Need new sleeping setup

Alright, I have a green bag from an MSS sleep system on the way, plus I picked up a cheap academy mat. I have a hammock but I've never really used it so it may be put into use next time.
 
^ true enough- lots of humidity and it might very well be miserable

the new sol bivy is much more breathable than the other models, but it's relative- the other ones didn't breathe at all- these at least breathe some
 
I use a MSS. Each piece can be had new for round 50 each. There are lots of options though and lots of opinions just like knives! :) you NEED a ground pad for sure some sorta waterproof barrier between you and the ground. I recently bought a Snugpak Jungle blanket $34 on amazon its a great addition to my gear. Might be all I need in warmer weather 45-50 degrees. Coupled with the MSS patrol bag and a Pad I should be good to go all summer. We'll see. Check eBay just bought another Intermediate cold weather bag new still in packaging for $65 including shipping. Its rated for -10 but realistically on its own it more 10f to zero depending on your clothing. The MSS stuff is the best deal going. Down the road you can upgrade and/or add but at least this stuff gets you out there.
 
Awesome missed your post on the patrol bag good choice it should couple nice with your wool blanket. Chek out self inflating mats down the road. Last fall I bought an Ozark Trail Walmart self inflating mat. Love it. Lots of quality budget gear out there.
 
Here's a few things that may help.

There are very few companies that have sleeping bags actually rated properly and filled properly. These would be Western Mountaineering and Valandre (maybe MEC, though I'd argue about the fill placement). These are out of your price range, but it is still useful to check out since seeing these bags will give you a good visual of how much insulation you really need.

Here is a good conservative rule for understanding sleeping insulation (down): Take your room temperature sleeping comfort level and then add 1" of insulation for each 10* F drop. This would mean that if you sleep comfortably with just base layers/underwear and a sheet at 70F then you will need 3 inches of insulation (referred to as top and bottom loft, 1.5" each) at 40F, or 7 inches at 0F.

For wool you will need a little less loft, and for synthetic you will need a little more (to make up for almost immediate loss of loft after purchase).

Now, the big problem here is that you lose loft beneath you and heat through conduction (ex. the cold ground will sap the heat from you and is impossible for you to raise to comfortable body temperature during sleep hours), so you need to somehow maintain that 1.5" of bottom loft. This is about three of the common Thermarests (I use a Z-lite sol), or five of the cheap blue pads.

Obviously you won't carry this many pads, so you have to make a choice.
- Combine a closed-cell pad with an open-cell pad as the open-cell is much more compressible and comfortable while doubling your ground insulation.
- Use a wool blanket beneath you and above your ground insulation to trap heat.
- Make a bow/grass/leaf bed with a tarp overtop to insulate you from the ground and moisture (the tarp protects your gear from punctures).
- Get an air pad.

It is a little unclear because you are saying you use the wool blanket beneath you and a shemagh to cover up, and the temperature range is 40 to 90F. At 90F you want a thin sheet of material which will keep you cool. But it would be helpful to know what the temperature was when you were cold.

You may not sleep in the cold but learning about cold sleep systems is the best way to learn. Cold amplifies convection and conduction, the feeling of cold spots, reliance on head cover, and breathing stable air. You learn pretty quickly that covering cold spots - like your lower back - and your head can make a 30-70% difference in temperature.

From the picture you are relying on open cover, so you would be losing heat to convection as well. Most sleep systems are dependent upon having a closed shelter. Again, look at the Western Mountaineering temp ratings as they are one of the only companies with conservative ratings that will work in open shelters.

Simple head cover like a wool hat, wool scarf, and placement of your pack to block the wind can easily make a 10-20F difference. And at 40F you are getting into difficult territory for wool blankets as you would need 3-4 good quality ones to get the thickness required for 1.5" of top loft.

A wool blanket (or wool base layers), mummy bag, and bow bed may be the best bet for colder nights. You can get bags on sale that will still work for your budget, you just have to measure the amount of insulation to get an idea of the real temperature rating. And why wool? Because most people find synthetic materials feel cold - even though you are technically warm, the material may make you feel cold.

Hopefully there is some useful information in there. I know you're in different conditions. Good luck.
 
Last edited:
Chignecto Woodsman said:
Here's a few things that may help.

