Topic
PHD Minim 400 Sleeping Bag Review
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › Campfire › Editor’s Roundtable › PHD Minim 400 Sleeping Bag Review
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Feb 9, 2010 at 1:43 pm #1255046
Companion forum thread to:
Feb 9, 2010 at 2:05 pm #1571734Nice review. Just a couple of details. When comparing down fill, European manufacturers usually use the Lorch test, which gives a reading approx 4% less than the US system. So a fill power of 800 from PHD equates to a fill power of 832 using the US system.
Also, the VAT charge that US customers can deduct is 15%, not $15, so that would be a saving of $57.30 on the $382 purchase price.Feb 9, 2010 at 3:29 pm #1571755Mike, VAT in the UK is currently 17.5%, and that's in line with my memory of VAT refunds I got on items purchased in the UK over the years. If I'm correct, then that brings the cost down slightly more for US buyers.
To anyone in the US purchasing goods overseas, it's useful to check on tax refund policies. With certain rules or restrictions, it's available in a number of countries around the world on items for export.
Feb 9, 2010 at 3:29 pm #1571756The part that is most impressive of about the bag is the percentage of the total weight that is insulation – 400 of the 680 grams – 58.8 percent. I don't know if this is a common stat, but my gut says that 50 percent is a good benchmark to shoot for.
Feb 9, 2010 at 3:36 pm #1571759You're correct Pieter. I forgot they just raised it again. (It was reduced to 15% for a year to help the economy :)
Feb 9, 2010 at 4:10 pm #1571769Those VAT numbers are corrected. Thanks guys!
Feb 9, 2010 at 6:45 pm #1571866BTW, I believe that the cost after VAT reduction is computed most easily by dividing the VAT-included price by 1.175. That is, the amount saved, the VAT, is 17.5% of the price before VAT is added. (Which is different from taking 17.5% of the English, VAT-included price.) PHD does that automatically for you on their website as you check out, though first you need to register so that the checkout program knows you're from the US.
Feb 10, 2010 at 9:21 am #1572165Can I just add that I find zipless bags more comfortable than zipped. If it's really hot, I put the bag across my torso, leaving my legs uninsulated. But mostly, it's just nicer to have no stiff areas in a bag. The drape is closer and there is nothing to end up lying on.
Since going zipless, I have acquired an insulated jacket to supplement the bag. This system is more versatile than buying a zipped bag rated for low temperatures and having no jacket.
Feb 10, 2010 at 5:37 pm #1572363Something seems a bit strange to me. It seems surprising that having 400g (14.1 oz) of 800fp down only results in a single layer loft of 2.6". How is it that the GoLite Adrenaline bag manages to accomplish virtually the same loft (2.5") with significantly less down (10.1oz)? Except for the Feathered Friends bag, all the other bags being compared to the Minim 400 have significantly higher loft:down ratios. The North Face Beeline and Marmot Hydrogen are two other examples of bags that accomplish similar loft with significantly less down.
It kinda makes me wonder if the down is really 800 fp. If the down was lower grade (ie. 700fp) that would explain a lot. It would explain how 58% of the bags weight is in the down and it would explain why over 14oz of down only results in 2.6" of single layer loft. Then again, I could be totally on the wrong track and the real explanation could lie in something else like the cut of the bag.
Feb 11, 2010 at 3:49 am #1572546I'd be very surprised if PHD were supplying a lower grade of down whilst advertising (and charging for!) a higher grade. They've got an excellent reputation, and go into detail about their down testing methodology on their website (http://www.phdesigns.co.uk/techdown4.php?).
I'd be more suspicious of the average loft measurements for the various bags, myself. Its a very tricky number to pin down reliably.
Feb 11, 2010 at 5:20 pm #1572784You're right that the fill power is not the most likely explanation. The difficulty in measuring loft, baffle design, or the cut of the bag all seem like more plausible explanations.
Feb 17, 2010 at 7:18 am #1574850Hi all. Some of you commented that the bag's loft was less than expected. That is probably due to the bag's girth; note that this is a wider bag (Size Standard: Shoulder/hip/foot: 67/58/39 in (170/148/98 cm), probably to facilitate sliding in and out.
Also, thanks for straightening out the VAT issue; that's something we're not familiar with.
Happy hiking,
Will -
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.