Down Vs Synthetics

[sr1355]

One test study that I have not heard yet is the drying time! I am not sure if it has been done or not but how long would it take for the treated down to dry vs. non-treated down? Since the DWR (or Dri) down has a hydrophobic coating (or something close too it) would it dry faster when wet when compared to non treated down? As well what would the difference be when whetted out?

I have had my down wet out once, and it was completely my own stupid fault, I did not pitch my tarp correctly and did not position it properly (wind drove the rain right in the end of my tarp) which soaked the foot end of my quilt. I literally ringed the water out....

Are you referencing to open air drying or machine drying. Machine drying is much quicker without a doubt, we dryed 50*TQ in under 10 minutes in dryer on low, 12 tennis balls. We'd run some testing on this for you but I must say I'm down less personally as of right now...

Sorry sr1355, I forgot to mention that was a great post and had a great deal of information, thank you.

Thanks, just trying to get information out so people can make decisions. I know this debate will go on until the end of time. We use down in our gear, that's our choice, others use synthetic in their gear and that's their choice. Is one better than the other, I guess it depends on who you ask. Personally I don't have an issue with either, I've bought synthetic bags for the kids, decision was driven by price. But my personal preference is for down inside my pack....

[Cranky Bear]

Are you referencing to open air drying or machine drying. Machine drying is much quicker without a doubt, we dryed 50*TQ in under 10 minutes in dryer on low, 12 tennis balls. We'd run some testing on this for you but I must say I'm down less personally as of right now...

Thanks, just trying to get information out so people can make decisions. I know this debate will go on until the end of time. We use down in our gear, that's our choice, others use synthetic in their gear and that's their choice. Is one better than the other, I guess it depends on who you ask. Personally I don't have an issue with either, I've bought synthetic bags for the kids, decision was driven by price. But my personal preference is for down inside my pack....

Air drying. I am thinking on this from a on trail perspective....I sit my quilts out in the morning inside out in the sun to heat them up to dry out any condensation that may be present, as it has been shown/proven that it (condensation) will accumulate over time especially when it is being sealed in a dry bag (or waterproof liner). So my thought is if the dry down (dri or dwr or ?) dries faster, then the needed time in the morning may be less, or may not be needed every day, possibly every other day, or once a week? One less thing to do in the morning, maybe allow me to get going sooner, or get into town for that special breakfast, or whatever the reason may be.

Also if I should get my quilt wet, would it dry faster while out? This would be very helpful to know as it could mean going an extra day out to get to the next town vs. hiking out as the dwr down retains more loft than non-treated down.

Hope I didn't confuse you more with my long winded explanation????

[sargevining]

The following is not directed at any particular product or supplier, nor is it offered as a critique of anyone's personal preference.

I come not in praise of Down, nor to condemn it, merely to mourn its demise. It is not presently dead, but it is very sick. This does not mean down is a bad choice, or that those using it for manufacture or Do It Yourself projects are in any way deficient in their thinking or that those products are in any way bad or undesirable. This is just the acknowledgement of a reality of down's position in the marketplace of the future.

Gentlemen, down is done. Its goose, as it were, is cooked. The roasting began when the first bolts of Gore-Tex started running off the line 40 years ago and synthetic materials began being embraced by the outdoor community. Much in the same way our fore-fathers stood in dusty streets 14years into the last century shaking thier fists yelling "Get a horse!" as Model-T's chugged past, we stand on forest trails 14 years into the present century shaking our fists at synthetic fibers yelling "Get a down bag!". Down is going the way of wool as an outdoor sports product.

When the principal marketing angle for a product becomes "personal preference", then end for that product in the marketplace is nigh. When the solution to its only real drawback to its use as a material is to make it more expensive, the vultures are perched on the limbs above waiting only for the last twitch.

Down, like synthetic fibers, began as a by-product of another process. Centuries ago the principal use of a goose was the production of meat for human consumption. The economy of the farmstead required the use of everything on the goose except the honk and that economy led farmers to explore uses of the waste products. Thus the down blanket and jacket were born along with countless other uses.

