Fun discussion but I don't think you're going to come to any decent conclusion by looking at the narrow band. In the narrow band; walking the dog, spending a day hunting, casually hill strolling or car camping, you could argue the case that a plain cotton T, a cotton shirt, and two cotton jumpers under a set of oilskins and a pair of Wellingtons are the most comfortable and effective. Hell, if you had sufficient tenacity and worded your post in an authoritative way you may even carry the day. It won't shed any light on why most military groups outside the Soviet block or the third world have moved away from the woolly jumper, and why said jumper doesn't often get a look in on genuine expeditions into the wilderness places on earth though. Perhaps only by using such scenarios will you be able to have a sufficiently rigorous test in order to establish
the single correct answer. When you've established that absolute you can then plot your position on a line leading up to it; maybe something like, I don't care if my jumper holds 2 pints of water, it's warm and comfy like a shat nappy, and I will be home by nightfall.
Apart from the burns hazard avoided by wool, and that it is warmer when wet than cotton, I've not been able to disclose a great deal in its favour. Add to which wool being warm when wet as opposed to cotton is a misleading device. To stay focused we need to compare wool to synthetics and not be distracted by chaff like that.
First port of call was to some advocates of wool over fleece to see what they had to say:
Here is an item that one would expect a really good series of points to be made as it is entitled, Why wool clothes are better than fleece. Alas, it doesn't happen, in fact quite the inverse. Essentially, it needed a context clause of hunting, shooting and fishing, and it even tailed off on those at the end. The moment we up the environmental conditions all bets are off: From his own pen:
As an alpinist I do not use wool. It is not suited for the modern mountain climbing environment strictly for the sake of saving weight. Modern synthetic clothing is very advanced and out performs wool even the best wool fabric made today purely and weight and cost not to mention that synthetic insulation holds less water and retains more heat than wool. Ibex is one company who makes exceptional wool climbing and backpacking clothing. Unfortunately it is more expensive and still cannot overcome the weight issue. Even in hunting companies are making hunting clothes that are superior in durability and performance hands down.. He concludes with a rather mealy mouthed mumble about a benefit of wool manufacturing and cost. Rating Own goal.
http://www.helium.com/items/278019-why-wool-clothes-are-better-than-fleece
Another Why wool clothes are better than fleece can be found below, this time as a series of bullet points we can examine:
1. It is not synthetic
2. Allows the body to maintain an even temperature
3. The body is able to "breathe"
4. Works as a natural insulation against heat or cold.
5. Absorbs moisture into the structure of its fibers
6. Resistant to static electricity and flames.
Let's examine those:
1] Really? I believe the appropriate colloquialism is No shit Sherlock.
2] Weak. How are you arriving at that? Measured against a body in fleece, in tin foil, in Saran wrap, a loin cloth. Meaningless drivel!
3] Presupposes that fleece doesn't, does less, does more, what? Here's a hedge your bets claim if ever there was one. Grown a pair. Put yourself out there.
4]This has all the makings of a
Naturalistic fallacy first described by Moore in Principia Ethica.
5] Hooray a point! Yes, as some of you have already said, It's good for socks, but why else would you want that feature? Desirable is the ability to not absorb moisture, but to readily transmit or wick moisture out and away from the body.
6] Granted
Rating: Too woolly minded to be useful.
http://www.helium.com/items/276706-why-wool-clothes-are-better-than-fleece
That's a shame really because even using a very lazy method of inquiry I expected to turn up better supporting evidence for the superiority of wool, if it exists. By contrast, an example of an opposing argument that is far better didn't take much effort to find. In it we can see the single drawback of synthetics is volume:
Polypropylene is not extremely strong or abrasion resistant, but it has the useful property of not absorbing water, but rather wicking it away from the skin. It is usually knitted into underwear, where those properties can keep your skin dry even when you are exercising. And dry skin is warm. Polypro has the disadvantage of retaining odors, including body odors. It also melts easily, so it generally has to be air-dried. Nowadays it seems to have been replaced with specially treated polyester, like Patagonia's Capiline.
Wool is very old school, and not much used any more. It is warm, but it is also relatively heavy for the warmth it provides. It was largely used for insulating layers like sweaters. For insulation purposes, it has been largely replaced with special polyester fleece like Polarguard, or by lofting insulation like goose down, Holofil, Primaloft and others. Fleece is just as warm but lighter, and it doesn't absorb water and breathes better. The lofting insulation is even lighter and warmer, but doesn't breathe as well, and is bulkier. But wool is still quite durable and abrasion resistant, making it suited for socks and some work clothing...
http://askville.amazon.com/Wool-Gor...rs-clothing/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=4164586
Last but by no means least I shall offer up extracts from an article at Loughborough University entitled Unravelling the mystery of Mallory, as it recurses neatly back to my opening para graph on having a sufficiently sensitive test to determine which is better:
To try and establish if Mallorys clothing had been a barrier to his success the Mountain Heritage Trust, in partnership with the Universities of Southampton, Derby, Leeds, and Lancaster, embarked on a major project to create an exact replica of the outfit he wore on his 1924 expedition. After almost three years of intensive scientific analysis of the fragments of clothing taken from his body the team was able to recreate Mallorys outfit in every detail, from the fabric used to the weave and the stitches.
In 2006 the BBC reconstructed Scott and Amundsens journey in Blizzard: Race To The Pole. For the series two modern day teams of explorers were set the challenge of travelling across a route identical in length to that covered by Scott and Amundsen, using the original resources available to the historic explorers. Professor Havenith, who has conducted extensive research into how the human body copes when faced with inhospitable climates, was asked to compare and test the clothing worn during the 1911 Arctic expedition, as well as examine how both outfits measured up against modern apparel.
After assessing the insulation and wind protection of the clothing, Professor Havenith found that the clothing worn by Scott and his team, which largely consisted of coarse layers of wool, was only marginally less insulating than that worn by Amundsen, whose team wore fur.
Compared to modern day arctic clothing however, both outfits provided up to 30 percent less insulation.
During this project we discovered that overall there was not a big difference between the insulation and wind protection offered by the two outfits, said Professor Havenith.
However we did discover a difference between the friction levels within the two sets of clothing. Scotts apparel consisted of layers of coarse fabrics, many of wool, which had higher friction levels than the layers of slippery furs worn by Amundsen. This extra friction, combined with Scotts way of travelling being far more physically draining, meant that the garments his team wore would have resulted in them expending up to 20 percent more energy than generally assumed using up precious calories and supplies.
The high-tech manikin is able to simulate a set human skin temperature and measure how much heat is lost through clothing at 32 different zones of the body. In this instance the skin temperature of the manikin was set to replicate that of someone climbing at high altitude.
Compared to modern expedition clothing Professor Havenith found that Mallorys outfit offered dramatically less insulation from the cold about 40 percent less than the clothing used by climbers today on Everest expeditions. The main additions that enable modern expedition apparel to perform better are altitude boots, and for the clothing the inclusion of zips, which are more wind tight compared to buttons, and the introduction of down and polyester battings. Down and polyester are very light weight but offer a high level of insulation.
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/service/publicity/publications/view/springsummer08/mallory.html
