Printable View
Spats thats a great explanation for how the shell works, good to know.
My question remains though, re: treepinners statement
what is a ptfe laminate and how is it different from the laminate patagonia apparently uses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
i know this convo has gone very techy but i think its useful info.
PTFE = polytetrafluoroethylene
PTFE is really what goretex means, and what is copy writed by GORE.
the polyurethane that patagonia uses is as similar as you can get to Goretex without infringing on the patent. I just refered to it short hand as PTFE (like kleenex vs. tissue paper). conduit and membrain are for sure significantly different from h2no and gtex.
conduit is more "crinkly" and less porous, and membrain relys more on the DWR and is more porous.
Not quite. Goretex is still breathable when the face fabric is saturated, which is why it's used in highend drysuits and waders. The DWR helps water bead and roll off and that does minimize evaporation but, more importantly, prevents condensation on the inside the shell (often mistaken for leaks). Part of the problem is that people wear too much insulation under their shell. If there is no temperature difference at the membrane, there is almost no driving effect to push moisture to the outside. So warm moisture moves outward past the insulation, hits the cold membrane and condenses. The fabric still functions so it's more of a user-error issue. Another part of the problem is people fail to restore the DWR by putting their shells in the dryer -- a very important step -- after cleaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Patagucci uses a coating which is applied like paint and has to dry (environmentally worse than gluing a membrane btw). Their PU is similar to that used by numerous other brands, including some versions of Conduit and Triple Point. PTFE is known as Teflon when applied to cookware but for fabrics it's been expanded to make the holes for vapor. Gore does not have a patent on the ePTFE, which is why eVent exists, but has other trade secrets. The PU coatings do work differently than the PTFE membranes and used to suck but have gotten better.
Tony, H2no isn't any lighter than XCR but some companies spec a heavier face fabric to make burlier shells. It is cheaper, which is the main advantage. They do make stretch Goretex but not many companies use it due to cost, plus stretch isn't needed if the shell is cut well. In general, stretch fabrics of any type are less durable than non-stretch.
The only way to claim Gore Soft Shell (it's just under the Windstopper umbrella but is closer to Goretex Classic) isn't a "true" softshell is to make up an arbitrary definition for a concept that has been around for decades -- just marketing warz, nothing more. I've been using "softshells" of every type for 20+ years and the term is really meaningless since it's so broad. Hell, there are softshell hiking shoes now. Some shells are better in certain climates than others but many companies do a piss-poor job of explaining it all, hence all the confusion.
Note: I don't work for Gore and have no brand affiliations.
The original Gore-Tex patent has run out, which is why there has been an explosion of laminate fabrics during the past few years.
All the waterproof/breathable membranes I know of are different types of plastic (PTFE, polypropylene, etc.) They are generally white, very thin, and about as strong as Kleenex -- which is why they are breathable at all, and which is why they must be laminated to other fabrics.
This is why 3-layer laminates are generally considered superior to 2-layer laminates: in a 2-layer garment, the liner hangs free, and can rub against the membrane, destroying it. In a 3-layer garment, you must wear through the liner to do damage because it's bonded to the waterproof/breathable membrane. If you wear a backpack, 3-layer is strongly recommended.
Also, the liners in many 2-layer garments are not breathable at all, completely defeating the purpose. You can test this by putting a section of liner against your mouth and trying to breathe through it...with many garments, the nylon liner is totally impermeable to air!
What he said: H2No is not a membrane (as GTX) but a great coating with similar perfomance to XCR but cheaper and lighter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
Well, that's a dead end argument then 'cause: as Gore doesn't sell jackets but a membrane coupled with a (heavier denier) fabric according to some manufacturer spec and Patagucci sells jackets (not fabric) with the outer (lighter) fabric of their choice, my statement stands: H2No Jackets are LIGHTER and as waterproof/breathable as XCR jackets. Regarding stretchiness, I cry BS. MAYBE it is not needed for a ski parka but it's definetly useful in alpine climbing. Durability is another issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
The soft shell concept was invented many years ago by the constant frustration of scottish climbers with vey waterproof but not breathable fabrics in the humid environment of Ben Nevis. So remember: this was born from the necessities of the climbing community, not the ski industry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
The first soft shell was produced by Buffalo, a british company that manufactured clothing with nylon outer fabric lined with pile.