The price of down goes up as the market for goose flesh goes down. When keeping a goose alive is for the sole purpose of plucking the feathers from under its wings, the price will increase to make up for what profit the meat would have brought in, or those who rely in its production will seek other methods of keeping their families fed. While my Grandmother (who would be 108 this year were she still alive) could tell stories of her daddy going to the barn to slaughter the goose for Christmas dinner, she never served one at her table, and I doubt very many of us alive today has ever enjoyed the experience of that one meal per year, let alone anything approaching a steady diet. Such is true for most Western nations, and the fact that the production and processing of chickens and turkeys is far more advanced and economical means that the trend away from gooseflesh will continue, and possibly increase exponentially.

All of the uses for down and all other by products created by the production of gooseflesh for consumption have been explored, as have all of the methods for increasing production. You can drape a white jacket on a chemist and sit him at a table to stare through safety goggles at a bunson burner and a beaker, tell him that his job is to make the insulation product in front of him more compressible and lighter weight, and he will have something on your desk in under two years. You can tell a goose the same thing and even if he could understand you, it would take a million years or so for evolution to work its magic. In addition to that, there are synthetic products that are likely already being produced for other markets which will have applications to the outdoor market that have yet to be explored. We are, for instance, today making underquilts out of a product that was first intended as a packing material.

The tribal memory for down is disappearing along with the market for gooseflesh. I have many fond memories, as do many of us here, of laying my young head on a pillow made from down stuffed inside a bag made of mattress ticking placed inside a clean cotton pillow case fresh from hanging on the clothesline. When we were young, down pillows were the rule for all social strata. Today those memories do not belong to the lower and middle class youth who are now and will be driving the marketplace in the future, and have not been for quite some time now. Those memories only belong to those in the middle class who might spend an occasional night sleeping in the guest bedroom of a relative or friend's McMansion, the tradegy made moreso by the fact that the smell of the clothesline is likely not to be present. The price of down is making every day products, including ski wear and other winter clothing, made with it more of a status symbol for the affluent rather than anything else and, as everyday use diminishes, the price will increase even further. The sentimental attachment to down is disappearing.

Down's principal drawback is price and its second biggest drawback, the lack of performance when wet, can be dangerous two days away from the trailhead and, as mentioned above, is only addressed by making it more expensive. Any advice to keep down dry, and any number of iterations of "I've never gotten my down wet in XXX years of backpacking." will, in the minds of both price and safety concious new consumers, be nullified by just one "wet down" horror story. This is not to say that down is a bad choice, it is not for most prudent, responsible, and experienced backpackers, but those just entering the marketplace will, I am sure, view things differently.

I do not dislike down, I mourn for it. I remember snug nights nestled in my M49 Mountain Bag as I secretly lusted for the Holubar and Gerry examples of my compatriots. I felt protected and reassured covered in a down comforter with my head on that down pillow as the wind of a New Hampshire Nor' Easter whistled outside my bedroom window and I was secure in the knowledge that I would remain warm and comfortable all the night long.

Those days are as gone as the fabric on the jammies I was wearing on those nights which were also comfortable, warm, and reassuring, but have been replaced by products less flammable. I do believe that twenty years from now when I walk away from my last camping trip as an 80 year old curmudgeon shuffling my way over to the trailhead parking lot to toss my pack into the back of my hovercraft, that I will not have seen an ounce of down on the trail or in the campsite.

Time marches on.

[makomachine]

Sargevining - I agree with a lot of what you say, but think that down is actually having a bit of resurgence with the UL backpacking craze. Until synthetics can match weight with equivelant insulation value, down will still have its place. As a consumer, took me two seconds to grab my down sleeping bag compared to the 3x larger and heavier synthetic sitting next to it on the shelf. Down will be around for a while as long as the "gram weenies" are buying outdoor gear - and until synthetics make the next leap.

