ultra light down - is it worth it?

Interesting point about fit. I knew that but wasn't thinking about it.

Unfortunately for me the inexpensive jackets tend to fit like trash bags. Skinny mofo.

Would you spring for the "fancy-brand" and pay the huge price premium, if that was the one that fit?

Patrick Shyvers wrote:Interesting point about fit. I knew that but wasn't thinking about it. Unfortunately for me the inexpensive jackets tend to fit like trash bags. Skinny mofo. Would you spring for the "fancy-brand" and pay the huge price premium, if that was the one that fit?

patrick ... yes i would if it was for stuff that mattered and nothing else fit ...

some dead birds fit me particularly well ... of course i bought them at a good discount

remember that fit is very variable even among the cheap and expensive stuff ... for example uniqlo (japanese store brand) fits AZN folks like me quite well, while the pricier rab doesnt fit me at all (not built for short stumpy AZNs)

but ultimately get what FITS ... and you can afford of course

also note that for over belay jackets youll need it to fit over other things ... so yr sacrificing some "fit" for utility

;)

bearbreeder wrote: lol ... so im "encouraging knockoffs" no on MP !!! everyone knockoffs everybody in the outdoor industry ... do you only use a nanopuff? ... all the other 60g/m synth jackets would be a "knockoff" including ones such as the rab xenon, montbell, etc ... metolius TCUs knockoffs wired bliss ... id love to hear you disparage them and their users as knockoffs you do realize that MEC makes perfectly serviceable and well respected gear ... and they publish the results of their labour and environmental standards, and give 1% back to the planet .... and here you are throwing around "knockoff" everyone knockoffs everyone in the outdoor industry again i await the reference to the ll bean bankruptcy which you stated ... im looking forward to the report oh and i take it you only use genuine apple products, not those "knockoff" ipads, iphones, macs ... you know the kind that runs windows and android ... you wouldnt be a hypocrit would you now? with your participation i anticipate this thread will run to 20+ pages of trolls ;)

Apple didn't invent the laptop, smartphone, or tablet. On the other hand, Patagonia did originate the R1, Nanopuff, etc.

I enjoy watching you try to legitimize knock off products by claiming "everyone does it". There's really only a small handful of companies driving innovation in the outdoor clothing industry, the rest just copy. Your excuses are just laughable. I like innovation and reward it with my dollars when I can.

Perhaps if you didn't want to have this discussion you wouldn't have brought it up? Cheap knockoffs are your swan song though so I don't think you could help yourself.

Yuup, I've got a cheap Uniqlo UL down jacket that's the ducks nuts.

The sleeves are probably 4 inches too short but apart from that it's a great piece. Warm, compressible and surprisingly wind proof. I'm a tall skinny guy, however the asian sizing works out ok on the body, just not the sleeves.

Bearbreeder, shame on you for purchasing and using knockoffs. I only use rigid friends because anything else would be unethical.

For the most part the only people who truly need the performance of ultra light down get it free or are loaded.

For the average joe it is certainly not worth it, unless it pro-deal or 40-60% off. You are paying a lot of money for the hip factor even if you don't want to admit it.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: Apple didn't invent the laptop, smartphone, or tablet. On the other hand, Patagonia did originate the R1, Nanopuff, etc. I enjoy watching you try to legitimize knock off products by claiming "everyone does it". There's really only a small handful of companies driving innovation in the outdoor clothing industry, the rest just copy. Your excuses are just laughable. I like innovation and reward it with my dollars when I can. Perhaps if you didn't want to have this discussion you wouldn't have brought it up? Cheap knockoffs are your swan song though so I don't think you could help yourself.

blah blah blah blah

so the world according to ray you shouldnt use any other 60g/m jackets except for the nanopuff !!!

unless yr wearing a eddie bauer down jacket yr a hypocrit as everyone else copied em after ...

While on a winter fishing trip in Washington, Eddie Bauer developed hypothermia. After this he began trying to develop alternatives to heavy wool garments used by outdoorsmen at the time. He attempted to offset the bulkiness of down by quilting a down-filled jacket. In 1940, Bauer then patented the first quilted goose down-insulated jacket in the United States:[9] U.S. Design Patent 119,122 and introduced it in his store as "The Skyliner". Bauer took out more than 20 patents on various outdoor clothing and sporting equipment between 1934 and 1937.[7]


"innovation" ... hmmm well the latest "hot" innovations werent by any particular brand but by the textile producers ... alpha, neoshell, event, activeshell, etc ... they werent "invented" by any retail brand like patagucci you know ...

its totally hilarious that youre calling both MEC and LL bean cheap knockoff companies ...

both are respected brands with exceptional warranties that have been around longer than most modern outdoor brands ... in MECs case the co-op was founded in 1971 ... and in LL bean it was set up by Leon Leonwood ("L.L.") Bean in 1911

and here you are telling were going to die in em ("swan song")

i still await your claim of ll bean bankruptcy ... hopefully one that occurred in recent memory !!!

at least 20 pages with you in da thread =P

;)

oh and i do believe apple "invented" the iOS and original use friendly interface on the mac ... well if they didnt they sure got the patents for it !!! ... i take it you use whoever "invented" it (according to you) brand ... why dont you let us know which smartphones, laptops and tablets you use ...

you would ONLY use companies that originally invented the stuff to "encourage innovation" of course !!!

i like being light. I'm a gear dork in that regard. play nice guys :)

bearbreeder wrote: oh and i do believe apple "invented" the iOS and original use friendly interface on the mac ...

They stole that from Xerox... Of course Apple "invented" iOS, since that's an Apple trademark, but iOS itself had nothing technically ground breaking (Steve Jobs was sweating balls when he saw Palm's WebOS). Just like Microsoft didn't invent DOS and Google didn't invent internet search. Commercial success are hardly based primarily on the merit of technical innovation.

reboot wrote: They stole that from Xerox... Of course Apple "invented" iOS, since that's an Apple trademark, but iOS itself had nothing technically ground breaking (Steve Jobs was sweating balls when he saw Palm's WebOS). Just like Microsoft didn't invent DOS and Google didn't invent internet search. Commercial success are hardly based primarily on the merit of technical innovation.

When the Mac came out in 1984 there was nothing else like it ... It was instantly recognized as something truly unique and revolutionary

Other companies may have had some parts and pieces, but none were able to put it in such a cohesive package ...

History had proven its success, and the success of its imitators (windows)

When the iphone came out the same happened .... Where is palm and blackberry now? ... Same with the ipad

Your are typing your MP post on eithet an apple or one of its imitators ... simply put your desktop if using a computer looks more like this



than this ...



Apple has revoltionized the world with 4 successive products that worked and sold well and greatly influenced the imitators

- the original apple 2 which was THE personal computer from the late 70s and early 80s

- the mac which introduced the graphical user interfaces to the masses, any computer historian will freely acknowledge the debt and shameless copying that microsoft did

- the iPhone which wiped out not just all previous smartphones but also "dumb" phones ... The current growh and profitability of apple, the data usage growth in telecoms and the success of imitators (samsung) bears witness to this

- the iPad which absolutely and utterly redefined tablets ... Before the iPaD tablet computing was a joke, after it even young kids and old family members use then easily ... Again most new succesful tablet imitates the ipad in practical operation

But dont worry, if you use one of the imitators (or successors) i wont preach about tht evil on MP

Now where can i find a buy a xerox GUI computer these days i wonder !!!!

;)

Ray Pinpillage wrote: On the other hand, Patagonia did originate the R1, Nanopuff, etc.

bearbreader wrote:do you only use a nanopuff? ... all the other 60g/m synth jackets would be a "knockoff"

I think the Wild Things EP jacket preceded the Nanopuff by more than a decade. There must have been others. REI had an excellent light primaloft jacket in the early 2000s as well. MEC had their own primaloft offerings of varying weight.

Crotch Robbins wrote: I think the Wild Things EP jacket preceded the Nanopuff by more than a decade. There must have been others. REI had an excellent light primaloft jacket in the early 2000s as well. MEC had their own primaloft offerings of varying weight.

no doubt there were others that produced and sold similar gear earlier .... however the nanopuff is the one that folks remember and was/is successful

which all goes to show that insisting folks only buy from the company that originally made, or at the very least succeeded in selling the first popular models ... well thats pretty absurd

anyways so we dont go completely off thread for 20 pages ...

heres the insulated jackets from the winter 78/79 mec catalog ... theyve been "knocking off" things for the last 3 decades, darn canadians !!!



for those who have better things to do than to read through the coming pages of senseless arguments ...

you can find the original MEC catalogs scans going back to the 70s here ...

issuu.com/mountain-equipmen…

enjoy

;)

so in conclusion

youtube.com/watch?v=bOR3855…

bearbreeder wrote: no doubt there were others that produced and sold similar gear earlier .... however the nanopuff is the one that folks remember and was/is successful which all goes to show that insisting folks only buy from the company that originally made, or at the very least succeeded in selling the first popular models ... well thats pretty absurd

Here's is your original statement that I responded to:

bearbreeder wrote:one thing to remember is that the outdoor clothing industry is driven by marketing ... most of the well working products are commoditized (notice how mec, cabelas, ll bean, everyone else makes perfectly functional R1,nanopuff, houdini, etc copies) ... so marketers need to come out with marginal "improvements" and things that make their products "special" to justify the premiums and makes sure the gullible know that these minor improvements are "revolutionary" ... happens every year ;)

R1, Nanopuff, and Houdini are all trade names owned by Patagonia. Those are products that Patagonia brought to the market with unique selling features (least of which are the materials). According to you Patagonia needs to improve the R1 to justify the premium while ignoring they invented it. Using the trade name only drives the point that you're shilling intellectual dishonesty.

I don't expect to change your mind, this is who you are as a person. The rest of the thread is all yours.

Ray Pinpillage wrote: Here's is your original statement that I responded to: R1, Nanopuff, and Houdini are all trade names owned by Patagonia. Those are products that Patagonia brought to the market with unique selling features (least of which are the materials). According to you Patagonia needs to improve the R1 to justify the premium while ignoring they invented it. Using the trade name only drives the point that you're shilling intellectual dishonesty. I don't expect to change your mind, this is who you are as a person. The rest of the thread is all yours.

oh dear ray .... still trolling on a sunday night?

the houdini was not the first windshirt, the nanopuff was not the first synth puffy, and the R1 was not the first synth layer ...

youre the one who is whining on MP about folks not paying "premiums"

and now youre whinning that pointing out that other companies make versions of "tradenames" (R1, houdini nanopuff) of such goods is "shilling intellectual dishonesty"?????


do you run around screaming DISHONEST DISHONEST DISHONEST in real life when folks point out that there ARE other grid fleeces, other primaloft puffies and other windshirts than folks can buy???

absolutely and utterly hilarious you little hypocrit ... hows your totem basics by the way, those seem like "knockoffs" of the aliens

i dont expect much from you except 20 pages of hypocrisy and petty little hatred

hows that search for the LL bean bankruptcy coming by the way ... the one you claimed happen ...

along with proclaiming MEC and LL bean gear "knockoffs"

one page at a time in the daily "ray of morality" trolls

;)

just so folks have a more things to read bout in these 20 pages other than fun and games ...

there were some folks wondering about leaking down feathers ...

feathers leak for various reasons but one of the common (mis)conceptions is that there lower "breathability" (really air permeability) fabrics are more downproof

as the chart above shows while very generally jackets with a lower CFM are a bit more "downproof" there are plenty of low permeability jackets that arent as well ...

at best its a modest correlation ... so its "partially true" ... less "breathable" down jackets tend to be more "downproof" but not always, and there are exceptions either way

so if you go and do the "darth vader" test (a popular DIY air permeability self test) on a down jacket ... it doesnt mean its downproof if you start doing the force choke !!!

the other thing is that even the top rated "downproof" fabrics mean less down escaping, not none ...



heres the IDFL take on the matter

IDFL has tested many finished products (jackets, comforters, etc.) that suffer from downproofness
issues. Many of these tests were done in response to customer complaints about leakage from their
down filled products. During the course of these tests we noticed a source of leakage that was
common to most of the products we received. The primary source of leakage was due to
manufacturing – mainly the stitching.

