No more fleece.

[sodak]

I've never liked wool, but always liked fleece. It is more comfortable, and warmer (for me).

 

[runningboar]

The best thing the Army has ever issued me is my polartech jacket, I will never be without a quality fleece jacket again. IMO nothing beats it for layering and comfort. Chris

 

[OwenM]

I don't know if this applies to anyone else, but I wear my fleece stuff regularly, along with wearing it in the woods. I don't know if that would be true of wool.
As far as how good fleece is...it depends. I don't doubt the cheap stuff wears out quicker, and I've had problems mainly with the zippers on cheap stuff, but I've had good luck with a couple of quality fleece pullovers.
One is a Woolrich with 7-8 years of regular wear in fall, winter and spring+numerous camping trips, since I was into it until the last couple of years. Not a loose thread, and still looks brand new. Makes me look like a upside-down mushroom since it's cut way too wide in the body, but it sure is comfortable.
I've got another fleece pullover that I bought maybe 12 years ago. It was $65(St. John's Bay "heavyweight", got it at JC Penneys), and I remember thinking that it was awfully expensive compared to some of the others that I was looking at, but I liked the fit, feel, etc. and bought it. It has probably gotten more wear than any other garment since I bought it, since I use it in place of a jacket throughout cooler weather, and wash it weekly. The only visible wear is at the cuffs which are becoming threadbare in spots.
I'm not stuck on fleece, and I do think a good wool sweater is warmer(though not as comfortable), but I don't have a problem with it, either, as long as it's of good quality construction.

btw, I gave my godson a TNF Khumbu fleece jacket for his 6th birthday last week. It had rave reviews online from parents, etc. I got it big enough that he can wear it next year, and then I plan to give it to my neighbor's son when he outgrows it. I was very impressed with the way it's built-better than my stuff that has lasted for years, IMO.

 

[Tuk]

I use my Windstopper fleece in summer, spring and autumn as rain jacket, but when it really get's cold i always use wool, it may not be warmer per weight but it does'nt melt or burn and keeps me warm also when wet.
And it does'nt smell!

 

[Trout Tamer]

While it may be true that fleece is warmer than wool per ounce, how often have you seen a 2 pound fleece sweater? IMO, wool is warmer than fleece. It is, however, also heavier.

I like to have a waterproof/windproof layer over everything when it's windy or wet. When it's really cold, though, give me well-made wool insteawd of fleece, please

 

[Thomas Linton]

While it may be true that fleece is warmer than wool per ounce, how often have you seen a 2 pound fleece sweater? IMO, wool is warmer than fleece. It is, however, also heavier.

How about a three pound wooden sweater?

Greater weight does not necessarily equal greater insulation.

Given a wind barrier, greater volume of air trapped in small spaces by a non-conductive material (wood, wool, fleece) = greater insulation.

So "spend" your two pounds on two pounds of fleece and you have greater insulation -- that absorbs less moisture and dries quicker - than two pounds of wool -- or wood.

 

[Trout Tamer]

Greater weight does not necessarily equal greater insulation.

Given a wind barrier, greater volume of air trapped in small spaces by a non-conductive material (wood, wool, fleece) = greater insulation.

Exactly my point, albeit from the other angle. What I was wanting to say is this: a fleece sweater that's .25 inches thick will weigh X. A wool sweater of the same thickness will weigh approximately 2X. Based on the prior definition of insulating capability, the wool sweater, while being the same "size"/thickness, will actually insulate better than the fleece. The fleece's insulating ability is compared in terms of weight, never in terms of thickness. If the fleece sweater were made to insulate as well as the wool sweater, it would have to be nearly twice as thick as the wool sweater.

I was attempting to point out that fleece's insulation properties, when compared to wool, are always stated in a weight-to-insulation ratio. That is not the only way to look at the issue, though, which is what I wanted to convey. If we go merely by those parameters, we could safely say that a wool garment that is about 40% thinner than a comparable fleece garment will have the same insulation properties.

Am I conveying what I hope I am?

 

[GibsonFan]

I'll never trade my wool socks for synthetic though.
-Bob

Me neither, I like a thin polypro sock on first (because my feet sweat like MAD) and then a nice old-fashioned thick wool sock. I try to keep enough on hand so I always have a clean dry pair while another dries out, if need be. I consider it a luxury item that's well worth the weight. Actually, socks take up more space than they add weight, but regardless, it's worth it to me. Then again, I keep an extra stocking hat tucked away somewhere, too

I don't think of fleece as an outer layer in rainy or snowy weather. But I've used it with great comfort as a layer underneath, even cheapo sweatshirts.

