OutdoorCrunch

Gear

Maven B.1 vs B.2

Last updated: August 10, 2022 by

The flagship Maven B.1 (see image) is a solid go-to for all outdoor activities, whether it be birding or whale watching.

In the Maven product line, the B.1 and B.2 offer superior optics for low-lighting scenarios. The flagship Maven B.1 is sized for everyday use, while the Maven B.2 offers exceptional performance. 

In summary, the 10x magnification and brightness level of the Maven B.2 is more advanced than the Maven B.1. This makes these binos better for big game hunters and wildlife watchers scanning the landscape at dawn and dusk. 

Let’s delve deeper for better clarity on the two.

Magnification and Objective

Also known as strength and size, the magnification and objective vary between the Maven B.1 and B.2.

With Maven B.1, you have a choice between 8x42 and 10x42. Meanwhile, the Maven B.2 offers a wider range with 7x45, 9x45, and 11x45.

As you can see, the full-size objective is the same for both models. It’s the magnification that’s really setting them apart.

A 7x to 10x magnification will suit most users. However, this depends upon the scenario.

If you’re a hunter scanning the ridgeline for a bull elk, you’ll want the 11x magnification, especially if regulations prohibit antlerless elk hunting.

The smaller 7x magnification is better when the objective isn’t miles away. Like when you’re cheering on your favorite soccer team, and you want an up-close look at the red card that’s about to get pulled.

For times like these, go Maven B.2.

Brightness and Clarity

Both Maven B.1 and B.2 are just as sharp as the attractive streamlined design. Yet it’s the Maven B.2 that wins out in brightness.  

The sharp prism offers a brighter image along with incredible light transmission. That makes the Maven B.2 a superior choice in dim lighting.

This is a feature I find particularly useful considering the prime time for wildlife watching is at dawn or dusk especially if I’m trying to ID certain species.

Field of View

The 10x magnification and brightness level of the Maven B.2 (see image) is more advanced than the Maven B.1. This makes these binos better for big game hunters and wildlife watchers scanning the landscape at dawn and dusk.

Field of view is important when you need more of the horizon in your sights. For instance, when you’re keeping a close watch for a rare bird in the sky.

A general rule is the smaller the magnification, the greater the field of view. Both the Maven B.1 and B.2 offer a wide field of view.

Both of which are excellent options when you're bird watching or keeping a lookout for small critters roaming about.

Should you need a different field of view, these aren’t the only options. Maven offers a range of binos in a wider and narrower field of view.

Prism Type

One of the most notable differences between Maven B.1 and B.2 are the prisms.

The Maven B.1 features a Schmidt-Pechan roof prism. The Maven B.2 is equipped with an Abbe-Koenig roof prism. So what’s the difference?

Without going full-on optics nerd, the Schmidt-Pechan prism is more compact than the Abbe-Koenig. That means it will be more comfortable to grasp and easier to transport for everyday use.

On the other hand, the Abbe-Koenig prism offers better light transmission. They’re also harder to produce and more expensive.

Near Focus Distance

It may sound counterintuitive, but how close a pair of binos can focus can be just as important as how far.

For instance, say you’re sketching field notes of a woodpecker’s feathers, and the bird is only 10 feet away. A smaller near-focus distance will allow you to get more detail.

So in the case of the woodpecker, you’d want to opt for the optics of the Maven B.2. The Maven B.2 has a minimum focus distance of 4.9 feet. That’s just slightly better than the 6.6 foot near focus of the Maven B.1.

Conclusion

The flagship Maven B.1 is a solid go-to for all outdoor activities, whether it be birding or whale watching. However, it’s the Maven B.2 that excels in low light situations, whether that be dawn, dusk, or a cloudy day.

Arc’teryx Konseal AR vs LT vs FL 2 vs FL 2 GTX

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by

The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR (see image) that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

In the Arc’teryx shoe lineup, the Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX fill the niche of tackling the approach. Durable, lightweight, fast, and waterproof, all four of these models have their own perks. What they don’t offer is extra ankle support like the Acrux LT GTX.

In summary, the stiff sole and abrasion-resistant uppers of the Arc’teryx Konseal AR offer rugged durability. What these shoes lack in comfort, the Konseal LT makes up for with every stride. Meanwhile, the biting grip of the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX beckon your feet to the crag.

Let’s get a closer look at how these options pit against one another. 

Comfort

Although the Konseal AR is one attractive-looking shoe, it’s stiff as a board. Same with the Konseal FL 2 and Konseal FL 2 GTX. While this is ideal for lengthy scrambles, it’s a problem when the going gets mellow. 