There are very few companies that have sleeping bags actually rated properly and filled properly. These would be Western Mountaineering and Valandre (maybe MEC, though I'd argue about the fill placement).
Click to expand...

I feel like pointing out that in order to make things clear for the customers and avoid brands bragging about the temperature ranges of their sleeping bags... in 2002 the norm EN 13537 was aproved. All the decent sleeping bag manufacturers stick to it in order to state the temperature ranges of their sleepping bags. At least now all of them are subject to the same TESTS under the same parameters. So you really know what are you buying.

I am not familiar with all US brands of gear that are not available across the pond, but here in Europe you can buy Mountain Equipment, RAB, NorthFace, Valandre, Marmot, Diamir, etc... and they all work great.

Mikel
 
I think they are supposed to be adopting those ratings here in Canada eventually. The thing I do not like is that none of the other manufacturers publish the loft for their bags. Fill weight doesn't matter as much, especially if you receive a bag short on loft. And for such an expensive piece of gear I wouldn't buy from anyone unless the loft is stated and guaranteed.

For example, you can look up some of the top competitors and see that they have lower rated bags, but with less fill weight than Western Mountaineering. It's possible in theory that they use less fill in less crucial areas of the bag, but there is no statement of loft, and thus no guarantee of temperature rating.

In other words, all those ratings are meaningless if you don't know the loft.
 
Maybe no one else cares about loft? once you know the fill weight and the rating of the feathers, its all sort of a guess anyway. Loft is also really subjective, how do you measure a squishy thing? At the end of the day, all of the bag ratings are just a guess. Humidity makes such a huge difference just on its own, that really, actual air temp is probably the least important factor! I've been out many times in conditions that were not "cold" but got absolutely frigid due to a combo of humidity, steady wind, and lack of indirect heat from the ground.

Bag feel is very subjective as well, although I think it has more to do with the lining, I have a north face bag that is really good, but the taffeta liner always feels a little cool. just adding a silk liner makes it far more comfortable, but the silk is not adding any real insulation. I have a very similar down bag from an australian company, and it feels very cool since it is very "floaty" if that makes sense, even though its rated well enough, any movement seems to pump the warm air out.

MEC has gone to the EN standard as far as I know.
 
Most people in the know care about loft, and over the years (or in poor conditions) it will let you know what your bag is rated at if you lose half an inch or so. It also lets the customer know that the bag was filled correctly and not just beefed up with marketing, or straight up scams with the manufacturer lightly filling in certain areas (a very common problem). Western Mountaineering is the industry standard for good reason (and have proven that ratings are not at all a guess). Experience with bags lets you know loft just by looking. Otherwise you can measure total height from the floor, measure the hood/areas next to zippers, or just press one hand down to another in the chest area.

It is true about humidity and wind, but experience and education allows one to know the real temperature. A high humidity, snowing, and windy day at -5C may be much colder than -20C without wind. However, the top bags will have weather resistant or weatherproof materials based on your needs. But in the end there is no real difference and it has no bearing on quality temp ratings. A top bag will keep you warm in -20 air temperature when it's dry or -10 when humid and blowing. Lower quality bags, or bags not designed with weather resistance, may not.

It is true about the material, and one of the reasons I prefer wool. If I sleep in my underwear or poly base layers my legs will be cold and my feet warm. But switch to a natural material, especially wool, and I feel warm again.

If by 'floaty' you mean it is extremely high loft with light outer materials, then it could be that it is not wind resistant material, or it has a poorly designed hood and closure system (or maybe a baffle system designed for moving the down around). If it is just the material then it may also be really breathable, which is good for he bag and resisting moisture buildup - you just have to used it in low-wind situations. That is also a drawback of the 850-900+ fill used now. It is so 'lofty' or 'floaty' that any moisture brings a lot of loft loss with it, as compared to lower rated goose down and duck down especially.

Otherwise you may be referring to the clumping together which could be due to moisture in the bag or poor design/quality. In any case this means cold spots which can make the temperature seem to be 10-15 degrees cooler than what it is through annoyance.
 
Can we please avoid blanket (pun intended) statements. While a lot of what you are saying is helpful, as soon as you use such sweeping statments, we end up in definitives, and that doesn't make it easier to discuss things.

The down bag I described is 600 fill, with an EN rating of comfort at 11C. Its baffled, and was not clumped, its just the way that bag feels. Its not a great bag, didn't pay that much for it, but it was more as an example of bag feel.

