Mont synthetic sleeping bags?

[Ent]

Lower Limit The next number is based on a standard man at the lowest temp to have a comfortable nights sleep
Extreme Rating The last number is a survival rating for a standard woman
Lower Limit 10 degrees (-12.2c)
Extreme Rating Minus 24.7 degrees (-31c)

Franco

Yeap, Franco that is how I understand it as well. Now either Nuts is a cold sleeper, mucked up on temperature measurement, had a bad bag, or the manufacturer/marketer is away with the fairies or lying through their teeth.

The above temperature specifications mirror the WM Versa-lite I have but have not used that probably below zero or -1 and found it naturally toasty at that mild temp compared to its ratings. I used the -10 WM Badger on snow so probably below -3, and apart from having to blow up the Therma-rest extremely hard to eliminate a cold spot on my hip and feet not warming up until I found my lollie stash and putting on a pair of socks, I found it toasty as well.

I do agree with Nuts that a lot of people review bags based on how warm they are in their living room (Versa-lite after five minutes just had to get out) rather than at the extreme end of the scale where it is losing battle to get out for a call of nature. I also think that we humans are bad at estimating temperature plus a fully closed up tent in a sheltered spot is a lot warmer than an exposure weather station reading so a -5 report might not reflect the actual temperature the bag is in. Plus even a small draft can play a major role in increasing heat loss so say sleeping under tarp with even a gentle breeze would test a bag much more than in a double wall tent.

Still with all that it sounds that the rating of sileg's bag is rather optomistic at least based on Nuts experience. The question is does a similar rated bag from another manufacturer prove to be warm enough?

Cheers Brett

[Selig97]

Ive owned that particular bag also. -11 is rubbish (sorry selig), but that should be obvious! That lower rating should not even be mentioned for sleeping bags, it is meaningless. The trestles 15 is probably more like -3/4 for the average (and everyone at Marmot (or Bivouac) would know that!) Even the Pinnacle (Marmots rated, 800 fill, w'proof shell, most popular bag) is only 'comfortable' to -5 or so (without help). Marmot make great bags but the ratings should be understood.)

Nuts,

I take on board your feedback, and I do have an understanding of the difference in the ratings between comfort and extreme. (Some research completed and not just from the Marmot site) Information on the Marmot site did explain how their bags were tested to the EN standard, so my understanding is the rating should be as accurate as can be with all the other variables in play with the particular individual. http://marmot.com/products/trestles_15?p=117,173,74, EN Rating System http://www.mountainhardwear.com/images/EN_Ratings.pdf

But, as not having used the bag as yet, I won't defend / argue the individual bags rating until then. Suffice to say, my old bag doesn't have a hood, is about paper thin, not made in wave construction, but I could still sleep (well off and on sleep) on a cold night around 2-4C with nought but the essentials on and head pulled in with just face exposed.

So, trusting that the rating is half right, I should be able to sleep around the -3C with thermals. Not really planning to be hunting a colder environment but allowing for the fickle nature of nature so trust that the lower comfort for a man will keep me alive but not in a cryogenic state.

I also noted in someone else's post about the Mountain Hardwear range. I was originally looking at these but couldn't get one cheap enough at the time from local or ex USA. The discount stores in USA wouldn't export to Aus while the stores that sold it at a higher price would. So purchased what I hope is an acceptable bag for the camping I will be doing, hut or tent (Macpac Olympus).

Will provide an honest review when used, good, bad or ugly.

[blacksheep]

seems that I cannot post here without passive aggressive swipes from the usual suspect....

Last edited by blacksheep on Thu 20 May, 2010 6:19 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Nuts]

Hi Brett, I think you may have missed the point (or perhaps demonstrated it. You suggest that the rating on your WM bag is 'correct' ? )
Doesnt that suggest (you being a large male...) the bag should be rated higher to cover 'the average' or perhaps even safer- 'Anyone'?

Giving one number or a set of numbers makes no difference to how they perform, perhaps a set is more useful? though i suspect many people look at the figures through rose coloured glasses anyhow..
Its a bit of a no win situation for manufacturers, if they give the 'comfort level' in advertising or naming then they would be at a disadvantage over those who dont.

Selig, I would imagine that 'most' people would be ok with that model, with thermals, at the temperature you mention

[Selig97]

Yes, not slept in thermals before but just putting them on inceases my body temp significantly. Love them on early morning bike rides. And now that I am a bit older and starting to feel the cold a bit more, I think (hope) the combination will work for me.