The comfort level will leave you wishing you opted for a wider toe box and more cushioning on flat trails. For comfortable day hiking shoes, you’ll want to use the Arc’teryx shoe finder.  

The Konseal LT is precisely the opposite. The breathability and flex of the mesh uppers in combo with the lighter weight provide ample comfort on mellow and rocky terrain. 

Arc’teryx even thoughtfully added in a collapsible heel, turning these into slip-ons for lounging around base camp. Of these four options, the Konseal LT is the one I would slap on for a full day of ascending the approach.

Traction

When scrambling around boulders, you need reassurance at your feet. All four of these Arc’teryx approach shoes offer a solid degree of traction. Which, of course, varies with conditions and terrain.

As for the Konseal LT (see image), this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes.

For instance, the sticky tread of the Konseal FL 2 clings well to rocks and hard-packed trails, as does the Konseal FL 2 GTX. The biggest difference with this shoe is the Gore-Tex waterproofing adds better traction in wet conditions.

This will likely improve your approach as mother nature releases her furry but to a degree. The design of the shoe leads me to suspect some water may seep in around the tongue, causing some slippage inside.

Meanwhile, what the Konseal AR lacks in comfort, it makes up for in traction. This shoe provides a solid grip on smooth slabs and jagged surfaces. The shallow lugs provide full foot contact allowing you to grab surfaces like a chameleon.

As for the Konseal LT, this shoe surprisingly holds its own among the bunch. The lightweight design and tacky sole offer ample traction on rocky terrain and talus slopes. Just don’t test these when it starts to pour.

Stability

Stiff soles may not be ideal for comfort, but they help with stability. The rigid sole of the Konseal AR does well when the terrain resembles anything but flat.

The Konseal FL 2 hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver. Its waterproof counterpart, the Konseal FL 2 GTX, does this and more as it meets the challenge of sloshy conditions with sure-footedness.

And our lightweight friend, the Konseal LT? Even these add stability when precision counts most.

Needless to say, all offer good stability. Yet, if I’m slogging through muddy terrain with a loaded pack, I would go with the Konseal FL 2 GTX.

Durability

For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX (see image) is a better choice.

Slap the Arc’teryx label on anything, and you expect durability. Or so you would think.

Don’t get me wrong; any approach shoes will take a beating. But the Konseal LT may wear out faster than the others. This is mostly due to design.

The collapsible heel leads me to suspect durability issues down the road. Same with the toe cap.

On the other hand, the Konseal FL 2 and FL 2 GTX offer better durability. But like the Konseal LT, I fear the toe cap may eventually separate from the synthetic mesh of both pairs.

Then there’s the Konseal AR. These shoes are built to take some serious abuse. From the abrasion-resistant upper suede to the sole, this is the best option for durability out of the four.

Versatility

The Konseal AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all work for scrambles and climbs. Yet, it’s their technical features that limit their use for varying activities. 

The Konseal FL 2 (see image) hugs the foot with higher synthetic sidewalls that increase stability with each maneuver. 

The Konseal AR may claim “all-around” use, but the comfort level is less than desirable for the mellow section of a hike. Although, they do look good being sported around town.

The Konseal is the opposite. The comfortable fit and lighter weight can take you from flat hiking to jagged scrambling with minimal compromise. It will let you hop around with agility while you're at it too.

What the Konseal LT doesn’t excel at is scrambling up super slick boulders. For wet and muddy climbs, the Konseal FL 2 GTX is a better choice. Meanwhile, the Konseal FL 2 balances weight with traction to keep you light on the approach.

Conclusion

Approach shoes are best when you need precision at your feet. The Arc’teryx AR, LT, FL 2, and FL 2 GTX all offer great stability best paired with rocky terrain. Yet, it’s the Konseal AR that marries tacky traction with rugged durability that’s built to tackle technical climbs route after route.

Arc’teryx Alpha AR 35 vs 55

Last updated: August 10, 2022 by

The Alpha AR 35 (see image) offers a touch more in the way of versatility. This pack is big enough to do an overnighter if you pack smart. The size is also better if you plan on taking it tour skiing.

Among the Arc’teryx backpacks, the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 are built to accompany your mountain activities. So if you’re looking for a pack that could double for town use, neither are for you. 

In summary, the Alpha AR 35 is not only 5 ounces lighter than the Alpha AR 55; it’s also more versatile. From tour skiing to day trekking, the Alpha AR 35 will hold all your essentials without feeling bulky like the Alpha AR 55. 

Let’s take a closer look at the differences between these two backpacks.  

Versatility

What are you looking to do with your pack? How versatile you need your pack to be is the first metric to consider when figuring out which option is right for you.