Patagucci copied this and created the first soft shell jacket in the US: the Infurno.
Marmot copied the concept in a lighter and more versatile piece: the excellent DriClime Windshirt.
I agree with Andy Kirkpatrick, a very respected climber with impressive climbs in the Alps, Himalayas and Patagonia, that a soft shell is something that provides:
1) Maximum performance from a minimum of layers, often with one layer replacing two or more other layers (base, mid and shell).
2) Weather protection that is robust and achievable even though breathability takes PRIORITY over waterproofness.
3) Clothing that is comfortable in a wide range of temperatures and conditions, does not restrict the user and is tough.
Goretex Soft Shell and Windtopper fully comply with 1 and 3, but fail miserably with 2, Hence, in my book they are not soft shell.
You can check great discussion about this in: http://www.psychovertical.com/?cuthecrap
Only if you state that SOME H2No jackets are lighter than SOME XCR jackets, there are certainly exceptions. As an ice climber, I'll stand by my statement that stretch isn't needed if you have gear that is cut well. It's actually worse if you're wearing stretch layers underneath too -- kinda like being wrapped in an Ace bandage, where you're fighting the clothes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
This is all BS. The Marmot predated the Infurno (have one) by almost 10 years and they only started calling it a "softshell" recently to keep up with marketing; at the time Buffalo had nothing like Driclime. Buffalo was barely more than an upgraded 60/40 jacket with a wool lining. I wouldn't call any of these a softshell in the first place since they are just insulation and non-stretch windshell sewn together.Quote:
The soft shell concept was invented many years ago by the constant frustration of scottish climbers with vey waterproof but not breathable fabrics in the humid environment of Ben Nevis. So remember: this was born from the necessities of the climbing community, not the ski industry.
The first soft shell was produced by Buffalo, a british company that manufactured clothing with nylon outer fabric lined with pile.
Patagucci copied this and created the first soft shell jacket in the US: the Infurno.
Marmot copied the concept in a lighter and more versatile piece: the excellent DriClime Windshirt.
Most people would consider softshell a stretchy single layer of fabric with moderate insulation; blocks the wind better than fleece and breathes better than a rainshell. The first for climbing was probably made my Latok in the mid-80s but Cloudveil and Arcteryx popularized the concept in the 90s. Schoeller was the earliest to develop these fabrics, followed by Polartec then Gore and now countless no-brands.
Spats, you are confusing breathability and air permeability; not the same thing. But yeah, most 2-layers are crappy for serious use.
treepinner - i dont climb but i agree i'm not wild about stretchiness, it just feels weird. a little bit of stretch is nice though.
so takeaway in xcr v. pats 3 layer is that gore uses an actual membrane as the middle layer while pat uses a coating. good to know.
treepinner, do you consider pats 3 layer to really not be any different from conduit or triple point? most others think its more on par w xcr.
further, you seem to think xcr is inherently better than pat's coating, why?
Interesting thread. The above reason is just another why I'm bummed at Marmot's direction. They hardly have any 3L GoreTex garments. I have always found 3L to last the longest by a fair amount..Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
We're getting into a game of semantics here. MOST if not ALL Patagonia H2No uninsulated hard shells are less than a pound. MOST Goretex XCR jackets (from many many manufacturers) are above a pound, but the few lightest are close to a pound. I never said that as a climber stretch is NEEDED, if you properly read my post I said VERY USEFUL. And if you are a climber and don't have stretch jackets, you are missing it. Sorry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
No, you stating GTX Soft Shell and Windstopper as soft shell is bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
I never said that the Infurno was launched before the Driclime. You don't seem to properly read the posts. The point I was trying to make by mentioning these two well-known "early" soft shell jackets is how the whole soft shell concept was born: climbers willing to sacrifice complete waterproofness for better breathability. That was the big bang of the soft shell concept. Not stretchiness; stretch fabrics were light years ahead.
