Cotton vs. Fleece ????
Mangry
Currently I do not bring fleece jackets/pull overs on my overnite backpacking
trips but I am thinking about asking for fleece for Christmas. The question is
which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
types of fleece would you buy in order to layer ?? Thanks alot for your help.
Sincerely,
Craig
apbading
Poly-fleece wins hands-down compared to cotton in terms of weight,
compressability, and insulation. With today's fabrics, cotton has no
place in the winter backcountry. For many years I wore cotton long
undies,but even slightly damp cotton is very efficient at depleting body
heat. Soaked cotton has no insulation value at all. I wouldn't go too
heavy on a single layer of poly fleece. A couple layers of 200 wt. over
lightweight polypro undies, and a Waterproof/Breathable shell outer
should suffice for nearly all conditions. Pit-zips and front zips are
always good for venting, pullovers are better suited to sedentary
activities in camp.
Brian Natalie Sniatkowski
than cotton and blows it away with regards to insulating
qualities. And best of all, cotton can kill you and fleece
can save your life. 'nuff said.
Dook of URLs
...
>which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
>types of fleece would you buy in order to layer ??
Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
have real clothes in your pack as backups.
Donchano, you can buy a light-to-mid-weight full-zip fleece jacket for
~$20 at a discount store. I've been wearing the same one for about two
years, including every day when I leap out of the sack into a cold
bedroom. Put a cheap water/wind resistant shell over that, and you are
pretty durned toasty in moderate winter climates.
So that is 2 of the layers. The inner one is some polypro longjohns,
maybe mid-weight, and you are down the trail.
Don't over-analyse this. Do as above, then go hiking.
--Dook
David Obelcz
more durable, packs better - go with a quality brand of outdoor gear not
something like "Old Navy" - quality can be very poor both of stitching and
insulation abilities...
"Mangry" <man...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000928181354...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
> Hello. I am looking for a few opinions out here in reference to fleece.
> Currently I do not bring fleece jackets/pull overs on my overnite
backpacking
> trips but I am thinking about asking for fleece for Christmas. The
question is
> which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
Peter Clinch
>
> Hello. I am looking for a few opinions out here in reference to fleece.
> Currently I do not bring fleece jackets/pull overs on my overnite backpacking
> trips but I am thinking about asking for fleece for Christmas. The question is
> which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
> types of fleece would you buy in order to layer ?? Thanks alot for your help.
Cotton is really good for keeping cool in hot, dry conditions. Aside
from that you're best off avoiding it *completely* in the bc (maybe
handkerchiefs at a stretch...)
What fleeces you get and how you layer is a personal thing, and depends
a lot on what (if anything) you're using as an outer layer and the
conditions you'll be in. But to start layering off I'd go for a wicking
layer in a good synthetic fabric. Examples include Patagonia's
Capilene, Lowe's Dryflo, Helly's Lifa, plenty of others: try on all you
can find and select for comfort, which will be a function of cut and
fabric feel. And as well as a shirt in this sort of stuff, underpants
too! These make a big difference to comfort, especially if you're
getting wet and then drying out again.
Thicker versions for colder conditions.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Andy Woodward
>from that you're best off avoiding it *completely* in the bc (maybe
>handkerchiefs at a stretch...)
Its good for an outer layer cos its a lot more hardwearing than synthetics and
it doesnt get melted holes from sparks.
But like Pete says, DONT rely on it for insulation.
aps
> Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
> have real clothes in your pack as backups.
Of course cotton is dangerous, but I've been on many BC trips
with at least one cotton garment and, confoundedly, survived.
I'll always remember the morning I was huffing down a trail wearing
my uber-plastique hiking clothes and encountered an older guy
wearing jeans and a flannel shirt who'd slept under a space blanket
in the rain. He was as alive and cheerful as anything, and his
pack weighed about half mine. About half the serious bushwackers
I've met in the Adirondacks were wearing cotton sweatpants for some
reason.
Cotton's advantage is that it's a bit tougher and more wind
resistant than fleece. Of course, even the dampness from
sweating can be a life-threatening problem when in cold climes.
But I think it's a little bobo to claim that cotton can kill
or that fleece can save a life--it's a good idea to eschew
the former for the latter, but the situation usually rises or
falls on other factors. Certainly a good compass and backup
map are better investments than a new fleece jacket.
> Donchano, you can buy a light-to-mid-weight full-zip fleece jacket for
> ~$20 at a discount store. I've been wearing the same one for about two
> years, including every day when I leap out of the sack into a cold
> bedroom. Put a cheap water/wind resistant shell over that, and you are
> pretty durned toasty in moderate winter climates.
There's a difference between fleeces--cheaper fleece tends to
pill up and lose a lot of insulating ability as a result. Far
as I know, the best choice is some kind of Polartec, made by
Malden Mills. It's used in the boutique gear like Patagonia,
but it can be found under more reasonable labels like Cabela's.
You can also buy it as fabric and sew it yourself.
APS
Major Wood
moisture, and when it gets wet, it stays wet, which under certain
conditions can induce hypothermia. This is why bathroom towels are
cotton and not poly???. Poly??? fleeces are hydrophobic, so they
don't absorb the water, but act as a conduit for capillary action, and
therefore wick away moisture. Probably the best starting combo is a
light colored short sleeve T, a dark colored long sleeve T, and a 200
or 300 wt jacket. I use a poly T in the summer in order to keep my
back drier under the pack. The windblock jackets are a lot heavier
for a given thickness, and don't do anything more if used under a
windproof shell, but they are nicer on cold windy dry days than having
to wear a bulky windproof shell. Proper layering selection depends on
where you are. Here in PacNW, I currently have 4 different weights of
fleece pants, basically thin, 100, 200, and 300, plus a pair of 200 wt
full side zips. What I bring depends on what range of crap I expect
to encounter, and I always have to consider wet precipitation, which
is why I only recently started looking at down. I've also started to
carry a couple of long sleeve mesh poly??? shirts instead of a 100 or
200 wt jacket. They seem to do as well under a shell, and also give a
bit more control. The base one is white, and the one over it is dark.
I've gone to long sleeve mesh shirts to keep from clogging up
everything else with sunscreen. Another advantage of fleece is that
you can get a 300 wt jacket and pants, and really kick up the rating
of your sleeping system. I can't say enough about the REI MTS mesh
poly boxers, but perhaps its best if I don't go there. The problems
with fleece are packability, a 300 wt jacket is huge, and odor. If
anyone has a way to get smell out of fleece i'd love to hear it. I
always take separate travelling clothes for the trip to and from the
trailhead.
On 28 Sep 2000 22:13:54 GMT, man...@aol.com (Mangry) wrote:
>Hello. I am looking for a few opinions out here in reference to fleece.
>Currently I do not bring fleece jackets/pull overs on my overnite backpacking
>trips but I am thinking about asking for fleece for Christmas. The question is
>which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
>types of fleece would you buy in order to layer ?? Thanks alot for your help.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Craig
Fred Chittenden
noS...@loopback.edu (aps) writes:
>About half the serious bushwackers I've met in the Adirondacks were wearing
cotton sweatpants for some reason. <
The polar fleece layer wicks sweat away from the skin to the cotton layer,
where it evaporates. The fleece layer remains a good insulating layer even if
the outside is a bit wet, not soaking wet.
You can also put the sweats on under stretch jeans (or goretex pants) for a
good dry/cold weather layering effect.
This is not as good of a layering system as full synthetics, but quite
affordable and functional within reasonable 3 season parameters where you're
not too wet.
Also, I find hiking in the cotton/stretch jeans perferable to synthetic
pants. The stretch jeans can be 50/50 or more acrylic, with the acrylic layer
largely inside. As noted above, they wick moisture to the outer cotton layer
to keep you cool when it's hot out. They are very tough, relatively light
weight and, unlike full cotton jeans, they dry rapidly. (not as fast as
synthetic, but reasonably fast, depending upon how much cotton is in the mix --
more cotton more time to dry).
Best if all, they stretch, which provides room for my power hiker's legs to
move around freely. Furthermore, they stretch to provide room for an under
layer of thermal pants (preferably full fleece or fleece/lycra). Because they
are moderately snug to the leg you can get a super layering effect, without
cold spots of loose fitting synthetic pants.
Basically, stretch jeans are like cotton jeans in durability and looks only.
Always, Fred Chittenden
Always Right, well most of the time
http://www.dolf.com/homestead/alwaysright.html
Fred Chittenden
writes:
>Here in PacNW, I currently have 4 different weights of fleece pants, basically
thin, 100, 200, and 300, plus a pair of 200 wt full side zips. <
Ditto, and I'm also in the PacNW where versatility and layering is a must.
The one fleece fabric layer you are missing, or didn't detail, is my favorite
by far.
I've got a lycra/100 fleece set of "pants" that is super for most all
layering uses. The lycra holds the fleece (and warmth) next to the skin,
providing warmth similar to 200 fleece without the extra bulk (or weight).
Mine have an REI label. I recall finding them in the cross country or mountain
biking section for a pricy amount like $50 or $70, but they are worth it.
They are super for skiing down to 0 degrees F (with stretch jeans & outer
gortex layers), great under stretch jeans on cold days when you are outside
standing around not doing much while you watch the kid's soccer games, great in
the sleeping bag, hanging out at camp, etc, etc.
It's got to the point that I rarely use my other fleece pants, except for
hanging out after work at the house...
Fred Chittenden
<nos...@all.com> writes:
>Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>have real clothes in your pack as backups. <
You can always take a fleece shirt and dunk it in a creek and get a good
cooling effect.
Dook of URLs
><nos...@all.com> wrote:
>
>>On 28 Sep 2000 22:13:54 GMT, man...@aol.com (Mangry) wrote:
>>
>>...
>>>which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
>>>types of fleece would you buy in order to layer ??
>>...
>> Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>> have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>
>Of course cotton is dangerous, but I've been on many BC trips
>with at least one cotton garment and, confoundedly, survived.
Your point?
>I'll always remember the morning I was huffing down a trail wearing
>my uber-plastique hiking clothes and encountered an older guy
>wearing jeans and a flannel shirt who'd slept under a space blanket
>in the rain. He was as alive and cheerful as anything, and his
>pack weighed about half mine.
Your point?
>About half the serious bushwackers
>I've met in the Adirondacks were wearing cotton sweatpants for some
>reason.
The reason is that you see them within their first 100 yards (meters)
after leaving the trail. Beyond that, the underbrush will turn cotton
sweatpants into baggy jockey shorts.
I've been bushwhacking for a little while myownself, and I shred a
pair of nylon pants every season, and that's with knee-high gaiters. I
haven't been in the Adirondacks, but if they have poison oak/ivy,
brush on the southwest slopes, tumbleweed (Russian thistle), barrel
cactus, or any of that stuff, sweatpants wouldn't last one mile.
>Cotton's advantage is that it's a bit tougher and more wind
>resistant than fleece.
While it is true that cotton is generally more resistant to abrasion,
puncture, and wind than fleece is, no one has advertised those as
features of fleece. Fleece IS a great insulting layer. With a $20
hooded nylon jacket over it, you have a sooper-dooper
wind/rain-shedding, insulated 2-layer setup. You wanna spend 5 or 8x
as much, you can have 2x the performance. (I've got the good stuff,
but Craig, the original poster, said he was thinking of "asking for
fleece for Xmas," which lead me to think that he might not be rolling
in bux. So, I gave him budget-minded advice which would let him play
in the backcountry, though not climb Everest, much less the
Adirondacks.)
>Of course, even the dampness from
>sweating can be a life-threatening problem when in cold climes.
Yeah, as cold as 50-some degrees Fahrenheit (you figger the damned
Celsius this time).
Because cotton absorbs a lot of water (sweat) compared to fleece, then
resists its evaporation, the water just sits there in the (former) air
pockets, transmitting your body heat to the outside. Fleece is such a
good insulator precisely because it retains extremely little water, so
your body heat can evaporate it and restore those insulating air
pockets.