The next most common source of leakage is through the fabric itself. Heavy, coated fabrics are
almost always very downproof whereas, very lightweight synthetic fabrics and damask & other
patterned cotton fabrics allow more material to pass through. There are several fabric tests IDFL
performs to determine if it will leak filling material or not:

• Downproofness (FSTM 191-5530 & EN 12132-1). This involves physically testing the fabric
to simulate the use of the product.

• Air Permeability (ASTM D737). Tests the amount of air that can pass through a fabric (e.g.
breathability). Too much air passing through a fabric can cause leakage whereas, too little air
passing through a fabric can cause odor problems due to incomplete drying.

• Thread Count (ASTM D3775). Higher thread counts generally yield better downproof results.

IDFL performs all these tests according to ASTM, EN and FTMS methods. We recommend that
fabrics be tested before they are assembled into finished products as a quality check to verify their
performance. It is also recommended to use manufacturing techniques that won’t reduce the fabric’s
downproofness qualities (incorrect sewing may lead to leakage). Adding an additional layer of fabric
between the inner lining and down baffles also reduces the likelihood of leakage.

;)

bearbreeder wrote: When the Mac came out in 1984 there was nothing else like it ...

Because the bosses at Xerox did not know the gold mine they were sitting on...and Steve Jobs did, but he sure as hell did not invent it.

bearbreeder wrote:When the iphone came out the same happened...Where is palm and blackberry now?

It was a very good product, and Steve Jobs thought to use capacitive touch technology (which again, he did not invent) for the iPhone. But the iOS itself? It wasn't all that. It did work reasonably well, and Steve Jobs was able to convince people to develop for the platform.

WebOS was technologically superior to the original iOS, just like OS/2 was to Windows 3x, but as history repeatedly show, it does not guarantee commercial success.

bearbreeder wrote:Your are typing your MP post on eithet an apple or one of its imitators ...

And you are typing using a Xerox GUI imitator, and interacting with MP.com with a Mosaic web browser imitator, so what?

Apple nearly folded before Steve Jobs took over (and while away, developed the far superior NeXT OS which the current Mac OS X is based off of but is now longer & longer in the tooth). In the mid-late 90s, I had the "pleasure" of occasionally using Mac OS 7-9 and was wondering why this obsolete POS hasn't been deprecated.

reboot wrote: Because the bosses at Xerox did not know the gold mine they were sitting on...and Steve Jobs did, but he sure as hell did not invent it. It was a very good product, and Steve Jobs thought to use capacitive touch technology (which again, he did not invent) for the iPhone. But the iOS itself? It wasn't all that. It did work reasonably well, and Steve Jobs was able to convince people to develop for the platform. WebOS was technologically superior to the original iOS, just like OS/2 was to Windows 3x, but as history repeatedly show, it does not guarantee commercial success. And you are typing using a Xerox GUI imitator, and interacting with MP.com with a Mosaic web browser imitator, so what? Apple nearly folded before Steve Jobs took over (and while away, developed the far superior NeXT OS which the current Mac OS X is based off of). In the mid-late 90s, I had the "pleasure" of occasionally using Mac OS 7-9 and was wondering why this obsolete POS hasn't been deprecated.

hows posting through the DOS prompt on MP going?

to put it simply all all the popular modern interfaces for the the computing devices (PC, laptop, tablets) are to large degree copies of the successful apple ones

its useless to "invent" parts of the devices if you cant produce it into a coherent product ... thats like "inventing" ground beef but not being able to make a burger

to put it very simply again ... the "phone" you are using looks much more like this ...



than this ...



or than this ...



heres one of the closest and most popular "alternatives" to the iPhone



its evident where its form and function comes from ... for all practical purposes swapping out from and iphone to one of the more popular "knockoffs" requires minimal re-learning as the interfaces and functions are very similar ... folks do it all the time when upgrading/swapping their handsets

time to pick up some old palm treos so i can post on MP with em without being a "intellectually dishonest shill" for using "knockoffs" !!!!

i predict 20 pages still =P

;)

Come on guys, I don't care about the history of operating systems... Tell me more about down.