Buffalo was, is and will always be bulkier than Driclime because conditions in Northern Scotland are a little more harsh than the sunny Sierras were the Marmot Driclime was developed. BUT THE CONCEPT IS THE SAME: Nylon lined with Pile. And I indeed would call this two soft shells because a) they replace two or more other layers and b) they prioritize breathability, not waterproofness. And who cares if they don't stretch?? You just wrote like 1000 words already in this thread stating that stretchiness is not important, "is the jacket's cut" that counts.
WRONG, stretch fabrics were light years ahead when the "soft shell" concept was already created (Buffalo, Infurno, Driclime). And in this sentence you exactly portray how these Gore marketing gurus think: "let's make a stretchy layer of fabric bonded with moderate insulation that block the wind better than fleece and call it soft shell. It doesn't matter that it breathes like shit". And most people, as you said above, think of "breathability before waterproofness" as the highest single quality of a soft shell. Then in a second place comes stretchiness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
None of these companies even existed when Buffalo gave birth to the soft shell concept. And again, Gore doesn't make a single fabric that can be considered soft shell, as none of its products breathe as well as stretch woven, nylon lined with pile or encapsulated polyester, the only true soft shells in its multiple iterations and evolutions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
So you're all saying that I should stick with my garbage bag?
As "I was thinking of buying a Goretex Soft Shell jacket to replace my garbage bag because I thought it would be as waterproof but breathe better. So now you're all saying that I should stick with my garbage bag?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre LeCouloir
The short answer is: YES
Basically, most of the upper-end PU coatings are close enough to each other and XCR that few could tell them apart, at least when newish. Jacket design becomes a bigger influence than the fabric and not many people get to test a lot of products. Where XCR tends to have the advantage is in the longterm. But most consumers aren't hard users and retire shells for fashion long before that becomes an issue. Low-end PU shells (or high-end of say 5 years ago) just don't breathe well, period.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnay
Tony, you are so far off in your claims it's getting to be a waste of time. PU is inherently no lighter than PTFE so lightness is purely a matter of face fabric and shell design. Compare apples to apples and there is no real difference.
Schoeller was making softshell fabrics back in the 50s...all those stretch ski pants that were in fact highly breathable, weather resistant, insulating outer layers. Buffalo only updated fabrics as they became available and was certainly not a new concept; we had softshell gear long before that. Marmot Driclime was originally designed as a sliding inner layer and really not related to the softshell concept at all. You are stuck on some newly-invented definition but the reality is that it's as arbitrary as all the rest. I'm using what is the most recognized definition but admit the marketing wonks have made it hopelessly vague.
BTW Gore doesn't make any fabrics at all. They just laminate their product to what the manufacturers send of which there is a very wide range (both on the face and particularly the inner lam). Calling all Gore Soft Shell the same is no more useful than calling all Schoeller or all Polartec the same; meaningless without more specifics. Have you actually used any? I've tested some products with Gore Soft Shell, and numerous other softshells including Patagucci, it certainly can qualify even by your limited definition.
treepinner=know his stuff.
wow dude... great info in this thread, thanks dude
finally, and then ill shut up, what do you think of xcr v. gore soft-shell then?