BTW what Trout Tamer said about comparing wool to fleece based soley on weight is true; it's kind of apples and oranges. Besides, a few ounces either way won't keep me from using something that works. Maybe these guys who count every gram are just weaklings?

 

[Casares]

I did a canoe tip in New Zealand a few years ago and we got really wet the first day, all wearing cotton shirts.... !!

Day 2 we all ditched the cotton shirts and T shirts.... and some of us cut the sleeves off the fleeces we had and wore them next to the skin. This worked very well, even when you got tipped into the water and got wet.... just wring out the fleece and put it on again. Some guys had old woollen pullovers that also worked very well worn next to the skin - including the local guides we had with us.

This is what we did for 5 days and nights.

When I left NZ for home, I bought 2 excellent wollen outdoor shirts made by Icebreaker......... these are pure Merino wool and are very comfortable.

They are very good at keeping you cool as well as warm and do not smell of sweat, even if you wear them for a long time.

There are only two problems with these shirts :

1. they are not cheap - a basic mid-layer costs the equivalent of about 50 USD

2. the moths really love to eat them......... you have to make sure they are stored in a well-ventilated place, and use lavender or moth balls or something to stop lots of little holes appearing in them.



Icebreaker web site :

http://www.icebreaker.com/site/home.html

 

[Thomas Linton]

Exactly my point, albeit from the other angle. What I was wanting to say is this: a fleece sweater that's .25 inches thick will weigh X. A wool sweater of the same thickness will weigh approximately 2X. Based on the prior definition of insulating capability, the wool sweater, while being the same "size"/thickness, will actually insulate better than the fleece. The fleece's insulating ability is compared in terms of weight, never in terms of thickness. If the fleece sweater were made to insulate as well as the wool sweater, it would have to be nearly twice as thick as the wool sweater.

I was attempting to point out that fleece's insulation properties, when compared to wool, are always stated in a weight-to-insulation ratio. That is not the only way to look at the issue, though, which is what I wanted to convey. If we go merely by those parameters, we could safely say that a wool garment that is about 40% thinner than a comparable fleece garment will have the same insulation properties.

Am I conveying what I hope I am?

Very clear. Not correct as I understand the science.

Apart from design issues (such as hoods, wind flaps over zippers, draw cords), it is the volume of "dead" air trapped around the heat source (here, you), that produces the relative insulation value.

The most practical way to measure that volume of trapped air for a garment (such as coats, sweaters, sleeping bags) is thickness. The same approach is used in housing insulation (measured in "R Value").

If both insulation materials trap the same amount of dead air, all you get for 2x weight is 2x weight. Thus 1" of dry down is no less insulating than 1" of "boiled wool" or wool felt.

In fact, if the greater weight of insulation is accounted for by there being less air trapped than in the lighter material because more of the thickness is taken up by the structural material (polyester, wool, cellulose) (Thick of solid wood vs. blowable cellulose insulation.), you get less insulative value.
(This is the reason for engineering hollow polyester fibers -- more trapped air.)

The limiting factor in replacing structural material with air is that there must be enough material in the structure to produce small spaces. If the trapped air is in pockets .5" or larger, convection current set up, and the air is no longer "dead" (still). The spaces are cerainly small enough in fleece or in wool.

Fleece is touted in terms of weight because that is one of its several advantages over wool -- warmth to weight ratio.

Wool has an advantage over fleece in terms of resistance to embers as noted above. It also has an advantage over cellulose (used as home insulation) or down in terms of retaining part of its insulative value when damp.

Wool can also be produced to be more wind-resistant than fleece, but fleece can be simply enclosed inside a wind-barrier

Fleece, when damp, being hydrophobic, retains more insulative value than damp wool.

There are, of course, relatively newer polyester insulations (example "Thinsulate") that are said to magically accomplish greater insulation than that air they trap would normally create. I notice that their use seems to be limited to gloves and boot sides and tops. Jackets and sleeping bags were once made of such materials, but did not succeed. Instead, newer "down-like" polyesters have emerged to dominate the "quilted" garment market.

 

[Ebbtide]

What is the cost per year over the 30 years?
A. for the Filson
B. for however many fleeces (fleeci?) that you think you'd need over 30 years?

