MontBell Ex Light: UL Madness?

Dave,

I have a thermal test lab but, it is not as accurate as your company's Newton system. My test results typically vary less than +-5% of what Newton would yield for a static test. Kansas State University’s Institute for Environmental Research acknowledges Newton as the most accurate system available. Average industry lab charges to compare two jackets, with Newton accuracy, totals $1,282. The break down is $182 set up and $550 for each jacket (3x sample average). Can you do the jacket thermal comparison at your facility free gratis? If not, what would your company’s charge be to thermal test these two jackets? I volunteered to test the two jackets at no cost, but no one in the Bay area contacted me to offer their jacket(s) for testing.

Richard,

Because my company only builds Newton manikins to order, the testing window I have is the brief time between system completion and shipping. At the moment I have a Newton that is waiting to ship to a customer in Australia, but unfortunately that system will be gone in 2 weeks or so. The next one in line will not be completed for 3-4 months, but if we could coordinate manikin availability and jacket availability (size M) we could do this test at no charge.

If your equipment will get you within +/-5%, that should be enough to provide a good comparison between these two MB jackets.

First 1.8oz of 900 fill yields 1.25% more volume than 2oz of 800 fill, do the math.
I have a Feathered Friends Hyperion vest that has 3.1oz of 850 fill down. That is 65% more fill than the MB jacket, in a vest. I find that core insulation is more important to me than arm insulation, particularly when hiking with polls. I would rather put my way too expensive feathers around my vital organs (no, I mean my hart, lungs, GI and liver!) than around my arms.
With a hardshell over this insulation, the lack of pockets and draft tube are mute points. I can't reach the pockets and if my shell is not stopping the wind from penetrating the zipper, I have bigger problems than lack of draft tube.

Actually the two have nearly identical down volumes according to Montbell's specs.

Ex Light: 900fp x 1.8oz = 1620 cubic inches

Down Inner: 800fp x 2.0oz = 1600 cubic inches

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the lighter fabric should allow for slightly more loft, although at these fabric weights the difference should be negligible.

Another thought: are the patterns the same? If the Ex light is a snugger fit, then it should feel warmer.

There is also the question, "Does the 900 fill power down sustain its loft post the conditioning period?"

>Ex Light: 900fp x 1.8oz = 1620 cubic inches

>Down Inner: 800fp x 2.0oz = 1600 cubic inches

That agrees with my calculations

>There is also the question, "Does the 900 fill power down sustain its loft post the conditioning period?"

Not sure about the down that MB uses, but my polish down duvet (very highly rated fill power) has held it's loft for over 20 years of nightly use. The only difference is that I don't "stuff" my duvet into a small bag each day…

As for vests versus sleeved jackets, it really depends on what you are using it for. I would pretty much never hike with my down jacket on. For me it's something I wear around camp and as part of my sleep system. In both cases I really appreaciate having pockets to stash my cold fingers into, and sleeves to insulate my arms when I'm not moving enough to generate excess heat in my extremities.

It's all compromise and the question you ask is at the core of selecting ultra-light gear: how light is light enough? Durability, thermal and moisture performance, comfort features, cost and weight all add up in some way.

On one level, it is getting off the 50 pound load nipple: taking only what you need, having a system rather than a random selection of stuff, weighing each and every item and evaluating its usefulness.

Next is seeking out the highest performance gear, providing the greatest performance for the weight.

Finally, we step of into a game of letting weight rule over all, letting comfort and durability take a back seat.

I'm somewhere between the first two, improving my kit for performance as the deals become available. The zooper-uber-lite game is for those younger and more Spartan than I am. I like being warm and I don't like sleeping on 1/8" pads. To each his own.

>I'm somewhere between the first two, improving my kit for performance as the deals become available. The zooper-uber-lite game is for those younger and more Spartan than I am. I like being warm and I don't like sleeping on 1/8" pads. To each his own.

Me too. I have owned the MB UL down inner jacket for many years now, and am delighted at how much warmth it has given, with surprising durability. I think the durability issue is a biggie for me. If I'm gonna save ~ and ounce, but get a less durable product, I don't see the point. Any textile experts out there that can comment on the relative durability of the 15 denier versus 7 denier fabrics (and also relative wieght)?

> Does the 900 fill power down sustain its loft post the conditioning period?
If you mean 900 on the latest IDFL scale, then NO.

The reason is that the new IDFL conditioning requires that the down be extremely dry to get that extra bit of loft. Of course, as soon as you get into your SB and start releasing water vapour, the down ceases to be any where near that dryness. It is a bit of a fraud.

Cheers

So Roger, do you think this new 900fp is just the old 800fp with an extra bit of drying? And is that 800fp really just the old 750fp fluffed up a bit?

I have one and REALLY, REALLy like it. The thing is, this is a "sweater" or mid layer. As such, pockets or hoods don't make sense to me.

In cold weather I have a hooded base layer, and a cap and/or bacalava. If I need to wear a shell, it has a hood too. So a hooded down garmet doesn't work for me.

As a mid-layer, pockets are useless. Plus in cold weather I have wool gloves or mittens, plus a shell over mitt.

I have lost only a couple feathers and pushed a couple of quills back in.

Being a piece of UL equipment, the fabric is not as forgiving as heavier options in the marketplace. Just like UL tarps, tents, shells etc. This is something that must be kept in mind when considering a purchase of the MontBell.

My other favorite down item is a Patagonia Down Sweater. It has 800 fill, mucher tougher shell and pockets… and weighs twice a much. But I don't worring about damaging it. Plus this piece of clothing is something I do wear around town when traveling in the eastern US, where I often work. The MontBell is a BPing only item for me.