Boo fucking hoo. Who cares?? FYI, people don't buy membranes or coatings at ski shops. THEY BUY JACKETS and H2No jackets are lighter than XCR. You already recognized that H2No is lighter so we can stop wasting your precious time discussing this. Period.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
I know that stretch woven nylon was not developed in the last few years (I've used those pants myself already in the 70's and they were everything you said but insulating) but that doesn't change the main point: GORETEX SOFT SHELL AND WINDSTOPPER AIN'T A BREATHABLE SOFT SHELL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
No, what we had were stretchy pants on the 70's. You keep putting stretchiness as the #1 criteria for what is considered soft shell. It's not: it is breathability. But that doesn't make sense for your Goretex Soft Shell cause, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
Jesus, man. It's just Nylon. Lined. With. Pile. Why do you make so much fuss about DriClime and Buffalo anyway? They were just examples of what resembles more of a breathable soft shell than GTX Soft Shell. And Driclime being "not related to the soft shell concept"?!?!? In general, climbers (who, again, invented the soft shell concept, not skiers) consider the Driclime Windshirt as one of the most versatile soft shell pieces (base, middle and outer layer in 1), although is not properly a jacket but a....windshirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
Same thing to me: if the clothing brands want to put the little Goretex logo on the jacket/pant they need to attain standards set up and approved by no other than....Gore Industries. They "make" the fabric. It's the "Intel Inside" syndrome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
For you to make sure you're not wasting your precious time with a complete moron who speak out of his ass, I can tell you that at some time or other I've tested/had/have jackets/pants/bivies/bags made of:Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
- Goretex Classic, XCR, Dryloft, GTX Soft Shell, Windstopper and N2S. (just find out today there is also Windstopper Soft Shell but never tested and highly doubt of its soft shell moniker, another Gore gimmick).
- Polartec Powershield and Windbloc (and of course most of the numerous fleece types/weights, which don't mind in this discussion).
- Schoeller Dynamic, Dryskin and WB-400.
- Epic.
- H2No (Patagonia).
- eVent.
- Conduit (Mountain Hardwear).
- Hyvent (TNF).
Never tested or had gear made of Marmot's Membrain or Lowe alpine's Triple Point.
Most breathable of the Gore products to me is N2S, but not as breathable (or comfortable) as compared to any of the Schoeller types (stretch woven nylon), Epic (encapsulated fabric) or Poweshield Light (insulated laminate).
SO, now that we finally got all the Buffalo and DriClime history lessons chit chat out of the way, it seems you are willing to share with us about the specific subject that titles this thread: What SPECIFIC Goretex Soft Shell products you've tested can qualify by my "limited" definition as soft shell?Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
BTW, my "limited" definition includes "breathability over waterproofness, stretchy is nice to have but not essential". It seems your definition includes "strechiness over waterproofness, breathability is nice to have but not essential".
He certainly speaks the technical language of the different hard shell membranes/coatings.Quote:
Originally Posted by marshalolson
But I can rely on your "seal of approval" as it doesn't seem to me that he accompanies that lab rat technical knowledge with a sound judgement of the comparative breathabilty of different fabrics based on field use.
That's why lab rats don't give the final green light for prototypes to become line products, but guys like Mark Twight, Doug Coombs and Andy Kirkpatrick do: it doesn't matter how many chemistry books you read in college, you gotta sweat it in the outdoors to feel how breathable it is.
Treepiner: Please enlighten us with specific GTX Soft Shell jackets you've used that breathe as well/better than Epic, Schoeller or Powershield. Not another chemistry lesson.
I know I know I havn't posted much of anything on this forum and I'll try to stay out of the way while attempting to build on a slightly different perspective. I think the key with softshell is to substitute waterproofness with the concept of "virtual dryness" (yes, I've read LOTS of Andy's stuff and Twight etc). This can be summed up in, as I see it (from a climbing background), two ways: (1) a garment that feels dry when it's actually a little wet from rain, snow whatever (you have to relinquish your great fear of being wet to experience this...but then again if you are wearing GTX all the time you probably are also wet from sweat a lot..chew on that one) and (2) a garment that is going to dry very quickly after it has gotten wet. This drying occurs from the natural temperature gradiant between the surface of your skin and the cold air. To satisfy (1) you must have a micropile lining that will wick water away to a shelled (not neccesarily water proof, just higher surface area) outer layer. A less dense lining means there is less contact between your skin and wetness and a nice lofty warm layer of air. The wicking happens with cappilary action and then since the moisture is spread out to a larger surface area it evaporates easier. To satisfy (2) you must have a REALLY breathable shell, one that can even transport liquid water, not just watervapor as GTX does. A good example of why a GTX shell is not a good example of this can be seen if you wear a fleece or primaloft jacket (a really breathable one) under a GTX shell and try to climb something (yes I've had this experience). When you get done you will feel dry inside the fleece or jacket but the inside of the GTX shell will be dripping wet because it doesn't breath well enough to dry. If you were wearing a true softshell, it would breath just as well, or better than the primaloft jacket and all your layers would be dry. Notice, the primaloft jacket i'm talking about is windproof but it has no PTFE layer of anykind. Just breathable nilon. Windproof IS key I'm probably not emphasizing that enough, you have to have a microclimate. But it doesn't have to be as windproof as GTX. Most of the Schoeller and Malden mills products are plenty windproof.
