Yeah, well, further use of the SL1 convinced me back. (And I ended up giving my original Hubba away to a youth group, then buying another; don't tell Karol, OK?) <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

The SL1 is a very good tent, make no mistake; and it was very hard to overlook the fact that it's half a pound or more lighter than the Hubba. But, in my seemingly endless angst about what gear I really like, the SL1 came up short for me in the last month or so in several categories (as did most of the other gear with which I attempted to replace my mostly MSR gear to save an extra pound.) My "final" choice of the Hubba is not due to objective design or performance issues, but I guess more of a "fits my style" issue.

First, the SL1 is not freestanding. In Kentucky's Red River Gorge, there are some lovely exposed sandstone cliffs that I like to camp on: great views, sunsets, etc. However, to camp there, you need a tent that is freestanding since you can't put in stakes. (Ignore the fact that all rainflys need stakes to deploy the vestibule; if it's bad enough weather to need the fly on, I'm not camping in such an exposed spot.) The SL1 requires 2 stakes in the front to be fully deployed; I found you can also, with some fiddling, use your hiking pole to do this. So, the SL1 can be freestanding, like the Hubba, but the Hubba does so pretty much hassle-free.

Second, the SL1 uses those funny cloth loops instead of clips. I keep getting annoyed when I insert the pole through 3 of the loops, then discover I missed the first one. Also, you can pitch the Hubba's fly first, then attach the body underneath since it uses clips - a real advantage when it's raining; you can't do that with the SL1. Again, the Hubba wins on simplicity in use and less need to waste time cursing.

Third, I appreciate the SL1's floor arrangement: more room near the head and less near the feet means plenty of room to stow gear. However, it also means I'm more likely to mis-align my pad and pack (pad extension) by rolling around at night. The advantage is also offset by the need to leave some space clear so you can spin around as you get into the tent from the end. The Hubba has adequate (but not as much) space to store my gear, but it's narrower design means my pad stays put at night, and it's side entry means you're not moving around gear to get in.

Finally, I kept missing how easy the side entry, couple extra inches of height, and curved shape of the Hubba made it to get into, out of, and move around in, a tent. The end entry of the SL1 is not a pain by any stretch, but there is a little more scooting and twisting to get in and out of it. Once in, you have to scoot toward the front of the tent as you lie down, since the high point of the tent is at the door; you reverse the motion as you sit up. Again, it's not overly annoying, but it's still easier to use the Hubba: just get in, lie down, and sit up.

There was one minor design issue: one rainy morning, I discovered that you had to be more careful getting in and out of the SL1; the vestibule opens in such a way that you will get some dripping into the body of the tent. This doesn't happen with the Hubba, and it's not serious with the SL1. But it's there.

In the end, I'd be happy with the SL1 if the Hubba didn't exist. It's a really neat little tent. If I needed to absolutely minimize the weight of my load, I'd still reach for the SL1 (and don't intend to get rid of it.) But, when that half pound wasn't critical, which it usually isn't, I've found that I prefer the Hubba. (That is, if I have the Hubba with me, I don't wish I had brought the SL1. If I'm using the SL1 on a laid-back weekend trip, I always find myself wishing for the Hubba.)

It's that close a decision. And, keep watching: I may change my mind again in a couple of months. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />