Down or Synthetic Jackets

[blacksheep]

oops i mean how small he jackets pack

On teh Patagonia jkt?

[wayno]

oops i mean how small he jackets pack

On teh Patagonia jkt?

i mean in general when looking at any jacket have a look at how small it will pack,
the das won't pack down nearly as small as your average down jacket,, the das is really what you use when you're more likely to be wearing it than carrying it in your pack, if you want a jacket for the campsite down gives you better warmth for weight and compressibility .

[Joomy]

AFAIR
The best synthetic is about as warm as 650 down.
Synthetic insulation tends to loose loft as it ages.
Down is harder to dry (non DWR).
Feel free to correct me.

More like 550 by weight. But synthetics are warmer for the same "loft". i.e. down needs to be able to expand more to achieve the same warmth. For example, a 1cm layer of down, while lighter, will only be as warm as say (roughly) 1/2cm of good synthetic fill.

I am still fairly skeptical of water resistant down. It closes the gap certainly but whether or not it does so in a useful way is debatable. Dry down or whatever the brand name is might dry 3x as fast, but if your down gets properly soaked then that means it might only take 24 hrs to dry rather than 72. Not exactly useful if you need to use your jacket the next morning.

I suppose where it makes a difference is on the margins where high humidity and/or a slight leakage through the face fabric have made your down a little bit wet. In that case the "dry down" may retain a little more loft than regular down, which may result in it being slightly warmer than it would otherwise be. I read a post recently about a guy who took this Ghost Whisperer (with WR down) into a drizzly, humid environment for 4-5 days as an experiment and it failed on him by the end of the trip. With only anecdotal evidence to go on so far, I would estimate that in the real world WR down will keep you maybe 10% warmer for 10% longer.

Also I'll point out that it's a myth that "synthetics keep you warm when wet". If your primaloft jacket is soaked through it will still lose most of its warmth. The reason you use synthetics is they dry out very quickly, so if you do get it drenched you go somewhere dry and it will dry out from your body heat within hours.

[blacksheep]

Also I'll point out that it's a myth that "synthetics keep you warm when wet". If your primaloft jacket is soaked through it will still lose most of its warmth. The reason you use synthetics is they dry out very quickly, so if you do get it drenched you go somewhere dry and it will dry out from your body heat within hours.

Not sure about this statement, I think that is undervaluing how well some modern synthetics perform. The way that insulation works is to slow down the rate that air warmed by the body can exit the micro climate you create. How down and various synthetic insulation achieves this does differ, as the loft of synthetics is largely unaffected by moisture. In fact the blend of micro and macrofibres used in the thermally bonded structure of Primaloft One works so well that the manufacturer claims 96% of it's dry thermal value when wet. While I haven't tested this myself, but the rate of adoption by military suggests the claims have merit.

[wayno]

i havent found any figures stating the difference in rates of saturation or drying between normal and water resistant down, i've only seen people exposing the dri down to water in a beaker to demonstrate its resistance to water, hardly real world conditions...
I"d be treating dwater resistant down the same as normal down and take care to avoid it from getting damp in the first place.
not all outdoor clothing companies are taking the same approach...
at leasts one company, cant remember which one uses a type of goose down that is more naturally water resistant than normal down.
Outdoor research are opting to use a pertex waterproof fabric on one of their down jackets to keep the water off the down in the first place instead of opting for the water resistant down.
so not all manufacturers are convinced of the need or use for water resistant down...
amazes me how many people i see using ordinary down jackets like raincoats... must be like wearing a wet sack after a while...

