Paramo Analogy

[Nick Maclaren]

No, I am NOT impressed! I machine reproofed it according to the
instructions, and had some hours of not very heavy Highland
rain. It let far too much water through. If I recall, last
time, I hand reproofed it, and have previously worn it only in
conditions of intermittent rain (though some were heavy).

I am not sure which factor made the difference, but it leaked
enough to be dangerous, so I shall have to go back to something
like Goretex for serious multi-day trips.

I may try reproofing and stress-testing, but it is tricky to
do the last :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[john...@gmail.com]

I've had some problems with a Paramo Velez and resolved it thus:

1) Machine wash in ORDINARY washing powder then rinse really well. Then rinse again.
2) Vigorously hand wash in Tech Wash (I washed mine in the bath that I'd cleaned of all traces of soap) then thoroughly rinse.
3) Re-proof with TX Wash-In by hand according to the instructions, then rinse by hand.
4) Hang the garment on the line to dry.

My theory for using this method is:

Washing with ordinary powder (described by Paramo as a 'strip wash') cleans the garment FAR better than Tech Wash can - and it shifts all traces of any previous proofing that may be a bit iffy.
Re-washing with Tech Wash gets rid of any traces of detergent.
Re-proofing by hand (in a soap-free bowl) allows the correct concentration of TX Wash-In to be used. I feel that using a washing machine to reproof may well dilute the TX Wash-In too much.

In very heavy rain I do get damp but the way that Paramo works means that I soon dry out - in any case it tends to keep me warm even when wet.

I hope this helps!

FYI I also bought a Goretex jacket after my Paramo let me down - I soon realised that it was ME that let the Paramo down! IMHO the Paramo is a million times more comfortable than Goretex.

John

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <2fe35e32-da44-476e...@googlegroups.com>,

<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I've had some problems with a Paramo Velez and resolved it thus:
>
>1) Machine wash in ORDINARY washing powder then rinse really well. Then rinse again.
>2) Vigorously hand wash in Tech Wash (I washed mine in the bath that I'd cleaned of all traces of soap) then thoroughly rinse.
>3) Re-proof with TX Wash-In by hand according to the instructions, then rinse by hand.
>4) Hang the garment on the line to dry.
>
>My theory for using this method is:
>
>Washing with ordinary powder (described by Paramo as a 'strip wash') cleans the garment FAR better than Tech Wash can - and it shifts all traces of any previous proofing that may be a bit iffy.
>Re-washing with Tech Wash gets rid of any traces of detergent.
>Re-proofing by hand (in a soap-free bowl) allows the correct concentration of TX Wash-In to be used. I feel that using a washing machine to reproof may well dilute the TX Wash-In too much.
>
>In very heavy rain I do get damp but the way that Paramo works means that I soon dry out - in any case it tends to keep me warm even when wet.

Thanks very much. Yes, that fits with my experience, though I find
that it doesn't keep me warm enough when wet in cold rain if I am
going downhill or across tricky terrain (i.e. not expending much
energy). I will definitely do as you say, anyway - I think that's
what I did last time, except for the first step.

What worries me is the risk of being caught out in really nasty
conditions (i.e. unable to pitch tent or move to anywhere I can)
and it allowing enough water through to get my insulation layers
wet. Wool is OK when seriously damp, but even it stops insulating
when saturated. And then I would get hypothermia in short order :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[john...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 6:01:08 PM UTC+1, Nick Maclaren wrote:

I suppose that at the end of the day no garment will keep the rain out forever. I was on a long (and EXTREMELY wet) challenge walk in S Wales a few weeks ago. The weather really was appalling and I chose to use Goretex rather than Paramo - I was absolutely 100% wet through within a few hours and I ended up retiring from the event.
I'm not sure Paramo would have been much better in such extreme conditions but I think I'd have been more comfortable....maybe!
A friend I was walking with used her Velez (she got wet through too!) and ended up putting one of the cheapo polythene ponchos over her Velez AND her rucksack. That certainly helped - the Paramo had the chance to dry her out.

