using pillow stuffing

[Just Bill]

But...the claim is that UP is warmer than 600FP down for a given volume. Which is really to say, that it's warmer than down for a given volume since the FP is, practically speaking, irrelevant for down so long as you properly fill the volume. Based on that claim, if you fill your 7000 c.i. quilt with UP instead of down, it should would be warmer than the same quilt stuffed with down. Saying that a given volume stuffed with any loose fill will yield the same temperature rating isn't adding up for me, nor is it what the claim on UP is saying.

"Warmth

UP has tested to be warmer than a 600 fill power Goose Down when tested for warmth based on equal volume. While no synthetic can equal the warmth to weight, compressibility and resiliency of down, UP makes up for it with sheer durability and water resistance.

Loft

In independent testing, UP has shown to have a loft equal to 625 Fill Power.

Durability

A synthetic insulation is only as good as its durability. Having been tested under harsh washing condition, UP is able to withstand 20+ repeated washings showing no discernible cold spots or clumping in baffles up to 3″ x 10″. With the warmth close to a 700 fill power down and able to be used in larger cold weather products, this new blowable insulation is one that finally transcends the small, lightweight jacket baffles common seen in comparable insulation."

That's the exact copy... just so it's in front of me/us.

I agree it reads poorly. The text is not immediately familiar enough that I could claim it was borrowed from the marketing literature of the producer though it reads a bit like there is a blend of copy from both Dutchware and the supplier.

That said; having some familiarity with the testing... I get the "equal volume" claim. I roughly translate that to simply mean that it had slightly higher insulating capacity than 600 FP when tested head to head based upon volume. Which makes sense as synthetic tends to have higher density (as opposed to higher fill power per ounce). So one liter of each does not mean equal weight or density despite equal volume. It just means that when placed in the same testing cylinder that UP measured a slightly higher thermal resistance than 600 fill power down.

As to the second claim... that's a simple fill power test where an ounce of UP was likely IDFL tested and achieved a 625 Fill Power rating.


Here is an example of a fill power test-


Remember... fill power has nothing to do with thermal resistance.
A hunk of closed cell foam could be cut to be equal volume to any number of fills but due to density could easily be many times higher R-value.
The standard blue foamy 3/8" pad is R 1.5 or so for example. Though good 3/8" (2.2lb density) foams can produce 1.65 or so.
.88R=1 CLO
You need 2 CLO to get to about 50* F or 1.76 R. And you'd need at least 1"-1.25" of down loft to hit that.
So about 7/16"" of foam= 5/8" of synthetic = 1" of down to hit the same 50* rating.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that density greatly affects thermal resistance; more so than volume or loft.

Which is a very roundabout way of saying that comparing down, synthetic, and any insulation is messy.
That's why the building industry goes by R-value. And uses different materials for different applications.
Foam board may be used to skin your walls to prevent thermal bridging through your framing. (foam)
Some loose blown fill may go in your attic where you have plenty of room for loft and don't want extra weight (down)
And you may want to use batts of mineral wool or fiberglass in your vertical stud cavities since they won't collapse and are economical (synthetic).

All these materials have wildly different properties and advantages in certain applications, with negatives in others. Volume is not the critical number, it's R-value.

You can read EN testing manuals, IDFL testing reports and articles, and do lots of research. You could even cross reference your outdoors knowledge with your building trades science.
What you will tend to find is that while we are good at testing certain properties of insulation, we are very bad at actually translating those properties into useful numbers.
Both IDFL and EN rating systems easily concede as much as +/- 5% margins of error, with some tests having much higher margins.

The long and short of it tends to be a very scientific 'we don't actually know'.
Everything stated in the copy text for UP could likely be backed up with a lab test...

Though if I was writing the copy I'd go with my informed but no BS or spin and simply say, "Treat UP as you would 600 fill power down when calculating the fill quantity and design parameters for your MYOG project."

That's it.