Loft is important, but its not the only factor to consider, and only comparing loft may mislead someone into thinking a certain bag will be better for them, when another bag would be more efficient. Insulation type, construction, shell, liner, and design play a large part. A cheap bag with lots of loft won't beat a bag with a draft tube. Lots of things to consider. With down you can do a direct comparison with fill power and weight, which most high end bags list, but we are not really talking high end bags. I won't dispute that Western mountaineering bags are great, but when they start at over 300USD, using them as an example is a little out of most people's league. And from a quick look a lot of cottage manufactures list loft heights, so there are people who do list it. As for why the big ones don't, I don't really know, probably because for most bags its not as good of an indicator considering the other factors.

As for bag manufactures cheating, I think that's more a case of guys who think they can handle the cold blaming the gear, rather than admit that they get cold. Mfgs only ever claim its an estimate anyway, and its up to the purchaser to know how many degrees on either side they need to be.
 
I don't think there is any sweeping statements in there, just truths. Look up what Mors Kochanski says about loft and clothing thickness. Look at what experienced cold weather trekkers say. While bag design plays a part, it is nowhere near as important as loft. The greatest design in the world will only make 1/4" or less top loft difference - or really, a difference in your response to cold (ex. cold spots).

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on perspective) you get what you pay for, and in any product there is a tier of makers who are well beyond anyone else. Be it cars, boots, or sleeping bags. I reference WM not to be a fanboy but because they are the very top of sleeping bags, and have been for 30 years or more.

And actually, if we want to discuss prices of three-season bags a -12C WM bag is actually only 10 dollars more than the most recognised name at -9C (which would perform poorly in comparison). The well-known brand has less fill, is heavier overall, colder, and poorly crafed materials. (Not to mention the hidden costs of buying Chinese products.)

While you can get cheap bags for about 200 dollars less (I'm talking Canadian dollars, 450 compared to 650) there would be a similar drop in quality. Some of these bags are quite good, don't get me wrong. But there will be some problems or glaring issues with them which a 200 dollar price difference should not make up for if you sleep a lot outside.

We will just have to agree to disagree.
 
gadgetgeek said:
Loft is important, but its not the only factor to consider, and only comparing loft may mislead someone into thinking a certain bag will be better for them, when another bag would be more efficient. Insulation type, construction, shell, liner, and design play a large part. A cheap bag with lots of loft won't beat a bag with a draft tube. Lots of things to consider. With down you can do a direct comparison with fill power and weight....
Click to expand...

Quite so.

I think there are so many variables involved in trying to determine how warm person X will be in bag X in instance X the more control we can can take over what we can measure the better. The fill power of the material and how much of it is in there are the two things I look at first, and then there is construction. I don't think I'd base a prediction on anything else I could measure.

Have you seen the PHD stuff? You can go bespoke with them if you like, but even off the shelf their gear kicks arse. You could have one of the K series, say a Hispar if you've got from £1092 [$1544 USD] to spend. 1000 fillpower down lets you know there is potential for something great, provided the rest of the bag is of a construction worthy of it. How often do you see a -58°C that weighs 1560g.

Sure the construction is important. That same company also makes a relatively pedestrian -32°C using that same 1000 fillpower down for about the same weight 1570g [55oz]. That clearly indicates that the construction of everything else about the bag can hobble the performance of the down.

But the elephant in the room is the down, the fillpower and how much of it. That's the thing to measure. You can build the rest of the bag as brilliantly as you like but if you haven't got that bit sorted out you just aren't a contender. The Western Mountaineering stuff you were discussing just can't keep up with that no matter how well the rest of the bag is made. Their 850 fillpower, good as it is, lags a long way behind the PHD, -58°C against -40°C, and is about 1lb heavier.

Anyway, think I'm adding to the derail. The OP really only needed a couple of small £10 bags from Argos or similar, one inside the other, to be miles better off warmth to weight for the same size than a woolly blanket. We're well into the weeds now so I'm going to shush.
 
baldtaco-II said:
How often do you see a -58°C that weighs 1560g.
Click to expand...

I will check into that bag just for kicks but I seriously doubt I would trust those ratings! A close friend of mine bought a North Face Inferno (used, rated to -40C) from a guy who was just getting rid of expedition gear. Trust me, that bag in the compresssion (?) bag was as bulky as my Rab Summit 700 (a -17ºC bag) in the storage bag!!! And it weights a lot (like 2000g).... So that 1560gr for -58C sounds quite optimistic!
 