>But I think it's a little bobo to claim that cotton can kill
>or that fleece can save a life
Well, you and I could go into the woods naked (but separately, thank
you very much), scrape together a debris hut, and sweat through an
overnight blizzard. Many people can't...or think they can't.
For that matter, for hard guys like you and even me, the compass and
map which you mention below are a waste of money compared to fleece
and other layers.
>--it's a good idea to eschew
>the former for the latter, but the situation usually rises or
>falls on other factors. Certainly a good compass and backup
>map are better investments than a new fleece jacket.
That's not certain to me.
>> Donchano, you can buy a light-to-mid-weight full-zip fleece jacket for
>> ~$20 at a discount store. I've been wearing the same one for about two
>> years, including every day when I leap out of the sack into a cold
>> bedroom. Put a cheap water/wind resistant shell over that, and you are
>> pretty durned toasty in moderate winter climates.
>
>There's a difference between fleeces--cheaper fleece tends to
>pill up and lose a lot of insulating ability as a result.
Pilling is entirely a cosmetic issue -- got zip to do with insulation.
Cheap fleece is by far the best value. Even bad stitching and zippers
can be contained by a cheapo hooded nylon jacket.
> Far
>as I know, the best choice is some kind of Polartec, made by
>Malden Mills. It's used in the boutique gear like Patagonia,
>but it can be found under more reasonable labels like Cabela's.
>You can also buy it as fabric and sew it yourself.
>
>APS
I'd rather see the kid stumbling around among the trees, warm and dry,
than hunched over his mom's sewing machine.
Lots of ideas of "the best." That's why Ben and Jerry make so many
flavors.
--Dook
peter
>
> Also, I find hiking in the cotton/stretch jeans perferable to synthetic
> pants. The stretch jeans can be 50/50 or more acrylic, with the acrylic
layer
> largely inside. As noted above, they wick moisture to the outer cotton
layer
> to keep you cool when it's hot out. They are very tough, relatively light
> weight and, unlike full cotton jeans, they dry rapidly. (not as fast as
> synthetic, but reasonably fast, depending upon how much cotton is in the
mix --
> more cotton more time to dry).
>
> Best if all, they stretch, which provides room for my power hiker's legs
to
> move around freely. Furthermore, they stretch to provide room for an
under
> layer of thermal pants (preferably full fleece or fleece/lycra). Because
they
> are moderately snug to the leg you can get a super layering effect,
without
> cold spots of loose fitting synthetic pants.
>
Just wondering- In Aust/NZ a very common combo is shorts + leggings, yet all
the US/Euro walkers I've come across go for some sort of synthetic pant
instead.
Is it our sthn hemisphere fashion scence or something we don't know?
Peter
apbading
Well, ahm a good ol' Amurican boy who uses shorts with leggin's.
Gary S.
>On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 11:18:18 -0700, noS...@loopback.edu (aps) wrote:
>
>><nos...@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 28 Sep 2000 22:13:54 GMT, man...@aol.com (Mangry) wrote:
>>>
>>>...
>>>>which weighs more, pack better....fleece or cotton clothing ??? Also what
>>>>types of fleece would you buy in order to layer ??
>>>...
>>> Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>>> have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>>
>>Of course cotton is dangerous, but I've been on many BC trips
>>with at least one cotton garment and, confoundedly, survived.
>
>Your point?
>
>Yeah, as cold as 50-some degrees Fahrenheit (you figger the damned
>Celsius this time).
>
>Because cotton absorbs a lot of water (sweat) compared to fleece, then
>resists its evaporation, the water just sits there in the (former) air
>pockets, transmitting your body heat to the outside. Fleece is such a
>good insulator precisely because it retains extremely little water, so
>your body heat can evaporate it and restore those insulating air
>pockets.
>
>>But I think it's a little bobo to claim that cotton can kill
>>or that fleece can save a life
>
I've never understood why some people are so zealous about promoting
the use of cotton in the outdoors. Cotton CAN kill, read some outdoor
accident reports. You won't read about fleece saving lives as often,
successful trips don't make news.
Every organization that teaches outdoor skills highlights the idea
that wet or damp cotton will chill you (whether from rain or
perpiration) and that choosing materials such as wool or synthetics is
much better. Yes, in hot, dry climates cotton may be more comfortable,
but even deserts in summer can get quite cool at night. You may wear
cotton during the day while hot, but your pack should have enough wool
or synthetic clothing for possible bad weather or nighttime temps. The
US Army Research Labs in Natick have a number of scientific studies to
back this.
The greatest number of deaths from hypothermia are not below freezing,
but with temps in the 50s. The combo of cold or cool, wind, and wet is
deadly for those without proper clothing. I sometimes call wet cotton
"negative insulation", you would be warmer by taking it off.
Although "Pata-Gucci" and other top brands of fleece are expensive,
there are many quality fleece garments, especially house brands, for
much less expense. In more modest quality, fleece is available for the
same price as cotton sweatshirts in regular department stores and
warehouse clubs, about $20/piece.
Another source is wool clothing from Army/Navy surplus stores, or old
suits from a Goodwill type store. You can easily outfit yourself with
insulating clothing head to toe (no shell or boots) for well under
$100. This will last for many trips, and be useful for many other
activities. Cost is not an issue for almost everyone.
When the knowledgable sources all agree that cotton is a dangerous
choice for outdoor insulation
Happy trails,
Gary
------------------------------------------------
...To front only the essential facts of life... HDT
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Gary S.
wrote:
>
>Just wondering- In Aust/NZ a very common combo is shorts + leggings, yet all
>the US/Euro walkers I've come across go for some sort of synthetic pant
>instead.
>Is it our sthn hemisphere fashion scence or something we don't know?
>Peter
>
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by leggings, but many hikers around
here in cool weather (and some in winter conditions) wear long
underwear or tights with a pair of shorts over them. Great
flexibility, and easy to put fleece or windpants over as needed.
ps
"peter" <Peter_...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:76fB5.450$yigc.7...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> Just wondering- In Aust/NZ a very common combo is shorts + leggings, yet
all
> the US/Euro walkers I've come across go for some sort of synthetic pant
> instead.
> Is it our sthn hemisphere fashion scence or something we don't know?
> Peter
>
It's called "river wear" that's how we dress on river trips ;-)
penny
Fred Chittenden
<Peter_...@xtra.co.nz> writes:
>Just wondering- In Aust/NZ a very common combo is shorts + leggings, yet all
>the US/Euro walkers I've come across go for some sort of synthetic pant
>instead.
>Is it our sthn hemisphere fashion scence or something we don't know?
Don't know. I'd be a short/legging guy.
Fred Chittenden
S.) writes:
>I've never understood why some people are so zealous about promoting
>the use of cotton in the outdoors. Cotton CAN kill, read some outdoor
>accident reports.
You're taking things to extremes. There are lots of cotton/synthetic blends
that are not part of that literature.
Pat O'Connell
>
> In article <39d5d1bb...@news.bellatlantic.net>, Idontwantspam@net (Gary
> S.) writes:
>
> >I've never understood why some people are so zealous about promoting
> >the use of cotton in the outdoors. Cotton CAN kill, read some outdoor
> >accident reports.
>
> You're taking things to extremes. There are lots of cotton/synthetic blends
> that are not part of that literature.
I remember wearing a pair of "jeans" made of woven synthetic blend
"denim" cloth (polyester/cotton?) in the desert around the Texas Guads
in 1971. The thorny plants out there did serious damage to that cloth.
Cotton jeans did (and do--I live in New Mexico) just fine. That trip
was entirely in dry weather--the area was in the midst of a drought.
In those days, nylon pants weren't being produced.
OTOH, if I were planning to hike for several days in rainy weather,
I'd prefer nylon pants, or maybe wool pants or knickers if it were
cold. From personal exp[erience, cotton is very cold if it gets wet,
and dries slowly.
--
Pat O'Connell
Take nothing but pictures, Leave nothing but footprints,
Kill nothing but vandals...
aps
> >Of course cotton is dangerous, but I've been on many BC trips
> >with at least one cotton garment and, confoundedly, survived.
>
> Your point?
If you've got a few cotton garments, you shouldn't be afraid
of some abstract notion that they'll kill you. Wet cotton
is a survivable thing, if you keep moving. I agree that
fleece is better, but I think the "cotton kills!" mantra is
a little histrionic.
> >I'll always remember the morning I was huffing down a trail wearing
> >my uber-plastique hiking clothes and encountered an older guy
> >wearing jeans and a flannel shirt who'd slept under a space blanket
> >in the rain. He was as alive and cheerful as anything, and his
> >pack weighed about half mine.
>
> Your point?
See above. I don't have any gripe with the argument that fleece
is a better choice. I'd just offer the observation that the people
I've seen in the wilderness that seemed to be in over their heads
were fairly well equipped with synthetic clothes and newer gear, while
many of the folks that inspired awe have been wearing regular old
cotton stuff. Not a choice I'd make or endorse, but there it is.
> I've been bushwhacking for a little while myownself, and I shred a
> pair of nylon pants every season, and that's with knee-high gaiters. I
> haven't been in the Adirondacks, but if they have poison oak/ivy,
> brush on the southwest slopes, tumbleweed (Russian thistle), barrel
> cactus, or any of that stuff, sweatpants wouldn't last one mile.
Not much cactus, but a wide range of that other stuff, with an
emphasis on low branches and concealed muck.
> Pilling is entirely a cosmetic issue -- got zip to do with insulation.
> Cheap fleece is by far the best value. Even bad stitching and zippers
Not so--when the fibers pill up, they won't hold as much air, and
they expose the base knit, allow more air to move in and out.
> I'd rather see the kid stumbling around among the trees, warm and dry,
> than hunched over his mom's sewing machine.
I'd rather not see anybody stumbling around depending on my
advice to stay warm.
> Lots of ideas of "the best." That's why Ben and Jerry make so many
> flavors.
Agreed.
APS
Fred Chittenden
>I remember wearing a pair of "jeans" made of woven synthetic blend
>"denim" cloth (polyester/cotton?) in the desert around the Texas Guads
>in 1971. The thorny plants out there did serious damage to that cloth.
>
Not the same as stretch jeans.
Pat O'Connell
>
> In article <39D6206A...@nmia.com>, Pat O'Connell <pa...@nmia.com> writes:
>
> >I remember wearing a pair of "jeans" made of woven synthetic blend
> >"denim" cloth (polyester/cotton?) in the desert around the Texas Guads
> >in 1971. The thorny plants out there did serious damage to that cloth.
> >
>
> Not the same as stretch jeans.
Not at all--those have Spandex in them IIRC, and are a recent
development.
I have no experience with stretch jeans, preferring regular cotton
ones based on the previous bad experience with the poly/cotton ones,
which were supposed to be permanent press. Try permanent shred...
BeJay
dangerous.
Fleece may take up more volume, but I don't find any weight penalties.
Bejay
Bejay
MB
> you're best off avoiding [cotton] *completely* in the bc (maybe
> handkerchiefs at a stretch...)
apbading <apba...@fuse.net> |
| With today's fabrics, cotton has no place in the winter backcountry.
Dook of URLs <nos...@all.com> *
* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?! Did,
say, Snowsled get it all wrong? Cf <www.snowsled.com>.
David Obelcz :
: Cotton kills when wet - especially in cold weather
Nonsense. If that was the case, eg, Finland would have lost
tens of thousands of conscripts who were using old-fashioned
wool and cotton clothing each year during the past decades.
Actually, severe hypothermia accidents were remarkably
rare (and carefully documented) even though the conditions
are often difficult and many of the conscripts initially
inexperienced.
This is not to say that cotton wouldn't be badly suited
for cold-wet. It is. Even the newer mil issue gear reflects
the fact. But, having partially cotton clothing, knowing
the limitations and adapting accordingly, certainly
doesn't kill. "Cotton kills" is just an oversimplification,
a stupid slogan.