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <c49c43fb-e19f-48ee...@googlegroups.com>,

<john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>I suppose that at the end of the day no garment will keep the rain out fore
>ver. I was on a long (and EXTREMELY wet) challenge walk in S Wales a few we
>eks ago. The weather really was appalling and I chose to use Goretex rather
> than Paramo - I was absolutely 100% wet through within a few hours and I e
>nded up retiring from the event.
>I'm not sure Paramo would have been much better in such extreme conditions
>but I think I'd have been more comfortable....maybe!

Impermeables keep all rain out, indefinitely. Goretex will let it
through, once the fabric is saturated, but very, very slowly.
My point was that Paramo was letting it through faster than (say)
tight-woven cotton.

In your case, the reason that you were saturated was almost
certainly not the rain - in wet conditions, Goretex stops letting
vapour out, and so it was condensed sweat. Unless the Goretex was
defective, of course. Paramo does a bit better there, at least
until it gets saturated.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Peter Clinch]

On 12/06/2014 22:49, Nick Maclaren wrote:

> Impermeables keep all rain out, indefinitely.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. The /fabric/ will, but the big hole at the
neck, zips, and wicking up base layers from cuffs and hem mean you'll
get wet.

Compare and contrast a waterproof jacket with a proper drysuit. The
telling difference isn't the fabric but the seals at neck and cuffs.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Peter Clinch]

On 12/06/2014 18:56, john...@gmail.com wrote:

> I've had some problems with a Paramo Velez and resolved it thus:
>
> 1) Machine wash in ORDINARY washing powder then rinse really well.
> Then rinse again.
> 2) Vigorously hand wash in Tech Wash (I washed mine
> in the bath that I'd cleaned of all traces of soap) then thoroughly
> rinse.
> 3) Re-proof with TX Wash-In by hand according to the instructions, then rinse by hand.
> 4) Hang the garment on the line to dry.
>
> My theory for using this method is:
>
> Washing with ordinary powder (described by Paramo as a 'strip wash')
> cleans the garment FAR better than Tech Wash can - and it shifts all
> traces of any previous proofing that may be a bit iffy.

Not really. Detergent doesn't remove coatings. It's widely held to be
a no-no because the way it works is to reduce the surface tension of
water droplets so they penetrate the fabric better, helping to clean it,
but while that gets it clean it also means that any leftover traces work
very much at odds with the coating (which aims to encourage droplets to
form rather than penetrate the fabric).

So detergent doesn't remove the coating, but it does typically do a
better cleaning job and that's a Good Thing because fabrics will usually
work better when they're clean.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4556 has a pretty good
write-up on waterproofs by folk who give a good impression of knowing
what they're on about. Particularly note the point in there that
re-proofing generally /relies/ on traces of the original DWR to cling on
to, and that a tumble rather than a line dry will help give a bit of
zing to the DWR

One thing to note is that traces of detergent (and possibly fabric
conditioner, which is a Work Of Stan) in the washing machine can
potentially bugger things up (which of course your plan on doing it by
hand neatly avoids). So before a re-proof if you do use the machine
it's considered a Cunning Plan to clean the machine.
http://www.dri-pak.co.uk/laundry-cleaning-tips/clean-your-washing-machine.html#.U5qz5SgkS5J
has a menu for doing that.

BTW, Techwash is a simple liquid soap, there's nothing fancy about it
(in fact that's rather the point). Dri-pak's Liquid Soap Flakes are
pretty much the same thing AFAICT and are available in Tesco's at
considerably lower prices than Nikwax or Grangers will charge for
something remarkably similar. You can use traditional soap flakes too,
but make sure they don't have any additives (i.e., perfume) and get the
soap well and truly dissolved before you add the garment.

