I have participated in other discussions about cheap tents. My take on gear of any kind is that it is worth what you willing to pay for it.

I don't own a lot of camping gear and don't get out all that much, but what I do have is good stuff that I know won't fail me. To me, the security of knowing my gear is reliable is worth the cost. Some of what I own is about 20 years old and to me well worth what I paid for it.

A tent, like any other product, has 3 components-design, material and assembly-any of these 3 can be good, bad or indifferent, but where something is made is not necessarly an indicator of the quality level of any of the 3.

I can understand buying cheap gear if that is all you can afford or if you don't consider the investment worth it because you only use it once in a while. I certainly have no argument with that decision.

But, just because a cheap tent works in many situations, doesn't necessarily mean that buying a better tent for a lot more money is afoolish investment. In a bad storm, the great bargain you got for something will be meaningless if it comes apart at the wrong time.

WD, I have to disagree with you about bike camping. When I was in NZ in the 80's, I was often totally alone along some backcountry road and nowhere near any kind of shelter other than my tent. Cel phones were just an idea back then, not a reality. My tent was a SD Flashlight and it withstood some pretty nasty weather.

As far as Fritz's comment on clones-designs are hard to protect for a lot of reasons, but determining who to sue is not one of them. In many instances, the designs are dissimilar enough to avoid claims of infringement or the design may not be protected at all.