Modern waterproofs

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

John Myers said:

What value is there in the word "breathable" if you still get wet.

That's a very easy experiment to do, simply by doing a compare and
contrast with something that is completely non-porous. For those of us
who were walking when PU coated nylon was the de-facto standard for most
it is very, very easy to recall why we were so pleased with even the
first breathable jackets, which are decidedly inferior to today's. Your
comment implies that if you can't have 100% then there's no point in
having anything, but in practice /any/ significant improvement over 0%
is worth having.

It isn't about staying totally dry, it's about staying as comfortable as
reasonably possible. That's very hard in a completely non-porous
jacket, as anyone who's been there and done that will know.

I remember my first impenetrable cagoule and then non-breathable jacket,
and I remember the way they smelled when I threw them away... :-(

Asking a jacket to get rid of all body moisture (sweat!) on a very wet
day is asking it to defy physics. I am grateful for Goretex, whatever
anyone says about it, it is a huge improvement on impermeable plastic!
--
Gordon

--
Does living in Lincs make me a flatlander :-( ??

Remove the flatlands to reply by email.

[email hidden]
"Lewis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi John

You're basically describing the effect I get inside a Goretex Paclite, I

use

Quoted message said:

Paramo now, but their system throws up a few more problems.

If the jacket was described as "breathable" when you bought it I think you
would be quite within your rights to return it as not fit for purpose.

You will still need a jacket, though, and if you're looking for something
that does the job 100% I fear there is no such product, at least not one
that works for everyone.

I do agree Lewis as i said on another reply we should be more discerning
and demand more from the manufacturers.
Maybe thats the answer we should take them back en block if they dont keep
you dry, and force them to stop making misleading claims about their
products.

John

Quoted message said:

If you decide to return it contact your local Trading Standards office and
they will give you some advice.

Good luck and let us know how you get on.

Lewis

..

Quoted message said:

--
Does living in Lincs make me a flatlander :-( ??

Remove the flatlands to reply by email.

[email hidden]
"Peter Clinch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John Myers said:

I agree with your comment but shouldn't the emphasis be on the makers
to produce something which actually does work, and stop kidding us
with unrealistic claims, and techy bumf which means nothing.

Unrealistic claims and techy bumf is the province of marketing. c.f.
cars, washing powders, perfumes, drinks or basically just about anything
you can buy on the high street.
The technical folk are trying to do as well as they can with their
design briefs, but how this is sold isn't up to them. Since every
marketing department is basically out doing creative lying you've just
got to realise that, divorce it from your expectations which should be
based on actual reality, and get on with it.

I Dont care it still doesn't make it right!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I cant remember seeing a Jacket in a shop which tells me if i sweat
profusely i wont keep dry.

Because it won't sell it. Marketing is about selling things. OTOH I
know I'll sweat a fair bit walking up a hill in a wicking top and
nothing else, so add in a windproof coat and 100% humidity and it's
pretty obvious I'm not going to be dry. If I think I will then that's
just unrealistic.

You dont think the more unrealistic party is the vendor for making the
unrealistic claims.
Im being unrealistic for expecting too much hmm.? Its me thats spending the
£200

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What value is there in the word "breathable" if you still get wet.

That's a very easy experiment to do, simply by doing a compare and
contrast with something that is completely non-porous. For those of us
who were walking when PU coated nylon was the de-facto standard for most
it is very, very easy to recall why we were so pleased with even the
first breathable jackets, which are decidedly inferior to today's.

Well that certainly includes me and i have to say i dont think im any better
off as far as keeping dry is concerned and definately not in the pocket.
Yes I agree when the new garments came out we were very pleased, they really
did look the part, every serious hill goer had to have one. They are now
almost a fashion statement.

Your

Quoted message said:

comment implies that if you can't have 100% then there's no point in
having anything, but in practice /any/ significant improvement over 0%
is worth having.

It isn't about staying totally dry, it's about staying as comfortable as
reasonably possible. That's very hard in a completely non-porous
jacket, as anyone who's been there and done that will know.

Well i have, and i agree its very clever marketing, and we do have
standards, and there is the Trading standards office.
You seem to imply that we should just swallow whatever is displayed and dont
expect too much and thats OK.
With clothing of this kind the performance of these materials is very
subjective look at the replies above, but one fact that is inescapeable is
that whether i wear a Bradsport at £20 or a Lowe Triple point at £200 i get
just as wet.
Lowe looks nice though!!

