Arc'teryx Question

Hey guys, I've got a question in regards to Arc'teryx Alpha jackets. It's come time to replace my hardshell and upgrade but with some hikes planned out in the coming years I've got to decide on which to grab. 

Looking at a chunk of the seven summits as my targeted use. Currently I'm between the Alpha SV and the AR. My confusion however starts when others who have climbed Denali and Aca for example say you don't need much for a shell, while others claim the SV was built for expedition use such as the Seven Summits. 

Spending the coin on an investment isn't a problem , inefficient gear is. I know I shouldn't be trying to find the one jacket to rule them all but I also don't want a closet full of unique situation jackets -- trying to do better for environmental reasons. 

Thanks in advance for the help guys, I appreciate it!

Bryan

Bryan Swrote:

My confusion however starts when others who have climbed Denali and Aca for example say you don't need much for a shell, while others claim the SV was built for expedition use such as the Seven Summits. 

One is experience, one is marketing. 

Piolet D'Or sans Gore-Tex: 

https://youtu.be/DoACZH2N9gE?t=128

Thanks for the video link, I actually like seeing what others take or have taken on the trips just to see what others are using. 

As for him using the Houdini , I'd be skeptical just because of how lightweight it is. Having something tear or outright fail could bring things to a halt. 

Is this a joke?  

No, it's not a joke. Simply curious as to what people are using or recommend. The current jacket I'm replacing is part of my PCU set from military cold weather gear. It is made by Patagonia and is the level 5 jacket (softshell). It's worked for me in quite a few environments all over the place but since I need to replace it thought I'd see what my options are. 

But no, this isn't a joke. 

Bryan Swrote:

As for him using the Houdini , I'd be skeptical just because of how lightweight it is. Having something tear or outright fail could bring things to a halt. 

We're going back to marketing VS experience. What is the basis of your skepticism? One of the best alpinists of his generation just told you a windshirt is fine. Who told you an Alpha SV was a good idea? 

You can get something a little burlier than a Houdini if it makes you feel better but there are more Alpha SVs at coffee shops than in the mountains. They are too heavy and bulky to be practical climbing tools. People buy them to show off around town. 

House is talking about high-altitude clothing where rain is not an issue. This would be the case for some of the 7 summits, I don't know about all of them, and one has to think weather during approaches too, yes?  A goretex shell makes sense if there is a chance of getting drenched.  Here's the very same House grabbing one for overnight alpine climbing.

I have an Arcteryx Alpha FL, which has been fantastic for me on a range of alpine rock climbs, and is by far the best jacket of this type I've ever owned (and a good thing too, considering the $$).  If memory serves, it has yet to make it to a coffee shop though.

rgoldwrote:

House is talking about high-altitude clothing where rain is not an issue. This would be the case for some of the 7 summits, I don't know about all of them, and one has to think weather during approaches too, yes?  A goretex shell makes sense if there is a chance of getting drenched.  Here's the very same House grabbing one for overnight alpine climbing.

There is no Gore-Tex shell in that video. The M10 is (was) pretty good, maybe Patagonia get more input from climbers. Simple and reasonably lightweight. It is my favorite hardshell when I have to take one. I've not seen a 3L GTX that light or packable.

Personally I think the Alpha FL is still relatively heavy/bulky for climbing (where it spends most of its time in the bottom of the pack). I only managed to put a hole in mine skiing trees. But it's a good shell.

I don't disagree that one should own a light waterproof shell, but both of these are a far cry from the Alpha SV.

Anything 3L and sufficiently burly will do. If you want it to be all-round don't go superlightweight but don't go overboard either. Your jacket will spend most of its time in your pack. If I'd have to choose a jacket from the Arc line-up I'd go for an Alpha AR. I've owned an FL but I missed a second chest pocket.

The SV imho really is a skimo jacket. They should market it as such. 

jdejacewrote:

Personally I think the Alpha FL is still relatively heavy/bulky for climbing (where it spends most of its time in the bottom of the pack). I only managed to put a hole in mine skiing trees. But it's a good shell.

