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.
Viewing 7 posts - 51 through 57 (of 57 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1957875
    Brendan Swihart
    BPL Member

    @brendans

    Locale: Fruita CO

    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 lbs

    CT9K.18/wov.75
    • Estimated Weight: 176 g/m^2 (5.2 oz/yd^2)
    • Estimated Tensile Strength (ASTM D3039, Bollard Grips): 305 lbs/in

    CT10SHBK.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 lbs

    So, 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.

    #1957901
    Dan @ Durston Gear
    BPL Member

    @dandydan

    Locale: Canadian Rockies

    Excellent 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]

    #1957904
    David Ure
    Member

    @familyguy

    nm

    #1957907
    Brendan Swihart
    BPL Member

    @brendans

    Locale: Fruita CO

    I 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.

    #1957932
    Dan @ Durston Gear
    BPL Member

    @dandydan

    Locale: Canadian Rockies

    Good 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.32

    Some 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.

    #1957947
    Jeffs Eleven
    BPL Member

    @woodenwizard

    Locale: NePo

    I love this site

    #1958132
    David Thomas
    BPL Member

    @davidinkenai

    Locale: North Woods. Far North.

    "McHALE DYED FOR MY PACK"

    Printed on self-adhesive Cuben, of course.

Viewing 7 posts - 51 through 57 (of 57 total)
  • 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!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...