Jan 18, 2011 at 8:38 am #1267889
@robertm2sLocale: Lake Tahoe
Shane Shin in his January 15, 2011 review said the DAS is too cold: “The downsides of the parka are that it’s not that warm! This will keep me warm in 20 degree weather standing around for about an hour, with a baselayer and shell on underneath. Any lower temp or longer standing around and you'll be cold.”
As long as the manufacturer accurately states the quantity and identity of the insulation, it is what it is, and everyone is alerted to that before purchase. If a windshirt maker states that the product is 100% nylon, and is so many mm thick, and is one layer, and has some DWR, it might be illogical to attempt to summit Denali in it, then down-rate it as being too cold. It is what it is, and it was clearly and accurately portrayed before the purchase.Jan 18, 2011 at 10:13 am #1685525
James KleinBPL Member
I see no logic errors. I am sure it would be appreceated if you generalize your post — remove name, date, jacket name…
If patagonia had claimed this jacket is designed to keep user warm to such and such temp (assuming some activity level) and the reviewer complained that it doesn't keep him/her warm down below that temperature than you might have a point.
Unfortunalty the claim is "The DAS Parka is Patagonia's warmest synthetic, high-loft protection for full-on alpine conditions…" leaves much guessing. Yes they list the insulation type (not sure if they list how much they use). But even if they give all the nescessary info it can be pretty convoluted to estimate a garmants insulation value / confort rating on that alone.
The info he provides is very valuable — he give a personal comfort rating based on important factors: outside temp, activity level and time.
JamesJan 18, 2011 at 10:22 am #1685528
Ben 2 WorldBPL Member
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
James, i see your point — much depends on the advertised claims made by the gear maker or seller. But if Robert is critiquing someone's evaluation of a particular gear, then methinks it is logical (and proper) to reference that evaluation.Jan 18, 2011 at 12:06 pm #1685563
eric chanBPL Member
2 things stand out … the jacket is 5 years old … and i believe its an older one with either polarguard or climbashield
the new ones would be both warmer and thinner
that said … anyone is entitled to their opinion … i might love a piece of gear, but someone else might hate itJan 18, 2011 at 5:26 pm #1685680
@robertm2sLocale: Lake Tahoe
I know I am being too tough on the reviewer, who I'm sure is a nice guy. Sorry. I am an IBM computer, not a hUUman, and get stuck in my logic circuits, so, just to stir up trouble, NOTE: NOWHERE DOES THE REVIEWER SAY HE WAS MISLED.
1. The reviewer was specifically told how warm it was, when the Patagonia website revealed the exact amount and type of insulation. Let’s say anyone could extrapolate that it was warm to 20* but no colder.
2. The reviewer knew he needed a parka warm to 0*
3. He bought it anyway.
4. Now he whines that it is too cold. It’s not fair to the maker to post a review that gives a lower rating just because the reviewer made a mistake. He should have bought a warmer jacket. That’s like giving a lower rating to a garment “because it was too small.” Let’s say he went to a store, actually tried it on, found it was too small, bought it anyway, then downgraded the jacket for being too small. My wholly electronic brain circuits claim that is illogical.Jan 18, 2011 at 6:31 pm #1685691
Richard NisleyBPL Member
@richard295Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
The camp chores thermo-neutral point for the current DAS is 17F. The review is valuable.Jan 18, 2011 at 6:43 pm #1685703
@davecLocale: The West Slope
I think this issue points to the value of making Richard's work on CLO more common knowledge. Lab grade warmth ratings give people a baseline to decide how "average" warmth ratings generalize to their peculiar metabolism, etc. Ergo, clothing can be accurately compared, and wise purchases can be made.
I've found my DAS to be a very useful piece of clothing. It's warmth makes it useful for a variety of winter conditions, and the exceptional way in which it deals with both internal and external moisture makes it an invaluable layer for ski touring.
That said, it's not for standing around in serious cold. For that, I bring the MEC Reflex, which is three times as warm for about the same weight. However, I would not want to take the MEC on my average day ski touring trip, where putting a puffy over my sweaty self is crucial for maintaining warmth.Jan 19, 2011 at 8:38 am #1685852
James KleinBPL Member
My comment about generalizing the post was spurred by the personal critique in a seperate thread from his review(he may never see and thus be able to reply). It not really that you are being too hard on him or not its that you are saying he's illogical and he may not see this to reply…
1) I don't think he was "specifically" told how warm the jacket is. He was specifically given the info required to make an estimate of warmth — these are not the same. Being given the inputs to an answer are not the same as being given the answer. I highly doubt that a large percentage of backcountry folks now how to accurately make the calculation given insulation info alone. Even given an Iclo value many wouldn't be able to — I think its silly to expect that of a reviewer.
2) I never see him say he needed a 0deg parka (maybe this is a prerequisite for ice climbing..?).
3) He bought a parka claimed to be for "for full-on alpine conditions" (not sure if that's how it was marketed 5yrs ago). To me, 20F is not full on alpine. What if its 20F with 30mph wind…
4) He is not only criticizing the warm. He criticises the jacket for being too:
I don't think he is whining. Again I see Patagonia say: its thier warmest synthetic…for full on alpine conditions… .He didn't seem to think it fit the bill.
I think everything he posts in his review is resonable. If you asked me to read about the jacket, then read the review and then guess his rating — I would guess his rating at a 3-4 outta 5.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.