Arc’teryx claims the Alpha AR 35 and Alpha AR 55 are versatile packs designed for all-around use. In fact, that’s what the AR stands for, “all-around.” While this sounds good in theory, the delivery doesn’t fully live up to the name.

For starters, the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 are not good for trail running. Even if you’re swiftly moving in alpine terrain, these packs are just too big and too husky.

The Alpha AR 55 is specifically too large to hit the slopes. The bulky fit is also not ideal for super technical icey climbs. What the Alpha AR 55 is good for are multi-day overnighters and general mountaineering.

The Alpha AR 35, on the other hand, offers a touch more in the way of versatility. This pack is big enough to do an overnighter if you pack smart. The size is also better if you plan on taking it tour skiing.

Meanwhile, the lighter weight is better for agility. That means you can scramble more comfortably. Ideally, I would use this pack on a long alpine day trek. It will hold all the essentials and possibly some gear for a hiking buddy.

Considering the “all-around” aspect, I’d go with the Alpha AR 35. I find it to be more practical for my needs.

Pack Capacity

The biggest difference you’ll notice between the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 is their pack capacity. The smaller Alpha AR 35 can house 35 liters of gear. Meanwhile, the larger Alpha AR 55  allows you to pack up to 55 liters of gear. 

With a load like that, the Alpha AR 55 is the winner. The extra 20 liters means you can stuff in more food, emergency layers, and mountaineering gear. That way, you can tackle the expected and the unexpected like those luminous clouds that suddenly rolled in.

Pack Weight

The biggest difference you’ll notice between the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 is their pack capacity. The smaller Alpha AR 35 can house 35 liters of gear. Meanwhile, the larger Alpha AR 55 (see image) allows you to pack up to 55 liters of gear. 

Despite the large load, the Alpha AR 55 has a surprising space-to-weight ratio. The total empty weight is 46 ounces. This is on the lighter side, considering the capacity of this beast.

Yet despite the good ratio, the Alpha AR 35 is still lighter. This pack weighs in at 41 ounces when empty.

At first, the drop in 5 ounces may not sound like that big of a deal. That is until you fill the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 to the brim with all your gear.

To put things into perspective, the Alpha AR 35 will leave your legs more nimble and put less strain on your back.

However, Arc’teryx offers a range of daypacks of varying weights. Their Arc’teryx pack finder can help you find the right one.

Comfort

Both the Alpha AR 35 and AR 55 feature the same style harness. The comfort level, however, is different when fully loaded. This is to be expected as more weight puts more strain on your body. 

That said, the Alpha AR 55 didn’t shine in this category. The weight of the load is rather uncomfortable when attempting technical climbs. This harness style better transfers the load with the Alpha AR 35. 

Regardless, the back panel could use some improvement for both backs. The design doesn’t rest well on the lower back. This could lead to some irritation or pain when putting in the miles.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Alpha AR 35 or AR 55 could be right for you, depending upon your use. If you want the more versatile option of the two, the Alpha AR 35 is the better choice. Meanwhile, the Alpha AR 55 is better for multi-day hikes and mountaineering adventures that require more gear. 

Arc’teryx Aerios 15 vs 30

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by

The Aerios 30 (see image) offers more room to store cold weather gear while still maintaining a comfortable weight.

The Arc’teryx Aerios 15 and 30 backpacks let you pack exceptionally light. What they don’t do is Sherpa all your gear on serious climbs. For that, you’re better off with the Alpha AR 55. 

In summary, the Arc’teryx Aerios 15 and 30 blend a lightweight design with a plethora of features. The Aerios 15 has a 20-ounce weight paired 15-liter capacity that’ll keep you light and nimble on anything under 10 miles. The 30-liter capacity and 32-ounce weight of the Aerios 30 is better for spending all day on the trail.

Pack Capacity

The Aerios 15 is precisely what you want in a daypack. The 15-liter capacity holds all the basic hiking essentials. There’s even a spot for your water bladder.

For hikes that require more gear, the Aerios 30 has you covered. The 30-liter capacity lets you shove in your puffy gloves, emergency shell, beanie, a plethora of RX Bars, water, and a few extra items. All well organized in numerous pockets, gear loops, and front bungee cord system.

Really, both have a great capacity depending on your use. If you prefer to keep it light, go with the Aerios 15. The Aerios 30 is better for those who require more storage or tend to carry items for the just-in-case scenario.  

Pack Weight

If you’re looking for a bulky pack to haul a brutal load for training, neither is the pack for you. The Aerios 15 and 30 are lightweight packs.

Both of which could go lighter if Arc’teryx ditched the frame. However, the crowd they appear to be aiming at are those who don’t mind a few more ounces for more features and comfort.