[sargevining]

Sargevining - I agree with a lot of what you say, but think that down is actually having a bit of resurgence with the UL backpacking craze. Until synthetics can match weight with equivelant insulation value, down will still have its place. As a consumer, took me two seconds to grab my down sleeping bag compared to the 3x larger and heavier synthetic sitting next to it on the shelf. Down will be around for a while as long as the "gram weenies" are buying outdoor gear - and until synthetics make the next leap.

I agree, and the only reason my choice would not be the same is that the climate I backpack in is hot and humid most of the year, and moderate during the remainder. I don't generally require the insulative value of down and the synthetics available to me to perform equivalent tasks will in the end be both cheaper and of less weight.

Down will also be prevalent in the hammock community for longer (how much longer is debatable) than in the general backpacking community as underquilts and, to a lesser extent, topquilts are specific to hammocking and no large manufacturers are making them. Watch out for the first Kelty underquilt though. Once a large manufacturer comes up with a demand for a product that performs the same as down for equivalent weight/bulk, it will be all over 'cept for the cryin'.

[BillyBob58]

Sargevining - I agree with a lot of what you say, but think that down is actually having a bit of resurgence with the UL backpacking craze. Until synthetics can match weight with equivelant insulation value, down will still have its place. As a consumer, took me two seconds to grab my down sleeping bag compared to the 3x larger and heavier synthetic sitting next to it on the shelf. Down will be around for a while as long as the "gram weenies" are buying outdoor gear - and until synthetics make the next leap.

I know I am in the minority when it comes to this, but I have been of the opinion for a while that down has been matched in warmth to weight ratio, (but more closely in the 3 season or 2 season UQs less so in below zero stuff) by Climashield, probably because you don't need baffling with the CS.

He's insane, Y'all are saying, right? But I have based this 1st on my personal experience. When I was blown away the time I stayed warm in the mid to high 40s with a synthetic Dif cut Yeti UQ using a single 2.5 oz layer of CS XP ( not even Apex!)

Can anyone stay any warmer than that by putting 2.5 oz of 800FP down in a Yeti 1/2 length UQ? I really don't think so. You might even have trouble being as warm, and that is not even considering moisture issues.

But I hear Y'all saying: "that was a fluke, and/or he is just a crazy warm sleeper". Well, I don't know about a fluke, I did not repeat the test. But I really don't think I sleep all that warm, especially as the years advance.

But what must be done now is to look at temperature ratings at AHE or Enlightened Equipment. Look at, for ex, the weight of a 50F and 40*F rated Prodigy UQ. The 50F uses a 2.1 oz layer of Apex, and weighs 9 oz total. While the 40F uses 4 oz Apex and weighs 12 oz total.

Now look at the Revolt model, same size UQ. They don't have a 50F rated one, but the 40F uses 5.75 oz of 850FP down and has a total weight of 12.5 oz! Where is the weight advantage? Assuming the ratings for both are equal for a given person, there is actually a tiny weight advantage for the synthetic model. Which confirms my personal experience, both unbelievable as they seem. ( when you get down to the 20F models, the synthetic takes a 2 oz hit, and I'm sure it would be even more with a zero model, but 2 oz isn't huge)

Same thing with Paul's ratings at AHE. Look at the Flamethrower UQ:
"The Flame Thrower Under Quilt--- 9oz of 800 fill goose down in a 40"x54" differentially cut body. This quilt is taking most users easily to 30 degrees and some even lower. So far we have heard of one user hitting 19 and they said they were toasty.......Weight = 14 oz for quilt, 16 oz with suspension and stuff sack"

Sounds good! Now take a look at the Jarbidge, which more than one person has used below 10F(rated to 30F). Though it is slightly larger so the comparison is not as clearcut:"At 42" wide by 58" long it gives shoulder to shoulder and neck to ankle coverage for many folks. Weighing in at under 20oz's(3season) 3 Season Rated to the 30's for most users,"..