So I guess the MB is not a universal piece of equipment. But how many of use have several backpacks, tents, sleeping bags, etc, ect?

The MontBell "feels" about as warm as the Patagonia. So why both items? If temps are going to drop to a low of around freezing, I bring the MontBell for rest stops, camp wear and sleeping. If I anticipate daytime highs below freezing, I bring the Patagonia because I might need to wear it while backpacking and feel it will hold up much better.

Hi Nick

>Being a piece of UL equipment, the fabric is not as forgiving as heavier options in the marketplace. Just like UL tarps, tents, shells etc. This is something that must be kept in mind when considering a purchase of the MontBell.

But my question was really more along the lines of "Is the 7 denier fabric really any lighter than the 15 denier of the jacket that is 1.3oz heavier", and "how much more fragile is the 7 denier"? I see you wear it as a mid layer, so maybe durability is not as much of an issue (nor pockets nor zipper draft stop), but for me I use it mainly as an outer insulating layer. I own the original MB UL inner, so I know how it works without pockets and with a drafty front opening, and the 1.3oz penalty would be worth it to me on those points alone. Add to how durable the original fabric was (yes, I wore it all the time, around town in winter and on summer trips whre I accidentally melted it).

All that aside, I'm trying to get to the bottom of whether this is all just marketing hype. If I took a regular MB UL inner jacket and removed the pockets and draft stopper, would it weigh any more than this new offering? In other words, what are the actual advantages of using more fragile materials and alledgedly less but lighter down? Guess we may never know if Richard can't get hold of some samples to test. For now, I would say the evidence is that if you don't want the added features of the standard UL inner, then spend an extra 15$ and get the Ex-Lite. If you put a premium on pockets, durability and draft stoppers, then go for the UL inner. You can always chop off the extras if the extra 1.3oz really bothers you, and save $15!

Allison… I mean retro tramp… have you changed your name by deed poll? ;-)

LOL Ashley, it's not a legal name change yet…

I just didn't feel comfortable having my BPL posts come up first when people googled me ;)

Fair enough! (I must admit I had the same concern and so use my middle name instead of my first name). You could always call yourself "Allison M"? But then again, it could be fun to precede any questions I have for you with the phrase "yo retro, …". ;-)

I Like Yo Retro just fine. I live in a very small country where most "Allison's" spell their name with one "L" instead of two. So even Allison M. from NZ is a bit personal. Middle name might work. How about Retro Lynn, or Lynn Retro? Hmmmm

Lynn,

With all the gear I have bought over the years, I should probably get better educated on what I am really buying :)

I have a MontBell UL Windshirt which is made of 15-denier "polyamide rip-stop nylon." When I first got it, I was concerned with its durability. It has done well, but I sure avoid the cat-claws and other sticky plants in the desert!!

The Ex Light is made from "7-denier hollow fiber calendered nylon. So the windshirt material is about twice as heavy, but I guess it doesn't mean it is twice a durable, as it is not the same "weave". But I will tell you that if you hold both garments at the same time, the windshirt nylon "feels" more robust.

So I guess there is probably an expert on BPL who can sort this out. Bottom line is that the Ex Light feels delicate, and I am treating it that way, without being paranoid about it.

You probably summed it up well when you stated:

"For now, I would say the evidence is that if you don't want the added features of the standard UL inner, then spend an extra 15$ and get the Ex-Lite. If you put a premium on pockets, durability and draft stoppers, then go for the UL inner. You can always chop off the extras if the extra 1.3oz really bothers you, and save $15!"

One thing I have found over the years, is that there is usually not one perfect piece of equipment out there. There is often some other feature you would want on that favorite piece.

At least the debate is more entertaining than watching TV.

This is not just about the Ex-Light, but have any of you (like me) wondered how MB managed to take the world's lightest down jacket, add pockets and zippers to it, and not gain any weight? The answer is, they didn't. My spy in the field has finally reported back and here's what he has found out (so far):

His old MB UL inner jacket size Large (pre-pockets and zips) is exactly, and he stressed the word exactly, the same size and shape as the new version in a size XL (well, the new vesion was about a centimetre shorter in the body, but not much). So it was all done with smoke and mirrors.

The loft between the old jacket, the new UL, and the Ex-Light is the same at 4cm double thickness. The Ex-light is the same size as the newer UL jacket, it has a draft strip behind the zipper, it has a slightly longer drop in the back, a different collar, and no 'hem' as such. he said that if I hadn't told him to look, he wouldn't have noticed any difference between the fabric of the new UL and Ex-Light, but it was clearly different to the old fabric. The difference between the new fabrics (to feel and see), were minimal. He thought the Ex-Light *might* be slightly thinner feeling, but wasn't sure if that was just because I put the idea in his head.

So I am feeling pretty certain that if you don't want pockets, go for the Ex-Light. If you like pockets, go for the UL. I seriously doubt there is a substantial difference between them in any other way.

> So Roger, do you think this new 900fp is just the old 800fp with an extra bit of
> drying? And is that 800fp really just the old 750fp fluffed up a bit?

Basically, yes. IDFL tried to find a way to let some USA vendors claim ever higher Fill Power ratings for marketing purposes. The down HAS NOT CHANGED. Many European vendors have refused to buy the line: they know the figures cannot be sustained.

Cheers

I actually lost my ex light during a class a couple months ago. I would like to report on fabric durability however. One cold night I was walking through a college campus wearing my exlight. I accidentally brushed to close to the poster board and was horrified when I felt my jacket catch on a protruding nail/staple and sound like a tear. Upon very close examination I found that the material, while scuffed, did not show any signs of being torn or loss of downproofing. For the amount of force and sharpness of what it caught on I was very impressed by the fabrics durability.