Meaning, the lightweight crowd. Not ultralight hikers.

At a mere 20 ounces, the Aerios 15 is the lighter of the two. This is a point in the plus column if you don’t want to be bogged down.

Meanwhile, the Aerios 30 clocks in at 32 ounces. That’s a whole 2 pounds!

Ultralight hikers could go lighter. However, that’s some serious back-saving weight for anyone looking to ditch a bulky pack, especially considering the capacity, comfort, and all the features.

The Aerios 15 (see image)  has a 20-ounce weight paired 15-liter capacity that’ll keep you light and nimble on anything under 10 miles. 

Pack Size

The Aerios 15 is a one size fits all sort of deal. Meaning, there’s no option for a larger size to match a longer torso.

The Aerios 30, on the other hand, comes in regular and XL. Whether or not you need the extended length, it’s nice that Arc’teryx at least gives taller folks the option.

Comfort

The Aerios 15 and 30 are comfortable daypacks. The padded harness and decently ventilated back panel work well when loaded. That is, as long as you don’t overload.

Hauling too much gear won’t be an issue with the Aerios 15. The 15-liter capacity won’t let it be. However, the waist belt is the same as the Brize 25, which I’m not keen on.

On the flip side, I can see someone easily packing the Aerios 30 to the brim to find the waist belt and chest straps to be on the uncomfortable side.

Speaking of which, what’s up with the double bungee chest straps? I am not a fan.

I think this design would be more annoying to use than a standard chest strap. This is a minus on the comfortability scale for both daypacks.

Color

Take a look at the Arc’teryx daypack finder, and you’ll notice a stealthy color scheme going on with all their packs. The Aerios 15 and 30 are part of the cool pack club with their slate grey, called Pixel, coloration. 

What I’m not understanding is who decided on the Glade color for the Aerios 30. Or why they don’t offer this option for the Aerios 15. I’m personally not digging it. But the neon-loving crowd may love its electric pop.

Use

What I appreciate most about the Arc’teryx Aerios 15 and 30 are the marriage of durable, lightweight material and a clever design. All of which increase versatility.

Both are good for scrambling, peak bagging, day hiking, or navigating through an urban jungle.

Beyond that, the Aerios 30 can easily be used for extended day hikes or single backcountry overnighters. You could even test it out on an alpine climb, given all the room for extra gear.

As for the Aerios 15, it’s good for a solid day trek. The frame hugging design paired with the size also makes it a viable option for trail running.

Just keep in mind it won’t leave you as agile as a simple hydration vest.

The one thing I am hesitant about is taking either one bushwhacking or on super technical trails. The bungee cord system, albeit as useful as it is, is more prone to snags.

I also wouldn’t use either on a thru-hike. The Aerios 15 doesn’t have enough space for the average thru-hikers. There are also lighter packs you could go with than the Aerios 30.

The Aerios 15 (see image) is light enough for trail runners and fast hikers alike.

Value

The Aerios 15 and 30 come with numerous features and storage options.

You can obsessively pack all your gear and gadgets into a specific spot for easier access. This typically isn’t an option with most ultralight packs.

However, Arc’teryx will make you pay for it. The question is, how much are you willing to pay?

When it comes to the Aerios 30, there are equally sized quality packs at a fraction of the cost. I’d also like to see the Aerios 15 with an improved waist belt.

Both of which could also use a better chest strap.

Conclusion

If you’re looking for a comfortable, lightweight, and feature-filled pack, the Arc’teryx Aerios 15 and 30 may be right for you. 

The Aerios 15 is light enough for trail runners and fast hikers alike. Meanwhile, the Aerios 30 offers more room to store cold weather gear while still maintaining a comfortable weight.

Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX vs LT GTX vs AR

Last updated: May 17, 2022 by

The Acrux TR GTX (see image) is better for multi-day hikes where the trail can go from dirt to rugged slopes. This is more akin to what most hikers would need who get technical from time to time. 

Climbing technical terrain? The Arc'teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR feature an earth-biting grip. What these boots don’t offer is agility. For that, you’re much better off with the Arc’teryx Aerios FL MID GTX.

The Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR are built for technical climbs. The Acrux TR GTX can handle varying terrains on multi-day hikes. For jagged rocky peaks, the Acrux LT GTX is a great match. Meanwhile, the Acrux AR has enough warmth and stability to tackle icy routes.

Comfort

Finding a technical boot that is functional and comfortable is challenging. The Acrux TR GTX solidifies that point.

The comfort of the Acrux TR GTX is about subpar. The cushion on the midsole is not as thick as I’d like considering these are designed for rocky terrain. The fit is also tighter than I typically go for. Which, in my experience, means blisters.

