Mar 14, 2011 at 2:10 pm #1270515
@saparisorLocale: Pacific Northwest
Just got a Mtn Gear catalog (remember those?) and saw two interesting new things:
(1) The North Face Verto Jacket: 3.2 oz, pertex quantum shell.
(2) Marmot Essence Pant: 6 oz, membrain wpb shell pants.Mar 14, 2011 at 4:48 pm #1708906
@saparisorLocale: Pacific Northwest
I'm bumping this b/c my previous post subject made it look like I was selling stuff. Instead, I was just pointing out some new clothing I saw that look promising.
You may now continue with your day.Mar 14, 2011 at 8:49 pm #1709013
@mechbLocale: Washington DC
I tried on TNF Verto Jacket in their downtown Chicago store recently. It has quite a "trash-baggy" appearance and feel to it, and the material seemed very delicate. It was a world of difference between that and my Patagonia Houdini. Of course I didn't get to actually test it out in any meaningful way. The fit was good though (for taller/thinner people).Mar 14, 2011 at 10:03 pm #1709043
I tested the air permeability of the Montane Lite-Speed windshirt's fabric components using a precision lab instrument. The body of this windshirt uses Pertex Microlight which I tested 15.59 CFM. To dramatically increase the breathability, only under the arms protected from the wind, the jacket has a panel of Pertex Quantum which I tested at 100.62 CFM. This level of air permeability is about 3x higher than an optimally balanced wind shirt. It is on par with the air permeability used in the front and back panels of highly regarded summer shirts such as the RR Adventure Shirt and the MH Canyon shirt.
Only if Pertex dramatically changed the air permeability of what they still call Quantum would I consider this garment of value. Does anyone know if Pertex has significantly changed the fabric characteristics, other than denier, for the Quantum that is used in the Verto?Mar 14, 2011 at 10:13 pm #1709049
@areichowLocale: Northern Minnesota
Richard- that is interesting. Is it safe to assume that the Pertex Quantum has a significantly lower hydrostatic head than Pertex Microlight?Mar 14, 2011 at 10:23 pm #1709052
Definitely that is the case regarding the Pertex fabrics used on the Montane Light Speed.Mar 15, 2011 at 7:47 am #1709129
Martin RJ CarpenterMember
Well its the new GL stuff I think, although no idea if that makes a difference cf performance.
Are you absolutely sure that a quantum panel? Montane do use extra breathable panels on some stuff (cf: http://www.montane.co.uk/products/men/windproof/featherlite-marathon-jacket/103 etc) but it typically seems to be something called PEAQ air and not quantum.
They do actually give comparative test results for quantum and microlight (used on various of their windshirts) which seem identical cf air permeability: 1.0cc max (JIS L 1096 / ASTM D737).
(Whatever that means :) Anyway its a very nice website for technical info.).
Annoyingly while they have got a GL windshirt up there they don't give this sort of info for it.Mar 15, 2011 at 11:33 am #1709217
Back Country Gear's description, where I purchased it:
"Many of you out there requested a Featherlite that zipped up and had a hood. Well, Montane listened. The Lite Speed Jacket features a Pertex Microlite DWT+ shell with Pertex Quantum DWR+ side panels. The cuffs have an internal elasticized cuff, full length zip, integral roll-away adjustable hood, a chest pocket for your valuables, and its own stuff sack that doubles as a hackysack."
Other sites alternatively listed the main panels as Microlite DWT or as Microlite E.B.P. Other sites alternatively listed the side panels as Quantum P.E.A.Q or as PEAQ.
It appears that Montane's fabric descriptions should include each fabric's specs. Does any site list the Pertex fabric name synonyms and specifications?Mar 16, 2011 at 2:50 am #1709586
@renjenLocale: Near the coast in the Netherlands
maybe a bit off topic butt what about the claims with the new Montane minimus Jacket?
Main body – Pertex Shield®
Breathability at 25,000 MVTR
20,000mm hydrostatic head
The breathability claims are better than eVent!?Mar 16, 2011 at 5:26 am #1709596
@vesteroidLocale: Eastern Sierras
so is all this to say you dont believe the NF jacket will block the wind?Mar 16, 2011 at 7:35 am #1709633
@areichowLocale: Northern Minnesota
Start a new thread on that- I'm wondering the same thing! The Pertex Shield I've seen all has MVTRs of 7k or 10k. I think at least one variety of Shield has an advertised MVTR of 20k, but I've never seen 25k stated. FYI, eVent is usually advertised as having a MVTR of 27k or so, though the number seems to be slightly different depending where you look.
Sounds like it won't keep the rain out, either.Mar 16, 2011 at 8:03 am #1709644
Martin RJ CarpenterMember
Ah, I actually e-mailed them to check about the Minimus(as it was bugging me!) and they said that they've got a higher specification version of Pertex DS than previous ones. Not such a surprise as there are several other 2.5 layer fabrics quoting those sorts of figures now. ~230g in Medium it seems.
(iirc the previous 20k figures were for 2/3 layer variants which seem very rare.).
As for the light speed, perhaps that was some form of quantum then. Just checking as the current ones seem to be all microlight (two flavours), with some things using forms of the PEAQ stuff for venting.