True enough.

The thrust of my point was really that the best guide we have to these things is the fillpower and how much, and the ratings standard.

I am a skeptic by nature, so I am with you here. What I will say though is by everyone adopting those standards we can still retain a decent amount of control. Systematic error across all makers using those standards can be controlled for. Far better than just random poking and the elastic tape measure.
 
baldtaco-II said:
Quite so.

I think there are so many variables involved in trying to determine how warm person X will be in bag X in instance X the more control we can can take over what we can measure the better. The fill power of the material and how much of it is in there are the two things I look at first, and then there is construction. I don't think I'd base a prediction on anything else I could measure.

Have you seen the PHD stuff? You can go bespoke with them if you like, but even off the shelf their gear kicks arse. You could have one of the K series, say a Hispar if you've got from £1092 [$1544 USD] to spend. 1000 fillpower down lets you know there is potential for something great, provided the rest of the bag is of a construction worthy of it. How often do you see a -58°C that weighs 1560g.

Sure the construction is important. That same company also makes a relatively pedestrian -32°C using that same 1000 fillpower down for about the same weight 1570g [55oz]. That clearly indicates that the construction of everything else about the bag can hobble the performance of the down.

But the elephant in the room is the down, the fillpower and how much of it. That's the thing to measure. You can build the rest of the bag as brilliantly as you like but if you haven't got that bit sorted out you just aren't a contender. The Western Mountaineering stuff you were discussing just can't keep up with that no matter how well the rest of the bag is made. Their 850 fillpower, good as it is, lags a long way behind the PHD, -58°C against -40°C, and is about 1lb heavier.

Anyway, think I'm adding to the derail. The OP really only needed a couple of small £10 bags from Argos or similar, one inside the other, to be miles better off warmth to weight for the same size than a woolly blanket. We're well into the weeds now so I'm going to shush.
Click to expand...

This is a really silly post. Are you really saying that Western Mountaineering can't compare to a company that in all likelihood learned everything they know from Western Mountaineering (PHD started around 2000, a relatively new company)?

I'm sure PHD bags can be made well but to say that a bag only comes down to fillpower and fill weight is basically just reversing what I said while leaving a big coldspot in the logical conclusion. Why would it be that fillpower and fill weight are the most important thing in a bag? Because they give the bag loft!

That is the whole point, having a set loft is a further guarantee on the final product coming from fillpower and weight. The problem comes in that uncertain construction and fillpower will give uncertain loft.

A further problem, which you neglect to mention, is that higher fillpower equates to much more sensitive down. Fillpower is largely a marketing tool developed from lab testing. Companies use various techniques to separate down and extract as much loft as possible in dry conditions. The problem with 1000 fillpower, if there is such a thing, is that it is extremely sensitive to moisture and the bag would only retain its loft in ideal conditions and with ideal care.

What matters is the amount of loft within the bag, not the theoretical loft tested in the lab with a bunch of gadgets. In other words, the theoretical loft may not give in-bag results and may even be an excuse to underfill bags (reports of other top companies suggest they underfill their bags and do not attain the loft of WM or Valandre, I do not know about PHD but I would suspect that if they go by 1000-fill theory then the bag doesn't end with as much loft). WM have proven they have the best, or one of four of the best, systems for this, and are considered an industry standard for this reason. Western Mountaineering have even said that fillpower testing is an inflated system, that the same down being called 850+ today was simply 700 in the 1980s.

"What was 700 fill power 20 years ago is similar to 900 today," Peterson says. " The product didn't change, they just added to the testing. "

The article goes on;

Where many companies would be happy to slap a 900 label on the product to impress the consumer, WM will not buy into the inflated system. As they refuse to cut corners on the quality of down, neither will they mislead the customers with what they believe is over-rated fill power.

"We buy 900 but call it 850+, he notes."

Further, you are comparing a bag which costs nearly twice as much as the WM bag and uses ultralight construction vs. weatherproof material. Of course it's going to weight less. You would have to compare a custom WM bag to that bag, not random picks with completely different materials.

