Topic

Pad Warmth / Weight ratio

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
Mark Verber BPL Member
PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 11:03 am

A week or two ago I was collecting information about sleeping mats to put into a database. Along the way I noticed it would be interesting to rank pads by the insulation value / weight. The results were interesting.

I found things in pads in four clusters:

POE's mat with aerogel panels was more than 2X better than the closest alternative. A claimed R20 for 24oz!

Warmlite DAM was better than just about everything by a factor of 2X.

There was a cluster of pads which included Exped down mats, the BA and POE insulated air matresses and close cell foam pads. A small surprise was that Evazote foam pads were the warmest / weight of this cluster by a small margin, beating out the synthetic insulated air mattresses and other foam pads such as the ridgerest and z-lite.

Self inflating air mattresses were 30-50% heavier for a given warmth as insulate air matresses or foam pads.

–mark

Dylan Skola BPL Member
PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 12:01 pm

Interesting stuff. Can we talk you into posting the summary table / graph on this forum?

What you've discussed of the results tracks pretty well with what I've suspected, which is that the "industry-standard" self-inflators are pretty inefficient warmth/weight wise, as well as comfort / weight compared to the alternatives. At the same time they share the puncture vulnerability of the air mats, albeit with tougher face fabrics.

Eds – BPL did a small closed-cell pad roundup a few years ago, but maybe it's time for a comprehensive sleeping pad theory / review article, in the great style of the "Sleeping Systems" treatise? Just a thought.

Mark Verber BPL Member
PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 12:29 pm

Data was collected from a variety of sources, most being the manufacturers such as therm-a-rest which provide R values. I would be great if all did this. I put some of the info I found in my sleeping pads section of my sleep systems page. Which doesn’t have the ratio.. weight and R is provided. At some point people will have direct access to the database I have been working on… but not today. I started this thread mostly because I thought it might stimulate some thoughts and maybe other people to collect data, and as your observed, maybe some of systematic reviews / analysis.

–mark

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Mark you have a very informative website. Thanks for sharing.

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 4:08 pm

I wonder why the Stephenson's are somehow 2x better than any other comparable mattress? Could this be some miracle technology (hybrid radioactive space geese?) or… just… possibly… HYPE rather than tested fact?

Just conjecture.

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Hi Brian,

The Warmlite DAM (Down Air Matress) has been very well reviewed by several reviewers for warmth. I have one but, have not had an opportunity to use it yet. The Exped 9 which is also has a high R value of 8 while the Warmlite has an estimated R value of 9. The Warmlite are much lighter than the Exped 7 or 9 air matresses due to lighter materials and shape (mummy). Additionally, as I understand it the Warmlite DAM may have more depth (with fewer tubes) and uses I believe higher loft Down. I am rather short at 5' 6" and my Warmlite DAM (mine is the 60" girth with a 70" length and a 24" width) weighs only 20.2 oz (1.2 oz over estimate)and the Pump sack (which can be used as a pillow) weighs 2.8 oz.

Rich

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Wow that's great to know… especially since I have an Exped DAM 7 coming in the mail. I liked the idea of a rectangular pad that could be cinched up to a matching one on my girlfriend's side — that would be my girlfriend who doesn't like hiking. I have always been a dreamer…

I wonder why Exped would have chosen a higher-weight solution. I also wonder whether the Exped might be more durable. But those are the words of a remorseful buyer!

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 6:39 pm

And did you include the Montbell(MB) UL pads? They are not die cut, so they are (according to the manufacturer) warmer, and they are also ligher per unit volume than even the BPL/BMW Torsolite. I read here at BPL that typical mat foam is R .13/inch, .9 for die cut.

The aerogel pads might have R20, but I dont need R20, nor the weight; hope they can make an R10 version at half the weight.

I carry an ensolite for insulation and a MB 47" self-inflating pad for comfort so I am glad you confirmed ensolite is one of the lightest for its R value! Thanks again.

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 7:06 pm

Francois, thanks for the link to Artiach; a company I had never heard of. Looks like they have some interesting products, especially the Light Plus mat you mentioned.

But I could not find the R value listed on the product page, nor in the 'Technical Characteristics' nor the 'Technical Guide'. How can they get R2.2 out of 170 grams of foam when it takes Thermarest 420 grams of foam to get R2.2, and Gossmaer Gear gets R.9 out of 140g of evasote? Their foam has twice the R value of the competition? Then why aren't others using it as well? I am not doubting you, I am just a naturally sceptical person. :) Any source on that R value? Thanks, Ill be watching Artiach!
-Brett.

PostedFeb 14, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Hi Brian,

I had ordered as I recall an Exped 7 or 9? from Altrec. I called them and decided to refuse the order (due to the extreme difference in weight with the Warmlite) and just had the order returned to Altrec. I ended up just paying the shipping. I then ordered the Warmlite DAM instead. As I recall at the time Stephenson's had the DAM in stock so it was sent right out to me.

Rich

PostedFeb 15, 2007 at 12:06 pm

Cannot find a scientific source, but the value was presented in a comparison done by "Outdoor Magazine", one of the European leading magazine for outdoors.

I presume the value comes from tests done by the manufacturer.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
Loading...