At the end of the day, I can say with some confidence that very few people know exactly how to design and rate an insulation product for use in the outdoors based upon laboratory data.
Those that do successfully design effective products use a combination of art, science, and most important of all; field testing.

If I were to build a product from UP today;
I would use 4" wide chambers with a maximum of 1.75" baffles. I would try to limit the chamber length to 60" or less... and would consider a horizontal baffle design for that reason.
I would calculate the loft at 2" and use 30% overfill with 600FP as the value.

Then I would use it and see what's UP.
I would watch for clumping, relofting in 30 minutes or less, compression damage, and even odor buildup.
I would see how it actually worked when filling, how well it distributed, and what happened to it during storage.
Most important of all; I would see if it hit the temp I designed it for and if it held that temp over a multi day trip.
If that all checked out I'd apply my standard 100 nights of use testing to see how it holds it's value for a customer.

Once I knew more... I could evaluate what, where and how this product could be used if it is used at all.
Being a loose fill product the most obvious application would be for a sewn through quilt for summer use similar to the MYOG costco down throw projects.
As the marketing speak implies... apparel is an obvious choice for this material.

I am one of the few in the world who builds Primaloft Gold sleeping quilts, though it is the premier synthetic in apparel use. The insulation is better than down for certain applications. In particular for summer quilts in most US climates. In the field (not the lab) it is in many ways superior to down with little or no compromise when done right. Though the cost is high to produce and the down market has crashed, making a premium synthetic less attractive to bring to market.
That took several years to figure out.

There is a need to come up with a synthetic set that is competitive with down in the three season range.
For some that need is already satisfied by Climbashield Apex products. While they do offer good value, in my opinion they are not superior or equal to down in any realistic way.
Once down prices go back up (assuming they do) then Apex will continue to offer an attractive budget option, which is where synthetic normally slots in.

Is UP the product I'm looking for? Hard to say.
I don't care about cost, I care about what works. Though eventually cost effects what can be expanded from 'the best' to 'the best you can actually produce to sell'
Down has limitations too, and in some applications it is a poor choice. However at today's low prices and low shell weights completed down products are advancing too.

Down remains a poor choice in low loft applications... so UP could have an advantage there, but likely not enough of one to replace Primaloft Gold or Apex...
But once you start talking 30* or lower products... then baffle construction and loose fill begins to jump ahead again.

At a retail cost of $37.50 per pound vs $80 per pound for 650 fill down... that is still a significant savings for the budget minded builder.
Also a good way to try 'down baffles' without spending a ton of money for the MYOG person looking to advance their skillset or practice a build.

As it sits...
You want a 45* quiltset- Buy the 3.6 Apex and be done with it. No sense sewing baffles and filling them at that price.
You want a 20/30 combo- UP is a cheap way to do it... and likely a better finished product than stacking apex to the sky.

I know enough about synthetic to say that this is potentially promising insulation.
But we're likely a year out until we get enough folks using it for a full season before we can have any serious discussion about it.

On the non performance side... take your average 2.5 yard top quilt at 2" loft-

2.5*1296= 3240*2"= 6480 CUIN
6480/600= 10.8 x 130%= 14.04 ounces. Or call it 5 bags at $7 each and that's $35 worth of fill.
Sew that puppy up out of cheap as dirt Ion... Buy 6 yards at $4.50 each and you're at $27 bucks.

14.4 ounces of fill- 6.6 ounces of shell brings you to 21 ounces and $62 plus a few notions (cord locks, tabs, snaps, cordage) and call it $70 finished.
Not a bad gamble for a conservatively rated 35* top quilt. Hell if it turns out to only pull 40* and holds up okay that's a good deal for a beater quilt.
As mentioned... great way for an aspiring DIY person to take on a baffled quilt for the first time.

You'd need at least $27 worth of Apex do do close to that.

Sure beats the hell out of 24 hours of seam ripping $40+ bucks worth of costco quilts up to get one halfway decent piece of 700 fp down gear with 10,000 pinholes in it.