A quick search online will show people with both bags and saying the WM is better. I don't point that out because I care if one is slightly better or not, I am just pointing out that when dealing with top-end goods (with custom options) it is absurd to suggest that one is incomparable. It's like saying Nick's Boots are leaps and bounds ahead of Viberg, or that a BMW is incomparable with an Audi.

They are very similar quality bags, and your suggestion that 1000 fillpower makes the PHD better is misinformation. The 1000 fillpower is actually a mark against them if one cannot choose lower fillpower, because of the sensitivity to moisture.

To reiterate why loft is the most important. It makes a clear base from which an informed customer can select a bag, as per the system of loft/warmth I laid out. If I sleep comfortably at 80F with a sheet then I know that I need 4 inches of loft to sleep comfortably at 40F. Or if I sleep comfortably at 70F then I need 7 inches of loft at 0F. Or even the same bag for someone who sleeps comfortably at 60F but needs a bag for -10F. A published loft for a bag also shows to the customer that they got what they ordered, that it will take a certain amount of time after stuffing to achieve its published temperature rating, and how much temperature rating will be lost in damp conditions.

It says, very clearly, that 'We fill our bags to a standard representative of quality and temperature comfort, and stand by it.'

In the end it is loft that retains body heat. For three-season bags of 14F or so a bag needs nearly 6 inches of loft. There is simply no way that bag design will make up even 10 degrees difference (except in weather-resistant situations), and as such loft makes up at least 70% of the bag's warmth. While fillpower can make a difference in overall weight it is almost a non-factor in terms of temperature rating, or even a negative factor in long-term conditions. Fillpower does not make one warmer, it is the amount of loft which does that. Fillpower merely represents the quantity of down needed to attain loft in dry conditions.

What is worse is that relying on varying calculations of fill weight and fillpower is just simply too complex and uncertain, and in the end is a convoluted way of saying that a bag has so much loft. It is much easier, and much more honest in principle, to state how much loft the bag has.

Further, if we are to compare with different down types we know that 850-1000 goose down is not warmer than 550 duck down when there is the same loft. And if we change the equation to what might be called wet fillpower we know that in damp conditions the 850+ down may drop below the duck. The duck is more resistant to wet (and long-term damage) as it does not loft as much, it is just a little heavier but may keep one warmer since it retains better loft in the wet.

What is better in terms of bag dimensions, zipper placement, weight, etc. depends on individual circumstances. Loft cannot be a bespoke question though, as it is the single most important factor - it is the core to which all other components of the bag are attached to. The extras are additions which may enhance loft but never overcome it, much like handle material on a knife may enhance cutting ability but never compare to the importance of the cutting edge itself.

Edit: A really interesting comment on fillpower testing from someone in the UK industry:
"Having just written up the descriptions for Webtogs I think the Fill issue is partly explained by testing methods. WM use very conservative figures based on more naturally dried down without the protracted tumble dried then air blown system that produces higher loft test results for EU ratings."

This would explain why people don't get the loft they pay for, why so few companies publish their loft, and why so many have come to only believe the WM ratings.
 
Last edited:
Which is why anyone who deals in damp conditions still uses synthetics. (as an aside, my climashield apex stuff is almost as compressible as down, its great stuff.)

at the end of the day, there is just as much marketing hype to wade through by any customer regardless of brands, locations, or needs.
 
Chignecto Woodsman said:
This is a really silly post. Are you really saying that Western Mountaineering can't compare to a company that in all likelihood learned everything they know from Western Mountaineering (PHD started around 2000, a relatively new company)?

I'm sure PHD bags can be made well but to say that a bag only comes down to fillpower and fill weight is basically just reversing what I said while leaving a big coldspot in the logical conclusion. Why would it be that fillpower and fill weight are the most important thing in a bag? Because they give the bag loft!

That is the whole point, having a set loft is a further guarantee on the final product coming from fillpower and weight. The problem comes in that uncertain construction and fillpower will give uncertain loft.

A further problem, which you neglect to mention, is that higher fillpower equates to much more sensitive down. Fillpower is largely a marketing tool developed from lab testing. Companies use various techniques to separate down and extract as much loft as possible in dry conditions. The problem with 1000 fillpower, if there is such a thing, is that it is extremely sensitive to moisture and the bag would only retain its loft in ideal conditions and with ideal care.