Personally I like both, but am wary of fleece near the campfire.
I won't think twice about the fleece when I'm out and about, but I'm more prone to worry/take care of my wool garments.

Surf fishing last weekend had my fleece on/off/wet/dry/crumbled in the trunk/etc.
I wouldn't think of doing that with a good wool sweater or my wool coat.
YMMV.

I don't see it as an either or question but more of using the right tool for the situation.
(even though that drives some folks nutz)

 

[Trout Tamer]

To THomas Linton: you drive a hard bargain, Grasshopper You're causing me to re-think my understanding of insulative materials, which is a good thing.

If both insulation materials trap the same amount of dead air, all you get for 2x weight is 2x weight. Thus 1" of dry down is no less insulating than 1" of "boiled wool" or wool felt.

This is the crux of the matter, as I see it. Not all materials of like thickness trap the same amount of dead air. You are right that small, open spaces within insulation material are the reason for any given material's R Value. To go off of your previous example, from my understanding and reading, 1" of down actually is a greater insulator than 1" of wool, due to the down's myriad small air pockets.

I know that fleece is a good insulator, but I also know that I have wool sweaters that hold in more body heat than do my fleece sweaters of the same thickness. Therefore, my experience has led me to believe that wool traps a greater amount of body heat than does fleece; at least, the fleece that I own. This is anecdotal instead of empirical, but it's proven to be true for my winter outings Of course, there are extenuating factors that must be accounted for, including wool type & fleece type, manner of threading the wool yarn, and amount of space between wool and fleece threads (thread density/count).

This has been an informative and interesting discussion. I suppose the crux of what I believe concerning wool vs. fleece is that wool has a greater R Value than fleece of the same thickness. This statement is based on my own experience and may fly in the face of current scientific reasoning on fleece.

 

[HoB]

In fact, if the greater weight of insulation is accounted for by there being less air trapped than in the lighter material because more of the thickness is taken up by the structural material (polyester, wool, cellulose) (Thick of solid wood vs. blowable cellulose insulation.), you get less insulative value.
(This is the reason for engineering hollow polyester fibers -- more trapped air.)

That is incorrect in this generality. Insulation is all about limiting heat transfer. Ideally, you would evacuate a space, wouldn't have to be thick and since nothing conducts nothing, you have ideal insulation. If you fill it with air the air will conduct. Even though air has little mass, so it can transport only very little heat per volume, it travels VERY fast, so it carries small quanta very quickly through your insulating space which stops being an insulator. There are many materials that have a lower heat conductance than air. You can use these material and fill the space completely and densely and get much better insulation than with an air pocket (the activated carbon filled Stanley's thermosbottle comes to mind). However, the purpose of many insulations is simply to "slow down" the air in the insulation space. By dividing the total space into smaller pockets limits the "mean free path" of the air particles and now it can still carry only very small quantities of heat and does so very slowly now, which equates to a good insulator. Foam and snow are examples of this. So you have to look very closely at the material you are talking about. But in general a material has a certain heat conductance per weight, the more material (weight) you have the more it conducts. So you have to do the math. Air conducts actually fairly well,...but it is very light (no mass to transport the heat). Teflon is pretty heavy, but an excellent insulator and so are certain ceramics and glass.

But this is all way too technical. Interesting though is, that wool fiber is actually a high tech material and we still haven't come up with a synthetic that can beat wool at its strong suits. Unlike cotton, wool naturally curls up, creating volume and it does not straighten when wet. Polyester can not do that, it has to be curled in the process which is difficult and not nearly as efficient as wool does naturally. Also wool-fiber has a surface structure (scales) that naturally sheds water better than most synthetic fibers. The water is retained in the network, not on the individual fiber. A very nifty trick that polyester still hasn't learned. Wool is just like wood a natural high tech material. Wood is a natural occuring fibercomposite, strong enough to make airplanes and ships out of. A scientist would have a hard time coming up with a full replacement for wood. Same with wool. We've been getting pretty close in the last 20 years or so, but nature can still teach us a few tricks.

On a side note: In principle, polypropylene is actually far superoir to polyester on multiple accounts, yet it sees fairly little use in clothing....but again there are some engineering difficulties and the nasty habit of PP to retain body odor and not to let go of it in the laundry .

 

[Thomas Linton]

What is the cost per year over the 30 years?
A. for the Filson
B. for however many fleeces (fleeci?) that you think you'd need over 30 years?
. . .

Polyester having significantly greater tensile strength and abrasion resistance than wool, the question should be, "How many wool garments to outlast a polyester fleece garment of apx. same quality?"