So either way... even if you don't focus on the cutting edge of synthetic technology... Dutch is still offering a good value to his customers.
Unless Dutch bought an industrial shredder and tossed in rolls of Apex to make this crap... it's likely produced by someone who has a decent idea what they are doing and it seems highly unlikely it will be absolute junk.

Only time will tell if it's a great value... and if this stuff can compete with down on a spec basis rather than simply a budget basis.
Overall... do I see a bit of marketing spin... sure. Do I detect any serious ********ting... no.

[Caminante]

Bill, I appreciate your thoroughness (typed without irony), but it will take me some time to go through that. You do say:

Though if I was writing the copy I'd go with my informed but no BS or spin and simply say, "Treat UP as you would 600 fill power down when calculating the fill quantity and design parameters for your MYOG project."

Which is definitely where I would start since you definitely need to know how much volume a loose fill will fill for a given weight of said loose fill. What I guess will come from empirical evidence at this point is the actual temperature rating. For the archetype 20F UQ which for me would be 44" x 66" with 2.5" baffles (assuming perfect rectangle for this purpose) I would need (44" x 66" x 2.5") / 600 cubic inch per ounce 600FP down (not accounting for the 30% "overstuff" factor for this napkin math), which is 7620/600 = 12.1 ounces. Now I could assume that to fill that same volume, based on the "literature", I need 12.1 ounces * 1.3 = 15.73 ounces of UP. However, I can also assume, based on the "literature", that this quilt would be warmer than a 20F down quilt.

But what is the temperature rating of this UP quilt with 2.5" baffles? 15F? 10F? It's better than 20F. If I want to build a UP UQ as close to a 20F down quilt as possible, should the baffles be 1.75"? 2"? 2.25"? Certainly less than 2.5" since UP is warmer than down for a given volume.

In any case, I guess this is the point that is up in the air until we have some real-world examples. I agree that it looks like a good product and will fill at least a niche in the market if not a good segment.

Interesting discussion.

[Just Bill]

Bill, I appreciate your thoroughness (typed without irony), but it will take me some time to go through that. You do say:



Which is definitely where I would start since you definitely need to know how much volume a loose fill will fill for a given weight of said loose fill. What I guess will come from empirical evidence at this point is the actual temperature rating. For the archetype 20F UQ which for me would be 44" x 66" with 2.5" baffles (assuming perfect rectangle for this purpose) I would need (44" x 66" x 2.5") / 600 cubic inch per ounce 600FP down (not accounting for the 30% "overstuff" factor for this napkin math), which is 7620/600 = 12.1 ounces. Now I could assume that to fill that same volume, based on the "literature", I need 12.1 ounces * 1.3 = 15.73 ounces of UP. However, I can also assume, based on the "literature", that this quilt would be warmer than a 20F down quilt.

But what is the temperature rating of this UP quilt with 2.5" baffles? 15F? 10F? It's better than 20F. If I want to build a UP UQ as close to a 20F down quilt as possible, should the baffles be 1.75"? 2"? 2.25"? Certainly less than 2.5" since UP is warmer than down for a given volume.

In any case, I guess this is the point that is up in the air until we have some real-world examples. I agree that it looks like a good product and will fill at least a niche in the market if not a good segment.

Interesting discussion.

If you wanted to cherry pick the most accurate statement from the copy and clear up the inconsistencies:

"In independent testing, UP has shown to have a loft equal to 625 Fill Power."

Beyond that... things get debatable. I would simply toss the rest as that is the only statement made that doesn't contradict itself.

I consider the loft chart I use to be one of the most accurate charts available.
That chart uses average loft... so an efficient designer looking to achieve a 2.5" average loft would design with 2.25" baffles.... understanding that the center of each chamber will loft to roughly 2.75".
This puts you at the 2.5" average to use when calculating the fill. That is based upon information that can be found here- https://1drv.ms/b/s!Apygyt54yYPwrnwpJrIVOByjm3B7

From there... I do find some fault with your other assumptions or reasoning. If we are to compare evenly with down, we must design the same. Like any good experiment we must eliminate variables and get it down to Apples vs Apples even if we know there is an orange sitting there we have to start somewhere.

