May 8, 2013 at 5:59 pm #1302722Brian LindahlBPL Member
@lindahlbLocale: Colorado Rockies
In the video, he claims Thermal Q is about 3 clo per 100 grams, which is 0.86 clo/oz. Sounds like it's better than all but the highest quality productions of Primaloft One (0.84 or .92?)
They claim it's 20% warmer than the leading synthetics – but they probably mean it's 20% warmer than the synthetics they were using before (Thermic Micro) – which finally gives us an idea of the likely clo value of Thermic Micro – about .70 clo/oz. Previously, it was impossible to find this figure. They were probably tight-lipped because they didn't want to admit cheapening their jackets between 2008 and 2009 by moving from Primaloft One to Thermic Micro/Primaloft Eco.
Their Thermostatic Hoody this fall will come in at 10oz, and will be the lightest and warmest 60 gram synthetic jacket. Hopefully they get the sleeve length right, this time around (the old Thermostatic jackets had short sleeves and don't play well with gloves). This is about the same weight as the Patagonia Nano Puff Pullover, but comes with a full zip and a hood. It's also lighter than the 60g Primaloft One Rab Xenon jacket. Cool!
The North Face is also coming out with a new insulation, Thermoball, and is claiming that in the lab, it's testing as good as 600 fill power down. This is approximately. Taken at face value, this means that North Face has bested Primaloft One, and Thermal Q as well.
800 fill power is about 1.68 clo/oz. Premium 850+ used by most manufacturers is about 1.88 clo/oz. 600 fill power is about 1.26 clo/oz. North Face claiming to have created a synthetic fill with ~1.2 clo/oz is a pretty hard to believe, but I guess we'll see.
Durability of both Thermal Q and Thermoball will be interesting to see as well. It's nice to see some competition in this space, and hopefully we'll see improvements beyond the clo/oz of Primaloft One.
Maybe Richard has done some testing on some of these new fills? ;)
As an aside, I think I remember reading Richard claiming that 100g Primaloft One in a jacket is about equal to 3.5oz of 850+ fill weight down?May 8, 2013 at 10:33 pm #1984704Serge GiachettiSpectator
@sgiachettiLocale: Boulder, CO
Thanks Brian. MH has definitely upped their game as of late. I like that they are making improvements in both UL down and synthetic garments. The thermostatic looks good especially considering that Rab looks to be adding weight to their Xenon for next year. As much as I'd like a hooded ghost whisperer jacket, I still think that a super light synthetic piece provides a bit more 4-season versatility. 10oz is really good.
The B-Layman jacket looks good too. If the new insulation is effective, it'll be the warmest synthetic belay jacket in that weight range at 200grams and 26 oz.May 8, 2013 at 11:43 pm #1984713Eric BlumensaadtBPL Member
@danepackerLocale: Mojave Desert
Is this new insulation DURABLE in terms of loft retention after repeated stuffings?
I still don't like Primaloft's "loft life". I much prefer Climashield.May 10, 2013 at 10:04 am #1985093Brian LindahlBPL Member
@lindahlbLocale: Colorado Rockies
Totally agree. MH is definately coming out with some awesome products lately. OR is another manufacturer that doesn't get much love on here, but also has some amazing products.Dec 18, 2013 at 8:29 am #2055529And ESpectator
@lunchandynnerLocale: Pacific Northwest
Just found this in a Magazine. Explicitly states that an independent lab found Thermal Q to be 35% warmer (comparing 60g/m2) than Primaloft One. That's pretty impressive. Probably just as "durable" since One is short staple fiber so isn't all that durable to begin with.
Not sure if y'all will be able to see the fine print…
From an ad in the December '13 issue of Outside magazine.Dec 18, 2013 at 8:40 am #2055530Trill DaddyBPL Member
I've thoroughly tested tnf's thermoball and can attest to it's improved performance and comfort over PL1Dec 18, 2013 at 9:44 am #2055556Woubeir (from Europe)BPL Member
Well, I've seen both the '20% and 35% better-claims' and it seems to me like a marketingstunt. Based on the 35% claim, that would almost be as warm as 700 FP down.