What I do like about the Acrux TR GTX is the rubber toe cap. This means you’re much less likely to be cursing the trail when you stub your toe on a rocky ascent.

The Acrux LT GTX is pretty brand spanking new to the Arc’teryx lineup. From first impressions, these boots are stiff where you need it and flexible where you want it.

They do offer a degree of breathability, which is always appreciated. Unfortunately, just like the Acrux TR GTX, the Acrux LT GTX has a narrow fit. So wide feet need not apply.

As for the Acrux AR, these boots are surprisingly comfy. Don’t get me wrong; they’re not like slipping into a pair of Crocs.

But, the combo of the flexible inner bootie, warmth, and lighter weight makes them more comfortable than other options.

Break them in over a season, and they’ll grow more comfortable over time. Of course, like my prior complaint, I do wish they offered a wide version.

Stability 

Aside from comfort, stability is one of the most important features of a technical boot. The Acrux LT GTX offers some excellent heel-to-toe stability. Just try it out on a talus slope. 

The Acrux TR GTX and AR also offer stellar stability. However, some minor improvements could be made.

For instance, the Acrux LT GTX could use a wider outsole to better avoid ankle rolling. 

As for the Acrux AR, it could take a lesson from the Acrux LT GTX and incorporate some eyelets and lacing that go higher up the tongue.  

All that said, I’d still take any of these options on technical climbs and maintain confidence in stability.

As for the Acrux LT GTX (see image), this is certainly an alpine boot with a sole that’s got a bite. On rocky scrambles, you’ll get a good toehold, even on edges. While this is great, it is very technical. 

Traction

Let’s get one thing straight. The Arc’teryx Acrux AR is made for ice climbing.

A good portion of the time, you’ll be heavily relying on crampons. For the times you’re not using crampons, the anti-slip tread provides reliable traction.

Unlike the Acrux AR, the Acrux TR GTX is not made for ice. What it is made for is more mixed terrain that varies from dry to wet conditions.

The Acrux TR GTX has a grippy sole that does well on talus slopes and stream crossings. I’m also digging the deep lugs, which provide sure footing.

As for the Acrux LT GTX, this is certainly an alpine boot with a sole that’s got a bite. On rocky scrambles, you’ll get a good toehold, even on edges. While this is great, it is very technical.

If you’re trekking in varying terrains, I’d go with the Acrux TR GTX.

Use

Arc’teryx claims all three of these boots are built for alpine environments and rock climbing. Which they are, but to a different degree.

The Acrux AR is purely for mountaineering. Find yourself in sub-zero temps with an ice axe in hand, and you’ll want these on your feet.

The Acrux TR GTX is better for multi-day hikes where the trail can go from dirt to rugged slopes. This is more akin to what most hikers would need who get technical from time to time.

For those who really like to scramble up the ascent, the Acrux LT GTX would be a better bet.

Due to the technicality, I wouldn’t recommend any of these for an average, all-around hiking boot. But out of the three, the Acrux TR GTX does have the most versatility.

The Arc’teryx boot finder is a useful tool if you need help deciding.

Value

The Acrux AR (see image) has enough warmth and stability to tackle icy routes.

Your feet are your biggest tool when doing any sort of trekking. I would personally pay top dollar to keep mine in working condition, blister-free.

All three of these technical trekking boots come at a high price. This is precisely what you should expect from anything sporting the Arc’teryx label.

So bottom line, the Acrux AR boots are much harder to slip on than the TR GTX or LT GTX. They also may have some durability issues with the toe. However, they provide exceptional warmth and reassurance when you’re mountaineering.

The TR GTX will offer the most versatility. However, the technical features may be overkill for those who aren’t looking to do multi-day backpacking.

The new LT GTX is a very stylish boot. But, these puppies are too new to see how they’ll withstand some serious trail abuse throughout a season.

Although, if you’re looking to start doing some rocky peak bagging, this could be a good investment for you.

One thing to keep in mind is all these shoes have a narrow fit. If you have wider feet, all the drool-worthy specs will be useless to you.

Conclusion

The Arc’teryx Acrux TR GTX, LT GTX, and AR all have some promising features. Where they fall short is on the narrow fit.

For those who don’t need a wide fit, these technical climbing and trekking boots could be a good choice.

For more versatility, the TR GTX is a solid option. For scrambling, the lugs on the Acrux LT GTX provide great bite. And anyone looking to brave mountaineering can appreciate the warmth of the Acrux AR.

Need a warm jacket to go with your technical climbs? Check out my review for Best Arc’teryx Jackets.