.61 Dyneema (CT1K.18) now at RSBTR

.61 on the left, 1.0 on the right. Same Mylar, 1.0 has more dyneema. In terms of hand feel/stiffness, they do feel quite similar. I have 1.43 on hand as well and can say it feels significantly stiffer than both.

i’m not aware of a double E (which would be E.18). and also the single layer K (i.e. K.08) doesn’t seem to exist either (at least from these suppliers). so we’re dealing with essentially two mylar thicknesses, thiner (E.08) and thicker (the double thick K.18). It’s plausible that “E” is simply the label DSM gives to the single thickness — i recall that on their fabric mojo page MLD referred to “CT2k.08” and “CT2e.08” as if they were the same thing. Or perhaps DSM manufactures the single thickness K.08 for other purposes. not sure.

i’ll update the chart above to make it a bit more clear.

Cubic Tech once sold me some E by mistake.  Posted a thread here, and was advised by all the E was better, so kept it.  The mylar didn’t seem any beefier though.

Some thoughts…I noticed that for tent floors:

• ZPacks uses 1.0 oz cuben fiber (CT2K.18)
• MLD offers 0.75 oz cuben fiber (CT2E.08)

While for tarps:

• Zpacks uses 0.5 oz cuben fiber as standard (CT1E.08)
• MLD (and just about every one else – Locus Gear, HMG, Yama Mountain Gear, etc) uses 0.75 oz cuben fiber as standard (CT2E.08)

It seems that most suppliers prefers tarps made out of 0.75 oz cuben fiber. I wonder if they have found the extra Dyneema thread count to actually be more durable or abrasion resistant?

ZPacks says of the 0.75 oz cuben fiber: “This weight has a little bit higher Dyneema thread count than our standard .51 oz material above. It may be good in applications that require a bit more strength and abrasion resistance”.

I would have guessed mylar thickness has more of an impact on abrasion resistance, which would lead to this 0.61 oz cuben fiber as being a pretty ideal fabric.

Does anyone know the mylar thickness used on ZPacks 0.67 oz camo cuben?

In the past it seems the ‘K’ type scrims where all that was readily available, both single layer K.08 and double layer K.18

Check out the results from Richard Nisley’s HH tests posted in 2011 https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/45026/page/5/#comments  No one ever submitted a sample of ‘E’ type scrim, only the K.08, K.18, and other presents from the Ghost of Christmas Past (high bias weave with fibers on the diagonals as well as vertical and horizontal, WPB Cuben, Aluminized Cuben, there used to be a lot of cool stuff available…)

I think this is Sam’s thread about the ‘E’ layer https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/41273/ Lawson Kline’s (http://lawsonequipment.com/) post is a little treasure trove of information

for good measure here’s Bill Fornshell’s Cuben Fiber Q&A https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/2346/

Finally Graham Williams super helpful 2007 response to this post, https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/7895/, so helpful I think I should quote him here so this info is in more places:

“CT = Cubic Tech, ie not sail cloth
CN = Cuben Fiber, ie sail cloth
That’s mainly an internal accounting thing for them.
<div class=”bbp-reply-content”>

first number: amount of dyneema.
HB = High Bias, or double direction.
K, E, T, KM = Scrim Type.
Last number = scrim weight.

Don’t worry about the scrim types. It doesn’t matter unless you’re planning to expose the thing to lots of salt water and sun.

good luck, have fun.

PS. the proper applicator for the urethane bonding agent works really well, but it’s pretty expensive. You can order it from a loctite distributor.”

</div>
-Graham Williams

__________________________

Since Dyneema acquired cuben tech, how much of this older info is still relevant? Has Dyneema changed anything?

Is this CT1K.18 at RSBTR the same as sample 13 submitted to Richard Nisley in 2011? Are any of the ~K.08 cuben fibers tested in 2011 actually the same as the current ~E.08 offerings (zpacks 0.51oz/yd DCF maybe)?