Sep 7, 2012 at 5:32 am #1293803
Seen this yet? http://www.ula-equipment.com/sleeping-bag.asp
Sharks Tail shaped footbox
5 baffle footbox – 2 horizontal, 3 vertical
Stretch baffles, below the shoulders
3D Interlocking Draft Tubes
¾ length zip with guard
Super Soft and lightweight liner.
Lightweight breathable fabrics
Neck collar to minimize heat loss
Ships with large mesh storage sack
550 Down Sleeping Bag
84.5" x 31.5" x 21.7"
At $225 it seems like a weird combination of materials and features. Who uses 550 down in a sleeping bag? The specs are kinda sparse, what fabrics are being used? Kinda heavy.Sep 7, 2012 at 5:48 am #1909972
@towalyLocale: Smoky Mtns.
I have seen another bag recently which has similar down spec, by Klymit.
Price is similar too.
I think it's possible that some of these manufacturers are using this stiffer down quality to keep loft from dropping, and also to keep the cost lower.
Many down parkas use a down quality of similar number, and I think that is to keep the loft in conditions like skiing where it is likely to see some moisture. And the lower cost is not insignificant either.
Perhaps these bags are the beginning of a trend.Sep 7, 2012 at 5:51 am #1909973
I should have said that they collaborated with Klymit.Sep 7, 2012 at 7:07 am #1909991
@johnnyh88Locale: The SouthWest
Why would ULA put out such a heavy bag? More information would be nice to justify the weight and cost.
The Kelty Cosmic 20 degree bag, which costs far less and also uses 550 down (http://www.kelty.com/p-457-cosmic-down-20.aspx), has 20 oz of fill for a size Regular. Even if this bag uses 25 oz of fill, that leaves over a pound for the shell weight which uses "lightweight" materials…Sep 7, 2012 at 7:44 am #1910005
@mammomanLocale: NE AL
That was looking like a somewhat unique piece of gear and a potential home run until I saw 550 down…..and the weight…..strange choiceSep 7, 2012 at 8:16 am #1910013
@hknewmanLocale: Western US
Looking at their website, it also states the fabric on this Klymit bag is using stretch baffles and anatomical hood (assuming it's a hood that moves with the head like the old Sierra Designs Flex series). For an enclosed bag to tempt hikers into sleeping in on a cold morning, Ok at 550 down. Plus a neck collar, which is the a draft collar I guess, and draft tube need to be accounted for in the weight. Better for heat retention.
Ed: AddSep 7, 2012 at 8:17 am #1910014
I thought Montbell had the patent on stretch bags? I know they licenced the technology to Sierra Designs (or was that the other way around?). ULA must have got a licence for this.
I agree about the 550 rated down. Seems like a backward compliment to their excellent packs.Sep 7, 2012 at 8:17 am #1910015
@towalyLocale: Smoky Mtns.
For people who are accustomed to 3-5 pound sleeping bags that probably don't even work as cold as 20*F, this seems to offer a lot of bang for the buck.
Remember, it's half the cost of a 20*F Western Mountaineering bag, and the WM 20*F bag like my Alpinlite weighs just under 2 pounds.
For "regular people" who aren't gram-weenies, this looks like a pretty good bag for the money. Reasonably light(in comparison to consumer bags), reasonably low temperature rating, and reasonable price. Not bad overall for the average person.Sep 7, 2012 at 8:28 am #1910020
I would like to see the down fill weight of the 550 to produce a rating of 20 degrees. Someone e-mail Chris.Sep 7, 2012 at 8:48 am #1910029
the down fill weigh on the kelty CD 20 is 18 oz of 550 fill … its en-rated to 21F LL
i hope no one here will try to make excuses for a company that sells a non en-rated bag at twice the price of the kelty, yet weights more, and is not en-rated … despite any cottage brand nameSep 7, 2012 at 8:54 am #1910033
@m-lLocale: W-Never Eat Soggy (W)affles
No mention of the reflective material? It looks like something i'd wear when walking on the moon. Either way it is too heavy for my standards, her elbows are way too pointy.Sep 7, 2012 at 9:45 am #1910043
Good question David. From what I have gathered, only the baffles are stretchy not the fabric itself. I think that's why the bag shell looks all shriveled up. Extra nylon to "stretch" with the baffles that actually do stretch. If so, they wouldn't need the license from Sierra. This is all conjecture on my part though. We'll get more details over the coming days.