Montane give some figures for microlight, quantum and classic Pertex, although you do need to hunt around a bit as they're flash pop ups on the fabric pages of stuff using them rather than a summary or something. I wish they'd standardise these things and let us know!
What I do know is that I do have a windshirt specified as around 100Mbar/l/m2/s air permeability and its certainly quite a bit more air permeable than my quantum one.Mar 16, 2011 at 11:34 am #1709756
Nope … my point was that the Pertex brand name "Quantum" is used by garment manufacturers for fabrics that have VERY DIFFERENT CFM values. You either have to test each version of what a garment manufacturer is calling Quantum (ideal) or call/Web browse the manufacturer and get the specs for the version used in the garment of question (problematic). I called TNF yesterday and they said that the version of Quantum that they are using in the 2011 North Face Verto Jacket is 7 CFM.
Martin reported in this forum thread relative to Montane’s current Web specifications, “They do actually give comparative test results for quantum and microlight (used on various of their windshirts) which seem identical cf air permeability: 1.0cc max (JIS L 1096 / ASTM D737).” The ASTM D737 standard on page 3 says, "11.1 Air Permeability, Individual Specimens—Calculate the air permeability of individual specimens using values read directly from the test instrument in SI units as cm3/s/cm2 and in inch-pound units as ft3/min/ft2, rounded to three significant digits." So although Montane is not following the standard regarding how they represent their results, we can logically assume they mean cm3/s/cm2.
Alternatively we can take the 7CFM rating provided by TNF and convert it to cubic centimeters per square centimeter of sample per second, which is what I think Montane means with their abreviation cc. TNF converted to Montane format would be 3.556cc. Montane says Microlight is the same and yet I measured it 15.59 CFM or 7.9cc. To interpret windshirt specs requires complex conversions and after the conversions the results between different windshirts using the same material are different.
This is why I said just going on specs is problematic. Furthermore if you try and find out what the CFM rating are for any wind shirt sold in the US it is nearly impossible. Other than for Outdoor Research’s Cirque Windshirt, this information is not provided. What is left is decision making along the lines of “That one is lighter and so it is OBVIOUSLY better”.
My Montane Lite Speed measurements, were 100.62 CFM (51.11cc) for what they called Quantum and 15.59 CFM (7.92cc) for what they called Microlight. I measured these values using my Gurley 4100N Densometer-Porosity-Permeability tester. This instrument is a piece of precision test equipment. It is consistently rated as one of the best in the world for measuring air permeability of a material. For grins do a search on the US patent data base and you will find this instrument is what Gore and most other large companies use to qualify air permeability measurements in their patent claims. The Frazier instrument is the other instrument commonly cited in patents. It is more accurate on high CFM items like fleece and mosquito nets.
I haven't tested the North Face Verto CFM claim but if I tested a jacket that measured 7 CFM air permeability, I would rate it as highly "wind resistant". The industry norm for a "windproof" classification is 0 – 5 CFM. That said, most BPL forum highly rated wind shirts are only "wind resistant" and have CFM ratings significantly higher than 7 CFM.
Air permeability (CFM) is more closely correlated with thermal comfort than is MVTR. The issue with UL backpacking is the variable high MET rates generated during inclines with a pack. The sweet spot between wind resistance and overheating for most UL backpackers is in the 40 CFM range. You need a CFM rating of approximately 400 to never have a wind shirt cause you to limit your MET rate. 400 CFM is what I measure on the typical light cotton T-shirt.Mar 16, 2011 at 8:30 pm #1709984
@fuzzLocale: Sunny San Diego
I had the good opportunity and fortune to snag an early release Verto wind jacket 6 or 7 months ago. It is sooo nice. I have worn it in a very nice downpour and it didn't wet out. It is thin, but my XL is only 3 ounces…. and it folds down like a kleenex. It does a great job for me blocking wind and I have no issues with the breathability. I can only say that it's the best shell / outer layer I have. In fact, it's so light and well formed, I can slide it on over my XL NanoPuff and I am as warm as I am in my down layer or warmer. Zipper works great, no issues there and the hood is perfectly designed to be out of the way but when you pull it on, it's got a great fit. I couldnt be happier. I've had a few and this one took the cake for sure.
Just my .02c.
EdMar 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm #1709988
Can't believe that TNF would name a windshirt and a pack the same in the same year.May 11, 2011 at 12:10 am #1735264
I'm with you on that Ken, been caught confused more than once on that front.
Anyway, I wanted to know if anyone else has some first hand experience on the TNF Verto and just how decent of a windshirt it is?
I currently have a Norrona (suckered in by bad specs, weighs 6oz not the advertised 3 oz on BC.com) that I do like. However it is heavy and has no hood. If the verto blocks enough wind it's very tempting for me, especially since so many hooded windshirts in the 3oz range have disappeared.
Also at $100 it's a lot cheaper and lighter than any current models of hooded windshirts that I can find.Jul 6, 2011 at 4:56 pm #1756577
I just got one of these to replace my GoLite Wisp, which I didn't like the fit of. This was on sale for $50 a few weeks ago online at Nordstrom, so I got the Men's Medium. Haven't tested it extensively, but it seems to work as well or better than the Wisp did. Plus it's a full zip with a hood. The wrists aren't very elastic but apart from that, it's more or less perfect.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.