Markus Bjorksten
Dook of URLs
>Peter Clinch >
>> you're best off avoiding [cotton] *completely* in the bc (maybe
>> handkerchiefs at a stretch...)
>
>apbading <apba...@fuse.net> |
>| With today's fabrics, cotton has no place in the winter backcountry.
>
>Dook of URLs <nos...@all.com> *
>* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>
>Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
>clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?!
The discussion thus far has been about cotton, not Ventile-cotton,
whatever that is, or Kryptonite-cotton. Any mix of cotton fiber and
some other material which causes the mix to not act like cotton is, if
course, another story.
In any case, "cold-dry" describes the conditions outside the clothing;
warm-humid describes conditions on the inside. If body moisture is to
get from inside to outside, it will reach a point in its outward
journey where temperature causes it to condense. Any cotton from there
onward will absorb that moisture, lose all insulation value, and be a
major liability in environments below 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 C).
And that's a fact.
>Did, say, Snowsled get it all wrong? Cf <www.snowsled.com>.
>
>David Obelcz :
>: Cotton kills when wet - especially in cold weather
>
>Nonsense. If that was the case, eg, Finland would have lost
>tens of thousands of conscripts who were using old-fashioned
>wool and cotton clothing each year during the past decades.
>Actually, severe hypothermia accidents were remarkably
>rare (and carefully documented) even though the conditions
>are often difficult and many of the conscripts initially
>inexperienced.
Markus, you can deny the laws of physics if you wish, but wet cotton
will still have virtually no insulating value. You may convince
yourself of this by wetting one of two identical shirts, taking them
both outside in cold weather, putting on the dry one for a minute,
then the wet one, then the dry one again. (I can't believe I have to
write this!)
As for inexperienced conscripts, can you say, "sergeant?" Sergeants
the world over are the repository and delivery system for just this
kind of information. Half of their job is to keep inexperienced
recruits out of such trouble (the other half is to keep inexperienced
lieutenants out of such trouble). Thus, "inexperienced conscripts" is
quite irrelevant.
>This is not to say that cotton wouldn't be badly suited
>for cold-wet. It is. Even the newer mil issue gear reflects
>the fact. But, having partially cotton clothing, knowing
>the limitations and adapting accordingly, certainly
>doesn't kill. "Cotton kills" is just an oversimplification,
>a stupid slogan.
>
>Markus Bjorksten
Your final paragraph answers your implied question. You hint at a long
explanation about when and how cotton can be as safe as modern
materials, but don't provide it. Even if you did, why would anyone
take the time to study it, then hope they didn't take away a (fatal)
misunderstanding of something you wrote? They could, instead, buy
non-cotton gear for about the same price and carry on safely.
As for oversimplifications and stupid slogans, it is not uncommon to
reduce almost-always-true ideas to a few words, which the user
(particularly an inexperienced user) can apply to his/her benefit:
- Never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. (Silly and
stupid. Guns rarely go off accidently, especially my gun.)
- Never drink and drive. (Silly and stupid. I did it for years --
until ten years ago -- and never had a problem.)
- Do unto others as you would be done.
- Allow one car length between cars for each 10 mph (15 kph) of
speed.
- Blah, blah, blah, blah.
Cotton kills. Believe it!
--Dook
Andy Woodward
>>* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>>* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>>
>>Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
>>clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?!
There is no reason why cotton should not be used for a shell in ANY
conditions. It is far harder wearing than synthetics. It is only a problem if
you are relying on it for insulation.
Newbie weenie deskjockeys on redneck.backcountry have this gag-reflex where
as soon as anyone mentions cotton, they have a nervous breakdown, get out
their Best Handgun For Protection In The Back Country and start shooting
each other.
>journey where temperature causes it to condense. Any cotton from there
>onward will absorb that moisture, lose all insulation value, and be a
Yes. But a shell is not there for insulation. A shell is there to PROTECT the
insulation
>>Did, say, Snowsled get it all wrong? Cf <www.snowsled.com>.
Snowsled didnt get anything wrong. They produce shells. They dont produce
insulation. This is going to be a hard concept for the deskjockeys to get
inside their poor little heads without painful stretching.
Well. OK. I'll correct myself. Snowsled DID get something wrong - as do all
manufaturers of Ventile. The price.
>Cotton kills. Believe it!
You have much to learn before yiou leave the monastery, Glasshoppa. Argueing
with Markus just makes YOU look stupid, not him. He actually DOES this stuff,
not just reads about it.......
He is one of teh few folk left on redneck.backcountry worth specifically
looking for when you log on.
Peter Clinch
>
> Peter Clinch >
> > you're best off avoiding [cotton] *completely* in the bc (maybe
> > handkerchiefs at a stretch...)
>
> apbading <apba...@fuse.net> |
>
> * have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>
> Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
> say, Snowsled get it all wrong? Cf <www.snowsled.com>.
Ventile is very probably the best there is in cold/dry for an outer
shell (hence its extensive use in polar conditions). But the question
was, IIRC, about insulation, and ventile is a special, rare and
expensive case (hence its particular name). I'll grant you it is an
exception to the quote you took from my post though.
Ventile in Scotland is usually a real hoot: it gets wet low down, then
you get over the freezing level and your jacket freezes into unyielding
stiff plates. Not really much fun!
> "Cotton kills" is just an oversimplification,
> a stupid slogan.
agreed.
Pete.
Gary S.
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>> "Cotton kills" is just an oversimplification,
>> a stupid slogan.
>agreed.
>Pete.
Slogans and one-liners are usually an oversimplification, but they can
be handy in teaching basic concepts. As one gains a deeper
understanding of the real issues behind the slogan, the subtle
exceptions become clearer. Very often, there is more than one right
way to do something.
"Cotton kills" is not always true, but it IS more than it isn't.
Fleece is not a magic super insulation, but it is a very reliable
outdoor material. I've seen enough people learn the hard way in the
White Mountains to want to teach them ahead of time some correct ways
of doing things. Easier than carrying them out.
In areas that can have cold/wet conditions, (which can be most any
non-tropical or mountainous area), avoiding cotton insulation and
using wool or synthetic insulation is the wiser course of action.
Although some can find occasional exceptions such as ventile cotton
shells, would anyone seriously say that this is overall untrue? Would
you bet someone's life on it?
Dook of URLs
wrote:
>>>| With today's fabrics, cotton has no place in the winter backcountry.
>
>>>* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>>>* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
>>>clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?!
...
>Newbie weenie deskjockeys on redneck.backcountry have this gag-reflex where
>as soon as anyone mentions cotton, they have a nervous breakdown, get out
>their Best Handgun For Protection In The Back Country and start shooting
>each other.
...
>This is going to be a hard concept for the deskjockeys to get
>inside their poor little heads without painful stretching.
...
>You have much to learn before yiou leave the monastery, Glasshoppa.
Andy, I hope that was the third glass of bourbon talking and not you.
Assuming so, your brand of booze makes people into insulting, vapid
fucking jerks. Please don't reply to my posts again unless you either
sober up or change brands.
>Argueing
>with Markus just makes YOU look stupid, not him. He actually DOES this stuff,
>not just reads about it.......
>
>He is one of teh few folk left on redneck.backcountry worth specifically
>looking for when you log on.
Speaking of brands, you seem most comfortable sticking with a brand
name, in this case, Markus(TM). We "newbie weenie deskjockeys" just
don't know the right brands so are forced to think for ourselves.
That's t-h-i-n-k. No, it's not a brand name, and it takes some effort.
Ever considered thinking for yourself, jerk?
--Dook
Dook of URLs
wrote:
>>>| With today's fabrics, cotton has no place in the winter backcountry.
>
>>>* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
>>>* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
>>>clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?!
>
>There is no reason why cotton should not be used for a shell in ANY
>conditions. It is far harder wearing than synthetics. It is only a problem if
>you are relying on it for insulation.
...
Now we're back to cotton, instead of cotton-kryptonite mix. OK, cotton
it is.
So, what happens to all of that armpit moisture as it migrates outward
toward the cold? It just passes right through the 100% cotton shell
like it would through a modern fabric, right? Whoya jivin'?! Ever been
off your couch?
It condenses, is absorbed by the cotton, which blocks further vapor
migration. Like Gore-Tex under a dirty shell. (You know, Andy, like
your green Gore-Tex parka after 12 days of bushwhacking in it by day
and sleeping in it by night. No ... the mall doesn't count as
bushwhacking.)
You know, Mr. Mechanical Engineer, instead of trying to model all of
this stuff in your mind, just put on a cotton T-shirt, and run around
the mall. Then ask yourself why your armpits are wet.
>Yes. But a shell is not there for insulation. A shell is there to PROTECT the
>insulation
Each layer has wicking, insulating, and wind/water shedding
properties, no matter what job description you may have fancied for
them. And they work in series: Block moisture transmission in one
layer, and the earlier layers have to deal with the back up.
Earth to Andy. Do you copy?
--Dook
David Obelcz
> Newbie weenie deskjockeys on redneck.backcountry have this
> gag-reflex where as soon as anyone mentions cotton
Andy, a bit of background. I grew in the shadow of the Green and White
Mountains. I've been skiing since seven, I climbed my first 4,000 footer in
New England when I was 8, did the Franconia Ridge when I was 12, spent 6
years on a USAF search and rescue team as a 202 radio comm operator, I log
over 200 miles a year on average for the last three years in the
backcountry, last year I climbed Washburn and Pikes Peak (and not by car
thank you or established trails thank you) - I am a skilled and experience
person in the backcountry, not a "deskjockey" as you lumped almost every
poster in this group into. The closest I've become to being a redneck was
spending 18 miserable months in southeastern South Dakota (no offense to SD
residents).
With that aside I won't disagree for one moment that cotton has its place in
the wonderful world of the outdoors. When I do desert hiking in the Utah or
Arizona backcountry I wear cotton blend clothing from Columbia that wick
massive amounts of moisture away and let it evaporate off very quickly. I
live in the Pacific Northwest - if I wore that same clothing in British
Columbia the first 50 degree day and rain and I did be cold, or worse -
period. I'll stick with my synthetic blends and Gore-Tex any day out here.
The original poster asked about cotton or synthetic polar fleece - not in
general clothing. Polar fleece is TYPICALLY used as a layer in damp or wet
conditions, and not a shell - (key word typically, not always, not never, I
said typically) the group generally agreed synthetic is better and several
quality brands were recommended.
Being in the military I have to agree that saying a fighting force uses
cotton doesn't validate its merits. I wore cotton in the USAF and as most
vets will tell (vet as in ex-military, I never saw any combat or operated in
a combat zone of any kind) you if they have been in cold or damp
conditions - we were FREAKIN' cold. What kept newbies warm? A big bad
sergeant with 20 years experience that knew every trick in the book.
Someone that is new to the backcountry and solo hiking doesn't have that big
sergeant to tell them, "hey, that will get you killed airman," - I know,
I've spent enough time looking for civilians and carried a few black bags.
If I oversimplified by saying cotton bad synthetic good and that offended
your senses than I apologize. Ventile is great stuff, won't deny it - but
it's not "cotton" - it's like saying an alloy canoe is an aluminum canoe -
sure the alloy has aluminum in it but other materials are added in the
process - that is why alloy is better than aluminum - that is why synthetic
blends are better than "cotton." I see this as really twisting the point to
attack the group as a whole.
I guess what it comes down to is cotton doesn't kill - PANIC does. However
cotton + water + cold = body heat loss <>= panic = bad decisions = death.
So why take the chance...
I stick to my guns that if I'm buying polar fleece, I'm going to buy
synthetic and I'm going to look at brands like Patagonia, Arc'Teryx, Marmot,
and made out of PolarTec or Synchilla polyester and/or polyester/lycra
blend. Even my long underwear is Capilene and I bought it after the move to
the Pacific Northwest, and after my four day trip in Olympic National Park
two weeks ago, I'm glad I bought it.