Think of this.
If you're getting into a storm and you still need to keep moving you are going to get wet no matter what. Either you are wearing a GTX shell and you are going to sweat and get yourself wet or you are wearing a softshell and the water falling from the sky will make you wet.
But what about when that storm stops? If you're wearing GTX you're going to stay wet because it can't transport the ammount of water that you have produced through sweat fast enough. However, if you are wearing something that is made of schoeller, driclime or a malden mills product your continued activity will produce enough heat to dry out all your layers in a much faster time that the GTX (if it ever will). This has been proven with numerous side by side tests.
Now, will I never use a w/b jacket? I absolutely will. However, the application is different. For situations where you are not going to be working very hard but will be exposed to cold temps and a high ammount of precip there is no substitute. That is why it's good to have an extremely light w/b shell in the bottom of your climbing pack so that when you're sittin out a storm you can put that on and keep yourself dry and warm. Or, if you're heading to the ski resort and it looks aweful out you can break out your $500 GTX jacket and look cool and stay relatively comfortable at the same time.
So, to the O. P. what should you buy? What are you going to be doing? If it's AT (lot's of uphill) or climbing some insulation with a windbarrier (be it schoeller, malden mills whatever) and a light waterproof will be nice. If it's lots of downhill resort skiing you might want a heavier waterproof for durability reasons.
Anyway, I used to be all GTX all the time. Now my layering is way more focused on true breathability (way beyond the breathability of GTX) and I have not looked back. After a season of climbing in the North Cascades and the Sierra both on rock and ice I'm sold. I'm more comfortable, warmer and feel freer.
Some people just aren't ready to make the change.
Wow, talk about a novel
Enginerd = know his stuff.
This is exactly my line of thought.
Goretex/Windstopper is king for resort skiing on cold, wet winter days.
Anything else (spring resort, BC, AT, climbing) go Polartec Powershield, Nextec Epic or Schoeller Dryskin with a superlight, thin H2No/Paclite in the bottom your pack (if the meteo is doubtful). Each one of these three has his pros and cons...but that is material for another thread.
My $0.2
Why don't companies like gore and patagucci publicly post their soft shell fabric performance like hard shells do? There are standardized measurements for windproofness, waterproofness, and breathability but I have yet to see any kind of semblence of a comparison across brands and fabrics using hard data, instead they all say their shit is the shit and that you need this shit or you won't be shit. Anyways... Any guestimates of how waterproof DWR'd windstopper is, in terms of K mm? Anyone ever seen a good comparison chart for soft shell fabrics that used numbers?
Tony, you've posted so much misinformation above that I'm not going to waste anymore time picking it all apart. Sounds like you're an REI clerk who eats up magazine "reviews" as gospel. But you're posting a lot of garbage mixed in with some correct info.
Enginerd, you're making the same mistake of lumping all products of a brand (and generations of a product) together, which moots a lot of your otherwise good points. And you're wearing too much under GTX as was pointed out before -- it's the single most common mistake of people who never understood how WP/Bs work in the first place. There are different ways to stay comfortable in the conditions you describe; yours is one, and it works, but it isn't necessarily the best. As you imply, keep an open mind.