If you agree with the 30% overfill model- then treat each insulation equally in applying it. If nothing else... that's a fairly industry standard number even if folks arrive at it or define it differently.
Again- this has nothing to do with overstuff. Overfill covers errors in measurement as you move from a simple rectangle to the complex geometric shape of a filled quilt AND accounts for loss in performance due to real world vs laboratory conditions. Overstuff is a safety blanket choice driven mainly by the hammock forum vendors being extra accommodating towards the demands of it's customer base. Outside hammock vendors, overstuff is not an industry accepted term or even an option. As used here though... it means extra fill added on top of whatever fill your vendor has already determined is needed to deliver the quilt you ordered.

So the perfectly fair test would be to create two shells and fill one with 600FP down and one with UP.

Since we care less about material science and more about real world use...
The more realistic and useful test would be to use 800 FP down as we are unlikely to consider 600FP a viable material at today's prices.
Across the board, fill powers lower than 700 are rarely ever used in sleeping gear. In apparel they have some applications, but few if any here would consider a 600FP down quilt as a viable choice.
After the fact; we could assess cost, pack size, weight, etc... but to start might as well compare it to something you'd actually want to put in your pack.

Regardless of fill... we are moving forward with the premise that loft is the measure of thermal resistance and therefore establishes temp rating of the completed quilt.

All we really want to know is if the two quilts of 2.5" loft and 20* target rating meet that goal.
Much the same way we all agree that a 20* economy model is equal in warmth to a 20* premium model from a trusted vendor.
So for all intents and purposes we can ignore other variables such as finished weight, packed size, or cost to start.

Technically if you wanted to remove all variables; one could supply a tester with both quilts and simply ask 'which is warmer' and let them test each to establish their own rating rather than assume the loft chart is accurate. However since we already generally agree that an economy quilt of lower fill isn't any warmer than a premium quilt of higher fill when built to the same loft... seems a moot variable to suss out.

We'd then learn at worst one of three things...
1-UP does not achieve the same thermal resistance value as down when designing based upon loft alone.
2-UP does equal down in terms of thermal resistance based upon loft of finished product.
3-UP generates a higher thermal resistance than down at a given loft.

If 1 is the case; Dutch might want to ask why but to be blunt most of us would simply move on if the difference exceeded 5* or so and not waste time with the stuff.

If 2 is the case; then you just call it 600 fill down and use it the same way ... and then you'd add in variables like cost, weight, pack size etc. to evaluate it's use.

If 3 is the case; then I would be excited, but not overly so.

I would suspect that the simplest solution would be to adjust the fill power in my calculation to account for what is likely increased density or an overly conservative rating.
So perhaps 700 may be the more accurate number... but again... all that really changes is the finished weight and cost but it would improve both metrics and likely help pack size to boot.

We could also speculate that like other synthetics... we'd be better off using CLO or creating a unique loft chart for the fill that better matched it's properties.
So perhaps one might only need 2" of UP vs 2.5" of down to achieve that 20* rating for example.
That would make sense for a higher density fill that you would need less loft... but it may not change the specs the user actually cares about too much.

When I speculated that the 30% could be reduced to 15% a post or two back... that wasn't completely produced from my rectum. Though that would require further experiments and observations to determine.
And simply cranking the fill power variable could solve this problem without getting too technical as it eventually results in the same thing.

So long as things stay in the ballpark with our down counterpart...

Eventually- we could then add back in critical measures of performance such as:
Loft recovery at camp.
Repeat performance on multi-day trips in several seasons of use.
Consistent field reports from additional users.