What matters is the amount of loft within the bag, not the theoretical loft tested in the lab with a bunch of gadgets. In other words, the theoretical loft may not give in-bag results and may even be an excuse to underfill bags (reports of other top companies suggest they underfill their bags and do not attain the loft of WM or Valandre, I do not know about PHD but I would suspect that if they go by 1000-fill theory then the bag doesn't end with as much loft). WM have proven they have the best, or one of four of the best, systems for this, and are considered an industry standard for this reason. Western Mountaineering have even said that fillpower testing is an inflated system, that the same down being called 850+ today was simply 700 in the 1980s.

"What was 700 fill power 20 years ago is similar to 900 today," Peterson says. " The product didn't change, they just added to the testing. "

The article goes on;

Where many companies would be happy to slap a 900 label on the product to impress the consumer, WM will not buy into the inflated system. As they refuse to cut corners on the quality of down, neither will they mislead the customers with what they believe is over-rated fill power.

"We buy 900 but call it 850+, he notes."

Further, you are comparing a bag which costs nearly twice as much as the WM bag and uses ultralight construction vs. weatherproof material. Of course it's going to weight less. You would have to compare a custom WM bag to that bag, not random picks with completely different materials.

A quick search online will show people with both bags and saying the WM is better. I don't point that out because I care if one is slightly better or not, I am just pointing out that when dealing with top-end goods (with custom options) it is absurd to suggest that one is incomparable. It's like saying Nick's Boots are leaps and bounds ahead of Viberg, or that a BMW is incomparable with an Audi.

They are very similar quality bags, and your suggestion that 1000 fillpower makes the PHD better is misinformation. The 1000 fillpower is actually a mark against them if one cannot choose lower fillpower, because of the sensitivity to moisture.

To reiterate why loft is the most important. It makes a clear base from which an informed customer can select a bag, as per the system of loft/warmth I laid out. If I sleep comfortably at 80F with a sheet then I know that I need 4 inches of loft to sleep comfortably at 40F. Or if I sleep comfortably at 70F then I need 7 inches of loft at 0F. Or even the same bag for someone who sleeps comfortably at 60F but needs a bag for -10F. A published loft for a bag also shows to the customer that they got what they ordered, that it will take a certain amount of time after stuffing to achieve its published temperature rating, and how much temperature rating will be lost in damp conditions.

It says, very clearly, that 'We fill our bags to a standard representative of quality and temperature comfort, and stand by it.'

In the end it is loft that retains body heat. For three-season bags of 14F or so a bag needs nearly 6 inches of loft. There is simply no way that bag design will make up even 10 degrees difference (except in weather-resistant situations), and as such loft makes up at least 70% of the bag's warmth. While fillpower can make a difference in overall weight it is almost a non-factor in terms of temperature rating, or even a negative factor in long-term conditions. Fillpower does not make one warmer, it is the amount of loft which does that. Fillpower merely represents the quantity of down needed to attain loft in dry conditions.

What is worse is that relying on varying calculations of fill weight and fillpower is just simply too complex and uncertain, and in the end is a convoluted way of saying that a bag has so much loft. It is much easier, and much more honest in principle, to state how much loft the bag has.

Further, if we are to compare with different down types we know that 850-1000 goose down is not warmer than 550 duck down when there is the same loft. And if we change the equation to what might be called wet fillpower we know that in damp conditions the 850+ down may drop below the duck. The duck is more resistant to wet (and long-term damage) as it does not loft as much, it is just a little heavier but may keep one warmer since it retains better loft in the wet.

What is better in terms of bag dimensions, zipper placement, weight, etc. depends on individual circumstances. Loft cannot be a bespoke question though, as it is the single most important factor - it is the core to which all other components of the bag are attached to. The extras are additions which may enhance loft but never overcome it, much like handle material on a knife may enhance cutting ability but never compare to the importance of the cutting edge itself.

Edit: A really interesting comment on fillpower testing from someone in the UK industry:
"Having just written up the descriptions for Webtogs I think the Fill issue is partly explained by testing methods. WM use very conservative figures based on more naturally dried down without the protracted tumble dried then air blown system that produces higher loft test results for EU ratings."

This would explain why people don't get the loft they pay for, why so few companies publish their loft, and why so many have come to only believe the WM ratings.
Click to expand...


“This is a really silly post”.

I am fine with you believing that. In fact, the more wrong you are the more amused I am.