If you're talking climbing then I'd agree with you. If you're discussing alpinism then those couple of grams extra add a lot more durability and protection to a jacket. 

Thank you for the replies. I was originally siding with the Alpha AR, but had brought in the SV to see if it was an option, especially since the end of season sales. 

I still like the AR for the pit zips and reinforcement in shoulders for wearing a pack. The difference is about $60 right now between the FL and AR, weight difference is only a few ounces. 

Seeing everyone praise the Houdini though brings up a different question. Would a Alpha FL and Houdini be a better combination in the pack, allowing 3L Gore for approach then switch to Houdini in the higher altitudes / summit push. That combination comes out to almost the same cost and weight as an AR, but gives more options. 

Thank you for the suggestions

What does your guide service have to say about it?  Maybe ask them as well.  

Bryan, you seem genuine, but I think there is more complexity to this than you're realizing.

It seems like you've basically asked what hardshell jacket is best for mountain climbing.  The problem is this is such a vague question, you are never going to get any kind of reasonable consensus answer.  People have different personal opinions, and then you look at people climbing in different regions, seasons, types of routes, experience levels, and you're going to get answers that vary so widely that they are not going to be very helpful.  It's sort of like asking "what is the best vehicle to get me to work."  Well, the right answer could be anything from an electric motorcycle to a dually pickup.

So, I'd recommend talking much more specifically about what you want to do, and what you want out of this hardshell.  And, on that note, I wanted to provide a bit more feedback on something else you said:

Looking at a chunk of the seven summits as my targeted use. ... I know I shouldn't be trying to find the one jacket to rule them all but I also don't want a closet full of unique situation jackets -- trying to do better for environmental reasons. 

The seven summits are an extremely diverse set of peaks (in terms of geography, weather, difficulty, duration, etc.), and the only real thing that they have in common is the arbitrary measure of having high(est) altitudes on arbitrarily defined land masses.  Due to this huge diversity, the idea of buying one jacket (or one set of boots, or one pack, or really one anything) for all of them is kinda unlikely.  You do not need (or want) the same equipment on Kilimanjaro that you want on Denali (and you probably want different equipment for all your local/training climbing than you would want for either of these peaks).  That would be like trying to buy one pair of shoes for job interviews, running, and construction.  It's great that you're thinking about environmental impact, but don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.  Doing the seven summits (or even a few of them) requires MASSIVE energy consumption, in terms of transatlantic flights, huge logistics support, a large amount of supporting people, etc.; one or two jackets simply is a drop in the bucket compared to that.  I'm not trying to judge what you do or don't do with your life and resources, if you want to do the seven summits by all means go for it, but I think you should be realistic about where the real impacts are.

In an attempt to provide some more direct information, with the caveats above covered, most people would be best served by a lightweight 3L hardshell.  Many companies make great jackets in this class, you do not need to limit your search to Arcteryx (and, frankly, the fact that you are doing so and also mentioning the seven summits is a bit of a red flag), but the Alpha FL would fall into this category.  However, so would the OR Interstellar, Rab Muztag, and a bunch of other great jackets from Mammut, Patagonia, Noronna, Mountain Equipment, and many other brands.  You won't want or need this jacket for every day you go out into the mountains; frankly, my lightweight hardshell spends most of its time in my closet.  However, if a random person needs to buy a waterproof jacket for an unknown/random/generic climb, this would be my suggestion.

Jon - My company for Kili wanted a goretex hardshell. My buddy who did Aca in December wanted him to have a goretex hardshell as well. Just skimming around the internet for suggestions with other companies and the suggestions have been a lightweight goretex hardshell as well. 

Kyle - I definitely understand there isn't a "best" jacket out there but buying several is what I'd like to avoid if possible. I personally have had the best experience in Arc'teryx, but still own several things from other companies such as OR, Patagonia, and Norrona. While I was in South America hiking around I used a BD jacket for wind and rain protection and while it worked I was always worried about it tearing with how fragile it felt.