Lex, now that we're into the era of hybrid shells that combine different fabrics and body-mapped fabrics that vary the insulation and breathability in different areas (as in Soft Shell and others), it's impossible to use simple lab tests to convey a garments performance. The charts you're looking for would be misleading at best. OTOH we are getting better gear but it's harder to get good comparisons between brands...and there aren't any magazines that do real reviews anymore.
Whatever you say, Treepiner. I might be an REI clerk, a climber/ski tester for a gear company or an arm-chair quaterback with a lot of free time and money to buy gear and write in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
Now, you know what you sound to me? A lab rat that never gets into the real outdoors contracted by Gore Industries to test their products in a lab and make up some false data that justifies the use of the words "Soft Shell" in their membrane products. Or an REI Clerk with chemistry degree that eats up magazine advertising of Goretex as "king of the mountain" as gospel. I can't care which one you are but the bottom line is everybody is wrong but you. NEVERTHELESS...
STILL, you can't name specific Goretex Soft Shell garments you said breathe as well/better than Epic, Schoeller or Powershield (the most common REAL soft shell garments).
three posts ago:
At least spend some time mentioning this garments. In the words of Holden Caufield, I think you are "phony" for the purpose of this thread if you don't present that information you boasted about. Later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treepinner
http://www.verber.com/mark/outdoors/...sting-nvtr.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by lexpowers
http://www.psychovertical.com/?thecomfortgame
From #2 on the link above:
Membranes fleece don’t cut it
"Now I’m going to be highly controversial here, but as far as I’m concerned if you want the maximum level of comfort possible then you can’t have a membrane in your insulation – and that goes for waterproof shells (edit: AS GORETEX SOFT SHELL) as well. Now the good thing about a shell is that you can choose when to wear it – meaning any downsides are worth it as long as it will keep you dryer then standing in the rain. But having a membrane in your insulation layer isn’t a great idea if you want maximum comfort for stop and go sports, unless it can match the breathability of non coated fabrics like Pertex and other microfibres (which it can’t).
Sure membrane fleeces give you more protection then a non windproof fleece, but this protection (like the shell) is offset by its overall performance. So why do manufacturers make so many membraned fleeces – especially top end mountain designs? Well the answer is to look at what’s probably by far the best option, the fibre pile or micro pile (fleece with a low contact area for its loft) jacket covered by a micofibre shell (densely woven fabric), as this offers the greatest possible level of comfort, being wind resistant, fast drying and wicking, light, cheap and highly breathable: the problem? Well you look like a bag of crap! The vast majority of users of outdoor clothing don’t actually need high performance comfort (the words themselves are easy to add to marketing blurb, but have no actual measurability).
‘Hard fleece’ gives the user one garment that will keep out the wind and provide adequate insulation, creating a simple concept that is perfect for many activities, including cragging, bouldering, stamp collecting etc. These fabrics are sold as ‘soft shell’ fabrics – but nothing with a membrane within it is a true soft shell – it’s a ‘hard fleece’ as it sits between a fleece and a hard shell. Gore and Malden’s hard fleece fabrics allow very nice clothing to be designed and cut, giving then a rear ooh factor best demonstrated by Arcteryx and Mountain Hardwear, who have really developed this market. Remember that outdoor brands with turnovers of hundreds of millions of dollars are selling the majority of their mountain product to non mountain people (there aren’t anough climbers and walkers in the world to create global outdoor brands like that), who it has to be said have probably never even been wet!
So why do I think we should ignore membrane fleece? Well it slows down sweat transfer leading to chilling, is slow drying – which reduces the fabrics ‘bounce back’, – limiting its warmth when wet abilities (crucial when you have the first two drawbacks). Some manufactures have bonded pile to these membranes – which has helped in some respects, but still you’re left with a product that isn’t as warm, light, fast drying, and plain up to the job of climbing mountains as a 15 year old Buffalo shirt!
If you ask active people if they wear their fancy membrained fleeces for actual climbing, then most will admit they don’t, or if they do then only becouse they look better but perform worse then ordinary fleece. So are all these hard fleeces bad? Well tens of thousands of climbers can’t be wrong, and for lots of stuff they are more then adequate – especially lower energy activities, especially if you want to look smart. But if you’re looking at squeezing out the maximum level of performance from your insulation then just except the fact you’ll look like a sack of crap!
