ULA Sleeping bag

yes, and don't forget that China is the largest trading partner for Australia, so that also makes me biased …
Franco

Connecting TarpTent and thus Franco to bias in this business decision seem to be a bit of a stretch. I almost always like it when you stir the pot, Ken, but this may be a bit of an overreach.

How about we all just accept that this is odd at best, that the specs are poor, and then let the poor sales of this product remind a couple of good companies that there are better ways to innovate?

Really. You took me seriously Franco? I apologize.

And hey I did say might. and that I could be wrong.

Geez.

But the fact that ULA and Tarptent have an arrangement is true. FWIW. In the spirit of full disclosure and all that PC crap.

If this thing is accurately rated to 20 degrees and weighs 2.5 lbs, then you can objectively conclude, without seeing the bag in person, that it is inferior to other bags of the same or lesser price.
Unless the bag has magic pixie dust in it that causes the user to fall asleep instantly.

Eugene F. Leafty III,

Like people of some "political persuasion", you seem to have trouble with the facts, like to twist reality, and like to state opinion as fact. There, I can be condescending jerk just like you. I'm sorry that I call people when they make baseless allegations. Some people believe in principles and I apologize if this offends you.

Saying that Kelty is better is conjecture or at least personal preference seeing as some might value the construction and several features of the ULA bag. Nobody has any idea of the build quality. So it might be superior. I am glad you at least admit the stretch baffles might be of some interest, real generous of you there. Also, the sharks tail footbox might interest some people.

So on a forum with people spending hundreds of dollars to move from silnylon to cuben, you don't thing for a second that a few differentiating features might be worth $120? Right… Or how about people who buy Nunatak or Katabatic for their features over the much cheaper Enlightened quilts? I guess you don't know much about consumer preferences.

So you can take your graph that conveniently selects just the "facts" you want considered and shove it.

Dena,

I'm counting more than two. It was called a 75 dollare chinese bag and worse. It was then called junk. Then 4 people calling out ULA for putting their names on it.

From now on I think I'll start all my threads in Chaff.

"I'm counting more than two. It was called a 75 dollare chinese bag and worse. It was then called junk. Then 4 people calling out ULA for putting their names on it."

Michael- my response was to Franco, who said everyone BUT two people had been negative. I'm not saying some people didn't go negative (you're right, several did), but there were several people including myself who just compared the specs and made comments based on the specs. One thing that may be different is that with me being very new to the UL philosophy, I am not very familiar with any of the cottage manufacturers and I don't have personal feelings one way or the other about ULA and their products. To me, if the product makes sense, it makes sense. If it doesn't, it doesn't. On this particular bag, I don't see what makes it worth $150 more than a Cosmic Down. Maybe ULA just did a poor job on their marketing and they'll address that and the next time I see an ad for their bag I'll know what makes it better, but right now it looks like it has almost identical specs to the Cosmic Down and so why pay more?

Michael,

Like Justin said, unless their bag has some magic pixie dust, it's not worth it. You mention other companies that charge extra for special materials, but they also would have been lambasted if they hadn't mentioned the use of those special materials, as well they should. You see Michael, even though I've mentioned it several times, if there is something that makes this bag special, it should have been mentioned. They shouldn't advertise it like they're a chinese company selling a chinese bag, which is exactly what they did when they gave unconventional dimensions, didn't provide the fill weight, and didn't even say what type of down they were using. You claim to have a pulse on the consumer, and keep supporting this bag because of completely unsupported possibilities of pixie dust and secret features, yet use examples of companies that openly and proudly advertise their features and quality and willingness to go above and beyond. While you might happily part with an extra $105, I suspect most of us would rather not waste our money on a bag that appears to be cheap explicitly and implicitly.

I don't get it, we can't judge a product based on the materials, weight, price, and specs anymore? maybe this bag has a good personality?

Brian, you can use hard data, but if you use it to compare one product against another, Michael will accuse of you of conjecture too.

Dena,

I'm not disagreeing with your general opinion on the bag and I realize you were responding to Franco. I was just pointing out that it was more than 2 negative comments. I already said I'm have no interest in buying this bag. I prefer quilts for one. Plus I am willing to spend more for lighter weight for another.

Eugene,

You can keep posting the same tripe, but it doesn't make it true. They listed several differntiating features. You know it. I know it. I don't know why you keep pretending it isn't true. Just because YOU don't care for stretch baffles doesn't mean others don't. Just because YOU don't care for the foot box doesn't mean others don't. I don't support this bag because of pixie dust. So you can stop making stuff up. ULA listed features. I repeated them. Head in Sand!

I don't have my pulse on all consumers but I have conducted surveys measuring consumber preference professionally so yes, I do think I have a better than average understanding.

I'm sorry for the way they listed the deminsions. I mean a backpack company offering a sleeping bag should certainly have listed the deminsions and fill weight in a manner that met your criteria.