Another issue I have is that I have a thermarest but I don't think I have been blowing it up enough and have been feeling the cold through the bits where I am a bit heavy. I know self inflating, but still needs a puff to fully expand.

Anyway, I have heard Lake Rodway is a good place to test some gear in winter. So looking to head there soon. Not the tent, sleeping bag in cabin.

In response to your comments on advertising on a set of numbers. I agree but the numbers to me are only a guide considering no 2 people are the same. But I expect the guide to be accurate somewhat in what it will deliver +/- a couple of degrees, again allowing for the individual. All I can do is research, look for some consistentcy in the numbers across brands, read some reviews (Not just from the manufacturers website). Personally, I like to see and touch items but not all items are stocked locally so it comes to research, punt and hopefully it all works.

[Tony]

Another issue I have is that I have a thermarest but I don't think I have been blowing it up enough and have been feeling the cold through the bits where I am a bit heavy. I know self inflating, but still needs a puff to fully expand.

I know this is a Mont sleeping bag thread but I thought as sleeping mats where mentioned some might find this interesting.

I was at the Mont wharehouse shop on Monday and noticed they have a new sleeping mat out, it is not on their web site yet, it is a blowup one that weighs 680 for the regular size but what got my interest was that I was told that it was R rated at 4, the Prolite 4 has a rating of US 3.8R, the neo air has a rating of US 2.5, one Australian (or international R) R = 5.7 US R. I questioned the shop sales person what rating system they used and he was not sure but thinks it was the international system which makes the new mat 22.8 US R, that would make it 6 times better than the prolite 4 and 9 times better than the neoair. The cost of the new mont mat is only A$189, my local paddys want A$330 for a neoAir.

I will try and find out more.

Tony

[Franco]

Yesterday I had a look at some real world; reviews on that Marmot bag. Anything from "I was cold in the low 30's" (say =1 to -1c) to a guy that was OK at 15f (-9.4) .
Having seen several comments along these lines , I think that apart from the usual individual metabolism/food intake/clothing warn etc.. the mat in use makes a big difference. Not unusual to see people using a 1.5 cm mat (2.2 to 2.5 R) under a -10c sb at well below zero and then complain that the bag is not warm enough.
BTW, on the Marmot site that bag is listed at 1.7 Kg .
The EN rating has nothing to do with Marmot................
Franco
And on the point of allergies, from memory I was treading that some that were "allergic" to down in the past don't have the problem now. Something to do with the way down is washed now. IE the allergy wasn't with the down itself but dirt/dust on it. Maybe it is worth researching this point.

[Ent]

seems that I cannot post here without passive aggressive swipes from the usual suspect....

Me passive agressive? Um? Some would argue wrong on one count And "usual suspect", I thought I would have been rated as a "habitual" by now It is not a good look when a marketer/manufacturer makes unsolicited comments on rival's products. Sure flog the good points, real or otherwise, on their own products but commenting on rivals is just a bit, well, to self serving.

Part of the issue here was the rating quoted by reseller as per the manufacturers claims and they are, so the reseller is in the clear. The question as I see it is the rating system for lowest comfortable for male bit optimistic for some people, or is the brand incorrect, or do other brands under promise and over deliver? The first matter is for the individual to figure out while the other two are important considerations for people buying bags from a manufacturer. Reading of this and other sites suggest that OP and WM might do the last point, but that is rather imprecise science and no doubt if it is I will be shot down on that view.

Yes Nuts, the rating are heavily influenced by the amount of dead space in a sleeping bag (or so I read when looking at the EN rating system so hence in large part the different rating for women due to a smaller model being used) so the only advantage of cramming my large frame into a bag is theoretically I should be warmer than a smaller framed person, but then again with WM I have the 6'6" bag lengths. Given your build and height I would assume that you would be close to the "typical" male build so would hope that if the rating system is an acceptable buying tool then you should find the quoted ratings to be close to what you experience. With this particular bag and by the sounds of it the brand that is not the case by a sizable margin so maybe a suggestion to buyers to up the rating if worried about being cold and not an adherent to wearing additional clothing to sleep in?

Anyway I am sure selig once testing the bag in anger will provide a comprehensive report. As for huts, Parks warn that they can actually be colder than sleeping in a tent.