Assuming that nothing dramatic arises then we could finally evaluate all we learn to boil it down to what the end user cares about;
How much?
How heavy?
How much pack space does it chew up?
Does it hold up?
Can I clean it?
Does it do the job you tell me it's going to do?

I don't like to talk shart about other vendors stuff.
The reality is that most of us simply don't use our gear as much as we'd like.
My 100 night test... a busy scout dad or weekend warrior getting out once a month means 24 nights a year in the field. That's 4 years... about the time you'd find something better, newer, lighter, or just replace because you are bored. Double that to 200 nights and you've done a thru hike or got nearly a decade of casual use... both standards that folks consider durable or even bomber gear.

Generally speaking; synthetics perform very well out of the gate... sometimes dramatically so.

I have burned up Apex quilts in 90 days of hard use on speed hiking trips. They perform roughly 3-5* over rating to start... about even after a week or two... and decline by 5-10 degrees over the next 60-90 days depending on how hard you beat them up. When you sleep in 45* quilts at 35*... you do notice a one degree loss of performance. 5* is the difference between sleeping and not sleeping.

On the flipside... if you go on more casual trips and size your gear 5-10* warmer than your expected lows, use a hot water bottle or other tricks then you're not likely to notice any issues.

I like the safe approach. But the FKT/speed hiker/ super ultralight nut job approach does teach you more about the exact failure points and very subtle difference in gear down to degrees of temp.
That's the reason I go with Primaloft Gold over Apex, and why I would be curious who is manufacturing this fill.

So the bigger issue with synthetics is always long term durability...within reason.
For a budget insulation for a casual user I think that UP has a lot going for it.

So take any critiques I have with a grain of salt. I believe in finding the absolute limits with gear as a designer.
If I know precisely where a piece of gear will fail... I can take a few steps back and offer something that is a few steps further than someone else is willing to go.

As a user though I believe in taking a few steps back from the edge and not taking any chances with falling off.
So 600 fillpower with this seems a good start. A little conservative perhaps... but we need to edge up to the cliff first with some baby steps then backoff.

I do see a loose fill synthetic in a traditional baffled sleeping quilt as a piece of gear with high potential to land in many packs if built by the right vendor the right way.
I also see a great opportunity for budget minded MYOG folks to have a viable alternative to Apex quilts for three season range.

I don't see where, why or how (other than cost) one would select synthetic over down for winter conditions unless you were out for prolonged periods of time.

[Caminante]

Point taken on the 30% - I had it in my head that you needed 30% more UP than 600FP down, but it's actually 800FP down. I don't feel too bad, because the product info mentions 600, 625, 700, and 800FP down as proxies for the warmth and/or amount of UP you should use. I'm also not arguing the merits of synthetic insulation vs down, I actually prefer CS quilts for 40F and up. They just work well, are inexpensive, are easy to make, and easy to care for. I prefer down below 40F, but I'd like to try this UP insulation, especially at this price point. However...

So perhaps one might only need 2" of UP vs 2.5" of down to achieve that 20* rating for example.

...is the kicker for me. And I'm back to needing some empirical data in the absence of any technical measure. Since UP only comes in one weight/FP, I imagine that at some point we'll get to an oz/ft^2 required for a given temperature range, and then use the "600FP" method to determine the height of that quilt, which I suppose gets to the CLO point.

[Just Bill]

Point taken on the 30% - I had it in my head that you needed 30% more UP than 600FP down, but it's actually 800FP down. I don't feel too bad, because the product info mentions 600, 625, 700, and 800FP down as proxies for the warmth and/or amount of UP you should use. I'm also not arguing the merits of synthetic insulation vs down, I actually prefer CS quilts for 40F and up. They just work well, are inexpensive, are easy to make, and easy to care for. I prefer down below 40F, but I'd like to try this UP insulation, especially at this price point. However...



...is the kicker for me. And I'm back to needing some empirical data in the absence of any technical measure. Since UP only comes in one weight/FP, I imagine that at some point we'll get to an oz/ft^2 required for a given temperature range, and then use the "600FP" method to determine the height of that quilt, which I suppose gets to the CLO point.