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <bvvqpb...@mid.individual.net>,

Peter Clinch <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=4556 has a pretty good
>write-up on waterproofs by folk who give a good impression of knowing
>what they're on about. Particularly note the point in there that
>re-proofing generally /relies/ on traces of the original DWR to cling on
>to, and that a tumble rather than a line dry will help give a bit of
>zing to the DWR

Thanks. It does have one glaring error, though - it is almost
entirely considering comfort and not survival, and (in several
places) assumes that they are two sides of the same coin. In
particular, it includes the following classic Dangerous Advice:

If you're cold while moving then climb faster!

That's fine when you have ample margin (both in ability and time),
but is a recipe for increased sweating, exhaustion, accidents when
you do get exhausted, hypothermia when you simply cannot carry on
any further, and you know what comes next.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Graham Seed]

"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:bvvpnr...@mid.individual.net...

> On 12/06/2014 22:49, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>> Impermeables keep all rain out, indefinitely.
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper. The /fabric/ will, but the big hole at the
> neck, zips, and wicking up base layers from cuffs and hem mean you'll get
> wet.
>
> Compare and contrast a waterproof jacket with a proper drysuit. The
> telling difference isn't the fabric but the seals at neck and cuffs.
>

Yes, the best Goretex jacket I ever had was the very first I ever bought
(not that I've bought many) which was very basic in design and had minimal
taped joints and zips. These days you have to have 49 extra pockets which
must increase the risk of leaks. I'm not convinced that the saturation I
have witnessed on some days of horizontal rain has been due entirely to
sweating even though the garment seemed sound.

Graham

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <stzmv.257382$jf3....@fx31.am4>,

Graham Seed <gra...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Peter Clinch" <p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:bvvpnr...@mid.individual.net...
>>

>>> Impermeables keep all rain out, indefinitely.
>>
>> Up to a point, Lord Copper. The /fabric/ will, but the big hole at the
>> neck, zips, and wicking up base layers from cuffs and hem mean you'll get
>> wet.
>>
>> Compare and contrast a waterproof jacket with a proper drysuit. The
>> telling difference isn't the fabric but the seals at neck and cuffs.
>>
>Yes, the best Goretex jacket I ever had was the very first I ever bought
>(not that I've bought many) which was very basic in design and had minimal
>taped joints and zips. These days you have to have 49 extra pockets which
>must increase the risk of leaks. I'm not convinced that the saturation I
>have witnessed on some days of horizontal rain has been due entirely to
>sweating even though the garment seemed sound.

Agreed. Lined coats have the advantage that the pockets can be
purely internal, but those are very rare nowadays. I find that
map pockets seem to attract rain, though I am not exactly sure
how.

Every feature that you don't need is a gimmick waiting to cause
trouble - which applies to walking kit as much as to computer
programs (or conversely) :-(


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Peter Clinch]

On 13/06/2014 10:26, Graham Seed wrote:

> I'm not convinced that
> the saturation I have witnessed on some days of horizontal rain has been
> due entirely to sweating even though the garment seemed sound.

I got caught in a bit of a deluge on Tuesday cycling in to town (water
coming /out/ of drains type of thing), wearing a fairly new lightweight
rain jacket. As I was on my bike the fronts of the arms caught the
worst of it and they were noticeably damp inside on arrival.

I was riding a bike downhill, mostly free-wheeling, so not very likely
it was simply an abundance of sweat. I think probably condensation out
of the (very humid) air, with the saturation of the outer adding to
wind-chill making a great cooling/condensing surface. A bit like a good
way to make the outside of an impermeable plastic bag wet is fill the
inside with cold water.

[PeterC]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:06:27 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> On 12/06/2014 22:49, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
>> Impermeables keep all rain out, indefinitely.
>
> Up to a point, Lord Copper. The /fabric/ will, but the big hole at the
> neck, zips, and wicking up base layers from cuffs and hem mean you'll
> get wet.
>
> Compare and contrast a waterproof jacket with a proper drysuit. The
> telling difference isn't the fabric but the seals at neck and cuffs.
>
> Pete.