The point however behind all this is there appears to be a gap in the market for a sleeping bag suitable for a person that can not tolerate down bags. Also there is the issue that this might be because the average buyer of such bags is only prepared to pay a price that rules out developing a quality bag. It is hard to imagine thirty years ago anyone would pay over three hundred dollars for a sleeping mat but now it appears many people are, sure the smarter ones head direct to the USA but even then still a lot more than the usual blue foam mat. I wonder if the wonder mat would have been a commerical success thirty years ago or considered a waste of money by the hard men and women of that era?

Cheers Brett

[blacksheep]

Brett, I am making zero comments about products or brands...
If you take the time to read related posts, you will see my comment was questioning the practise of one online store which uses only the lower temperature rating as the guide for on-line shoppers to base their decision. The actual products/brands they re-sell are all tested and therefore that retailer could show all 3 temperatures as their buyers guide ( as most other on-line stores do).

Why do i say this?

the definition of the EN temperature ratings is as follows-
# Comfort - the temperature at which a standard woman can expect to sleep comfortably in a relaxed position.
# Lower Limit - the temperature at which a standard man can sleep for eight hours in a curled position without waking.
# Extreme - the minimum temperature at which a standard woman can remain for six hours without risk of death from hypothermia (though frostbite is still possible)

I believe, (as I'm sure you would agree if you weren't committed to taking the opposing position to all my comments ) that IF a retailer was only providing one temp rating it should be the comfort rating (as that is what a consumers expectation would be-comfort) NOT a rating that requires curling up to keep warm. That , to me, is poor form.

[Ent]

Hi Blacksheep

Despite what you wish to believe I am not been contrary and would fully support your view if a major competitor to your business was quoting the extreme survival level rather the lower comfort level of a male, as doing that would be misleading and potentially a dangerous. Instead your competitor is quoting the lowest comfort level for a male, which while not as good as all the ratings is still an acceptable number, providing you are a male. Below is a series of extracts that you can see how I formed my opinion.

Nuts wrote:

Ive owned that particular bag also. -11 is rubbish (sorry selig), but that should be obvious! That lower rating should not even be mentioned for sleeping bags, it is meaningless. The trestles 15 is probably more like -3/4 for the average (and everyone at Marmot (or Bivouac) would know that!) Even the Pinnacle (Marmots rated, 800 fill, w'proof shell, most popular bag) is only 'comfortable' to -5 or so (without help). Marmot make great bags but the ratings should be understood.

Some of those reviews, especially on shop sites, are more than hopeful. How many are written by people who 'have tried them in the loungeroom', 'spent a night in it'... how many others are just bs, how many originate from the company themselves.

(btw, theres one here kallum...http://cgi.ebay.com.au/MARMOT-TRESTLES- ... 5887b07dd8)

Blacksheep wrote:

it baffles me why some sites quote the lower temp as the main guidline that forms a purchasing decision...will surely leave a few folks chilly...

Nuts wrote:

perhaps it has some merit in giving an idea of the stage at which you can start to worry about survival (Most stores seem to use it... to be fair though, so do most manufacturers (its printed on the bag or used in the naming...))

Blacksheep wrote:

'cause that's what most customers are seeking...survival..(not comfort)

Franco wrote:

For example, the rating on our Pinnacle 15º Sleeping Bag shows:
Comfort Limit 22.2 degrees (-5.4 c)
Lower Limit 10 degrees (-12.2c)
Extreme Rating Minus 24.7 degrees (-31c)

As you can see from the above your reference is to survival not comfort. Despite what many “experienced people” may consider the correct way to buy a bag many people base their buying decision on the EN lower male or lower female rating. So Bivouac in NZ have quoted probably (assuming you are a male) the most reasonable number and yes quoting all the specifications would be better but as you, if anyone, should know, website are not a happy thing at times. So maybe a bit of professional curtsey is in order

Cheers Brett

[Son of a Beach]

It seems to me that it was Nuts who first mentioned the "lower rating", and that Blacksheep was merely agreeing with him. Then it was Nuts who first mentioned "survival", and that Blacksheep was merely jesting in agreement with him again.

Brett and Blacksheep,

I know you two frequently butt heads on these forums (sorry, couldn't resist that metaphor ), and I think you've argued this one enough. I frequently get comments from other readers who find your debates tiring, and they do sometimes deteriorate into breaking forum rules, so I'm politely asking you both to drop it for now, please.

[blacksheep]

not a worry Nik, I see what I am against here. no further interest in this discussion...

[Ent]

As previously agreed Nik no problems QED

Cheers Brett