Agree... we need some lab rats. Though on the flipside it's a cheap enough test for those who volunteer.

Based upon what I know overall- I suspect scenario 2 is most likely... it will more or less work as advertised and slot into current loft charts.
You'll just use 600 FP or so as the number you plug into your calculation and that's all we'll need to know.
If you're feeling optimistic... it tested at 625 so feel free to use that.

Maybe over time we all agree it runs a hair hotter and bump it to 650 and stop there. No sense getting too crazy.

I think it's safe to say that at worst this would check off most of the standard synthetic boxes; economical, moisture resistant, and economical.
It likely won't make any gram weenies stir or beat Primaloft Gold or Apex out at 45 or up.
But it would make many of those here who do not care about UL backpacking or like to work on the cheap happy even if it means a few ounces or a liter or two.

To be fair to Alex- 800/600= 1.33. So that's why he mentioned using 30% more than you would if you planned on 800 fill.
Which is coincidentally near enough to the standard 30% overfill to confuse everyone.

To be fair to Dutch- I have asked people at Primaloft and others who really know what they are talking about and they don't know all that much more.
Most of this type of material is developed with apparel in mind, not sleeping gear. The science on down sleeping gear isn't even that reliable to be honest.
In many ways just selling the stuff is more trouble than it may be worth but Dutch is willing to take some risks so kudos to him for that.

[TominMN]

I have to tease about the down-filled attic example (post #21)!

One point I would contest: to say that more density results in higher r-value is a bit misleading. Packed too tightly, the r-value per inch of many materials will decrease.

[Just Bill]

I have to tease about the down-filled attic example (post #21)!

One point I would contest: to say that more density results in higher r-value is a bit misleading. Packed too tightly, the r-value per inch of many materials will decrease.

I suppose that could read funny. All I meant (as many understand building insulation better than camping insulation) is that blown in loose fill insulation (cellulose, fiberglass, or other) is much like down or UP.

Batts of insulation we use in the wall or roof cavity are much like synthetics such as Apex or Primaloft Gold... comes in a sheet like fabric and works in a similar way.

Loose fill or blown in... synthetic can do both; much like fiberglass or mineral wool.
Down can only be loose filled and requires properly designed baffles to keep it in place.

And yes... I fully agree that density has a point of not just diminishing returns but actual loss of function. (one reason I dislike overstuff).
Although in the materials we are discussing you'd have to get pretty excessive to reach the point it would matter... so it's a moot point.

In fact Brandon at Warbonnet had chimed in that he thought that one could overfill (within limits) effectively with down by stuffing a zero degree's worth of down into a 20* shell for example.
That is the basic premise/possibility I was hinting at in perhaps loose fill synthetic achieving a higher value at lower loft.

[TominMN]

I suppose that could read funny. All I meant (as many understand building insulation better than camping insulation) is that blown in loose fill insulation (cellulose, fiberglass, or other) is much like down or UP.

...

As a certified residential energy auditor, I think it may be fewer than many!

[FJRpilot]

And yes... I fully agree that density has a point of not just diminishing returns but actual loss of function. (one reason I dislike overstuff).

I’ve really enjoyed this thread and appreciate everyone sharing their expertise. I’m especially glad to hear Bill State the above.

I share Bills opinion/position on overstuff. I’ve always believed that “loft” equates to “trapped air” and overstuffing results in a reduction of “trapped air” which is what really provides the “warmth” that we all desire. Goose down, does not provide any thermal barrier, the trapped air is what provides the thermal barrier. Similar to a double pane glass window. I believe this is basically true of synthetic insulation. It performs better the GD when wet because it retains it structure and ability to trap air that you body can heat.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Just Bill]

Probably would have been more useful if we had this conversation in a thread related to UP rather than pillow stuffing... but such is life on the forums.