. The Spitfire also has a zipper at the top of the tent body that allows you to access the vent. When examining this zipper, I noticed as others have that the zipper does not completely close. A small opening about 1/2 the size of the radius of a tent stake remains open. A little better zipper termination would have eliminated this issue. This should be of no major concern, but it distracts from the tent's design. In the Chrysalis, the tent door needs to be opened to reach the vent.
The overall quality of the materials, sewing, and finishing of both tents is very good. The Chrysalis is a little better than the Spitfire, but this should not be an issue for either of the tents. When examining the fly coverage of the tents I noticed that the very end of the Spitfire tent body was not completely covered by the fly. There is about 1 to 2 inches of seam right at the end buckle that you would need to be sure you sealed. I do not consider this a major issue, but again something that could have been avoided in the tent design.
Both tents are very easy to set up. As mentioned before, the Chrysalis is free standing. The Spitfire is not free standing. The Spitfire is so easy to setup, I do not consider this a major reason for choosing one tent over the other. One of the advantages of a free standing tent is that the poles and fly can be put up first in rain and the rest of the tent pitched under the protection of the fly. In the case of the Spitfire, Velco ties on the underside of the fly and the tent body's external clip system also allow the fly to be setup first in the rain. You do have to improvise a loop on the fly end snaps (both ends) to do this. In this manner, both tents can be setup as a fly/poles only tarp.
The Spitfire's vestibule is only large enough for boots. It is triangular shaped with a ground apex of ~ 1 foot. A second similar area is available under the fly, but only accessable by being outside and reaching under the fly. The vestibule is considerably larger in the Chrysalis (apex ~2.5 feet). You could put your boots and a small pack in it. A large pack would not fit. The Spitfire has some built in pockets in the mesh side that are big enough to hold glasses and a flashlight. Head room in both tents is adequate for me to sit without touching the roof. The Spitfire has a few extra inches of head room compared to the Chrysalis UL.
The Spitfire has considerable more mesh than the Chrysalis. This would be an advantage when a person wanted to do without the fly. The Chrysalis has a little porthole window in the fly, and the tent body has some panels of translucent fabric that make it very light inside. The porthole window is intriguing. It would be easier to look out at the weather with the fly on, but I would need more data on whether it would hold up. It seems a little like a gimmick.
When I lay in both tents, I came across a show stopper. I was able to lie in the Spitfire with over 6 inches at both ends of the tent to spare. Not all of this space would be usable by a taller individual, but it was there never the less. I was able to roll side to side without touching the tent sides. In the Chrysalis, my feet were touching the bottom of the tent and my head was touching the front of the tent. It was very uncomfortable. I'm 5 feet, 8 inches tall. The Chrysalis floor plan is nonsymmetrical at the wide end and narrow end of the tent. It forms an uneven parallelogram like shape. This results in an large unusable area next to your head and a similar small area at your feet.
My decision was to keep the Eureka Spitfire and return the REI Chrysalis UL.
67 of 69 found the following review helpful:
Light weight backpackerAug 06, 2006
By Denny Alexander
"ROUND THE NEXT BEND"
At age 55 and chasing SCOUTS all over the country, I need a light weight edge to keep up. I had a EUREKA ZEUS single wall but did not like the slight condensation that accumulated inside nor the inabilaty to take off the rain fly. I like to be able to star gaze and avoid the bugs. On our last adventure, to the Chiago Basin in Colorado, the Spitfire kept the rain out during frequent thunderstorms and the bugs at bay. It is as light as the single wall and I had the ability to fold the rain fly back for some fantastic night time views of the sky. I had NO condensation problems at all. The onlt problem was the stakes it came with were steel. Phurchased titanium stakes , Problem solved. GREAT BACKPACKING TENT
36 of 38 found the following review helpful:
 Great deal on a solo tentOct 22, 2007
By Eric Weinmann
I purchased this tent new from Amazon.com for [...]. Elsewhere it was seling for [...] so I got what I considered a great deal. I think Amazon.com was normally selling it for [...] or so.
I'm tall (6' 4") and fit in this tent with a little room to spare for gear. I've only used it once on a Boy Scout campout and it worked fine (we had a rainshower one night). The tent has a lot of netting which allows for good air ciculation. I had no condensation on the underside of the fly during the campout. My only issue with this tent is that when it is fully staked out tautly, the rainfly rests on the head end of the tent (the netting above the front tent stake). This COULD allow any condensation that collects on the underside of the fly to end up in the tent. I didn't experience this, but I could see where this might be an issue. For drier climates, this shouldn't be a problem though.
Two other issues: I replaced the steel tent stakes with aluminum ones and the stuff sack for the tent is pretty tight.
The tent weighs 3lbs. 6ozs. on my scale (with the aluminum tent pegs) and easily fits in my pack. The quality of materials and stiching looked decent. I expect this solo tent will serve me well for backpacking in the Sierras in the summertime.
19 of 19 found the following review helpful:
Very nice little tent.Oct 07, 2007
By Sivad
"Sivad"
Let me start by saying that I have only been camping for a few years now. I purchased this tent because I wanted a lighter tent and didnt want to pay an extravegant price for it. This tent fit the bill. It is fairly light ~3 pounds, packs pretty well, and takes nothing to setup. You can do it with just 2 stakes if you really want to. It has plenty of room for me (Im a little guy ~130pound), and my pack. My last camping trip me and my brother both where inside playing cards (It was pouring rain), he is a little guy too. My only complaint i would have , is that i have a difficult time getting the rainfly as taunt as i would like, thus when it rains out i get small leak points where the fly touches the tent. I am sure this is my inexperience and not the tent design though. Even though i get these small spots the tent held up well in about 6-8 hours of rain, thunder and lightning on a trip i had a few weeks ago. So for the price i dont feel i have anything to truly complain about. Just my two cents.
22 of 24 found the following review helpful:
great backpacking tentJan 30, 2007
By John Oven
"pro"
very cheap. very light. worth it. the steel stakes are a pain to have because they are heavy, but they are easily replaced. warm with the fly on; cool with the fly off. great tent, well worth the money.
See all 55 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