David H. Obelcz
take the -pants- off to e-mail
"Andy Woodward" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8rc7po$21c$1...@dyfi.aber.ac.uk...
> >>| With today's fabrics, cotton has no place in the winter backcountry.
>
> >>* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
> >>* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
> >>
> >>Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
> >>clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?!
>
> There is no reason why cotton should not be used for a shell in ANY
> conditions. It is far harder wearing than synthetics. It is only a problem
if
> you are relying on it for insulation.
>
> they have a nervous breakdown, get out
> their Best Handgun For Protection In The Back Country and start shooting
> each other.
>
> >journey where temperature causes it to condense. Any cotton from there
> >onward will absorb that moisture, lose all insulation value, and be a
>
> Yes. But a shell is not there for insulation. A shell is there to PROTECT
the
> insulation
>
> >>Did, say, Snowsled get it all wrong? Cf <www.snowsled.com>.
>
> Snowsled didnt get anything wrong. They produce shells. They dont produce
> insulation. This is going to be a hard concept for the deskjockeys to get
> inside their poor little heads without painful stretching.
>
> >>doesn't kill. "Cotton kills" is just an oversimplification,
> >>a stupid slogan.
> >>
> >>Markus Bjorksten
>
> >Your final paragraph answers your implied question. You hint at a long
> >explanation about when and how cotton can be as safe as modern
> >materials, but don't provide it. Even if you did, why would anyone
> >take the time to study it, then hope they didn't take away a (fatal)
> >misunderstanding of something you wrote? They could, instead, buy
> >non-cotton gear for about the same price and carry on safely.
>
> >As for oversimplifications and stupid slogans, it is not uncommon to
> >reduce almost-always-true ideas to a few words, which the user
> >(particularly an inexperienced user) can apply to his/her benefit:
> > - Never point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot. (Silly and
> >stupid. Guns rarely go off accidently, especially my gun.)
> > - Never drink and drive. (Silly and stupid. I did it for years --
> >until ten years ago -- and never had a problem.)
> > - Do unto others as you would be done.
> > - Allow one car length between cars for each 10 mph (15 kph) of
> >speed.
> > - Blah, blah, blah, blah.
>
> >Cotton kills. Believe it!
>
> You have much to learn before yiou leave the monastery, Glasshoppa.
David Obelcz
"Dook of URLs" <nos...@all.com> wrote in message
news:jubhtsso1ts0kuffk...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Oct 2000 09:04:08 GMT, MB <*@*.*> wrote:
>
> >Peter Clinch >
> >> you're best off avoiding [cotton] *completely* in the bc (maybe
> >> handkerchiefs at a stretch...)
> >
> >apbading <apba...@fuse.net> |
> >| With today's fabrics, cotton has no place in the winter backcountry.
> >
> >Dook of URLs <nos...@all.com> *
> >* Cotton is absolutely out...OUT!!...except for hot weather, when you
> >* have real clothes in your pack as backups.
> >
> >Perhaps you guys could explain why using Ventile-cotton shell
> >clothing wouldn't be a good idea in cold-dry conditions?!
>
> The discussion thus far has been about cotton, not Ventile-cotton,
> whatever that is, or Kryptonite-cotton. Any mix of cotton fiber and
> some other material which causes the mix to not act like cotton is, if
> course, another story.
>
> In any case, "cold-dry" describes the conditions outside the clothing;
> warm-humid describes conditions on the inside. If body moisture is to
> get from inside to outside, it will reach a point in its outward
> journey where temperature causes it to condense. Any cotton from there
> onward will absorb that moisture, lose all insulation value, and be a
> major liability in environments below 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 C).
> And that's a fact.
>
> >Did, say, Snowsled get it all wrong? Cf <www.snowsled.com>.
> >
> --Dook
>
>
>
MB
> whatever that is, or Kryptonite-cotton. Any mix of cotton fiber and
> some other material which causes the mix to not act like cotton is, if
> course, another story.
Uhm, Ventile is a well-known pure (ie 100%) cotton fabric...
> Markus, you can deny the laws of physics if you wish, but wet cotton
> will still have virtually no insulating value. [...]
and everyone knows that wet cotton won't provide meaningful
insulation.
MB
Peter Clinch
> Now we're back to cotton, instead of cotton-kryptonite mix. OK, cotton
> it is.
Please get a clue. Ventile is pure cotton, not some exotic
cotton/synthetic mix. The trick is in the very fine fibres and weave of
the garment, not in the material mixture.
It is very often the fabric of choice for shells in polar regions, for
clothing and tents, because it is naturally highly breathable, far more
so than Goretex et al, so there is less of a condensation and subsequent
cold problem with it. Fact.
> So, what happens
<snip of yada yada>
Why not ask members of a few Antarctic Survey organisations, since they
use the stuff on a routine, professional basis in some of the world's
most extreme cold/dry conditions?
MB
> Ventile is very probably the best there is in cold/dry for an outer
> shell (hence its extensive use in polar conditions).
I think that this is the common consensus.
> But the question was, IIRC, about insulation,
Oh, I thought the discussion had already turned into
handkerchiefs :). Besides, I suspect that the originator
of this thread confused cotton with wool (sic), hence
the strange subject line.
> [..] ventile is a special, rare and expensive case (hence
> its particular name).
While ventile is superior, I don't find it that much of a
special case. Densly woven ordinary cotton/synthetic blend
(or pure cotton, often impregnated) fabrics are a lot cheaper,
but still work pretty well in cold-dry, much because of the
same reasons as ventile. Shell clothing made of such fabrics
have commonly been used over here (eg the typical skiing
anorak).
While cotton isn't generally at all a good choise for
underwear or the insulative middle layer, there are
exceptions. Consider the traditional cotton fishnet
undershirt. It's surprizingly warm, even when damp. The
insulation is due to the holes, rather than the fabric.
Iirc, Collin Fletcher recommended these in one of his
famous books. Outdated, sure, as modern underwear is
superior, but a fishnet shirt doesn't exactly kill...
MB
Peter Clinch
> Oh, I thought the discussion had already turned into
> handkerchiefs :). Besides, I suspect that the originator
> of this thread confused cotton with wool (sic), hence
> the strange subject line.
I did wonder about that...
Wool is very wonderful stuff in general, though in Scotland it tends to
turn you into a bit of a snowball in the spindrift. I have a very nice
oiled wool Dale pullover, but it doesn't get much winter use at home.
Compared to fleece it tends to be heavier and slower to dry, and
generally speaking not as windproof.
> While ventile is superior, I don't find it that much of a
> special case. Densly woven ordinary cotton/synthetic blend
> (or pure cotton, often impregnated) fabrics are a lot cheaper,
> but still work pretty well in cold-dry, much because of the
> same reasons as ventile.
Cold/Dry is something we don't get much of, so I'll happily take your
word for it. The degree of wet over in Scotland is such that ventile
will work, but is often a poor choice, while other fine woven cotton and
cotton mixes frankly don't (and I have tried, though oddly am still
alive! ;-))
Andy Woodward
>it's not "cotton
Yes. It is. Pure cotton. Nothing else. The trick is in the weave. Its just a
ludicrously expensive version of hte old Black's Stormpruf cagoules
>blends are better than "cotton." I see this as really twisting the point to
>attack the group as a whole.
The group deserves it. Its a joke compared to what it used to be.
Look at all hte endless Evil Mountainbike threads and hte continuous thread on
"what is hte best handgun to take into eh backcountry to protect me from all
the other paranoids who take handguns into teh backcountry to prtect them from
al the other paranoids who take handguns into teh backcountry to prtect them
from al the other paranoids who take handguns into teh backcountry to prtect
them from al the other paranoids who take handguns into teh backcountry to
prtect them from al the other paranoids who take handguns into teh backcountry
to prtect them from al the other paranoids who take handguns into teh
backcountry to prtect them from al the other paranoids who take handguns into
teh backcountry to prtect them from al the other paranoids
Hell, I've not looked in on te group for a couple of years having given it up
as a waste of time nowaedays, and these threads are STILL going unchanged.
Its no longer a backcountry group, just another redneck-politics group, like
nmany rec. groups have become in hte last couple of years since all the Oiks
discovered how to switch computers on :(
Usenet is dead for humans. Its now just baboon-fodder.
>I guess what it comes down to is cotton doesn't kill - PANIC does. However
>cotton + water + cold = body heat loss <>= panic = bad decisions = death.
>So why take the chance...
Incompetence kills. Not cotton. Old timers used to do just fine before
synthetics were incvented. They used yto understand that if you got hot, you
didnt just buy a hundred dollar wicking layer, you just took off some clothes
so as not to sweat. Nowadays the kiddiewinkies just buy their way out of
trouble subsituting wallet thikness for thinking.
>I stick to my guns that if I'm buying polar fleece, I'm going to buy
>synthetic and I'm going to look at brands like Patagonia, Arc'Teryx, Marmot,
>and made out of PolarTec or Synchilla polyester and/or polyester/lycra
>blend. Even my long underwear is Capilene and I bought it after the move to
>the Pacific Northwest, and after my four day trip in Olympic National Park
>two weeks ago, I'm glad I bought it.
Yep. I'd buy these too for INSULATION. But I'd not freak out at teh idea of
buying a cotton shell. In fact my next shell WILL be exactly that. Waxed
cotton. MUCH cheaper than any of hte prissy synthetics. Available in sane
colours instead of poofter-purple and baby-vomit-yellow. Lasts a lifetime
instead of a lunchtime. And doesnt deafen you with its rustling as you walk
'quiety' thru the undisturbed backcountry........It'salso compleltey
waterproof unlike hte modern breathables, and infinitely retreatable when it
begins to leak - again unlike hte modern breathables.
Andy Woodward
If THAT's earth, it's the LAST think I plan to copy........
David Obelcz
Not ALL but many varieties of Ventile is treated in some way with either
natural or synthetic coats - it is not 100% cotton in the same sense as a
man's dress shirt, blue jeans or long underwear from K-Mart...
I think we are seeing the same thing here - but one of us is spelling potato
potatoe...
"Andy Woodward" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8rf1gc$sqh$1...@dyfi.aber.ac.uk...
David Obelcz
"David Obelcz" <outdoo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xLHC5.130$kO2....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
MB
> Incompetence kills. Not cotton.
Indeed. Claims that gear that was extensively used in the past
would nowadays be unusable, makes one wonder whether it was the
gear, conditions or users that changed.
MB
Andy Woodward
Ventile != wax cotton.
Wax cotton is waxed cotton. Ventile is untreated close weave cotton.
Chris Townsend
<outdoo...@hotmail.com> writes
>Not ALL but many varieties of Ventile is treated in some way with either
>natural or synthetic coats - it is not 100% cotton in the same sense as a
>man's dress shirt, blue jeans or long underwear from K-Mart...
>
originally developed in World War II for flight suits for pilots
ditching in the North Atlantic. Wearing Ventile they could survive the
cold water long enough to be rescued. It's since been used extensively
in polar regions as it is windproof and highly breathable.
Ventile is 100 per cent cotton. It comes with a light water repellent
coating, as do most cottons and cotton-synthetic mixes used in outdoor
clothing. This coating wears off very quickly in my experience. The real
difference between Ventile and the cotton used in everyday clothes is in
the tight weave. When wet the fibres swell and block the gaps between
them, preventing rain getting through. This works quite well in a double
layer Ventile jacket. In prolonged heavy rain the material will
eventually become soaked however. It's then very stiff, very heavy and
takes ages to dry.
I've often worn Ventile jackets for skiing in Norway where dry cold is
the norm and occasionally in Scotland when it's cold enough. It's a
great fabric as long as you know its limitations.