John

Quoted message said:

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I quite like the poncho I bought in Poland a few years ago. Its a bit basic
but keeps me dry - totally waterproof but plenty of ventilation. Also covers
the rucksack. I would like to replace or upgrade to a better quality one, is
there a UK version?

Quoted message said:

John Myers said:

Hi folks
Just got back from doing a section of the Pennine Way Horton to
Alston.
The weather had been changeable all last week, from sunny periods to
torrential rain to driving hail on Shunner Fell.
I had bought a modern Lowe Triple point jacket, a couple of months
earlier. Ideal i thought for anything the Pennines could muster.

I have to tell you that i am becoming increasingly frustrated with so
called modern jackets from reputable companies like Lowe, and in my
time i have tried most well known makes.
They just are not waterproof!
It seems to me these days you just have to accept that in any
reasonable downpour you ARE going to get very wet.
Im beginning to think we aren't any better off than when we used to
wear simple nylon water proofs before the advent of Gortex and many
other so called techy materials.

If its as bad as you say, bought "a couple of months earlier", then I
would be returning it to the retailer demanding a full refund. The jacket
is not fit for purpose.

Decent breathable waterproofs work; I have a Slioch Goretex jacket which
keeps me dry in almost anything, still going strong after more than 8
years. Ditto some new Berghaus Paclite ultra light weight stuff.
They keep me dry, in either sudden deluges on the continent (incredible
amounts of water in half an hour) or long persistant rain for a number of
hours in the UK. There is always some internal dampness, but its either
sweat, or capillary action near to arm and head holes.

I've never seen a perfect waterproof yet! What's the problem? Wimps who
'walk' ? 0-)
--
Regards,
Chris
--
Bird sightings based around 'Craven' Skipton, North Yorks.
http://www.craven-birds.co.uk/
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by the Norton auto-updated
anti-virus system.

"NC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

--
Does living in Lincs make me a flatlander :-( ??

Remove the flatlands to reply by email.

[email hidden]
"ic01m9600" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I quite like the poncho I bought in Poland a few years ago. Its a bit

basic

Quoted message said:

but keeps me dry - totally waterproof but plenty of ventilation. Also

covers

Quoted message said:

the rucksack. I would like to replace or upgrade to a better quality one,

is

Quoted message said:

there a UK version?

I saw someone wearing one t'other day and wondered about them, not too
expensive i'll bet.

John

Quoted message said:

"Richard Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John, I tend to agree with you, I've had several Gortex jackets and they
all leaked after a time. I now use a Berhaus jacket which is make of
aquafoil and rolls up very small during summer months and a cheap army
Gortex in colder weather, mainly because of the pocket space it has.

For everyday wear I use a 25+year old Barbour jacket,,,,,, its still
totaly waterproof.

Fascinating thread. (I'm new here). I'm off to Northumbria for the first
time on Saturday, and will be hiking a lot - I do plan on using (my late
Father's) enourmous Barber. It's heavy, warm (more of a winter jacket) and
seems to keep me completely dry. I do find it very restrictive though, a
bit cardboardy, which is why I'm considering a Lowe or similar. They just
all seem so incredibly expensive.

W.

Hi all,

Been following the Modern Waterproof thread with great interest. I'm mainly
a barbour-wearer, but whilst it keeps me warm and dry, it's too heavy and
cumbersome for my liking. I really need to go to a shop and try some on,
but is a budget of £100 (ideally half that!) limiting?

Also confused about everyone's flaming of gore-tex - I thought this was
meant to be the "new", amazing, "for all weathers" material and it's clearly
not. They've obviously forgotten about the hidden gem of barbours and its
waxy coating!

Any advice appreciated

Ta

W.

John Myers said:

but one fact that is inescapeable is
that whether i wear a Bradsport at £20 or a Lowe Triple point at £200 i get
just as wet.

But not if you wear a Paramo. ;->

John Myers said:

Oh well we better acccept second best then,

It's not a case of "accepting second best", because what you want is
basically /not possible/ with what is currently available. If it was
possible then someone would be making it and cleaning up in the
waterproofs market, wouldn't they?

Quoted message said:

My real complaint is with the manufacturers who claim breathability
which in actual fact means not much!

From the marketing you could be forgiven for thinking it sucks the
sweat out of your body, but anyone who is conversant with basic physics
(and I suspect that many people in marketing are not) will know that to
be ridiculous.
Breathability really does make a significant difference to a lot of
people, even when it is far /less/ than we would like. But if I'll get
wet walking up a hill without even a shirt on from sweat, how is any
waterproof fabric going to improve substantially on /that/?