“Are you really saying that Western Mountaineering can't compare to a company that in all likelihood learned everything they know from Western Mountaineering (PHD started around 2000, a relatively new company)?”

I am saying that any company that uses an inferior quality down is at a disadvantage. Western Mountaineering in particular I have no issue with. If if had been them using the superior fillpower down to make superior bags I'd have been using them as an example the other way round.

It is better to focus on the point at issue, and despite any tendency to the contrary, really try to concentrate on that and not to trip on irrelevant distractions. We are talking about the properties of down and the potential they afford.

These are 1000, 900, and 800 fillpower downs.

2f5w9ejhpo71cr8l5q90.jpg


The one on the left has loads more potential than the one on the right. Even if the one on the left was used by Walmart and the one on the right by RAB, it is a fact.

And here it is being sorted

yc4kj34nw9b8ji9olhro.jpg


Tripping on the names is just the start of your mons of a post. It gets worse.

“...in all likelihood learned everything they know from Western Mountaineering”

Hyperbole or just dumb, I don't know. It's at least one of those.

“The problem comes in that uncertain construction and fillpower will give uncertain loft”.

FFS, concentrate!

“Sure the construction is important. That same company also makes a relatively pedestrian -32°C using that same 1000 fillpower down for about the same weight 1570g [55oz]. That clearly indicates that the construction of everything else about the bag can hobble the performance of the down.”

The absolute claim is that the better quality fillpower affords more potential.

“A further problem, which you neglect to mention, is that higher fillpower equates to much more sensitive down”.

Throwing out chaff flares with that aren't you. It is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. If I say my road bike tyres roll better than my Nobby Nics throwing in “but they'd be more sensitive to punctures”, whilst true is irrelevant. Please don't try that on me, it never works, and it makes for a tedious trudge. Worse, people set themselves up to take offence when they try that. I point out, often with less patience that I'm burning up here, what is wrong with that. And they see their arse, get all mardy, and blame me for pointing it out. Best just to leave those BS strategies out of conversation, innit.

The testing device used to determine fillpower across the industry is called a Lorch fillpower testing machine. I really don't give a hoot what Mors or Mears or bag maker X or you have to say about that. People make excuses why a CATRA machine is not appropriate for their knives, people make excuse why Hydrostatic Head Testing is not an appropriate way to measure the water resistance of their rain gear, and it's a fair bet that someone has an issue with the Lorch testing machine. Fine, good luck to them, they can go carry wool for all I care. I base my predictions on something else. Each to their own.

I don't see the point of anything else you wrote. There is nothing I can tell you without repeating myself.
 
Last edited:
"Straining at gnats" comes to mind. Sometimes just swallowing and moving on is the correct answer. Climashield and other modern synthetics are the cat's meow for most people in most applications.
 
Codger_64 said:
"Straining at gnats" comes to mind. Sometimes just swallowing and moving on is the correct answer. Climashield and other modern synthetics are the cat's meow for most people in most applications.
Click to expand...

I certainly agree with that here. I've had weeks of a very lame and disappointing winter. It would be great to break out all the down goodies for the size and weight benefits but wet and around freezing makes me reach for the synthetics. In many ways it is far tougher because of that than if it was just properly cold.

It's also why I mentioned the OP needing only a couple of cheap bags from Argos or the like. I've never been to Florida but I envisage warm and humid. I'd no sooner take a natural fibre for that than I would Jungle.
 
baldtaco-II said:
I certainly agree with that here. I've had weeks of a very lame and disappointing winter. It would be great to break out all the down goodies for the size and weight benefits but wet and around freezing makes me reach for the synthetics. In many ways it is far tougher because of that than if it was just properly cold.

It's also why I mentioned the OP needing only a couple of cheap bags from Argos or the like. I've never been to Florida but I envisage warm and humid. I'd no sooner take a natural fibre for that than I would Jungle.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Slumberjack is a good cheap bag for temprate weather but you can also get an older higher quality brand synthetic that is used and lost some loft from compressed storage on eBay. I picked up one, a Kelty, to augment my Cat's Meow as an overquilt and as a loaner summer bag. I think I gave less than $50 for it. And I hung it from a ceiling hook and beat it occasionally for a week, stored it hanging in a closet for a while. It regained at least 80% of it's loft which was good for my needs. I've even used it as a bed quilt in a house with poor heating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top