- -
Chris Townsend
Mountain & Wilderness Writing & Photography.
http://www.auchnarrow.demon.co.uk
Chris Townsend
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>
>I'd not freak out at teh idea of
>buying a cotton shell. In fact my next shell WILL be exactly that. Waxed
>cotton. MUCH cheaper than any of hte prissy synthetics. Available in sane
>colours instead of poofter-purple and baby-vomit-yellow. Lasts a lifetime
>instead of a lunchtime. And doesnt deafen you with its rustling as you walk
>'quiety' thru the undisturbed backcountry........It'salso compleltey
>waterproof unlike hte modern breathables, and infinitely retreatable when it
>begins to leak - again unlike hte modern breathables.
>
reproofed over and over again.
I've tried waxed cotton. It's fine for gentle activities but the
complete lack of breathability means it quickly gets soaked inside if
you do anything energetic. Paramo is more breathable than anything else
I've tried.
I've found waterproof synthetic fabrics to be completely waterproof when
new. You can soak them with a high power hose and they keep the water
out. However the outer water repellent coating soon wears off, at which
point the outer gets wet. This in turn reduces the breathability
resulting in condensation forming inside. Often the wearer then thinks
the garment is leaking. Of course, as you say, once the waterproof
coating or membrane is worn away or punctured the garment will really
leak. That's the advantage of Paramo. I've got a "second" with pinholes
in one shoulder and a pair of trousers that have a large patch sewn on
the leg where I ripped them. Neither garment leaks.
apbading
The original post questioned the benefits of poly fleece vs. cotton
for insulation and weight/packability. My reply:
"Poly-fleece wins hands-down compared to cotton in terms of weight,
compressability, and insulation. With today's fabrics, cotton has no
place in the winter backcountry. For many years I wore cotton long
undies,but even slightly damp cotton is very efficient at depleting body
heat. Soaked cotton has no insulation value at all. I wouldn't go too
heavy on a single layer of poly fleece. A couple layers of 200 wt. over
lightweight polypro undies, and a Waterproof/Breathable shell outer
should suffice for nearly all conditions. Pit-zips and front zips are
always good for venting, pullovers are better suited to sedentary
activities in camp".
Several posters have quoted my original post, paticularly,
"With today's fabrics, cotton has no
place in the winter backcountry".
Nothing hysterical there, no "Cotton kills" hype. Just a basic truth.
For most of my childhood, and much of my adulthood, cotton long undies
and jeans were standard winter wardrobe for sledding, winter
camping/backpacking, etc. (Heck, I'll even admit that I still wear
cotton briefs on most of my winter backcountry trips)
I'll remember the ventile cotton tip though, for my next trip to the
Arctic, Antarctic or extended stays in alpine zones. For the cold/wet
conditions that most winter backcountry enthusiasts encounter, and which
the original poster apparently referred to, I believe my original
reply/advice was wholly sound. With synthetics, staying warm is less of
a hassle. Staying out of the snow, staying absolutely dry is far less of
a concern. Would you rather dig a snowcave wearing cotton, or synthetics
?. Or even an accidental dunk ?. Pouring down rain and 35 F.?, gimme
synthetics every time.
The best thing about cotton in the winter backcountry is that when wet,
you can actually see your body heat escaping as rapid evaporative
cooling and condensation take place in the cold dry winter air.
Andy Woodward
>complete lack of breathability means it quickly gets soaked inside if
>you do anything energetic. Paramo is more breathable than anything else
>I've tried.
I have to say that of all the breathables I've tried, I've yet to find a
single one that thas not leaked in humid Welsh Rain with 40F and 100%
humidity. Itf you have a layer of rain n one side and a layer of condensation
on the other, hte water molecules dont know which way to go. And since your
clothing woiped teh inner surface continually, then the concentration gradient
in INWARDS not outwards. I vote with my wallet - I'll not buy another
breathable. I get wetter in them from seepage than I do in even PVC from
purely condensation, and they cost orders of magnitude more. Breathability is
not a serious consideration in a rainproof. When its raining, it doesnt
breathe and most likely seeps. When its not raining, you take it off so it
doesnt matter whther it breathes or not.. The mani beneficiaries from
breathables are the manufacturers, marketers and retailers, not teh users.
>I've found waterproof synthetic fabrics to be completely waterproof when
>new. You can soak them with a high power hose and they keep the water
>out. However the outer water repellent coating soon wears off, at which
>point the outer gets wet. This in turn reduces the breathability
>resulting in condensation forming inside. Often the wearer then thinks
It aint just condensation..........That's just what you're told by hte
marketeers.
>the garment is leaking. Of course, as you say, once the waterproof
See above. Like I said, in years of using both, I get wetter in breathables.
Maybe they condense MORE?......When Goretex first came on hte market, we used
to get off the hil and sit in the carpark playing Spot The Goretex. You
alwyaas could cos the wearers would have seepage, especially where anything
rubed the material or put it under pressure - like under rucsac straps or at
teh knees.
I've wasted far to many hundreds of pounds on breathables whioch would have
been better used for petrol and stuff. I require a waterproof to be
waterproof. Breathability come WAAAAY down hte priority list when it's pissing
down with sleet in a Force 11 storm.
A very nice practical, functional and very cheap solution is to get a
windbreaker made of close weave polycottton - windproof, very breathable and
resists light showers. And in teh pocket you keep a 5quid PVC Pacamac to put
on when it rains. When it doesnt, you dont.
Chris Townsend
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>>I've tried waxed cotton. It's fine for gentle activities but the
>>complete lack of breathability means it quickly gets soaked inside if
>>you do anything energetic. Paramo is more breathable than anything else
>>I've tried.
>
>I have to say that of all the breathables I've tried, I've yet to find a
>single one that thas not leaked in humid Welsh Rain with 40F and 100%
>humidity. Itf you have a layer of rain n one side and a layer of condensation
>on the other, hte water molecules dont know which way to go. And since your
>clothing woiped teh inner surface continually, then the concentration gradient
>in INWARDS not outwards. I vote with my wallet - I'll not buy another
>breathable. I get wetter in them from seepage than I do in even PVC from
>purely condensation, and they cost orders of magnitude more. Breathability is
>not a serious consideration in a rainproof. When its raining, it doesnt
>breathe and most likely seeps. When its not raining, you take it off so it
>doesnt matter whther it breathes or not.. The mani beneficiaries from
>breathables are the manufacturers, marketers and retailers, not teh users.
I don't agree. I find the problem with breathable waterproofs in steady
rain and high humidity is condensation not leakage. And here I have
found the best breathables keep me drier than cheaper ones. With the
exception of Paramo, which isn't the most expensive but is the most
breathable.
>
>>I've found waterproof synthetic fabrics to be completely waterproof when
>>new. You can soak them with a high power hose and they keep the water
>>out. However the outer water repellent coating soon wears off, at which
>>point the outer gets wet. This in turn reduces the breathability
>>resulting in condensation forming inside. Often the wearer then thinks
>
>It aint just condensation..........That's just what you're told by hte
>marketeers.
It is just condensation. And I never believe anything I'm told by the
marketeers. I always test claims. I have just done a test on a group of
waterproof/breathable jackets. To find out if they leaked I wore cotton
tee shirts under them. When condensation forms the tee-shirt slowly
becomes damp and slowly feels cooler and cooler. However when a garment
leaks the tee shirt soaks up the cold rain very quickly and you feel
very suddenly cold at the point where the leakage occurs. There is a big
difference. When new waterproof/breathables leak the cause is usually in
the design rather than the fabric. My recent test showed that the new
"water resistant" zips leak. Putting them in expensive waterproof
jackets results in a garment that isn't waterproof. Not a good idea.
>
>>the garment is leaking. Of course, as you say, once the waterproof
>
>See above. Like I said, in years of using both, I get wetter in breathables.
>Maybe they condense MORE?......When Goretex first came on hte market, we used
>to get off the hil and sit in the carpark playing Spot The Goretex. You
>alwyaas could cos the wearers would have seepage, especially where anything
>rubed the material or put it under pressure - like under rucsac straps or at
>teh knees.
Early Gore-Tex was pretty poor, especially its durability. I got soaked
in one the first year it came out. But the current stuff is much better.
There were some awful designs around at first too.
>
>I've wasted far to many hundreds of pounds on breathables whioch would have
>been better used for petrol and stuff. I require a waterproof to be
>waterproof. Breathability come WAAAAY down hte priority list when it's pissing
>down with sleet in a Force 11 storm.
Of course waterproofs must be waterproof first and foremost. But good
breathability still means I stay drier underneath (note I say "drier"
not dry). I've never stayed very dry when out in hours of wind driven
rain whatever I've been wearing but I'm much warmer and more comfortable
if the wetness comes from condensation rather than leakage. Again,
Paramo has kept me more comfortable than anything else.
I do occasionally go out in a non-breathable waterproof just to remind
myself what it's like. When I do I get very wet due to condensation in
an hour or less.
>
>A very nice practical, functional and very cheap solution is to get a
>windbreaker made of close weave polycottton - windproof, very breathable and
>resists light showers. And in teh pocket you keep a 5quid PVC Pacamac to put
>on when it rains. When it doesnt, you dont.
I don't think a cheap Pacamac would give you much protection in a storm
in the Cairngorms (my local hills) but the principle is sound. I always
carry a basic windproof top though I prefer synthetic ones to polycotton
now as they are lighter and dry quicker and only wear a waterproof when
it's raining (except when I'm testing them). That way waterproofs last a
lot longer too.
Andy Woodward
I have given up using breatheables on hte motorbike in winter simply cos tehy
leak. On a bike, you are not generating any heat (Hell, you are always
borderline hypothermic even in teh best stuff) with temperatures down around
freezing, sleet soaking your surface, and up to 80mph worth uf unreleived
windchill combined with hours of complete inactivity.
In this stuation you simply dont generate ANY condensation. If you get wet is
it leakage. Nothing else.. I never get any condensation on my Trawler
oilskins or PVCs cos most of teh ride is spend shivering not sweating.
But all the breathable stuff I have used has leaked. Imagine what these
conditions are like with wet insulation. I finally decided to give up on
theory and wishful thinking and go with experiment after having to spend 3
hours in hte 45C incubation room to stop my teeth chattering after getting
borderline 3rd stage hypothermia on a winter ride. At that point I fugures no
matter how much tehy cost, the breathables were going to kill me one day.
Since going back to impermeables I have had no problem with leakage at all.
You buy your fancy materials, I'll go with what keeps me alive. And best of
all its far cheaper too.
The best way to choose outdoor gear is to ignore the climbing press and watcxh
what professionals use - wallers, foresters, hillfarmers etc. They DONT waste
their money on pretty party clothes. And neither have I for several years.
Peter Clinch
> I have given up using breatheables on hte motorbike in winter simply cos tehy
> leak. On a bike, you are not generating any heat (Hell, you are always
> borderline hypothermic even in teh best stuff) with temperatures down around
> freezing, sleet soaking your surface, and up to 80mph worth uf unreleived
> windchill combined with hours of complete inactivity.
Well, I'd think they would leak, because you've got storm force winds
and little or no internal heat so vapour pressure would drive water
through the the other way. That's a bit like saying I shouldn't use
sandals for walking on the grounds that they're inappropriate for a
motorbike though: why equate being poor for one use with being poor for
another?
> The best way to choose outdoor gear is to ignore the climbing press and watcxh
> what professionals use
Is this what the professionals use when they're walking or climbing, or
riding their motorbikes?
> - wallers, foresters, hillfarmers etc. They DONT waste
> their money on pretty party clothes.
Again, why shouold ideal clothing for draystone dyking and lumbering
necessarily be ideal for walking long distances? I do both of the above
for conservation work from time to time and wear tough, cheap stuff like
ex-army combats and steel capped wellies because they take serious
abrasion and they're cheap to replace and I'm working pretty damn hard
so I don't get cold. I certainly don't wear the same stuff walking
though, because in that environment it's considerably less comfortable
and weighs and bulks far more. Watching what a waller wears is only
instructive if you're going walling, not walking.