Quoted message said:

Breathability is supposedly meant to keep you dry excess moisture is
supposed to be wicked away, but as we all know too well if your jacket
is wet through on the outside then breathability is vitually none
existent.

It is supposed to allow you to be dri/er/ than if it was not breathable.
Though many fabrics will wet out in prolonged rain it is often the
case that areas of the jacket will stay relatively dry, especially in
wind blown rain, and in those cases the jacket will breathe and offer
/some/ improvement.

Quoted message said:

Cant understand anybody defending this situation we as users should be
discerning and demand more anyway.

It's not really defending the situation as pointing out that's what it
is. It's like saying I'm defending the right of volcanoes to erupt
because I refuse to say that having them do so Is Not Good Enough! If
you want to be "more demanding" than anyone can currently manage then go
right ahead and invent something better that takes more useful advantage
of the laws of physics that give very finite limits to microporous and
hydrophilic chain laminates and coatings. Nick Brown did that at
Paramo, but then again Paramo stuff has other issues (I've tried it and
find I overheat to an extent which is far more uncomfortable than
getting a bit damp).

Quoted message said:

By the way U on the payroll at Lowe!

No. I just realise they can only do so much with current technologies.

Quoted message said:

I Dont care it still doesn't make it right!

But though I personally have a very low opinion of marketing as well
it's not like it's only confined to waterproof jackets. CDs were
"perfect sound forever" at launch, and they've been constantly improving
CD reproduction ever since. The claims made for Windows are patently
ridiculous, but there you are probably using it anyway. And so on. Not
that that makes it okay, but are you complaining about all those other
aspects being Really Not Good Enough (and they aren't, quite frankly),
or just this one?

Quoted message said:

You dont think the more unrealistic party is the vendor for making the
unrealistic claims.

But everyone's doing it for every product sold. As above, I think this
is terrible but I realise it happens so it doesn't catch me out.

Quoted message said:

Im being unrealistic for expecting too much hmm.? Its me thats
spending the £200

You're being unrealistic if you take all you read from marketing at face
value. Do you have any CDs that are "perfect sound forever". I don't...
And nobody is forcing you to spend your £200.

Quoted message said:

Well that certainly includes me and i have to say i dont think im any
better off as far as keeping dry is concerned and definately not in
the pocket.

So why are you still buying them all these years later? Because
marketing departments told you they were perfect? They've been saying
that since breathable fabrics were first invented, and just like perfect
CD sound they never were perfect and never will be.

Quoted message said:

Yes I agree when the new garments came out we were very pleased, they
really did look the part, every serious hill goer had to have one.

But the only visible outward difference in "looking the part" between an
original Berghaus Lightning and a Craghoppers Cagjac in the same colour
(and a lot of both were blue or dark green) was a very small label
saying "Goretex". They looked the same, so you're in the realms of
ranting here.

Quoted message said:

They are now almost a fashion statement.

Some of them definitely are, but that doesn't invalidate the design on
ones aimed at keeping you as comfortable as possible. Most experienced
hillgoers, including many who have no truck whatsoever with any sort of
fashion statement, use modern fabric waterproofs because in their
considerable experience they work better than the old ones.

Quoted message said:

With clothing of this kind the performance of these materials is very
subjective look at the replies above

Much of the performance is measurably objective, as it happens.

Quoted message said:

but one fact that is
inescapeable is that whether i wear a Bradsport at £20 or a Lowe
Triple point at £200 i get just as wet.

So wear a Bradsport one, and when you're in spindrift that makes your
face hurt remember there's more to a good hill jacket than letting 100%
of your sweat out.

Finally, your replies are in a rather non-standard format. Starting off
with a "--" on a line by its own is a signature separator by general
standards of Usenet, so replies to your posts aren't properly quoted
because everything you write is stripped out as signature. I had to
manually re-insert all you wrote to quote it.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

John Myers said:

Maybe thats the answer we should take them back en block if they dont keep
you dry, and force them to stop making misleading claims about their
products.

You really don't listen do you?

The huge majority have said breathable for them (when evaluated
realistically), its only you that *none* of these jackets "work" for.

Shut up with this rubbish bleating like a stuck pig "but I get wet,
but I get wet, so the world must be at fault".