In the 70s I had a Helly Hansen top of PVC on cotton. Apart from having
almost a negative coefficient of friction on snow it was impermeable. A
couple of hours in Cwm Idwal resulted in me being wet and becoming
hypothermic - and that was with the matching trosers on as well!
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[PeterC]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:24:18 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:

> and that a tumble rather than a line dry will help give a bit of
> zing to the DWR

To me, that's a disadvantage as I don't have a tumble drier and no access to
one. Grangers 2-in-1 looks OK but I can't use it as it needs the tumble.

I've just done some lightweight Craghopper trousers with Cotton Proof
(looked distressingly like PVA when initially mixing), so of course the
weather has been unco-operative for testing.
The claimed DWR on the trousers was marginally better than blotting paper.

>
> One thing to note is that traces of detergent (and possibly fabric
> conditioner, which is a Work Of Stan) in the washing machine can
> potentially bugger things up (which of course your plan on doing it by
> hand neatly avoids). So before a re-proof if you do use the machine
> it's considered a Cunning Plan to clean the machine.

I know a couple in Leeds who bought a low-capacity machine to keep solely
for Nikwax/Paramo. It's the best solution (sorry) if there's space for it.

[PeterC]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 10:36:03 +0100 (BST), Nick Maclaren wrote:

> I find that
> map pockets seem to attract rain, though I am not exactly sure
> how.

The maps do it - the most vulnerable and expensive items that can get wet.
Sort of reverse osmosis powered by sod's law.

[Nick Maclaren]

In article <iq8awluur3ta.7oy9h57a2acs$.d...@40tude.net>,

PeterC <giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:06:27 +0100, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>>> Impermeables keep all rain out, indefinitely.
>>
>> Up to a point, Lord Copper. The /fabric/ will, but the big hole at the
>> neck, zips, and wicking up base layers from cuffs and hem mean you'll
>> get wet.
>>
>> Compare and contrast a waterproof jacket with a proper drysuit. The
>> telling difference isn't the fabric but the seals at neck and cuffs.
>

>In the 70s I had a Helly Hansen top of PVC on cotton. Apart from having
>almost a negative coefficient of friction on snow it was impermeable. A
>couple of hours in Cwm Idwal resulted in me being wet and becoming
>hypothermic - and that was with the matching trosers on as well!

That doesn't entirely surprise me, because your sweat had no way of
escaping. I don't wear waterproof trousers for that reason (except
sometimes when stopped). I made a simple waterproof split skirt
to stop the water coming off the coat onto my upper thighs and
buttocks, and it works very well.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

[Gordon H]

On 14/06/2014 09:31, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>
> That doesn't entirely surprise me, because your sweat had no way of
> escaping. I don't wear waterproof trousers for that reason (except
> sometimes when stopped). I made a simple waterproof split skirt
> to stop the water coming off the coat onto my upper thighs and
> buttocks, and it works very well.

> Regards,
> Nick Maclaren.
>

That sounds like a good solution, but these days my walks tend to be
close to civilisation, and I'm not sure I have the bottle to wear a
skirt. Kilt sounds better. ;-)

--
Gordon H

Remove Invalid to reply

[Peter Clinch]

On 14/06/2014 19:57, Gordon H wrote:
> On 14/06/2014 09:31, Nick Maclaren wrote:
>>
>> That doesn't entirely surprise me, because your sweat had no way of
>> escaping. I don't wear waterproof trousers for that reason (except
>> sometimes when stopped). I made a simple waterproof split skirt
>> to stop the water coming off the coat onto my upper thighs and
>> buttocks, and it works very well.

> That sounds like a good solution, but these days my walks tend to be
> close to civilisation, and I'm not sure I have the bottle to wear a
> skirt. Kilt sounds better. ;-)

Rohan appear to have been persuaded to make something of a similar
length to their Hilltop jacket ("traditional" i.e. early 80s
well-down-the-thighs length) in 3 layer fabric without the Hilltop's
attendant chrome (lining, fleecy bits in the hood etc.).
Not so good is it's due to appear for chaps in the Winter '15 lineup, so
breath-holding not advised!