Andy Woodward
tehy>> leak. On a bike, you are not generating any heat (Hell, you are always
>> borderline hypothermic even in teh best stuff) with temperatures down around
>> freezing, sleet soaking your surface, and up to 80mph worth uf unreleived
>> windchill combined with hours of complete inactivity.
>Well, I'd think they would leak, because you've got storm force winds
>and little or no internal heat so vapour pressure would drive water
>through the the other way. That's a bit like saying I shouldn't use
>sandals for walking on the grounds that they're inappropriate for a
>motorbike though: why equate being poor for one use with being poor for
>another?
As usual, the shiny-gear-fundamentalists were squeaking how breathables are
perfect in all conditions and never leak ever. I give an example of where they
do, unambiguously and unarguably. Also, the conditions on a bike at sea level
are pretty similar to teh top of Snowdonia. Its quite common to get similar
windpeeds on ridges and crests as you can get from riding on a bike on a road.
If a weatherproof leaks in storm force winds, its not a lot of use, cos storm
force winds are common 3 seasons a year where I walk. You only need a 20mph
wind at sea level to focus to 60mph in places on hte hill.
Anyway. The bottom line is if you think they work for what you use thtem for,
buy htem. If you dont, dont. I've made my decision based on experience of all
sorts of uses in allsorts of conditions. It doesnt really bother me much if
other folk want to spend lots of their money on stuff I have found to be poor
value. If I wanted something colourful to pose in supermarket carparks, I'd
probably get a nice fashion-house cag too......[I remember hearing that Lowe
are owned by Nike and Karrimor by Reebok - explains a lot about modern
'outdoor' gear design nowadays.....]
Andy Woodward
and now is no better than straight nylon weave. One of my top jobs for the
next few days is to see if I can restore its functionality by coating it in
boiled linseed oil (Waxed TriplePoint.....). Next my leaky goretex jacket
will also get oiled.....
Peter Clinch
>
> I have a Lowe keltie hat - very nice, but like most breathables, it soon
> started to leak
Only Lowe hat I know of that claims to be waterproof is the Mountain
Cap. I've had one for years, and since I'm a slaphead and I dislike
using hoods it gets a *lot* of use. Mine's still waterproof so I don't
know what you've done to yours...
Peter Clinch
> As usual, the shiny-gear-fundamentalists were squeaking how breathables are
> perfect in all conditions and never leak ever.
Andy, you're entering the Rant Zone, which doesn't do you any favours
here. I'm not a "shiny-gear-fundamentalists", I invite you to use deja
news to come up with any instance of me saying anything even
*approaching* "how breathables are
perfect in all conditions and never leak ever". I've never said that,
as you well know.
> I give an example of where they do, unambiguously and unarguably.
But actually you don't. If you partake in watersports you'll know that
the only way to stop getting wet with anything *approaching* relaibility
in driving liquid water is to have tight dry seals (in rubber or
similar) around *all* of the openings of your clothes. No mountain
waterproof, or indeed motorcycling or general rural labour jacket I've
ever seen has such seals, so they will all let in water, which isn't the
same as the material leaking. Sure, leaks are leaks, but drying out
again afterwards, and not getting so wet in less harsh conditions, are
very useful assets. The only times I've had breathables leak on me are
through the seals or through obvious holes. As Chris pointed out, it is
very obviously colder than the wet from sweat, and easily localised.
My initial thought was that enough wind would create a vapour pressure
gradient in the way, towards the wearer, and well it might, but what I
neglected to remind myself of at the time was that of course rain is
liquid, not vapour. My mistake, for which I apologise. I'm not at all
sure liquid would be driven back through goretex and similar at high
wind speeds, because Phoenix would have had 100% returns on their single
skin tents if that was the case...
Andy Woodward
>> perfect in all conditions and never leak ever.
>Andy, you're entering the Rant Zone, which doesn't do you any favours
>here.
What other use IS Usenet????? A good rant releives teh boredom - like prodding
wasps nests with a stick.....
> I'm not a "shiny-gear-fundamentalists", I invite you to use deja
>news to come up with any instance of me saying anything even
>*approaching* "how breathables are
>perfect in all conditions and never leak ever". I've never said that,
>as you well know.
Yes. I do know that. I ddint mean you in particular, Pete. Just teh huge
number fo folk on here who figure that if tehy've paid lots of their hard
earned shiny dollars for something, it must by definition be wonderful. I am
quite prepared to admit I wasted rather too many of mine, but have since
learned......Seems like (almost) everyone on redneck.backcountry defines The
Best of any bit of kit to be strangely identical to what tehy have just
bought......
>liquid, not vapour. My mistake, for which I
apologise. I'm not at all>sure liquid would be driven back through goretex
and similar at high>wind speeds, because Phoenix would have had 100% returns
on their single>skin tents if that was the case...
Well, the wet has to come from somewhere, and it doesnt appear inside
impermables. I have never got even slightly damp on teh motorcycle inside
impermeables except when I've got teh tiling wrong from hurried carelessness
and they've leaked round the neck, wrists etc. Experiment trumps theory every
time - that's science.
Also, I remember a post here ort on uk.rec.walking a while ago that the
instructors at Plas Y Brenin only ever buy one Goretex jacket, cos with teh
continuous use they give them, they last about 3 months before they start to
leak, and tehy send tehm back and get tehm repeatedly replaced under warranty.
I'd dearly LOVE for them to work cos it would mean I'd not wasted a lot of
money (something rather important to a Yorkshireman). But after enough years
of trying to persuade myself that they will one day, I have to bow to
experience and stick to cheaper more functional but less fashionable things.
I have a pair of Goretex overmitts with me today. It's raining. If it was
raining hard, I'd have put plastic bread bags between them and my bike
gloves to keep teh rain out.......
Peter Clinch
> Also, I remember a post here ort on uk.rec.walking a while ago that the
> instructors at Plas Y Brenin only ever buy one Goretex jacket, cos with teh
> continuous use they give them, they last about 3 months before they start to
> leak, and tehy send tehm back and get tehm repeatedly replaced under warranty.
IIRC the guarantee on Goretex is at least a year, possibly two. There's
nothing stopping *anyone* cashing in on Gore's guarantee if they meet
the criteria. Why spend money on anything else if you can get W.L. Gore
to keep you in new jackets for the rest of time?
Chris Townsend
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>
>I have given up using breatheables on hte motorbike in winter simply cos tehy
>leak. On a bike, you are not generating any heat (Hell, you are always
>borderline hypothermic even in teh best stuff) with temperatures down around
>freezing, sleet soaking your surface, and up to 80mph worth uf unreleived
>windchill combined with hours of complete inactivity.
>
>it leakage. Nothing else.. I never get any condensation on my Trawler
>oilskins or PVCs cos most of teh ride is spend shivering not sweating.
I didn't realise we were talking about motorbikes. I don't ride a
motorbike and have no idea what clothing works and what doesn't. However
this is rec.backcountry and I do know what keeps me dry in mountain
storms.
>
>You buy your fancy materials, I'll go with what keeps me alive. And best of
>ll its far cheaper too.
Fine. I'll go with what keeps me alive too.
>
>The best way to choose outdoor gear is to ignore the climbing press and watcxh
>what professionals use - wallers, foresters, hillfarmers etc. They DONT waste
>their money on pretty party clothes. And neither have I for several years.
Again, I'm talking about hillwalking, backpacking, ski touring not
walling, forestry or farming. I live in the country and I cut wood for
the stove. For this I use an old Ventile jacket, an old wool shirt and
old trousers because clothing is going to get abraded, dirty and
generally treated roughly. I don't wear this clothing when out walking
'cos it's not that comfortable and it doesn't perform as well as other
garments.
There's no right and wrong here. I'm not saying the stuff that works for
you doesn't work but you seem to be saying that stuff that hasn't worked
for you when motorbiking therefore doesn't work in general despite
thousands of days of use by masses of people to the contrary.
Chris Townsend
<a...@aber.ac.uk> writes
>..[I remember hearing that Lowe
>are owned by Nike and Karrimor by Reebok - explains a lot about modern
>'outdoor' gear design nowadays.....]
I'm not sure this is correct though both companies are owned by bigger
corporations with little interest/knowledge of the outdoors.
And anyway where does that leave companies like Rab (owned by Rab
Carrington, an experienced mountaineer) and Paramo (owned by Nick Brown,
a keen walker) and all the other small companies owned by active
outdoors people who use the gear they design?
Chris Townsend
<p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> writes
>Andy Woodward wrote:
>>
>> I have a Lowe keltie hat - very nice, but like most breathables, it soon
>> started to leak
>
>Only Lowe hat I know of that claims to be waterproof is the Mountain
>Cap. I've had one for years, and since I'm a slaphead and I dislike
>using hoods it gets a *lot* of use. Mine's still waterproof so I don't
>know what you've done to yours...
I have a Mountain Cap too and it's also many years old and still
waterproof, though it could do with the outer water repellency
replacing.
Andy Woodward
>>> started to leak
>>
>>Only Lowe hat I know of that claims to be waterproof is the Mountain
>>Cap. I've had one for years, and since I'm a slaphead and I dislike
>>using hoods it gets a *lot* of use. Mine's still waterproof so I don't
>>know what you've done to yours...
>I have a Mountain Cap too and it's also many years old and still
>waterproof, though it could do with the outer water repellency
>replacing.
I must have The Fluence over breathables as well as I do over computers. I
only have to walk into a room and everybody's computer starts kicking out
errors that have never been seen before even by Microsnot.......
Andy Woodward
>Carrington, an experienced mountaineer) and Paramo (owned by Nick Brown,
>a keen walker) and all the other small companies owned by active
>outdoors people who use the gear they design?
But do they use teh gear they sell to the grockles? Dainese make superb quality
leathers for GP500 racers cos its god marketing, but they bear no resemblance
apart from colour scheme to those you can buy in teh shops.
Andy Woodward
>motorbike and have no idea what clothing works and what doesn't. However
>this is rec.backcountry and I do know what keeps me dry in mountain
>storms.
A motorcycle is a very good test of how something behaves in extreme
conditions. If there's a leak, a bike will find it. If it passes any air
thru teh weaveat all, you'll freeze, if the insulation is patchy, you'll know
all about hte cold spots :(
It'll rapidly show you all the faults that'll kill you if you get stuck up an
alp in foul conditions.
Climbers are nobbut pansies......Trust me - I've been both.
>>The best way to choose outdoor gear is to ignore the
climbing press and watcxh >>what professionals use - wallers, foresters,
hillfarmers etc. They DONT waste >>their money on pretty party clothes. And
neither have I for several years.
>Again, I'm talking about hillwalking, backpacking, ski touring not
>walling, forestry or farming.
Ah. You mean playing at it? The folk I mention are up there all day every day
working hard in all weathers. What they use works. They cant afford for it not
to.
>you doesn't work but you seem to be saying that stuff that hasn't worked
>for you when motorbiking therefore doesn't work in general despite
>thousands of days of use by masses of people to the contrary.
It doesnt work for me on hte bike and it doesnt work for me in hte hills.
Except in extreme conditions, you can often get away with it in teh hills, but
when it turns really nasty, then you notice teh same faults after a few hours
that showed up in half an hour on hte bike.......
When I'm paying that sort of money for stuff, I expect it to damned well work.
Especially when I can get stuff that does for 1/10 teh price.
Gary S.
wrote:
>I have a Lowe keltie hat - very nice, but like most breathables, it soon started to leak
>and now is no better than straight nylon weave. One of my top jobs for the
>next few days is to see if I can restore its functionality by coating it in
>boiled linseed oil (Waxed TriplePoint.....). Next my leaky goretex jacket
>will also get oiled.....
>
Nikwax makes various re-waterproofing products that are made for
compatibility with outdoor fabrics.
Nylon can be damaged by some solvents.
Happy trails,
Gary
------------------------------------------------
...To front only the essential facts of life... HDT
Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA
Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom
Peter Clinch
> But do they use teh gear they sell to the grockles?