How come no one tells you your UL down is only going to have "800" fill power for one or two seasons?? Until recently, marketing tricked me into believing that high fill power down was superior in every way to lower fill powers. After watching my 800 fill jacket lose a lot of its puffiness over just one year, I'm wishing I had gone with synthetic or, maybe, lower fill power??

Does a jacket with lower fill power down, and therefore more down per volume, retain loft better? It seems like my 800 fill down used to fill out the baffles of my jacket well, but now the baffles seem like they're only stuffed 3/4 full. Would a 650-fill jacket hold up better?

And yes, I've tried all the tricks - nikwax down wash, tumble drying, picking at the baffles to re-fluff the down, etc. The puffiness just isn't ever going to be like new again.

Anson Call wrote:Come on guys, I don't care about the history of operating systems... Tell me more about down. How come no one tells you your UL down is only going to have "800" fill power for one or two seasons?? Until recently, marketing tricked me into believing that high fill power down was superior in every way to lower fill powers. After watching my 800 fill jacket lose a lot of its puffiness over just one year, I'm wishing I had gone with synthetic or, maybe, lower fill power?? Does a jacket with lower fill power down, and therefore more down per volume, retain loft better? It seems like my 800 fill down used to fill out the baffles of my jacket well, but now the baffles seem like they're only stuffed 3/4 full. Would a 650-fill jacket hold up better? And yes, I've tried all the tricks - nikwax down wash, tumble drying, picking at the baffles to re-fluff the down, etc. The puffiness just isn't ever going to be like new again.

how often do you wear your down (daily in town?) and wash it?

synthetics hold their "warmth" better in humid conditions but have serious issues still with durability when compressed ...

Thank you for contacting Arc'teryx. The longevity of the Coreloft highly depend and use and storage. The worst thing for Coreloft is to compress it. I have seen Coreloft lasting as few as 3-4 months when used for driving a car for 1-2 hour daily. Just the compression between the back and the seat broke the fibres down in no time. The same can happen when Coreloft is stored in a tight compression sack for an extended period.

When used as a mid-layer and stored properly, it can last for many years. I have an Atom LT Hoody from 3 years ago and it sill looks brand new and haven't lost any of its loft.


backpackinglight.com/cgi-bi…

heres a good video from a the now defunct respected retailer prolite ... shame they went out of business

note that RAB designed, as mentioned in the vid, choose to use lower fill powered down for better moisture resistance in certain areas

youtube.com/watch?v=J584Aqc…

my personal opinion is that high fill powered down eventually loses its loft with constant use and constant moisture ... and as there are few feathers to support it this is much more obvious than lower fill powers that have more feathers

my daily cragging jacket for the last few years is a 650 EU fill power mammut with a bomber shell ... i also have a 800 fill EB downlight which i wear daily .... the lower fill power has no noticeable loss of loft while the EB does, washing it helps but its not like it was 4 years ago

heres my partner wearing 3 poofays (including my mammut) on a cold day this winter



one big unknown is that these new DWR down MAY help with the loss of loft due to humidity, in other words keep 900 fill power 900 in the real outdoors ... there is no real published evidence i can find with this ... but thats one of the reasons patagucci claims to have used their DWR down

note that respected companies such as WM and crux, etc ... have not jumped on the DWR down bandwagon yet

the bottom line is that the outdoor clothing industry is so full of marketing half truths and snake oil that its hard to know whats really what ... one only has to see the media circus of WPB fabrics and breathability to understand this

now back to that old "knockoff" commodore 64 im using to post this

;)

Hydrox cookies were invented before Oreos!!