Topic
McHale dyed cuben packs.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › Gear Forums › Gear (General) › McHale dyed cuben packs.
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Feb 23, 2013 at 3:49 pm #1957875
Hey Dan,
I corresponded with Cubic and got some samples a while back. Some sample specs:
CT9K.18/wov.32
• Average Weight: 124 g/m^2 (3.7 oz/yd^2)
• Average Tensile Strength (ASTM D3039, Bollard Grips): 305 lbs/in
• Average Tear Strength (Mil-C-21189 10.2.4, Slit Tear – First Peak): 56 lbs
• Average Puncture Strength Probe B (ASTM F1342 – First Peak): 7.8 lbsCT9K.18/wov.75
• Estimated Weight: 176 g/m^2 (5.2 oz/yd^2)
• Estimated Tensile Strength (ASTM D3039, Bollard Grips): 305 lbs/inCT10SHBK.18/wov.75
• Average Weight: 201 g/m^2 (5.9 oz/yd^2)
• Average Tensile Strength (ASTM D3039, Bollard Grips): 333 lbs/in
• Average Tear Strength (Mil-C-21189 10.2.4, Slit Tear – First Peak): 141 lbs
• Average Puncture Strength Probe B (ASTM F1342 – First Peak): 12.6 lbsSo, there's basically any of the "regular" cubens laminated to one of two (probably more) weights of face fabric. Based on these specs and specs of non laminated cuben, the stuff HMG is using must be CT5K.18/wov.32 (from the above, you can deduct that adding the wov.32 to CT9K.18 adds 65.3 gsm; if you add that to CT5K.18 you end up with about 111 gsm which is 1 g off from the HMG spec). McHale mentions using a high bias cuben in the versions he's using. The wov.75 versions are quite a bit more abrasion resistant and have much less needle hole elongation under stress. It's really great fabric. After playing with it a bit I kinda think HMG is crazy for not using the wov.75. I don't know what the CT9, CT13, etc mean.
Feb 23, 2013 at 5:08 pm #1957901Excellent Brendan. I appreciate you sharing that info. That wov.75 stuff does sounds great for higher abrasion applications. Your theory on ULA & HMG using CT5K.18/wov.32 makes sense.
[Edited to remove wrong info in light of Brendan's follow up]
Feb 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm #1957904nm
Feb 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm #1957907I think that the Zpacks is a lighter face than the wov.32. From their site:
"This material is made from the same 1.43 oz/sqyd Cuben Fiber as seen above on the inside, with a protective layer of 50 Denier Polyester on the outside. "So, it's gotta still be CT5K.18. I think McHale is using the HBK variants.
Feb 23, 2013 at 6:53 pm #1957932Good points about Zpacks using CT5K.18. That stuff weighs 48.4g/m2 and the hybrid weighs 99g/m2, so the wov layer must weigh 51g. It's gotta be wov.20-ish.
I've always thought HMG's polyester (wov.32) looks to be about 70D and that makes sense if Zpacks is using an 50D weighing 3/4 as much.
It seems like McHale's CT9, CT13 and CT22 simply refer to the first part of Cubic Tech's model codes that tell the amount of spectra present. You'll notice on Cubic Tech's product sheets that the increments they do of spectra are
CT2.5K, CT5K, CT9K, CT13K, CT18K, CT22K
9, 13 and 22 all happen to be available quantities of spectra, so CT9 likely refers to CT9K worth of spectra etc. I suspect he's not using high-bias because as far as I can tell, all of his talk about high-bias was from before he started playing with hybrid cuben. I think he felt that the regular versions of cuben didn't hold up well enough, so he played around with high bias for a while before moving on to hybrid cuben. High bias is neat, but it does nothing to solve abrasion resistance, which is regular cuben's achilles heal, so opting for thicker mylar or heavier polyester is a better use of weight.
I presume he's using wov.32, because wov.75 is too heavy to fit with his stated numbers and I doubt he'd go lighter than 32. If McHale's CT9 does refer to CT9K, and he's using wov.32, then he must be using the 0.08 mylar if his numbers are correct. CT13K.08/wov.32 would be 3.71oz, whereas CT13K.18/wov.32 would be 3.9oz – kinda far off from Dan's statement that his CT13 weighs 3.6oz.
So the Rosetta stone might be:
CT9 = CT9K.08/wov.32
CT13 = CT13K.08/wov.32
CT22 = CT22K.08/wov.32Some quick calculations reveal these theoretical fabrics to weigh 3.44, 3.71 and 4.18oz/yd2, which matches rather well with Dan's numbers of 3.4, 3.6 and 4.2oz. I am a bit surprised that 0.08 mylar is what makes sense with the calculations though. There's always a possibility that Dan's weights are off and he's using .18 mylar like everyone else, but it seems like he's opted for more spectra but less mylar. If he was using .18 mylar then these fabrics would weigh 3.65, 3.9 and 4.4oz/yd – plausible but a less clear match.
Feb 23, 2013 at 9:14 pm #1957947I love this site
Feb 24, 2013 at 11:23 am #1958132"McHALE DYED FOR MY PACK"
Printed on self-adhesive Cuben, of course.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.