So they have the same temp rating, the Jarbidge weighs a few oz more but is also slightly bigger. I don't see a big weight advantage for the down model here, and I believe the Jarbidge ratings are not even for the Apex model, which is said to be warmer and compress smaller.

So maybe you can see why, even looking at 800-850FP down, I fail to see any big advantage in weight. If looking at the down from just a few years ago, 650 and 750FP, CS probably is warmer for the weight. But, down still packs quite a bit smaller, which is very important to some folks, and I still don't know if even the newest generations of synthetic can hold a candle to longevity compared to down. I'm certain the older generations did NOT, but it appears the newer stuff may be a good bit better. Maybe.

The advantage to CS is: cost and water resistance, and for some allergy issues. The water resistance advantage may be gone with DWR down. Cost advantage is negated if the synthetic does not last as long, jury still out on that with CS XP and Apex.

Oh, and while I do see an advantage for down and weight for the colder temps, even that is a little shaky. Though not if you go cold enough I guess. But what about zero? Consider this: the original CS Yeti was rated for about 5F, and has been used with good results by certain furnaces well below zero. Even at about zero in heavy snow WITH NO TARP! It had 10 oz of CS XP for insulation.

The 4 season Yeti is rated for Zero, and certain furnaces have taken it even colder than the above. So it is probably, maybe, at least a bit warmer. But how much 850 down does it have? 10.5 oz, actually 0.5 oz more than the CS that was used in the original CS Yeti! And that warm to near or below zero CS Yeti did not even have CS Apex!

So I think it is a fact that above zero, especially well above zero, 800FP down has little weight advantage over CS, if any. It has other def advantages, but I think weight advantage is no more. At least for dif cut UQs. I'm not at all sure CS would drape down on your body as well as down in a TQ.

Keep in mind that down is definitely thicker for the same weight, even 650 down. But R value per thickness is may not be exactly the same for different materials. consider the R value of a 1" thick CCF pad vs a 1" thick down UQ. No comparison.

[turnerminator]

If you think the floating DWR down is impressive, try washing a Wiggys sleeping bag in the bath It's like trying to drown a loose bag full of greased footballs.

I've used a Wiggy's bag (Climashield Combat I believe) alongside the highest quality down with different Pertex DWR shells in extreme cold for 2 weeks solid and I know which works better for me-the synthetic, hands down.

My down garments need caring for with Vapour barriers and protecting from the moisture, my Wiggy's bag doesn't. My down garments will suck up moisture through the shell from the moisture in the atmosphere, the Wiggy's doesn't.
Maybe the DWR treated down is better. I imagine it is knowing the water repellent properties of its treatment but I know 100% it's not down to the quality of the DWR on the shell that the down gets damp and loses loft in some environments.

[makomachine]

The Super Light is a 0 degree F (approximately -20 degrees C) rated mummy style bag. It is available in four sizes; 31 inches wide in the torso and 80 inches long (regular regular) (weight is 4 lbs.), 34 inches wide and 80 inches long (regular wide body) (weight is 4 _ lbs.), 31 inches wide and 90 inches long (long regular) (weight 4 _ lbs.), and 34 inches wide and 90 inches long (long wide body) (weight 5 lbs.).

COLORS: DIGITAL CAMO, MARPAT

Style: Mummy
includes standard stuff sack.
NO pillow included

The Super Lt. has proven to be our most popular bag, both with the Armed Forces and Civilian markets.

Sizes Available:
Regular/Regular: (80" x 31")
Regular/Wide Body: (80" x 34")
X-Long/Regular: (90" x 31")
X-Long/Wide Body: (90" x 34")

http://wiggys.com/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=271
--------------------------------------------
Super Light and 4-5lbs should never be uttered in the same sentence. Beyond the weight, which is undeniably more, it's also larger packed and compresses less. They have yet two come up with a synthetic insulation that teumps down in this area. Beyond these, I arrive to my campsite via two feet and the days of lugging a 4 pound bag while backpacking ended in the 90's IMO. Just my 3 cents - HYOH

If you think the floating DWR down is impressive, try washing a Wiggys sleeping bag in the bath It's like trying to drown a loose bag full of greased footballs.