[wayno]

hutterite down from embden geese is the naturally water repellent down
used by westcomb and canada down

http://www.thegearcaster.com/the_gearca ... ction.html

[Moondog55]

A little OT but I have been using Nikwax to "waterproof" down for decades.
mentioned this a few times, not a miracle product and adds a little extra weight but it takes much longer to wet out and dries much faster.
Wet down however I have treated it is still wet down
My personal observation is this, if you ever intend to wear it in the rain or falling snow unprotected by a separate shell use synthetic insulation, if always to be used inside a tent or hut or when it is relatively dry or no precipitation use down, if your back is strong enough and your pockets deep enough use both properly layered.
Once your layering passes 30mm thick any clothing system starts to get heavy and unwieldy no matter what miracle fabric / filling it uses.
More than 38mm thick and we are into Everest/Antarctic/Northern Boreal clothing and new rules apply for each of those places. Now I must go and remeasure the loft of my down parka and the thickness of my winter layering

[wayno]

the OP has indicated he is only using the jacket in camp for his walks.... down should do fine and will work out better weight and builk wise in that circumstances

[wildernesswanderer]

I'm not planing to hike in the jacket, it's more for a backup in winter if I get saturated and once at camp and in the tent, or it's just a clear cold night I could wear it around camp to keep warm. Now hood or no hood

[icefest]

No hood on the jacket, but a separate down hood that you can wear alone, with the jacket or in bed.

[wayno]

if you are looking at synthetic , polartec's new alpha material is supposed to be better than most at drying out

http://www.projectstrata.com/

[wayno]

depends how cold a condition you're likely to use it and how often you'd likely use a hood, built in hood will work out warmest.
built in hood is always there when you need it.... if you do a lot of winter walking or high altitude walking i'd look at a hood, if not then it won't matter that much if you don't have a hood

[Moondog55]

I'm not planing to hike in the jacket, it's more for a backup in winter if I get saturated and once at camp and in the tent, or it's just a clear cold night I could wear it around camp to keep warm. Now hood or no hood

I think we got that; but we like to give you all the reasons why we make our own personal choices.
Always a hood for me if outerwear and I prefer mine permanently attached but if using as an inner layer then no hood and no collar for better layering.
Given the soaking scenario I'd also be looking to stash a second furry underwear top in the same stuff sack

[GPSGuided]

Good information on the technical comparisons b/n down and synthetic. Picking up useful info. To me, it makes sense to have a balance of synthetic and down gears in my kit. Whilst down is light and warm, having synthetic backup makes sense in case of unexpected encounters.

Then there's another obviously sensitive aspect of this down vs synthetic discussion, and that's animal management. Have never thought of this aspect until just earlier in this thread. Did a bit of Google on the issue and suspect this aspect may be an important consideration for some. Not sure how widespread the type of farming presented is but has just made me a little uncomfortable.
http://www.peta.org/issues/Animals-Used ... ustry.aspx
http://www.peta.org/features/down-investigation.aspx

[GPSGuided]

Some more info from the European Down & Feather Association that probably can make down product wearers a little more comfortable.
http://www.edfa.eu/gb/efaq.htm

Then more,
http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4359e/y4359e0c.htm

[wildernesswanderer]

Yes but how many top brands do you think would support the ripping of down off live birds. I'm sure it happens in some dodgy places but all the companies I have read state that their down definitely does not come from love birds

Montane for instance has this statement

Animal Rights Statement

Down used in our products is not plucked from live birds, but rather it is gathered during food production as a natural by-product. We use one grade of goose down in the production of Montane® clothing which is 800 cuin fill power.

Montane® Goose down is sourced via our Japanese specialist Goose down agent. They provide us with an annual guarantee and quality checked by our own internal team that their down is not plucked from live birds. We work closely with them to ensure a consistently high quality product and it continually meets these essential requirements.

[GPSGuided]

Yes but how many top brands do you think would support the ripping of down off live birds. I'm sure it happens in some dodgy places but all the companies I have read state that their down definitely does not come from love birds...

I don't know. As said, I only just come across this question and have been trying to satisfy myself with the question. Irrespective how they are obtained, they are biological. For some, similar to the reasoning for being vegetarian, I suspect this may be a consideration in the choice between down and synthetic. Then again, synthetic is not without environmental issues.

[wayno]

the best brands are pretty conscious about issues like this and do their best o ensure they dont use materials that cause unecessary stress to animals and try to minimise the effect on the envionment.... they arent all perfect though..

