Enough bullshit lightweight down jackets

Noah Yetter wrote:

I had a Cabela's Thinsulate parka for ~20 years (got it in '93?), just recently gave it away. Still as warm as the day I got it.

Thinsulate is more akin to a fleece than a synthetic puffy.

that guy named seb wrote:

, where a synthetic jacket will loose it's loft after a season

Well that's not true at all, I'm sure all those old nano puffy are garbage now.... Seb you should really learn about stuff before you talk.

Synthetic was probably inferior 20+ years ago. Seb, I suggest getting your product information from younger people.

I picked up a MH jacket that uses ripstop fabric for the shell. It's the "Stretch down RS". I've given it a lot of use this season and it seems to be really tough, but also very light. They are on sale at a lot of places as well...

https://www.sierratradingpost.com/mountain-hardwear-stretchdown-rs-jacket-750-fill-power-for-men~p~200th/?utm_source=GooglePLAs&utm_medium=PaidShopping&utm_term=Mountain_Hardwear_Stretchdown_RS_Jacket_-_750_Fill_Power_For_Men&utm_campaign=PCGOOGLES7¤cy=USD&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkJTli4z11gIVg4ZpCh2LQA7vEAQYASABEgK5SfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds&codes-processed=true

Be aware, there is another version of the jacket that doesn't use ripstop (just called "Stretchdown", no RS). 

Great jacket, worth considering.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:

Synthetic was probably inferior 20+ years ago. Seb, I suggest getting your product information from younger people.

For the most part i get my information from manufacturers, with the best insulation on the market being TNF's thermoball stuff and that is the equivalent to 600 fill down

https://www.snowandrock.com/expert-advice-and-inspiration/buying-guides/the-north-face-thermoball-technology.html considering you wont find down in clothing below 600 fill and TNF use it in just the one jacket i think you are giving synthetic fill far to much credit considering it's super common to see down jackets with 850+ fill power down, if we look at the super common Primaloft one we will find it's garbage compared to decent quality down.

http://coldthistle.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/primaloft.html

Before you even say that this is outdated Primaloft one hasn't been updated in years, Primaloft gold is simply a re-brand of Primaloft one.

I would love to find the article but it was a test on the lose of loft in primaloft one, if memory served me right it was a 60% loss in insulation with 2 hours of compression daily for 4 weeks, this is super fucking critical considering the amount of time we wear backpacks or are sitting in cars with the jacket on.

So either stop talking shit or bring some data forward.

You can't trust manufacturers on anything that isn't objective (as in, "this carabiner weighs X grams"). Any claims of product superiority are inevitably self-serving. Lab tests of the raw insulation materials' characteristics are interesting in an academic sense but not a practical one, since all that actually matters is the real-world performance of actual products made with these materials.

To wit, I have a Thermoball and it's honestly pretty terrible. It's light, sure, but it's not as warm as any down or synthetic I own, including that old Thinsulate parka. Hell, it's not even as warm as the better fleeces I have lying around.

This is not something you can evaluate based on paper specs.

Noah Yetter wrote:

You can't trust manufacturers on anything that isn't objective (as in, "this carabiner weighs X grams"). Any claims of product superiority are inevitably self-serving. Lab tests of the raw insulation materials' characteristics are interesting in an academic sense but not a practical one, since all that actually matters is the real-world performance of actual products made with these materials.

To wit, I have a Thermoball and it's honestly pretty terrible. It's light, sure, but it's not as warm as any down or synthetic I own, including that old Thinsulate parka. Hell, it's not even as warm as the better fleeces I have lying around.

This is not something you can evaluate based on paper specs.

Thermoball is a highlight of the limitations of synthetic jackets, it needs so much support it fails to loft properly and can never be used in substantial amounts this makes for a crappy jacket. I have a feeling the new pluma fill from Patagonia will have lofting issues under a waterproof shell since the video they put out said they used the absolute lightest shell to get it to loft, being a continuous fiber it will probably be more durable than standard primaloft and should be able to be used in fairly substantial amounts, strange that they needed to quilt a continuous fiber insulation though..

http://eu.patagonia.com/gb/en/product/mens-micro-puff-hoody/84030.html

ton wrote:

Eddie Bauer and the like are great choices.  My personal choice is to drop the "it's gotta be down" mentality and spend <$150 on an arctic quilt lined Carhartt for this purpose.  