Yes, they do. Nick Brown started Nikwax because he thought he could do
better than dubbin. He started Paramo because he thought he could
better than Goretex. He uses his own kit. Rab Carrington uses Rab
stuff: the stuff that goes up Himalayas etc. is available at your local
Rab dealer.
Peter Clinch
> A motorcycle is a very good test of how something behaves in extreme
> conditions. If there's a leak, a bike will find it.
But if there's a problem with the hood and neck seal it won't, because
you're wearing a crash helmet. And so on. Pit zips have no place on a
bike, they have a place in a walking jacket. And so on.
> Ah. You mean playing at it? The folk I mention are up there all day every day
> working hard in all weathers. What they use works. They cant afford for it not
> to.
No, it's not "playing at it", there's a different set of priorities. If
I'm walking up a hill I don't need something very robust. If I'm
chopping down trees and stripping the trunks I do. If I'm bimbling
along a valley I'm generating heat, but not nearly as much as if I'm
shifting heavy rocks. What they use works for what they're doing. What
they're doing bears little relation to what walkers are doing beyond it
being outside in all weathers. The Tour de France is outside in all
weathers, so is it the case that the peloton should be wearing wax
cotton jackets or forestry workers would be better off in lycra shorts?
> It doesnt work for me on hte bike and it doesnt work for me in hte hills.
> Except in extreme conditions, you can often get away with it in teh hills, but
> when it turns really nasty
Snowdonia can get nasty, but not as nasty as a lot of places where
breathable fabrics have been successfully used in truly hideous
conditions with their wearers coming back alive. Your sample base is
smaller than theirs.
Andy Woodward
>> Except in extreme conditions, you can often get away with it in teh hills, but
>> when it turns really nasty
>Snowdonia can get nasty, but not as nasty as a lot of places where
>breathable fabrics have been successfully used in truly hideous
>conditions with their wearers coming back alive. Your sample base is
>smaller than theirs.
By nasty I dont mean very cold. That's dry and easier. The nastiest
conditions to be in are around freezing, with gales and rain.
Cold is fine, wet is fine, wind is fine. Any two are uncomfortable, but all
three are what does you in. Once it drops below about -3C, it all gets much
easier. Breathables are great in snow. But not in cold humid sleet or even
cold rain. When hte rain turns to snow, the day turns from an unpleasant fight
to fun.
Andy Woodward
>Yes, they do. Nick Brown started Nikwax because he thought he could do
>better than dubbin. He started Paramo because he thought he could
>better than Goretex. He uses his own kit. Rab Carrington uses Rab
>stuff: the stuff that goes up Himalayas etc. is available at your local
>Rab dealer.
If he gives me some Paramo, I'll see. But at teh prices these things are, I'll
not be bying any more just to find its all hype after all :( They're way too
expensive to experiment with.
Also, I dont live in teh Himalayas. Himalayan stuff isnt a lot of use for the
Carneddau any more than Carneddau stuff would be a lot of use in the Himalayas.
You would be very uncomfortable in sleet in a down suit but happy as a
sandboy at 20k in a spindrift blizzard........Like your other post says - its
all down to teh gear for the situation. Like using wellies for upland
bogtrotting rather than pretty hyperexpensive leakyboots - an almost exactly
analogous situation in fact......
Peter Clinch
> By nasty I dont mean very cold. That's dry and easier. The nastiest
> conditions to be in are around freezing, with gales and rain.
Andy, I live in Scotland, do most of my walking here, you don't have to
tell me that. I'm still around, "despite" using a Triple Point jacket
when it gets really noxious.
Peter Clinch
> Also, I dont live in teh Himalayas. Himalayan stuff isnt a lot of use for the
> Carneddau any more than Carneddau stuff would be a lot of use in the Himalayas.
I don't live in the Himalaya, but I know a lot of people who've been,
and wanted suitable equipment when they went, so lucky someone makes it.
> You would be very uncomfortable in sleet in a down suit but happy as a
> sandboy at 20k in a spindrift blizzard........Like your other post says - its
> all down to teh gear for the situation.
But there again very happy in my down jacket when it gets below -10C,
which it does from time to time here. It's also very good in bothies
and tents at the end of the day, even if we're a wee bit above
freezing. It gets a lot of use where I live, even more when I'm on
vacation abroad (-20C ambients every day in the Rockies last January)
and it's yet to get wet through. And it packs down smaller than a wolly
pully, and weighs less too as well as keeping out the wind better. So I
don't really want to swap it for a Belstaff, thanks all the same.
> Like using wellies for upland
> bogtrotting rather than pretty hyperexpensive leakyboots - an almost exactly
> analogous situation in fact......
Which is why Ben Narnain and the Cobbler both got ticked in wellies.
But there again the boots are a bit nicer for a 20 mile walk than
wellies, and strange though it may seem, people who list walking as a
hobby are more likely to be attracted to a 20 mile walk than a 10 mile
bogtrot.
david mann
: Nylon can be damaged by some solvents.
[sniff, sniff]
Huh? Did you say something.
Martin Thornquist
> By nasty I dont mean very cold. That's dry and easier. The nastiest
> conditions to be in are around freezing, with gales and rain.
I'll totally agree with that. Cold and wet is where Goretex and
similar excel, IMHO. When it's cold enough to be dry heavy cotton
breathes better and shuts wind out about as good. I've moved from
cotton to Goretex for the water resistancy, but I wouldn't give up
breathability and go for totally watertight -- that's pure idiocy in
my book, as the true enemy in winter is wetness, wether from outside
*or* inside.
I've only been out in a good 15-20 m/s winds with sleet/wet snow
(enough to make a total whiteout, and straight in the face), so I
haven't experienced a real gale. But my current Goretex equipment has
held up very good in what I've been out in.
Martin
--
Unfortunately, the computer science departments in many universities
apparently believe that fluency in C++ is more important than a sound
education in elementary mathematics.
-Leslie Lamport, Specifying Concurrent Systems with TLA+
Andy Woodward
>started to leak
>>and now is no better than straight nylon weave. One of my top jobs for the
>>next few days is to see if I can restore its functionality by coating it in
>>boiled linseed oil (Waxed TriplePoint.....). Next my leaky goretex jacket
>>will also get oiled.....
>>
>Nikwax makes various re-waterproofing products that are made for
>compatibility with outdoor fabrics.
Yep. And they dont work anywhere near as effectively or longlastingly as
simple linsed oil......
Andy Woodward
>> conditions to be in are around freezing, with gales and rain.
>Andy, I live in Scotland, do most of my walking here, you don't have to
>tell me that. I'm still around, "despite" using a Triple Point jacket
>when it gets really noxious.
How old is it? I know of few folk who get more than 2 years serious use out of
breathables before they're totally trashed (being slightly trashed much
earlier. And at up to 300quid/jacket, that's 150quid/year or 3quid/week just
to keep dry. Would you rent a 2 year old cag fro 3quid/week?????
I've been very happy with breathables I've spent lots of money on. Just not
for long :(
Peter Clinch
> How old is it? I know of few folk who get more than 2 years serious use out of
> breathables before they're totally trashed (being slightly trashed much
> earlier. And at up to 300quid/jacket, that's 150quid/year or 3quid/week just
> to keep dry. Would you rent a 2 year old cag fro 3quid/week?????
Nice try, but it's about 5 years old, and the only obvious sign of being
tatty is where I took some scissors to the lining 'cause it was IMHO a
waste of space. I've renewed the outer repellent coating a couple of
times, though it's never actually leaked. I don't have any plans to
replace it, it's still fine (and it even matches my hat, a very
important consideration).
Peter Clinch
> Yep. And they dont work anywhere near as effectively or longlastingly as
> simple linsed oil......
But they let the fabric breathe better, and aren't quite so incompatible
with washing the garments.
Andy Woodward
>times, though it's never actually leaked. I don't have any plans to
This is one thinig I've never unsderstood. Its stated as crucial to keep hte
water repellent coating in tiptop condition. But if teh water is being shed at
teh surface then it never reaches teh membrane anyway. And when it does reach
the membrane, the garment doesnt work cos teh coating has not been maintained
and you're advised to renew teh coating, whereupon it'll work again.
To my mind this says that the coating is all that does all teh job, so you
would get equal performance by just periodically coating ploycotton.
Where is the flaw in this argument? If teh water is shed at teh surface, then
hte garment is waterproof (and breathable) by this alone.
Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen
Have you actually seen waterproofing survive washing? I know Nikwax
claims this, but if I wash my waterproof my GoreTex jacket with Nikwax
products and then wash it with their detergent, it's clean, but about
as water repellent as a sponge.
--
Kabelsalat ist gesund.
Ole-Hj. Kristensen
Andy Woodward
>> with washing the garments.
Washing? WASHING??????????
Peter Clinch
> This is one thinig I've never unsderstood. Its stated as crucial to keep hte
> water repellent coating in tiptop condition. But if teh water is being shed at
> teh surface then it never reaches teh membrane anyway. And when it does reach
> the membrane, the garment doesnt work cos teh coating has not been maintained
> and you're advised to renew teh coating, whereupon it'll work again.
>
> To my mind this says that the coating is all that does all teh job, so you
> would get equal performance by just periodically coating ploycotton.
If the DWR coating was good enough to do that job, indeed the case that
the membrane/main coating would be irrelevant. However, this is not the
case, and the point of the outer coating is to keep the membrane as dry
as possible for as long as possible so it can maintain breathability.
In long, hard rain the outer will probably wet out, and you won't be
much better off than an impermeable jacket since the breathability will
have reduced so much, but that leaves a *lot* of conditions where it'll
still be useful. And don't forget that wetting out isn't necessarily an
all or nothing affair: in driving rain from one direction it's quite
common to be relatively dry one side and soaked out the other, so you'll
still get a lot of useful vapour transport through the jacket even
though you'd be completely soaked without it, and in any case you'll
have differential penetration of the DWR coating just from the folds and
aspect of the cloth, so it's useful to have a Final Barrier in place all
over the jacket as you don't necessarily know in advance where the DWR
will be defeated first.
> Where is the flaw in this argument? If teh water is shed at teh surface, then
> hte garment is waterproof (and breathable) by this alone.
The flaw is that the outer coating isn't 100% efficient at stopping
liquid water penetrating the outer over long periods. Which is why my
proofed pertex garments keep out showers for a while, but not for ever,
and certainly not heavy rain hitting it all day.
Peter Clinch
Sad but true, things generally work better when thy're not full
of/covered in shite, unless the purpose is to clear an immediate path to
the bar (though I'll grant you that's as good a reason as any...)
Martin Thornquist
> This is one thinig I've never unsderstood. Its stated as crucial to keep hte
> water repellent coating in tiptop condition. But if teh water is being shed at
> teh surface then it never reaches teh membrane anyway. And when it does reach
> the membrane, the garment doesnt work cos teh coating has not been maintained
> and you're advised to renew teh coating, whereupon it'll work again.
This is a fundamentally flawed argument.
The coating is there to keep the outer garment relatively dry. In
Goretex at least, the membrane is laminated between layers of
garment. If the outer layer is wet, less moisture gets through the
membrane, as it has a harder time escaping at the outside. Also, water
vapor moves both ways through these membranes, so if you shed enough
warmth, I suppose a noticeable amount of water could actually
evaporate in the outer layer and make it's way inside.
The serious manufacturers have never said that Goretex is some kind of
wonder membrane that keeps you dry whatever the conditions. Goretex
and the similar membranes is however the currently best option I know
of to keep as dry as possible in the most diverse conditions.
> To my mind this says that the coating is all that does all teh job, so you
> would get equal performance by just periodically coating ploycotton.
Nope, the coating just helps the membrane do its job. If you know of a
coating that makes cotton garments worthwhile raingear without
severely impacting breathability, I'd think you could make yourself a
small fortune.