[GPSGuided]

Looking around, Montane and Marmot sites have specific addresses on their supply of down while MontBell, a leader of 1000 fill down product has no words, or at least I couldn't find them. Reading some other forums, this discussion point invariably gets to a philosophical level and I guess need not be repeated here. The take home message I have at this point is, purchase down when needed and be appreciative of the source. Once owned, take care of it and not place unnecessary demand and waste on that market. Guess the same can be said of all goods we buy and own.

More interesting information on the testing and supply of down.
http://www.idfl.com/

[wayno]

frankly i think this subject of ethics should be on another thread if its going to drag on unless the OP really wants it here.

i'm not into black listing a company without evidence. absence of a statement that they are using ethical practices doesnt mean they arent ethical,,
how many high profile companies would use live plucked down knowing the bad publicity it would cause if it became public information
Peta are telling people not to use down at all.. whats unethical about using the down from an animal that is being killed anyway for food? the animal was reared, hopefully humanely solely for food...
we could argue this at length but i think it is going off topic...

[Joomy]

Also I'll point out that it's a myth that "synthetics keep you warm when wet". If your primaloft jacket is soaked through it will still lose most of its warmth. The reason you use synthetics is they dry out very quickly, so if you do get it drenched you go somewhere dry and it will dry out from your body heat within hours.

Not sure about this statement, I think that is undervaluing how well some modern synthetics perform. The way that insulation works is to slow down the rate that air warmed by the body can exit the micro climate you create. How down and various synthetic insulation achieves this does differ, as the loft of synthetics is largely unaffected by moisture. In fact the blend of micro and macrofibres used in the thermally bonded structure of Primaloft One works so well that the manufacturer claims 96% of it's dry thermal value when wet. While I haven't tested this myself, but the rate of adoption by military suggests the claims have merit.

Based upon my own experience and those of others I would definitely dispute the "96%" claim. More like 50% at best but hard to measure -- definitely a significant reduction anyway. To quote Andrew Skurka:

"I generally prefer goose down instead of synthetic insulation—it’s warmer for its weight and more compressible, and it has a longer lifespan. While synthetics are not “warm when wet” like they are sometimes marketed (no outdoor gear is warm when wet, sorry), down is more adversely affected by moisture."

But perhaps this is due to evaporation rather than convection. Since synthetics dry so fast I imagine the evaporative effect would be considerable. So the synthetic fill is still working to prevent convection cooling (96% as well as when dry -- perhaps) but the evaporative cooling is significant. That's my theory.

[GPSGuided]

frankly i think this subject of ethics should be on another thread if its going to drag on unless the OP really wants it here.

On the Internet and in real life, thread drift is but a norm. In any case, I think the original question has pretty much been answered and we are but digging up more angles of consideration in the down vs synthetic debate. A most reasonable evolution in an informed decision process. Otherwise I agree with you, when a discussion like this gets to the level of personal ethics, the discussion has drifted too far. Black banning a company is a personal ethical decision while the sourcing of raw material remains to be a technical question.

[Joomy]

Good information on the technical comparisons b/n down and synthetic. Picking up useful info. To me, it makes sense to have a balance of synthetic and down gears in my kit. Whilst down is light and warm, having synthetic backup makes sense in case of unexpected encounters.

For what it's worth this is what I and others do: I have two main warm jackets for Aussie weather. A primaloft and a down -- roughly the same weight ~400 grams. The synthetic fits snugly over two light layers (thermal + thin fleece) and the down fits snugly over all that. I almost always take the synthetic even in hot weather and on day hikes. If I'm going somewhere I know will be cool and dry I'll consider taking the down only. In really cold weather I take both and layer them up which makes more a nice modular system. The disadvantage with this system is you lose breathability compared to a single, fat down jacket but the extra moisture in theory accumulates more within the synthetic layer than the down so it's less of a problem than one might think.

[Moondog55]

Joomy that goes against my experience, I usually layer the synthetic over the down. Point of fact I bought my big American Army M-65 parka specifically to go over my Everest down parka and then never got to go up to the Arctic; but protecting the down from moisture is easier if the outer is polyester. Just my POV tho, your experience is obviously different.