This is what I was going to recommend. Won't make you like look someone posing for magazines like Rock and Ice or Climbing but gets the job done, is cheap, warm, and ridiculously durable. I had one for years and used it for everything. When really cold I added a cheap hoodie and kept them together treating them as one beefy layer. Though plenty of other options if you love supporting climbing brands and have lots of expendable income.

that guy named seb wrote:

Thermoball is a highlight of the limitations of synthetic jackets, it needs so much support it fails to loft properly and can never be used in substantial amounts this makes for a crappy jacket. I have a feeling the new pluma fill from Patagonia will have lofting issues under a waterproof shell since the video they put out said they used the absolute lightest shell to get it to loft, being a continuous fiber it will probably be more durable than standard primaloft and should be able to be used in fairly substantial amounts, strange that they needed to quilt a continuous fiber insulation though..

http://eu.patagonia.com/gb/en/product/mens-micro-puff-hoody/84030.html

agreed - felt like the paper you shove in the top of a gift bag

Also I noticed many folks live in Utah in this thread. I get out there a couple times a year and visit the 2nd track sports in SLC from time to time. Doesn't always have what I need but I've gotten some deeply discounted nice layers this way.

ben jammin wrote:

  I don't give a f about weight.

Any suggestions for jackets without this ultralight weight shell bullshit?

not related but why put bullshit in the title and then sensor the f-word?

Fjallraven has a line of down jackets and vests that have a waxed "canvas" outside for abrasion resistance and a lightweight nylon liner for heat transfer etc. Tough as nails.

Link is just for one of them, they actually have a few jackets with different fits and features. 

https://www.fjallraven.com/ovik-lite-jacket

It's not just down jackets that are too light and weak. This past week I put a nice tear in the sleeve of my brand new, brand name, stretch windshirt hoody LITERALLY 10 feet off the trail. It was the first time I stepped into the woods with it, and it caught on the very first branch that I touched. I could probably get it replaced under warrantee, but that strikes me as simply a shortcut to a landfill; I can keep wearing this once it's patched up. I know it's a lightweight garment, but still for $110+ I expect more.

You will find some great suggestions here https://trekkinggears.com/best-down-jackets. I am actually spoilt for choice now

NorCalNomad wrote:

Well that's not true at all, I'm sure all those old nano puffy are garbage now.... Seb you should really learn about stuff before you talk.

Actually - It's pretty well documented and even acknowledged by some manufacturers that repeated compression will reduce synthetic insulations effectiveness.  There are NUMEROUS threads over on BPL that discuss this.  I believe on one, CS from Arcteryx wrote someone saying things like commuting in your car with a syn puffy on will reduce warmth quickly.  Those Nanos certainly will still work but they've probably lost warmth.  Probably to the tune of 50%

Link with data:  BPL Thread with discussion on loft lost

Best Info - 

50% is a clo loss plateau for short-staple synthetic insulations and it cannot be recovered. The first 30% occurs quickly and the next 20% a little slower.

I have MUCH less lab test data for continuous synthetic insulation (two Montbell Thermawrap Pro Hoodies). No stuffing occurred in these tests. After two years of casual wear there is a 40% clo loss.

It is interesting to note that the latest fleece versions (Thermal Pro) will also experience a maximum of 30% clo loss after approximately two weeks of conventional backpacking use. In contrast to short staple synthetics, they will recover 100% of their clo value by vigorous shaking or fluffing in a dryer for a short time. Classic fleece doesn't experience a clo loss with backpacking use but, its clo/oz is lower than an equivalent warmth Thermal Pro version.

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote:

Synthetic was probably inferior 20+ years ago. Seb, I suggest getting your product information from younger people.

See my post directly above.

mattm wrote:

Actually - It's pretty well documented and even acknowledged by some manufacturers that repeated compression will reduce synthetic insulations effectiveness.  There are NUMEROUS threads over on BPL that discuss this.  I believe on one, CS from Arcteryx wrote someone saying things like commuting in your car with a syn puffy on will reduce warmth quickly.  Those Nanos certainly will still work but they've probably lost warmth.  Probably to the tune of 50%

Link with data:  BPL Thread with discussion on loft lost

Best Info - 

Thanks for finding the data had a feeling the numbers off the top of my head were off, very disappointed to hear about the loss in loft from high loft fleece.