I've used a Wiggy's bag (Climashield Combat I believe) alongside the highest quality down with different Pertex DWR shells in extreme cold for 2 weeks solid and I know which works better for me-the synthetic, hands down.

My down garments need caring for with Vapour barriers and protecting from the moisture, my Wiggy's bag doesn't. My down garments will suck up moisture through the shell from the moisture in the atmosphere, the Wiggy's doesn't.
Maybe the DWR treated down is better. I imagine it is knowing the water repellent properties of its treatment but I know 100% it's not down to the quality of the DWR on the shell that the down gets damp and loses loft in some environments.

[BillyBob58]

If you think the floating DWR down is impressive, try washing a Wiggys sleeping bag in the bath

I've used a Wiggy's bag (Climashield Combat I believe) alongside the highest quality down with different Pertex DWR shells in extreme cold for 2 weeks solid and I know which works better-the synthetic.

My down garments need caring for with Vapour barriers and protecting from the moisture, my Wiggy's bag doesn't. My down garments will suck up moisture through the shell from the moisture in the atmosphere, the Wiggy's doesn't.
Maybe the DWR treated down is better. I imagine it is knowing the water repellent properties of its treatment but I know 100% it's not down to the quality of the DWR on the shell that the down gets damp and loses loft in some environments.

I'm with you on the superiority of the synthetics in conditions like you describe. Rain getting past a DWR shell is not needed to get down to lose some loft. I again point to the example of my friends on trips with me, when I know that no external moisture got on the shells of their quilts. Loft was lost without a leaking tarp or rain blowing under the tarp even being needed.

Still, that DWR down is intriguing to me. DWR down is a whole new improvement compared to hoping a DWR shell will keep water from getting to the down. If the DWR down did not loose any loft after 151 days in that jar of water, which was occasionally agitated, it doesn't seem likely it will loose any loft after a week or two of normal field use. It doesn't seem likely that either vapor coming off of my body or from my breath and condensing inside the shell, or rain/fog/snow managing to get past the tarp plus past the quilts DWR shell should have much effect on the down. If it would, it seems highly likely that 151 days of exposure to water in that jar would have collapsed the down. Seems like it would have after 1 day or at most a few days if the water could degrade the loft under normal- or even extreme- field use.

I am a huge fan of CS if water is a risk and if I can not call it off and get back to my car or at least a motel or shelter. Which I can NOT do in some of my favorite places to hike, 15-20 miles from my car or maybe even any one else's car at the nearest trail head, which may itself be 15-20 miles from the nearest town.

There should be some good tests coming up soon for whoever is willing to do them. I am also a big fan of VBs. because many a person can find that, even after one or two nights at extremely cold temps, any bag can weigh measurably more due to condensation that occurs inside the shells. It may not not loose enough loft to be noticeable, and if their is some good sunshine for drying, all will be well, at least for a few days. But there probably will be a weight increase in the bag even after 1 or 2 nights, and maybe a slight loft decrease. ( see Fronkey's and Andrew Skurka's reports on VB use for longer trips in deep cold vs no VB)

So what I look forward to seeing is a comparison on some Frozen Butt Hang of regular down quilts vs DWR down quilts, especially TQs. I guess the DWR down quilts would have just as much condensation as the regular, so weighing would not be a good comparison, unlike when comparing to VB use. But, I'm thinking these DWR models would loose less loft, or maybe NO loss of loft, after several days in the cold? I hope someone tests that for us!

[Acer]

I have heard,,from sources here on the forum,,that the price of down, right now,,is going up fast. As to why,,they don't know. But,,this will be eventually reflected in the retail price of down goods, sometime in the near future.