Feb 24, 2010 at 2:25 pm #1255717
I owe a cookie to anyone who catches the obscure name reference without googling.
We made our first down garment. For this first (post-muslin) mock-up we used some ripstop from JoAnn's. With 3oz of 800+ and a total weight of 10.9oz on a ~150lb. person, the spec's may not be impressive by BPL standards, but should improve. The next try will use some <1oz/sqyd fabric and a little more down. May be able to trim the pattern a bit more after we test these this weekend in Oklahoma. Any thoughts?Feb 24, 2010 at 3:13 pm #1578150
drowning in spamMember
10 ounces is decent, but it looks like it needs more loft to be worth the weight. The quality looks good to my untrained eyes.Feb 24, 2010 at 4:05 pm #1578172
– -K.T.- –Participant
Looks great,nutnfancyFeb 25, 2010 at 6:59 am #1578406
@cwayman1Locale: East Tennessee, US
Is this a Capability Brown reference? It was one of those "capability down, capability down, capability… BROWN!" kind of moments… and then I laughed a bit =D
anyway, cool pants!
… so I can get that cookie =D!Feb 25, 2010 at 8:54 am #1578458
Just PM your address. We've got some good pecan brownies in the fridge right now. Not exactly a cookie, but we can make some next week if you suggest a kind. One should survive the mail in winter even without preservatives.Feb 25, 2010 at 2:56 pm #1578604
The specs on these pants are reasonable…..3oz of down in 10.9oz pants is 27.5% of the garments weight. For comparison the Montbell UL Down Inner Pants are 2oz of down in 6.8oz pants. So the down is 29.4% of the garments weight.
With that said, the total weight of the fabrics, elastics etc is 4.8oz in the Montbell pants and 7.9oz in your pants. If you could get this weight closer to 5oz you'd have some amazing pants. 3oz of down in 7-8oz pants would be excellent.Feb 25, 2010 at 3:05 pm #1578616
@halfturboLocale: Northernish California
Having an 8y.o. at home I was obliged to think of Spongebob Square Pants and nothing else.
Nice trousers, nevertheless.
RickFeb 25, 2010 at 3:16 pm #1578620
Good looking pants. They look pretty trim as they are.
I'd like to make some for myself like that at some point.
Where did you get the
I have on order a case of .9 ounce calendared "enertia" fabric
on order and will probably have it for sale in a few weeks,
if decide to make another iteration.Feb 25, 2010 at 4:06 pm #1578641
is that what we're all calling it Dave, or is that name trademarked by OWARE?
-TimFeb 25, 2010 at 5:00 pm #1578674
I don't know what to call it yet, but it gives you the idea.Feb 25, 2010 at 5:45 pm #1578697
Obviously this would be a weight killer… but would it not make any sense to put a chunk of Climashield in stead of down in the buttock region of insulated pants? Just to toughen it up- and defend against the 'wet-out blues'?
Also, why are there no insulated shorts?
Am I an idiot?Feb 25, 2010 at 7:13 pm #1578734
don't pee your pants and down will work fine!
-TimFeb 25, 2010 at 7:23 pm #1578742
Yeah- maybe I should get Climashield in the front! Even better- a waterproof zipper in the front of insulated shorts! Now that's progressFeb 25, 2010 at 7:27 pm #1578745
@mocs123Locale: Southeast Tennessee
I think they look great! If you were to make them out of some 0.9 material they should have a warmth to weight ratio as good as anything on the market! I like the simplicity.Feb 25, 2010 at 10:47 pm #1578834
@backfeets1Locale: Midwest.... Missouri
Consider … at the ankles only half length elastic, same on waist. Inseam length 2.5 inch strip of fabric instead of double material and no insulation. Use the saved down to boost amount elsewhere.Feb 26, 2010 at 7:10 am #1578882
Down is more durable than the synthetics. I would stick with
An old book on winter camping from the 70's has instructions
for making your own down shorts.Feb 26, 2010 at 7:43 am #1578893
"Inseam length 2.5 inch strip of fabric instead of double material and no insulation."
James Byrnes, I don't understand the line above. Please clarify. Good suggestion on elastic.
Thanks everyone for the other notes and encouragement.
David Olson, what was the book with down shorts from the 70's? Any other suggested books on the subject I should read?Feb 26, 2010 at 8:32 am #1578913
"Where did you get the down?"
David, Oops, I missed this question before.
I purchased from Thru Hiker. Good service and price. The down from Ed Speer is a little more expensive and a corresponding increase claimed quality ("900" v. "800+"). Both have simple checkout through Paypal. I have had good experience with both companies. My decision was made by the lower shipping cost at Thru Hiker. I don't know how shipping would be affected by a larger order.
I would also consider trying the 750 from Kooka Bay. I had already ordered when I found this. Their price for 750 is about half that of the top quality downs mentioned above. The numbers seem to favor 750 (or lower) until you get into really thick garments or Cuben shells. This holds for personal use. I think it would be difficult for one to market "UL" gear without "the best" regardless of engineering values. YMMV, I am more confident with my design skills than my grasp of pop culture.Feb 26, 2010 at 9:18 am #1578940
I don't remember the name, and I got rid of a lot of books
when I moved. I got it around 1979.Mar 2, 2010 at 11:30 pm #1581000
@backfeets1Locale: Midwest.... Missouri
For the length of the seam on the inner side of each leg, do not use any insulation. Since no insulation is used there is no reason to use a double layer of shell material. I suggest a width of this area to be 2.5 inches. You save the weight of down in this area and the weight of one layer of shell material. Or the down could be shifted to other areas of the garment. Less insulation in the inseam area cuts bulk, chaffing, abrasion. I usually use insulated pants to sleep in, and since I use a mummy style bag my legs are together and need less insulation.Mar 3, 2010 at 7:05 am #1581048
If its just for sleeping save the weight of all the extra M90 and add the down right to your quilt. Warmer quilt, less extra stuff to deal with, no added fabric weight.
If the pants are to be used around camp then i'd want that down around my "boys". I don't want them frost bit!
-TimMar 6, 2010 at 8:44 pm #1583025
Clint, I hope to bake tomorrow evening and ship Monday. (edit: shipped Monday, pecan and sesame brownie in a silicone muffin cup. Re-use for trail water baking and egg poaching.)
We had a pretty good weekend on a bit of the Ouachita Trail in OK. Lisa wore the down pants in camp at dinner and breakfast. They are warm and certainly workable. I'm not sure of the temp, but my wet Vibram KSOs had ice in the morning.
We are still working a bit on the fit. We intend them to be ideal for sitting on a pad on the ground. They are full through the seat. The waist is high in back and low in front. Unfortunately they still tend to slide down and gap a bit at the lower back if not held while moving toward sitting. Slick fabric is difficult. Perhaps some other material at the waistband may be called for. We hope to solve this yet keep the pull-on simplicity.
Thanks for all the comments, even the ones I haven't responded to directly. And feel free to use technical jargon if necessary. Lisa is a pro designer/patternmaker, so she may understand what I miss.Mar 10, 2010 at 8:30 am #1584557
@cwayman1Locale: East Tennessee, US
WAY SWEET! Cant't wait for the brownie! And you better believe I'll be taking that muffin cup for some pancake-batter muffins! 'Preciate it Jeremy!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.