As for use, yes I've got my eyes on more hiking / Alpine stuff but general use for random hikes aren't out of the possibility. My current region doesn't see cold, winds aren't anything special but when it rains it can flood. I'd like pit zips because I have never come across rain gear that breathes in any material (laminate, Gore or any other type).  The hood also needs to accommodate a helmet. Length also needs to stay below a harness for when I'm using one. I do favor Arc'teryx but I've come to like Norrona, and some Patagonia stuff. 

I have the SV - and its a great jacket, but honestly it's way too burly for anything i do. I think it is really more geared towards guides and people who work outside for a living in conditions that warrant having such a durable hard shell. It is just too much jacket for what most people do, even recreational. If you need to have Arc and 3 layer i would go for the FL or AR. Otherwise take a look at some other companies, RAB and Patagonia come to mind, Marmot just also released some new 3L alpine jackets too you should take a look at. 

Kyle Tarry nailed it.  I've owned a few Alpha FL's over the years and for me, they're the perfect hardshell for steep ice in cold climates.  I've never been above 12K feet, so I have no experience at altitude, but I have hiked many a winter peaks, backcountry skied many miles and climbed many pitches of WI 4 and 5's while wearing or hauling an Alpha FL, and I've never needed anything "burlier."  

I'd add that the most recent iterations of Gore Pro 3L are breathable enough for winter climbing, but not touring or hiking uphill, etc. Gore has a new line of Gore Pro hitting the shelves in the next few months, so I'm not referring to those textiles.

The Alpha FL packs down much better and weighs much less than an SV, especially.  My only criticism for the FL is the short front hem.  Arc'teryx cuts the front hem higher on the Alpha line and it's very annoying, IMHO.

jdejacewrote:

There is no Gore-Tex shell in that video. The M10 is (was) pretty good, maybe Patagonia get more input from climbers. Simple and reasonably lightweight. It is my favorite hardshell when I have to take one. I've not seen a 3L GTX that light or packable.

Personally I think the Alpha FL is still relatively heavy/bulky for climbing (where it spends most of its time in the bottom of the pack). I only managed to put a hole in mine skiing trees. But it's a good shell.

I don't disagree that one should own a light waterproof shell, but both of these are a far cry from the Alpha SV.

I'm going to second the M10. Rain or shine, a bit heavier than a houdini (not by much) and waterproof. Pretty versatile.

I've worked with Patagonia as an employee and as an a photographer for a few years and the M10 is hands down my favorite.

Two downsides. It's discontinued (though I bought a brand new one last week on the forums), and it's a little limiting with layering as it's only a 3/4 zip.

For alpine I m definitely going for a light option, for example, my Rab Flashpoint as been brilliant, over the past 3 years, from ski touring to mountaineering to ice climbing. 

I don't think you need more than that. Arcteryx Alpha SV is definitely more of a show-off piece than anything else, but could be a very fancy option for freeriders

If you want to stay with Arc maybe the Alpha FL is a good option even if its on the heavier side. 

If you're set on Arc'teryx, here's another vote that Alpha FL is the most versatile shell out of the 3.  I've own all of them and would say I use the FL the most.  It packs down small, good wind resistance, and pretty darn good in the rain.  On Denali I did use an SV and am glad I did.  It is more wind resistant and warmer and has a better hood than the other 2. On Aconcagua, the FL on the summit was just fine.  

I really like the SV in the winter for skiing, alpine/ice climbing because of it's tear resistance, less prone to get wet from dripping ice, wind resistance mentioned above, and more pockets.  I could see using it on Everest but that's about it for the 7 summits.  

Like others have said, there are many other shells to explore out there that offer the same capability.  I went with Arc mostly because I liked how it fit.     

Consider weight. Alpha FL is 11oz and super bomber