Are synthetic or down sleeping bags better damp?

I generally don't trust YouTube since it's basically all paid commercials but I want to see what you think about this:

https://youtu.be/j-6YlcSBi2A?si=YW_kMN9BLfOApfZY

Methods, conclusions, personal experience, etc

In the tests in the video I linked he claims his testing shows that:

1. The synthetic bag soaks up more water

2. The down bag preforms better in a freezer

How much water is contained within a wet textile primarily by capillary capacity, as a synthetic bags insulation doesn't collapse when immersed in water (as seen in the vid) there is simply more space for water to be held, when down gets soaked and collapses (or compresses) it's capability for water holding capillaries is removed.

 It's unknown what synthetic insulation or how much is added to that bag to make the bags "identical", is it the weight of the insulation? The TOG? Who knows. It would definitely make a big difference in the test. 

The down in the vid didn't really look like "standard" down and more resembled hydrophobic down. Concerns with down are generally less about liquid water and more about humidity, once the down is totally saturated it'll collapse under its own weight. It was pretty strange that he didn't wring the water out of the test samples it would have dramatically changed the results of the test and would better represent reality. 

As someone who was stuck in a white out with wet snow falling, near death, wearing down, my partner who wore synthetic was in better shape than me. On that trip I had a cheapo £20 synthetic sleeping bag carried me through, totally torrentially soaked, kept me warm, and I didn't die. I even had to wring it out several times. 

BITD the day synthetic vs down was clear because of the shell materials as well as the treatment of the insulation. Decades later both have improved. So not so clear any more - depending on the materials. 

The company that sponsored his video, looks like they do use dry treated down. So right on the money there Seb. This video reeks of being a commercial, and being misleading about the testing materials is a dirty trick.

If dry treated down is anything like dry treated ropes, that dry treatment won't last long with standard use.

I've always believed the common wisdom that down loses insulating properties simply because when I take a down garment out of the washing machine it is a sopping lump without any loft that takes a long time to dry. Anyone that has washed their down sleeping bag knows that it's possible to get down, even hydrophobic down, so wet that it's useless. 

Of course when I take synthetic garments out of the washing machine they are damp but still puffy, and dry quickly.

I've never experienced sopping wet down in the field, but that is because I've always been careful about avoiding down when conditions were very wet, or would keep it in a dry bag if there are potential river crossings. I think the point that the video raises is that even if a down garment is submerged, it will not get nearly as wet as a washing machine cycle and down can still stay effective even in extremely wet situations.

However I think a long trip in the rain may recreate the washing machine effect when the wet bag is stuffed into a sack multiple times.

In any case I think these videos illustrate that the old conventions have lots of caveats.

jesse punsalwrote:

If dry treated down is anything like dry treated ropes, that dry treatment won't last long with standard use.

Dry treated down will stay hydrophobic until you wash it, I think the best way to clean down garments is just to spot clean them. The second you put a technical garment into a washing machine you have no idea what the outcome will be, detergent build up inside the machine is just too common and will ruin any fancy coating you want to apply. 

Use a bucket when you want to reapply DWR and use a sponge to clean away dirt and scrub armpits.

I was going to start a mail order technical garment wash service but decided I didn't want to own a laundry shop. 

If you're looking for the 'all rounder' of sleeping systems, perhaps check out Andy Kirkpatrick's writing on the subject.

https://www.andy-kirkpatrick.com/articles/view/double_up

He has a few articles, albeit older, on down vs synthetic bags.  A good ole' internet search will find those easily enough.
The dude has been through enough alpine adventures to have earned a trustworthy opinion on the matter.

T Cwrote:

If you're looking for the 'all rounder' of sleeping systems, perhaps check out Andy Kirkpatrick's writing on the subject.

https://www.andy-kirkpatrick.com/articles/view/double_up

He has a few articles, albeit older, on down vs synthetic bags.  A good ole' internet search will find those easily enough.
The dude has been through enough alpine adventures to have earned a trustworthy opinion on the matter.

From the article:

"they don’t have seasons in California"

lol

Thanks for all your input on this. It's interesting to see that with development of new materials the adage that synthetic good and down bad for damp conditions, is not always true anymore.

But the 'This Changes EVERYTHING' headline and the methods used to test in the video I initially posted are questionable at best and blatantly misleading at worst.

Backpack rain test: what were the sizes of the sleeping bags in the backpack rain test? How was the amount of material accounted for the differences in water absorbed? How were different amount of compressions compensated for?
Down is not "naturally hydrophobic" as claimed in the video. The outer feathers of birds are hydrophobic to protect the down from getting wet because down will lose it's insulating properties. This chemically treated down is hydrophobic but just like a hard shell will lose it's hydrophobic outer coating over time, potentially so will these treated down feathers.
The test with the jars: shows no quantifiable measures. Seems to be included to throw as much information at the viewer as possible making it harder to 'debunk'.
Freezer test: 3 parts water to 1 part insulation by weight means that there is significantly more down to water than synthetic insulation to water (remember down is lighter than synthetic). So this test just shows that a thicker more insulated wet bag will insulate more than a thinner less insulated wet bag.
Sleeping outside with a wet bag: entirely anecdotal

This video feels like flash, awe, and bait with no real substance. Sure, treated down has interesting properties and can outperform synthetic insulation in some situations, but he is wrapping it up in clickable headline with questionable experimental methods to get views and traffic to his sponsors.

I appreciate seeing that Andy Kirkpatrick wrote an article on sleeping bags, I read a lot of his writing before but haven't seen that one. I wish it was more up-to-date as a lot has changed in the 17 years since the article was published. However, the article has a lot of great content to this day.

If you want to read more on this subject in a relevant way, delve into the backpacking light forums, and if really interested buy a subscription. They have a guy(can't remember his name), he does some really quite decent lab style testing of insulated and wind resistant garments(and waterproofs?). Stuff like moisture vapour transmission rate, CFM, and insulation value of wet and dry garments. 

If you don't want to go down that rabbit hole...

 Continuous filament insulation performs significantly better in the wet than staple fibre synthetic insulation(20%?30%? can't remember exact numbers). This is a good bit of information to have as you can generally find out what kind of construction the insulation is before you buy it and you can decide which is more important to you, pack size or warmth when wet.