Oh, and by the way, if you had an ounce of common sense you'd also
realise that the "claims" from the gear manufacturers are misleading
only if they are misinterpreted by fetid whingers. If there was a
truly false claim then the Advertising Stnadards and Trading Standards
would have come down on this lot a long time ago; the statements from
the gear manufacturers are proven in the context of the terms of
reference they work to... and they *have* to define a benchmark
otherwise you and I would say their statements were meaningless. Live
with it. Grow up. Move on.

You get wet in all of the jackets you've ever owned... then why bother
wearing one, don't you learn from experience either?

SteveO

NE Climbers & walkers chat forum;
http://www.thenmc.org.uk/phpBB2/index.php

NMC website: http://www.thenmc.org.uk

SteveO wrote

Quoted message said:

You really don't listen do you?

I wondered what that snapping noise was...must have been the limits of
tolerance being exceeded.

T.
It was an interesting thread at the start, but I think Steve and Pete have a
point

Hi John,
<snip bla bla bla>

Quoted message said:

They just are not waterproof!

They are. Your problem is regarding their breathability. Try Paramo.

Bye, Jiffy

Jiffy said:

Hi John,
<snip bla bla bla>

Quoted message said:

They just are not waterproof!

Quoted message said:

They are. Your problem is regarding their breathability. Try Paramo.

Well, depends how you mean by waterproof. I can tell you for a fact
that if you're in a river in a Paramo jacket you'll still get wet. This
is not being entirely facetious: water will get in through holes like
cuffs and neck on anything short of a dry suit (and if it's just a seep
it will wick its way through your miracle wicking clothing by capillary
action). But mountain waterproofs work in a great many conditions short
of immersion where they are very worthwhile.

I tried Paramo, but found it too hot for me. Yes, the breathability was
better, but if I was sweating three times as much then that was a pretty
moot point...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

I tried Paramo, but found it too hot for me. Yes, the breathability was
better, but if I was sweating three times as much then that was a pretty
moot point...

What some people forget is that a base layer, fleece and Goretex shell
would be equivalent to a base layer + Paramo. Donning a Paramo jacket
without shedding a layer will definitely make you hot.

It comes down to whether the preference is to put up with a wetter
(condensation) environment, or a slightly warmer but dry one. Having
said that, recent Paramo waterproofs have a lighter lining and better
venting.

What makes it a winner for me is that the waterproofing is
indefinitely renewable, whether you scrunch it up or stick pins
through it, which is more than you can say for PTFE membranes!

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

but one fact that is
inescapeable is that whether i wear a Bradsport at £20 or a Lowe
Triple point at £200 i get just as wet.

So wear a Bradsport one, and when you're in spindrift that makes your
face hurt remember there's more to a good hill jacket than letting 100%
of your sweat out.

Finally, your replies are in a rather non-standard format. Starting off
with a "--" on a line by its own is a signature separator by general
standards of Usenet, so replies to your posts aren't properly quoted
because everything you write is stripped out as signature. I had to
manually re-insert all you wrote to quote it.

Does that explain the space before the quoted line indicator in your
posts then Pete? Not a major hassle but I have my reader set up to
show quoted text in a different colour which makes it dead easy for me
to read the new stuff.

Actually it's a "-- return" (note the space) that is the standard
signature separator, though some readers will see "--" as a separator.
What John is doing is putting a signature at the top of each post. I
suspect Outlook Express does it for him and he then tries to follow
good Usenet practice by bottom posting without taking out the sig at
the top.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Peter Clinch said:

Jiffy said:

Hi John,
<snip bla bla bla>

Quoted message said:

They just are not waterproof!

Quoted message said:

They are. Your problem is regarding their breathability. Try Paramo.

Well, depends how you mean by waterproof. I can tell you for a fact
that if you're in a river in a Paramo jacket you'll still get wet. This
is not being entirely facetious: water will get in through holes like
cuffs and neck on anything short of a dry suit (and if it's just a seep
it will wick its way through your miracle wicking clothing by capillary
action). But mountain waterproofs work in a great many conditions short
of immersion where they are very worthwhile.

I tried Paramo, but found it too hot for me. Yes, the breathability was
better, but if I was sweating three times as much then that was a pretty
moot point...