My experience with Primaloft agrees that it is warmer than down for the same thickness of loft but a Primaloft jacket with 45mm of insulation would be very heavy and unreasonably bulky in the pack, even a down jacket with this much insulation is a bulky item, both packing and wearing. My Primaloft with 100GSM is about 10/ 12mm of insulation the 150GSM pants about 15/20mm and I do think that is the limit

[Joomy]

Joomy that goes against my experience, I usually layer the synthetic over the down. Point of fact I bought my big American Army M-65 parka specifically to go over my Everest down parka and then never got to go up to the Arctic; but protecting the down from moisture is easier if the outer is polyester. Just my POV tho, your experience is obviously different.

Yeah, I'm actually not certain which method is better as far as preventing moisture build up from perspiration. It seems to work in practice though. It makes intuitive sense to me that you would normally trap more, or the same amount of, humidity in the inner layer than the outer layer. Very roughly speaking: if your two layers are equally breathable then they will trap roughly the same amount of vapour until the inner layer is overwhelmed at which point the inner layer will trap more moisture than the outer layer. If the inner layer is more breathable then your bottleneck is the outer layer, so once the outer layer is overwhelmed both layers will trap roughly the same amount of vapour. And if your outer layer is more breathable the inner layer will trap the same amount of vapour as in the first scenario and the outer will trap less. This admittedly simple model implies that the inner layer is likely to be equally or more "humid" than the outer layer, implying that synthetic is the better choice for inside.

Now this doesn't take into account what happens in when the dew point falls inside your clothing. In that situation it is obviously better to have the synthetic layer where the condensation is occurring, which may well be towards the outer layer of the jacket, but not necessarily since it's dependent on relative humidity and temperature. I think for that to occur the outermost few mm of your jacket would have to be below zero -- I'm not sure how cold it has to be for that to happen.

All of the above is simply my thinking and could well be wrong!

[Moondog55]

I hazard a guess that allowing the down to achieve full loft is easier when closer to the body; unless [ as discussed at length in a sleeping bag thread] the outer layer is too tight to allow full lofting. Down needs to be warmed up to allow full expansion and this is easier when closest to the heat source.

[GPSGuided]

I hazard a guess that allowing the down to achieve full loft is easier when closer to the body; unless [ as discussed at length in a sleeping bag thread] the outer layer is too tight to allow full lofting. Down needs to be warmed up to allow full expansion and this is easier when closest to the heat source.

But counter acted by moisture.

Interesting consideration. I'd put the largest thermal space on the outside, similar to how we wear a thin pajama and then hide under a thick blanket. It doesn't make sense to wear a thick pajama and then be covered by a thin blanket. Let the closest synthetic layer collect most of the moisture and minimise the moisture exposure in the down layer.

[forest]

I'm no expert on this but I have read that the synthetic layer (be it jacket or sleeping bag)should be the outer layer if you wear/sleep in a down layer as well. I believe this is because the moisture moves to the outermost layer eventually and it's better off in the synthetic over the down for obvious reasons.
I have no first hand experience with this though in actual effect. I have layered a down vest under a synthetic jackt though and found it worked well if the sizing is right. My primaloft/coreloft clothing is all sized to fit over my UL down vest for this reason.

[Moondog55]

I'm no expert on this but I have read that the synthetic layer (be it jacket or sleeping bag)should be the outer layer if you wear/sleep in a down layer as well. I believe this is because the moisture moves to the outermost layer eventually and it's better off in the synthetic over the down for obvious reasons.
I have no first hand experience with this though in actual effect. I have layered a down vest under a synthetic jacket though and found it worked well if the sizing is right. My primaloft/coreloft clothing is all sized to fit over my UL down vest for this reason.

I've highlighted in bold what I consider the most important part of your post Forest, no matter what system you decide on this is I believe the most important part; everything has to have the ability to work together.

[GPSGuided]

I've highlighted in bold what I consider the most important part of your post Forest, no matter what system you decide on this is I believe the most important part; everything has to have the ability to work together.

Very good point.