RyanSep 7, 2012 at 10:07 am #1910051
@eagleriverdeeLocale: Eagle River, Alaska
I see a few advantages over the Kelty CD 20 (which is my primary sleeping bag) such as the sharks tail footbox and the stretchy part of the bag for restless sleepers. The thing is, this sells for over $150 MORE than the Kelty. The Kelty is similar in weight (I believe 2 lbs 9 oz for the Kelty) and has the same weight down (although Kelty is duck down, not sure what this one is). But I'm a restless sleeper and have no problems sleeping in my Kelty. As a consumer I wouldn't pay $150 more for this bag.Sep 7, 2012 at 5:54 pm #1910208
@vesteroidLocale: Eastern Sierras
I rarely rant.
I have purchased no less than 5 packs from chris. yes 5. I bought an ohm and circuit when I started backpacking, later sold both and went another route. The wife bought a small circuit fitted by chris, and later decided she wanted a medium, I sold the small here. Then this year I bought a new ohm for my collection.
I saw this bag posted on FB and merely commented that the weight of the bag did not seem in keeping with his companies name.
I log on today to find myself banned from the page apparently for that comment.
I suppose it could be some unrelated error, but I still cant see that post or the associated comments, even though I could last night.
If in fact he banned me, (or whatever you call it on FB) thats the end of my support for his company. Its not like I said his products sucked, just that this one seemed heavy.Sep 7, 2012 at 6:20 pm #1910214
@justin_bakerLocale: Santa Rosa, CA
How much down is in it? Either this thing is abnormally heavy, or it's much warmer than most 20 degree bags out there.Sep 7, 2012 at 7:45 pm #1910241
@hknewmanLocale: Western US
Good point about price, Tom. Many people may be priced out of the UL market but could get into a relatively lightwt but full-featured bag.Sep 7, 2012 at 7:55 pm #1910243
drowning in spamMember
I don't see the point in this bag. The lack of details is something I'd expect out of a $75 chinese duck down bag. If it's made in their garage, which presumably is still in the United States, then that's the only reason I could recommend this bag.
I don't blame you for not wanting to buy anything else from them. Banning you was poor form if the only reason was that one comment. Your comment should have been deleted, and nothing more.Sep 8, 2012 at 9:48 am #1910348
I also find this bag odd… Or in better words, out of place in the ULA line up. Hopefully ULA can shine some light on this bag and there intentions with material choice.Sep 8, 2012 at 12:57 pm #1910391
Looks the same
No helpful info there either.Sep 8, 2012 at 2:14 pm #1910411
Would 550 down-fill actually compress down small enough to fit inside a ULA pack?
Maybe it's eider down?Sep 9, 2012 at 6:23 pm #1910699
I better be good.
-TimSep 9, 2012 at 6:51 pm #1910705
I don't think this is the vision that Brian Frankle had for ULA.Sep 9, 2012 at 7:03 pm #1910709
Kind of a bummer. ULA should just stick to packs and not slap their name on a product like this.Sep 9, 2012 at 7:52 pm #1910727
@eugeneiusLocale: Nuevo Mexico
Overpriced junk.Sep 9, 2012 at 8:29 pm #1910741
I'm surprised no one from ULA has commented on the bag… I mean if you were proud of something you made wouldn't you support your product? If they did, did I miss it?
I really hope this isn't a precursor to what could happen to the rest of their line up…
Tim – Rant away :)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.