I have a fleece jacket that just had its 23rd "birthday." It's a Patagonia, and back then there were few choices (They were very expensive.). There is no appreciable wear at any part of the jacket.

Since the Malden Mills patent ran out, pill-resistane fleece can be had under $20.00, but I'd check the zipper and other construction before expecting the bottom-buck garments to last.

Filson is, of course, VERY high quality. Mine is 32 and going strong except at the very edge of the cuffs. :thumbup:

Polyester fleece is showing up in good numbers at Goodwill, etc. because the garments are outgrown or have lost their alure.

 

[hwyhobo]

In the field fleece is lighter, at least as warm as wool, and much easier to care for. Also, unless you buy top quality wool, it can be quite unpleasant directly against your skin, therefore cost difference is also significant. On top of that, polyester/modal maintains its elasticity much better. That is critical for long hikes. For me it's a no-brainer. When I hike, the only natural fibers are in my socks (wool + polyester). Also, my boots have leather uppers. That's it.

 

[Thomas Linton]

That is incorrect in this generality.

Sure, but we were talking about garments. Argon-filled thermal windows are the berries, but until argon-filled sweaters are at Target, I'll stick to wool and polyester fleece. Until then, the dead air is the thing.

But this is all way too technical. Interesting though is, that wool fiber is actually a high tech material and we still haven't come up with a synthetic that can beat wool at its strong suits.

If we are talking about insulative value, I disagree for the reasons stated above. Wool industry spin to the contrary notwithstanding, wool simply does not deal with moisture as well as polyester fleece and has less dead air per weight than polyester fleece. Not to mention price, durability, and washability. Cost is also likely an edge for polyester.

Unlike cotton, wool naturally curls up, creating volume and it does not straighten when wet. Polyester can not do that, it has to be curled in the process which is difficult and not nearly as efficient as wool does naturally.

Speaking of polyester fleece, texturizing it may be "difficult" in the sense that it is part of the process of producing the fiber, but the process has been in place for decades. As for "efficient," fleece has a higher insulative value for the weight than wool. In what sense is wool more "efficient"? Less use of oil?

Wood is a natural occuring fibercomposite, strong enough to make airplanes and ships out of. A scientist would have a hard time coming up with a full replacement for wood.

Good stuff, but cellulose makes prety cheesy fibers for garments (acetate). (We may have to get back on that problem when the oil runs out.) Then there are vampire termites.

On a side note: In principle, polypropylene is actually far superoir to polyester on multiple accounts, yet it sees fairly little use in clothing....but again there are some engineering difficulties and the nasty habit of PP to retain body odor and not to let go of it in the laundry .

Polypro fleece appeared on the market (Helly was the biggest brand) as the lastest "Big Thing." It didn't pill up like the early polyester fleeces. Then pretty much went away. I know from experience that there were problems with the seams coming apart even with the Helly stuff, and Helly was (and is?) a good company. Great for diaper liners in the non-fleece configuration since even more hydrophibic than polyester, but then "disposables" came along to fill the dumps and clog the toilets in motels.

 

[ohoisin]

yeah I had a wool felt sleeping back as a kid it was warm as toast even in -30 degree weather.

 

[runningboar]

yeah I had a wool felt sleeping back as a kid it was warm as toast even in -30 degree weather.

Are you serious, -30?

 

[ohoisin]

yep, -30 in a cloth tent 3/4 buried in the snow, lined from the groud up with hay, I was in quilted thermal undies slept well, but forgot to dry my boots and put them in the bag with me, spent my next day at polar bear camp by the fire thawing my boots. (I had to run tru 3 feet of snow to the truck in sock feet to go back to the lodge. All in all a lot of fun for a 12 year old What was not fun was taking a crap that night in an outhouse, though wood doesnot get as cold as some other mediums for seating.

 

[TLM]

Sure, but we were talking about garments. Argon-filled thermal windows are the berries, but until argon-filled sweaters are at Target, I'll stick to wool and polyester fleece. Until then, the dead air is the thing.

Dead air is good, the smaller the open size the better, 2 mm dia convection cells have been measured. But the other side is that the solid matter conducts heat, the more there is the more heat goes that way. Down occupies a lot of space with very little mass and has lots of micro fibrils to deaden the air. Two reasons for good heat insulation, I once tried reflective mylar sheats in clothing and they worked great until they always ripped apart, most space blankets tear easily.

TLM