Peter Clinch
> The serious manufacturers have never said that Goretex is some kind of
> wonder membrane that keeps you dry whatever the conditions.
Though ludicrous marketing slogans from Gore themselves like "Guaranteed
to keep you dry" don't exactly help. Though (as usual) if you ignore
the marketing departments and speak to the actual garment designers,
you're quite right..
Brian Hanson
Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>Martin Thornquist wrote:
>
>> The serious manufacturers have never said that Goretex is some kind of
>> wonder membrane that keeps you dry whatever the conditions.
>
>Though ludicrous marketing slogans from Gore themselves like "Guaranteed
>to keep you dry" don't exactly help. Though (as usual) if you ignore
>the marketing departments and speak to the actual garment designers,
>you're quite right..
Those tags are granted by Gore after considering constraints on fabric
used, coatings, seam sealing, and construction techniques as well as
including the GoreTex membrane. It was Gore's attempt to make a
distinction between products that had the membrane just to add some
rain resistance and those that were truly intended as rainwear. They
make it clear that the membrane alone is not enough. (An acquaintance
of mine used to do some of their garment testing for this program.)
Peter Clinch
> Those tags are granted by Gore after considering constraints on fabric
> used, coatings, seam sealing, and construction techniques as well as
> including the GoreTex membrane. It was Gore's attempt to make a
> distinction between products that had the membrane just to add some
> rain resistance and those that were truly intended as rainwear. They
> make it clear that the membrane alone is not enough. (An acquaintance
> of mine used to do some of their garment testing for this program.)
I understand this, but the fact remains that if you wear a "guaranteed
to keep you dry" garment face-on to the wind in driving rain for several
hours you're going to get wet via the holes for face, trunk and hands,
so it is at the very least a poor choice of words.
ps
"Andy Woodward" <a...@aber.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8s1ffm$r5r$2...@dyfi.aber.ac.uk...
> >waste of space. I've renewed the outer repellent coating a couple of
> >times, though it's never actually leaked. I don't have any plans to
>
hte
> water repellent coating in tiptop condition. But if teh water is being
shed at
> teh surface then it never reaches teh membrane anyway. And when it does
reach
> the membrane, the garment doesnt work cos teh coating has not been
maintained
> and you're advised to renew teh coating, whereupon it'll work again.
>
> would get equal performance by just periodically coating ploycotton.
>
then
> hte garment is waterproof (and breathable) by this alone.
If you don't redo the DWR once in a while, the fabric soaks through, even
tho the membrane or coating is still working. Most uncomfortable, wearing a
heavy, wet coat.
penny s
>
>
>
>
>
ps
> >> By nasty I dont mean very cold. That's dry and easier. The nastiest
> >> conditions to be in are around freezing, with gales and rain.
>
> >Andy, I live in Scotland, do most of my walking here, you don't have to
> >tell me that. I'm still around, "despite" using a Triple Point jacket
> >when it gets really noxious.
>
out of
> breathables before they're totally trashed (being slightly trashed much
> earlier. And at up to 300quid/jacket, that's 150quid/year or 3quid/week
just
> to keep dry. Would you rent a 2 year old cag fro 3quid/week?????
>
not
> for long :(
Too bad not all share your experience. I work with ski patrollers, many of
whom have 8+ plus years on their Gore-tex ski uniforms, worn every day of
every weekend of ski season...
$300 us /8 years = $37.50 a year, /15+ duty days a season = $2.50 a day,
still not a bad return....
penny s
ps
> >> But they let the fabric breathe better, and aren't quite so
incompatible
> >> with washing the garments.
>
> Washing? WASHING??????????
Every heard of washing your gear? Removing build up of sweat, salt, body
oil, grease, grime, sap, grit, dirt, spilled beer and ramen juice.... IMO
not cleaning your gear once in a while really decreases it's performance and
life span.
penny s
Andy Woodward
>out of
>> breathables before they're totally trashed (being slightly trashed much
>> earlier. And at up to 300quid/jacket, that's 150quid/year or 3quid/week
>just
>> to keep dry. Would you rent a 2 year old cag fro 3quid/week?????
>>
>> I've been very happy with breathables I've spent lots of money on. Just
>not
>> for long :(
>Too bad not all share your experience. I work with ski patrollers, many of
>whom have 8+ plus years on their Gore-tex ski uniforms, worn every day of
>every weekend of ski season...
>$300 us /8 years = $37.50 a year, /15+ duty days a season = $2.50 a day,
>still not a bad return....
Skiing's not very wet. You cant do it on rain. (Well, OK, I have skied down
steep bogs, but it wasnt very satisfying......)
$2.50 a day is crap value for clothing. Imagine if all your items of
clothing cost $2.50 a day. How much a year would you needto earn so as not to
have to run round naked?
Outdoor yuppies nowadays dont seem to have any concept of value for money -
which explains how hte gear prices have got so ludicrous.
Clyde Soles
> Every heard of washing your gear?
Penny, don't feed the troll. Andy's been spewing the same old BS for
years.
--
DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise indicated, this post is personal
opinion and NOT an official statement of my employer.
Peter Clinch
> Skiing's not very wet. You cant do it on rain. (Well, OK, I have skied down
> steep bogs, but it wasnt very satisfying......)
No, but you can do it *in* rain, as anyone who ever skis in Scotland
knows, and also the wet snow we get means you get soaked if you fall
over. So, let's take a leaf out of your own book and see what the
professional ski patrollers use in Scotland... that'll be goretex then.
While we're there, let's look at what the professional (RAF) MRTs use.
That'll be goretex then.
> $2.50 a day is crap value for clothing. Imagine if all your items of
> clothing cost $2.50 a day.
Ah, but Penny only mentioned the days on ski patrol. Everyone I know
here who's been on a ski patrol uses their kit outside of it, so the
rate is *much* better than that.
> Outdoor yuppies nowadays dont seem to have any concept of value for money -
> which explains how hte gear prices have got so ludicrous.
Bzzzzzzzt, wrong again. Actually, if you look at the accounts of
companies making a living out of it you'll find it isn't an especially
rich living.
david mann
: What other use IS Usenet????? A good rant releives teh boredom - like prodding
: wasps nests with a stick.....
So Andy, any thoughts on cats? ;^)
It's been a while, heh?
david mann
: Skiing's not very wet. You cant do it on rain. (Well, OK, I have skied down
: steep bogs, but it wasnt very satisfying......)
Sunny day skier. Real men ski in the rain.
Seriously, it was a cold rainy day with temps hovering
around freezing that convinced me to give up on non-breathables
and go with GoreTex. Back in the early 80's, Chouinard
was still publishing anti GoreTex rants in his Patagonia
catalogs. Like the dope that I am, I believed his arguements
that a garment with holes, even microscopic holes, will
leak. So I bought one of his non-breathable jackets
for my ski instructing job in VT. In VT, you can
get stuck teaching beginers in the rain in Dec and in
th spring.
So, one fine spring day it was POURING in the am.
No customers showed up and we had the rest of the day to
ski. The temp hovered in the low 30s to high 20 (on top)
and the rain came and went. Sometimes we would start
off above the clouds, ski down into the rain and ski
out of it again before the bottom of the lift.
Smuggly (a play on words), I donned my non-breathable
jacket thinking I would stay dry. Others had non-waterproof
shells. They all before noon as they got soaked.
The rest had on GoreTex (mostly TNF uniform stuff).
By mid afternoon, they were damp but comfortable.
Me? I was drenched. Sweat was litteraly dripping out
of my cuffs. While the guy in Gtx dried out a bit
every time the rain let up, I stewwed in my own juices.
There are other stories. ...
My ocnclusion: moderate exertion + rain + cold => GoreTex
BTW, this discussion misses the other key application for
GoreTex. Namely, it is much more windproof than non
waterproof garments. While I kno longer carry it on
cold ski tours, I still take it for windy bits of
above treeline winter climbing.
Ed Huesers
Peter Clinch wrote:
> Bzzzzzzzt, wrong again. Actually, if you look at the accounts of
> companies making a living out of it you'll find it isn't an especially
> rich living.
There is enough competition amongst the specialty outdoor sports
manufacturers that the prices have to be competitive.
Even if a company has a patent, if the product is overpriced, the
incentive for companies to challenge the patent is high enough that
companies go broke defending their patents.
Ed Huesers
http://www.grandshelters.com
Peter Clinch
> BTW, this discussion misses the other key application for
> GoreTex. Namely, it is much more windproof than non
> waterproof garments. While I kno longer carry it on
> cold ski tours, I still take it for windy bits of
> above treeline winter climbing.
It only really scores here by being dual-function: if you get a
dedicated windproof (but not waterproof) it will be far more breathable
in most cases, while keeping out the draughts as well (this is why
Ventile is so popular in polar regions, after all). Thing is, if you
have to have waterproofs with you anyway saves carrying the other
jacket, or if you need one high-spec jacket anyway, better it's one,
rather than two, expensive purchases.
"treeline"? I've heard about those! (doesn't really exist in Scotland,
where almost all the timber was chopped out in the Clearances, so it can
be gale force from zero feet to the summits, and frequently is).
M
>
> "treeline"? I've heard about those! (doesn't really exist in Scotland,
> where almost all the timber was chopped out in the Clearances,
Peter,
What are/were the Clearances?
Mike
Peter Clinch
> What are/were the Clearances?
Highland Clearances, where landowners decided sheep were far more
profitable to have on their land than people. Thus, out with the people
(quite a lot of the emigrant Scots that ended up in N. America were
basically kicked out of their homes by the landlords), and also out with
the trees, so there's very little original forest cover over most of the
country, though now there's something of a comeback with new planting
being native species in more or less natural layouts, as opposed to very
thick timber plantations, generally (non-native) sitka spruce that was
largeley put up in 70s and 80s due to tax breaks.
As well as sheep farming the overpopulation of red deer, maintained for
shooting and with no natural predators, has kept forest regeneration in
check, though again this is increasingly being addressed and it's
getting possible to see Scots pines in the glens outide of isolated, old
examples.
Take somewhere like upstate NY or VT and remove almost all of the trees
and you have a pretty good idea of the Scottish Highlands...
david mann
: It only really scores here by being dual-function: if you get a
: dedicated windproof (but not waterproof) it will be far more breathable
: in most cases, while keeping out the draughts as well (this is why
: Ventile is so popular in polar regions, after all).
Hmmm... I think it depends on what kind ofwind proof you are
talking about. Laminates like DryLoft or Gore WindStopper
are as windproof as Gtx, but my experience with non-laminate,
non-coated nylons and microfibers is that you sacrifice some
windproofness. I can notice the difference during fast
cycling, fast downhill skiing and winding above treeline
trips.
That said, I typically don't wear Gtx for cyccling (unless
I'm touring), nor for lift served skiing (I use an old
sacrficial jacket), nor for xc skiing (not needed).
Kurt Knisely
>
> That said, I typically don't wear Gtx for cyccling (unless
> I'm touring), nor for lift served skiing (I use an old
> sacrficial jacket), nor for xc skiing (not needed).
So, what DO you wear when X/C skiing or BC touring, when it's snowing
and windy? I usually wear the Gore Tex and button instead of zip, open
pit zips, etc. I still get wet, I still sweat and I'm still cold--I
take my hat off if I warm up too much.
--
kurt at xmission dot com
Stephen W. Anderson
"david mann" <dam...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu> wrote in message
news:8s4ogi$noa$1...@isn.dac.neu.edu...
> Andy Woodward (a...@aber.ac.uk) wrote:
> : What other use IS Usenet????? A good rant releives teh boredom - like
prodding
> : wasps nests with a stick.....
>
> So Andy, any thoughts on cats? ;^)
I thought of one the other night when I was at my in-laws and their cat was
nibbling my toes:
When your feet are cold, slit the cat open and put them inside it.
Well, all right, it isn't dead when you do that, but it soon would be.
--
Stephen W. Anderson
Rocky Mount, North Carolina