R1, R2 warmth compared to classic fleece (100/200/300)?

Add a couple of zeros and you're pretty much there. ;)

"Add a couple of zeros and you're pretty much there. ;)"

Seriously? Well obviously not literally! ;-)

Surely the R1 fabric isn't warmer than 300 weight fleece? But is it comparable to 200 weight in terms of warmth? I understand that it is much less bulky but I'm really not too sure where it sits in terms of warmth.

Similarly for the R2. I get the impression it would be warmer than 300 weight, but I haven't had much luck googling it.

I find that classic fleece is a useful baseline for comparison for people like me who haven't ever used any of the tech fabrics.

R1=100wt
R2=200wt

The grid pattern makes them more breathable than "regular" fleece and therefore they are better for high exertion activities, but they are also less wind resistant than regular weight fleece, so in some aspects they are not as warm.

I love my R1 pullover and it is a staple in my cool weather system.

The "high loft" variants of Thermalpro, especially in the heavier fabric weights, can be as warm as or warmer than 300 wt fleece. But as Brad said, they have higher air permeability than classic fleece and so provide less wind resistance — a drawback than can be easily mitigated with a wind shirt.

R1, R2, and R3 were introduced by Patagonia several years ago to designate their 100, 200 and 300 wt fleeces respectively. The terms R1 – R3 have since come into more general use, though I think are still officially only used by Patagonia.

Fleece technology has improved in general, with grid patterns on the lighter fabrics and high loft variants (as mentioned above) in the heavier weights, so the latest fleece fabrics generally provide a higher warmth per weight ratio than the classic ones.

Cheers,

-Mike

You can find the answers to all but R2 in the very first post in this thread:

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/xdpy/forum_thread/9378/index.html