New Ultralight Inflatable pad

http://www.rei.com/product/780985

I might just add that the Cascade Designs salesperson I spoke with, just prior to my finding the REI link, claimed to have never heard of any "XS" pad nor any Prolite pad with a 36" length. Therefore, it must not really exist.

The new Pro Lite XS claims an R value of 2.2 the Torsolite ( made by P.O. ?) claims 3.5. Can't see how a 1' foam filled inflatable can claim that value…
Franco

I don't believe the Torsolite foam is as aggressively die cut as the Prolite 3.

The REI link is confusing. There are two photos attached to the product. The stats say the pad is 20" wide by 36" long yet the photo shows a pad that is at least 60" long. What gives?

Weird. Not sure about that pic, Sam. Pad's definitely 36", though. I've never seen a Torsolite for comparison, but this XS squashes down to the size of a sub bun!

That REI picture looks like it is the same as the one from the Thermarest site of the new Prolite (formerly Prolite3) standard size mat. Note that the Prolite Small is 11 oz, 20"x47", so the specs are different. I can't find a ProLite X anywhere else.
http://www.thermarest.com/product_detail.aspx?pID=42&cID=1
Franco

http://www.campsaver.com/ItemMatrix.asp?GroupCode=thr0088&MatrixType=1

Shows an XS 36 inches long weighing 8 oz

Following Richard's link to Campsaver it is clear now that the Xtra Small is a new size , however the picture (count the dimples) is of the standard size.
So 47" /11 oz for the Small, 36"/ 8oz for the Xtra Small
Case solved by Richard.
Franco

I understand that the new light weight pad has the same diagonal/slant cut as the older coral colored women's pad giving it better a insulating value. I confess I don't understand this but a customer service rep at WM advised me a while back before these new pads were announced to buy the women's model to beef up my sleeping comfort. Anyway, the point is that this may account for how these new ones are carrying the heftier R value.

John
The women's version is shorter (66" vs 72") but the weight remains the same because of the extra foam/insulation.
If I had a job now I would buy the new Women's Pro Lite Plus just because of the colour, to give the previous salmon red version a bit of a rest.
Franco

The prolite x-small at 36 inches is on a average-sized person a torso-length pad, which means reaching from the shoulders to the pelvis. The Torsolite is widest and square at the shoulders, which makes sense, but the Thermarest is rounded, which presumably would leave your shoulders hanging off the corners.
Just some thoughts.

Although the corners of the Thermarest are rounded a bit, it is a 20" wide pad. The Torsolite is 17" tapering to 14". If you're concerned with hanging off/over a pad, I'd be more concerned with one that's 3" narrower, tapering to 6" narrower, but that's just me. Kudos go to the Torsolite for ~50% more R-value, though.

Earlier comments re: womens pads warmer, shorter, same weight are right on. I sell them more than the mens for the greater R-value. One tidbit on the new pads, I noticed that some of the packaging has had some stickers added on to indicate that the new pads are made with polyurethane foam instead of urethane foam. (Other new packaging also says polyurethane; old was definitely urethane. I have no idea what physical properties either would bring.) New Prolite (old Prolite 3) is 4 ounces lighter, essentially the same R-value (2.2 instead of 2.3).

A new ProLite XSmall weighed in at 8.2 ounces. Spec is 8 ounces.

The die cut open spaces seem much larger than the those of the previous generation Prolite 3 pad. The fabric of the new Prolite is noticeably more transulcent; when holding each pad up to the light, the die cut open spaces in the new ProLite are much more clearly visible than the previous generation Prolite 3. The top surface fabric is textured, but does not appear to be ripstop, as it was on the previous generation Prolite 3.

ProLite XSmall and TorsoLite comparison

ProLite 3 (47" long) and ProLite XSmall and TorsoLite comparison

Great comparison photos, John. Seeing just how much smaller the Torsolite is – yet weighing two ounces more gives me wonder on how warm the Prolite XSmall can be.

Great visual, awesome photos, John- thanks! I haven't had the gumption to pull one of the pads out of packaging yet; didn't realize the XS tapers quite as much at the hips. Miniscule difference if there is one, but in the overlay with your ProLite 3 it looks like the XS is actually a hair wider at one point?

>The new Pro Lite XS claims an R value of 2.2 the Torsolite ( made by P.O. ?) claims 3.5. Can't see how a 1' foam filled inflatable can claim that value…

I can tell you right now that the BackpackingLight/Bozeman Mtn Works/POE Torsolite (R 3.5, claimed) I have is nowhere near as warm as my Thermarest Prolite 4 Short (R 3.2, claimed). I bring the Torsolite just for comfort in conjunction with a CCF pad. The Prolite 4 is capable of providing serious warmth. For reference, my Torsolite is from a "lighter" batch. It weighs 8.7 ounces.

Art,

The claim is plausible for self-inflation augmentation.

The average R-Value for low-density open-cell polyurethane foam, used in self-inflating mattresses, is ~2.883 per inch. When a self inflating pad is manually inflated, past its self-inflation point, the foam is further expanded to achieve an average R-Value of ~3.333 per inch.