Personally I’d invest in a good quality pile based fleece (Polartec Thermal pro) and an ultra light highly breathable over shirt (Pertex equilibrium), as this would be far more adaptable to conditions, warmer, dryer and if you get the styling right still good enough to turn a few heads in the YHA!"
Treepiner: We are still waiting for you to name the Goretex Soft Shell jackets that you mentioned you have tested and breathe as well as Schoeller, Epic, etc. Are you going to step up or what?
Anyone tested out the Patagonia Jetstream 'superlight, waterproof, breathable' shell?
I have it and wear it in a variety of conditions and like it just fine. As for durability....? I'm not sure yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by jjair
It is very light and really packable. I wear it around town, skiing, hiking, with and without a backpack. The cut is generous enough to layer underneath but not baggy.
For me it is perfect because it is a shell and thats it. I don't need or want anything else. I'll deal with staying warm in other ways.
All this talk about breathability and waterproofness is great is cold weather when you are dealing with snow. If it is dumping rain the only thing I will wear for day trips/work is PVC. Goretex and other membranes simply are not burly enough to not rip and keep me truly dry. I'll deal with the sweat factor to stay dry. Because when you get stuck outside in a nasty PNW rainstorm for 8+ hours in the woods, the wetness you feel from sweat is nothing compared to the bone chilling cold of a good 35 degree rainstorm.
Hmmmm....Treepiner has not chimed in YET.
Phony.
I used to be a Arc'Teryx rep and I've been to Maryland to
Drunk Gore's Koolaid :eek:
What could I add to the "discussion"...I've read some stuff I agree with and some stuff I am pretty sure is bullshit. Here are a few things I could add:
- Any teflon membrane like Gore-Tex can be heated to a much higher temp than a polyurethane membrane. That means you can re-buff your DWR in the dryer helping the garmet perform better, longer.
- Currently Gore's big advantage in the marketplace (besides marketing) is that they have more experience in the lamination process making their fabrics, meaning they can make a more durable and more breathable fabric than they used too.
- Gore makes a hell of a lot more money selling dental floss and various medical products than they ever have/will in the outdoor industry. That said they have some pretty cool inovations comming out soon.
- Yes Gore soft shell is a market grab...but so is everything else. In the end its a full on Gore-Tex piece meaning it can't be as breathable as a "true soft shell".
My advice is to stop using the brands marketing and learn a little about the fabrics and construction techniques that go into the garmets. That way you will be able to talk about the fundemental differences between two jackets.
this is old but very interesting.
article = http://www.slate.com/id/2085417/
Phil Gibson is a Materials Research Engineer for the U.S. Army Soldier Systems Center—in other words, he tests fabrics for Army uniforms. The Army currently uses GORE-TEX in its Extended Cold Weather Clothing System, or "Eckwacks", yet Gibson, like myself, is a GORE-TEX skeptic. He says the Army's long-term use of GORE-TEX mostly just stems from inertia.
According to Gibson's tests, GORE-TEX is only "in the middle of the pack" when it comes to breathability. It was the first waterproof/breathable fabric, and it has the big name, but it's not really any better than the rest. And here's why:
In Gore's marketing pitch, the key component of GORE-TEX is a sheet of Teflon (that chemical coating on your frying pan) stretched out to form tiny pores that are big enough to allow air vapor to pass, but too small for water droplets to get through. Voila: waterproof, breathable. This membrane is then laminated to a regular fabric (like nylon). In pure form, expanded Teflon membranes are incredibly breathable. But there's a flaw. Sweat and oil that touch the membranes can act as a conduit to sneak water droplets through the pores. Thus, Gore is forced to cover its Teflon with a special coat of polyurethane, or PU, to protect it from sweat and oil. But now what's really keeping the water out is the PU (which is itself 100 percent waterproof), not the Teflon. The PU is breathable but far less breathable than the Teflon would be alone. In the end, the GORE-TEX membrane ends up doing nothing at all. It's just there so Gore can say it's there. Says Gibson, "I don't really see the point of the Teflon, but that's part of their patent. The Teflon is just a skeleton. The functional part is the PU." So, GORE-TEX is effectively no different than all the hundreds of other fabrics out there that use PU coatings, including those in nearly all my test raincoats. GORE-TEX is a scam!
thoughts?