Do you really object so strongly to more choice in the market place.

Brian,

I don't see anybody complaining about material, weight or price. I see two people questioning the rather strong negative statements of several posters based on nothing more than the information currently available.

It is one thing to say that you feel the Kelty Cosmic is equal to or greater based on your preferences and needs. It is another to lambast a company for selling something before you ever see it or know much about it. Rampant speculation by several on here.

Yes Eugene because Chines duck bag is hard data.

is this bag made in the USA? … and also what kind of superior quality 550 fill does it use …. also is it en-rated like many of the other competing bags at the same weight and same/lower price points …

theres no way i can justify paying double to quadruple (depending on the sale) against a bag with the same specs, same rating and is a proven commodity and recommended by BPL … but thats just me

sometimes a product is made on the assumption that there are people who will buy it for the "brand name", or because they dont know any better …

Not that it matters but I find it peculiar that the almost identical (not to me by the look of it to most here) Kelty bag is often recommended as a good bag at a very good price.
A common comment is "can't beat it for value for money" yet the ULA bag becomes "Chinese junk"
The way I see things, junk is junk at any price so either both bags are junk or neither is, but one could be overpriced.
The reason I say could is because I have no idea of the corresponding manufacturing costs nor the value of added benefits (baffles,footbox and hood design)
But of course I know very little about sleeping bags…
but carry on…
Franco
For the record, I have two ULA packs. Bought both at full retail price…

"Not that it matters but I find it peculiar that the almost identical (not to me by the look of it to most here) Kelty bag is often recommended as a good bag at a very good price.
A common comment is "can't beat it for value for money" yet the ULA bag becomes "Chinese junk""

I suspect the folks that labeled it junk probably wouldn't own the Kelty Cosmic Down, either. They likely prefer (and can afford) the higher end 800+ goose down bags. I think the issue for the rest of us is simply that Kelty has set the accepted price point for this type of bag and ULA hasn't explained why their similarly spec'd bag costs so much more. I'm not saying the ULA bag is junk. I have a Kelty Cosmic Down because I can't afford one of those pricey 800+ fill bags, and it's not junk. It is heavy (compared to the higher end bags) and doesn't compress as well. The ULA looks similar and I'd probably sleep happily in it, but since my dollars only stretch so far based on the info currently available to me I'd still pick the Kelty because it would save me a Benjamin. That could change if ULA all of a sudden did a better job justifying the extra expense. This may simply be a matter of poor marketing not fully explaining the features of the bag, or it may be a matter of ULA having a USA made bag vs. Kelty's chinese bag (I have no idea where ULA produces their gear) thus it's more expensive, or something else. Maybe it's lined with some space age reflective fabric that effectively raises it's EN rating. Or, it could be pretty much identical to the Kelty and therefore not worth the extra money except to people who have extreme loyalty to ULA.

Kinda funny that we have this long thread and no one emailed ULA dont you think?

As an aside – i think i know whats going on:
they made a mistake – its not a 20F its 0F and the 2 needs to be added to the 550 to get 750FP (EU!)
now it makes more sense :)

I asked some questions on their facebook page, as have others.

You can get a 850 fill bag on this one website. It's usually $209.

The website is backcountry.com, and the bag is the stoic sommnus.

There are always better deals out there. That doesn't mean that a company should not introduce a new product. If you think about it most of the products that we like are made in china. it does look like this cottage company wants to "sell out" , I think people here do not like that. In all reality it might be a + EV (expectation) decision.

All I know is that this bag doesn't appeal to me, for a little more you could get a feathered friends or zpacks Cuben fiber bag! The fact is there are always better deals out there, and if every company tried to be the "best deal" they would all go out of business.

I am also curious where this bag is made. I hope the USA and not some far off Asian country.. I almost wonder if the 550 is a typo.. Hahaha that would be some funny stuff.. I mean not really, but due to all the negative comments it would be haha.. It almost doesn't make sense…

Actually Lawson, that WOULD be hysterical!

I heard the 550 comes from seaguls, thats the state bird for Utah.

Lawson,

Even if 550 is a typo, there's another typo or missing data. The weight of that bag would be extraordinarily heavy if it had higher quality down. Synthetic? I don't know enough about those to know what it should weigh, and don't care to look. The weight might be acceptable if it had a goretex shell or fully integrated Klymit pad, but they've done a terrible job of marketing this thing if it is.

Perhaps ULA is trolling us. That would make the most sense, at least to all but one of us. After all, most of us are having a hard time believing that Ultralight Adventure Equipment would sell what appears to be a low grade chinese duck down bag. If that's the case, then they've trolled harder than any company I can think of. Five Ten comes closest when they tried to troll a while back with a tactical kilt, but found that people actually wanted it, and then sold it.

i dont see why they cant use at least 650-700 fill down .. i mean you can buy cheap 650-700 fill jackets for < 50$ …

Has anyone from ULA confirmed the 550 down?