I provided the R-Values for only the most commonly used polyurethane foam. Polyurethane stands for a product range or plastics industry segment rather than for a single, well-defined polymer resin. The vendor’s unique coring technique used will decrease the open-cell foam's R-Value a variable %.

I don't know much about plausibility or average expected values for foam. I'm talking about direct experience with these pads. A 3.2 claimed R-value pad being noticeably warmer than a 3.5 claimed one means obviously somebody's not doing the R-value measuring right, whether it's Thermarest being conservative or POE being optimistic, I have no idea. That's why I just stuck with the comparison.

Not to say that the Torsolite is a bad pad because of it, or that it's not competitive just because I think it has a lower R-value than reported (it works just fine as a 3-season pad and is super comfortable no matter if I'm stacking it on CCF pads or not). But the point is, I wouldn't be surprised if the Torsolite and the new Prolite XS are basically the same in terms of warmth, given my experience with Thermarest seeming to report more conservative R-values than POE.

The size comparison photos are useful, but also a bit deceptive. While the XS pad does have more surface area than the TorsoLite, it's primarily in the width axis. Yet it's not so much wider as to offer much if any padding for the arms, so it's mostly unused surface area; both pads contact the full torso area just fine. As someone noted, the extra length is mostly at the curving, tapered ends, which translates into less contact at the shoulder area or the user shifting downward on the pad to make up for that. So, not much useful additional surface area in the length axis, either.

What about the weight differences? Some of the TorsoLites are running sub 9-ounces, well under spec'd weight, while the claimed 8 oz XS looks to have a slightly understated weight. Again, negligible differences between the two pads.

I'd imagine those who find one pad at this size to be comfortable would likely enjoy the other as well. Except perhaps in winter, if and when some warmth comparisons happen to trickle in. Otherwise, the XS pad might work better as back padding for wider packs, while the TorsoLite would be my choice for desert use, where a smaller footprint means less risk of a puncture from hidden cactus spines.

Art,

You said, "A 3.2 claimed R-Value pad being noticeably warmer that a 3.5 claimed one means obviously somebody is not doing the R-Value measuring right, whether it's Thermarest being conservative or POE optimistic, I have no idea."

This made me curious and so I went to my lab this morning and did a cursory Thermal Resistance test of a POE Insulmat MaxLite (same construction as the Torsolite). A normal thermal resistance test is repeated 3 times to verify the standard deviation is within an allowable tolerance. I just did this test one time and only let the pad self inflate instead of over-inflating it to maximize its R-Value. It tested R-Value 2.225.

I have used this pad in the field and guessed, that by the warmth I felt, it was pretty close to its rating. Thank you for pointing out a potential problem in the rating of this pad. Sometime in the future I may have more time to repeat the test in triplicate with self inflation and over inflation.

As I mentioned in my previous post, the thickness of the pad doesn’t preclude it achieving the rating they gave it. My guess is their coring approach is the primary factor in the lower R-Value I tested.

So the next consideration is whether or not one sleeps at the self-inflated pressure or an augmented pressure.

I prefer 'as soft as possible without contact'. So for me the value is 2.25, or less.

Richard,
could you do the thermal resistance again but this time with an overinflated or fully inflated pad? It would also be usefull to know if the moisture that gets in by inflating by the mouth has an influence over time. So perhaps doing a test while just inflated and a test, let's say, 8 hours later to see if the R-value remains constant.
It would also be usefull to get a test from T-a-R to compare them directly with the POE pad.

Richard, I appreciate your thoughts and contributions to this thread as always. So given that R-value, the Torsolite actually does look closer to the Prolite 3 in warmth…

>could you do the thermal resistance again but this time with an overinflated or fully inflated pad?

What I've always wondered when reading the R-values of inflatable pads is how does the ideal R-value, measured from just the inflated pad, change when a body lays down on it? Obviously there will be pressure points and the pad under the body will be thinner, but air displacement would mean that in the non-pressure points, the pad is perhaps thicker and closer to the over-inflated thickness (so the pressure points are colder, but the non-pressure points are warmer). But you'd still have that thinner pad under the pressure points to deal with, and I guess heat loss is heat loss.

On a related note, this might be why I could never stay warm enough with my old Downmat 7. I always wanted a soft, cushy mattress, but with my torso sinking 1.5-2" into the mattress, I only had 0.5-1" of down underneath me. Don't know why I never thought of it this way before I sold the thing.

>It would also be usefull to know if the moisture that gets in by inflating by the mouth has an influence over time. So perhaps doing a test while just inflated and a test, let's say, 8 hours later to see if the R-value remains constant.

Keep in mind that with the valve closed, that moisture isn't going anywhere. Might want to look at a factory-new pad vs. a 2-year-old, highly used pad, though, to see if the foam is degrading with lots of use.

An augmented self-inflating pad will always provide the highest possible R-Value. I am not aware of anyone ever publishing information on the R-Value of self inflating pads that are inflated for maximum comfort. I am a 190lb side sleeper and for me, maximum comfort is at an inflation level just before my hip feels ground pressure.

The Thermarest FAQ for "What are “R-values”? says the following:

R-values are a measure of insulation and are based on a mattress being fully inflated. The higher the value, the warmer you will sleep. For a higher R-value, fully inflate your mattress.