One: Treepiner is a phony.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnay
As usual, lots of misinformation here. Phil Gibson's info was good in its day but is severely outdated (Google around and you can find his papers online to see how old the data is); he's correct in refering to early Goretex but wrong when talking about the earliest and the latest. Andy is writing about older technology as well -- no surprise that fabric technology has improved. Note that the ECWCS used by the US military includes Malden and Gore fabrics because they are so versatile in the worst conditions. BTW Mynthi, there are many iterations of the membrane used and what goes in softshell is different than hardshell (and Gore sold off the floss). Tony, you really are a clueless dweeb, posting that chart just shows how little you know. FWIW I've been out testing products that will be on the market in either 07/08 or 08/09 and there is some cool eVent product coming also.
Hey, everybody
TREEPHONY IS BACK!!!
Great man,
now...
how about telling us the name of those Goretex Soft Shell jackets you have tried that are as breathable as Schoeller but you don't want to share with the maggots?
hmmmm......more trepoopoo to come :fmicon:
gore tex in general is defentally the most breathable waterproofing in the worldQuote:
Originally Posted by Daywalker
True, when the outer fabric it is laminated is dry... Not really the case, when you need a hardshell, is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by skierbrent5530
Other options have performed much better (breathability vise) when the outer afbric is wet/moist (eg. even Triplepoint Ceramic is better than Gore XCR).
Jesus christ, not everybody sits and stares at threads all day waiting for them to move.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
I don't care if you have expertise or experience. You're douching up thread after thread, and making it that much more difficult for me to get useful info from good people. Fuck off until you learn how to conversate.
And your contribution to this thread is?
Ideally? Put it out of its misery, so other poor souls expecting to get the usual useful dose of info found when searching these forums don't waste time sifting through your dick-waving looking for an answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony
If I can just get you to STFU, I'll have contributed more to this thread than anyone else so far.
tony while you have contributed a lot, treepinner definitely knows his shit, and the info he has provided is some of the best in this thread. the whole personal challenge this is boring as shit. no one cares.
he has 100 posts in over a year, you have more than that in a month, he takes his time but everything he has said seems spot on. if you concede that you have different opinions on what softshell really means, you should agree with me.
i dont really care to know the model names of jackets he has used, do you?
this thread is very informative, no need for cunting it up as flip said.
tp, whatever additional info you provide im sure people would like to read.
Don't kid yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
You can get definitely get me to STFU with your insights and well founded arguments.
Not with your well-behaved ranting.
Vinnay, I am glad you appreciate Treepiner's contribution and you had the right to express it. I had the right to contribute I am not in his "Goretex SS is incredibly breathable" camp without evidence proving it so. When politely asked for this evidence, he bragged about some GTX Soft Shell jackets that were more breathable than Schoeller, etc. that he never named.
You are asking if I care? Of course I care! If not I wouldn't have pitch him to do it several times. He bragged about these products and later never named them. Hence, IMO phony until he names some names.
I contributed with some links to tests about soft shell breathability that Patagonia (nonetheless) have done and links to opinions of expert climbers (Mark Twight, Andy Kirkpatrick) that helped developed the market for current soft shell standards.
Treepiner contributed with some lab-rat definition of membrane I can find in any chemistry book.
The only single poster that has a different opinion on what softshell really means in this entire thread is....Treepiner.Quote:
Originally Posted by vinnay
He is the only one that thinks Goretex Soft Shell breathes like real Soft Shell.
my point is that there is no need in making an informative thread hostile, i think its ridiculous. im not saying what you've said isn't helpful or anything.