Sorry to jump right in here as I am a newbie to this ng but I feel
that I may have something to contribute here. There have been a few
posts about drysuits and as somebody who spends a considerable amount
of time under water in one I have learned the following:

1) A drysuit may be excellent at keeping the water out but humans are
very moist creatures. After I have been under water for 2+ hours, the
layer between the inside of my drysuit and the outer layer of my
exposure suit is very wet. The first thought is that the suit is
leaking but it is very easy to determine the source of the "wetness"
as, even after a dive in fresh water the moisture inside the suit is
salty.

2) Over quite a few years, I have refined my thermal protection. The
more efficient the thermal protection, the wetter the layer between
the inside of the drysuit and the outside of the exposure suit
becomes.

3) I have no problem with the outside of my exposure suit being wet as
long as I am warm and dry next to my skin.

This last point is key to me. There is always going to be moisture
and it is down to the clothes I wear as to where that moisture is.
Lucking when in air, the outer layer allows moisture to flow out and
evaporate. When it is raining, the ability for the moisture to wick
to the outside is limited due to the moisture that is already there.
This manifests itself as a leaking top layer.
--

Laz

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A foolproof method for sculpting an Elephant:
First, get a huge block of marble. Then, chip away
everything that doesn't look like an Elephant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Change "nospam" to "ntlworld" to reply.

Will said:

"Richard Baker" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John, I tend to agree with you, I've had several Gortex jackets and they
all leaked after a time. I now use a Berhaus jacket which is make of
aquafoil and rolls up very small during summer months and a cheap army
Gortex in colder weather, mainly because of the pocket space it has.

For everyday wear I use a 25+year old Barbour jacket,,,,,, its still
totaly waterproof.

Fascinating thread. (I'm new here). I'm off to Northumbria for the first
time on Saturday, and will be hiking a lot - I do plan on using (my late
Father's) enourmous Barber. It's heavy, warm (more of a winter jacket) and
seems to keep me completely dry.

My Drizabone keeps the rain out but with any kind of exertion I tend
to get a wet back.

Quoted message said:

I do find it very restrictive though, a
bit cardboardy, which is why I'm considering a Lowe or similar. They just
all seem so incredibly expensive.

Look out for last years model on the bargain rail, I always take a
look at the one in West Coast Leisure when I'm in Fort William.
--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

Phil Cook said:

Does that explain the space before the quoted line indicator in your
posts then Pete?

Errrr, no such thing reading them back in Mozilla 1.4/SPARC Solaris...

Quoted message said:

Not a major hassle but I have my reader set up to
show quoted text in a different colour which makes it dead easy for me
to read the new stuff.

Comes out blue in Moz, seems to work fine here...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Chris said:

What some people forget is that a base layer, fleece and Goretex shell
would be equivalent to a base layer + Paramo. Donning a Paramo jacket
without shedding a layer will definitely make you hot.

I'm fully aware of that! I /very/ rarely wear a midlayer under a
waterproof jacket, even an unlined one, outside of winter. So I haven't
got a layer to shed. I have tried Paramo as Buffalo suggest for their
stuff with nothing underneath at all rather than just a thin base layer,
and that was too hot for me as well.

Quoted message said:

It comes down to whether the preference is to put up with a wetter
(condensation) environment, or a slightly warmer but dry one. Having
said that, recent Paramo waterproofs have a lighter lining and better
venting.

For me it's down to whether I am so hot as to be hideously uncomfortable
or just sufficiently hot for it to be a bit of a bother. My personal
experience of Paramo waterproofs is the former.

I tried Paramo's 3rd Element jacket which is allegedly good for 25C, and
I was steaming in it in ambients of about 10 going up the wee Buchaille,
to the extent I /had/ to take the thing off. I was not dry, because I
was sweating buckets. The most breathable fabrics on the planet will
not suck all moisture out from a base layer (all I had on underneath)
and off your body if you are far too hot.

Quoted message said:

What makes it a winner for me is that the waterproofing is
indefinitely renewable, whether you scrunch it up or stick pins
through it, which is more than you can say for PTFE membranes!

Yes, but I can't wear it outside of bitterly cold days. People telling
me I'm wearing too much underneath and/or not using the venting properly
are generally labouring under the misapprehension that I haven't found
out the hard way that addressing those issues isn't enough in my case.
I had one of Paramo's first tops, a Nevada, and ultimately gave it away,
and did a try before you [don't] buy of the 3rd Element for a couple of
weeks. I know they work very well indeed for some people (including the
pal I gave my Nevada too, though he prefers a Goretex jacket) as I know
quite a few folk who happily use them. But what goes for you cannot
necessarily be assumed to go for me.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/