The CLO/oz of 600 FP down is not 1,26. It just not that simple as 1,68 for 800 FP down divided by 8 and multiplied by 6. I come by regression to something like 1,05 to 1,1 for 600 FP.
And then a question: how was a CLO of 3 for a garment converted to 0,86 clo/oz/yd2 ?Dec 18, 2013 at 9:52 am #2055559Delmar O’DonnellMember
@bolsterLocale: Between Jacinto & Gorgonio
Tom, you built a regression program to predict CLO? Very interesting. May I ask what the IVs are? Prediction (measured by r or r-squared) is pretty good, is it?Dec 18, 2013 at 10:26 am #2055573USA Duane HallBPL Member
@hikerduaneLocale: Extreme northern Sierra Nevada
They fixed the original Primaloft issue of shifting/lumping up didn't they? I have the original sb from when it first came out. Was not a good product. I was sold by the waterproofness demonstrated by my then local outdoors store.
DuaneDec 18, 2013 at 10:27 am #2055576Woubeir (from Europe)BPL Member
Well, I don't want to say it is that hard and difficult. It isn't. Everybody can do it. Just take the point (800;1,68) and (550;0,92) (as often it's stated that 550 FP = ± the best synthetics). Then, plot a linear regression curve and voila … I hope to improve that curve by adding more data in the future.Dec 18, 2013 at 4:03 pm #2055703Rick MBPL Member
delDec 18, 2013 at 9:10 pm #2055813just Justin WhitsonMember
Does anyone know what material the Thermoball insulation is made from? Polyester, polypropylene, nylon, or some other?Dec 18, 2013 at 11:38 pm #2055852Ito JakuchuBPL Member
From what I've seen in Japan at least Primaloft Thermoball is made from 100% polyester.Dec 19, 2013 at 12:58 am #2055857James holdenBPL Member
thermoball is claimed to be the equivalent of 600 fill down
interesting that MH is trying to push the envelope … when theres a "top" brand out there thats DOWNGRADING the insulation on their thicker synthetic jackets
;)Dec 19, 2013 at 7:56 am #2055900just Justin WhitsonMember
Thank you for the reply and info Ito.Jan 13, 2021 at 11:18 am #3693585Weekend Gear GuideBPL Member
Hi Brian and all,
I was just looking at Thermal.Q Elite, as I’m thinking of getting a jacket that uses this insulation that’s on sale.
Brian, I believe your clo/oz/yd2 calculation is incorrect. For 3.0 CLO for 100gsm of insulation, it should actually be 1.02 clo/oz/yd2, which is higher than Primaloft Gold 0.92 clo/oz/yd2.
In the video, MH rep mentioned that at the time, competing insulations were 2.7 CLO for 100gsm, which works out to 0.92 clo/oz/yd2 which is Primaloft Gold.
Richard and Stephen, can you please confirm if my 1.02 clo/oz/yd2 calculation for Thermal.Q Elite is correct?
It’s worth to note that when Thermal.Q Elite claim for being the warmest synthetic insulation is no longer valid now that Primaloft is claiming their Primaloft Gold Insulation Eco with Crosscore Technology is up to 52% warmer than Primaloft Gold, which puts it at 1.4 clo/oz/yd2.Jan 13, 2021 at 9:16 pm #3693680Stephen SeeberBPL Member
In their 2016 press kit, MH lists the 100g/m2 insulation is 3 clo. 100g/m2 is equal to 2.95 oz/square yard. So, about 1 clo/oz/square yard. Here is the but: They don’t say what standard was used for the thermal resistance measurement. They don’t indicate what conditions were used (and how they might deviate from normal test conditions from the standard). Finally, they don’t say how they calculated clo. Two of the three main standards define clo very differently. The 3rd main standard does not use clo at all. Clo (and its subscripted variations) can be defined differently for mannikin testing. So, if you don’t know how they handled the conversion of their resistance measurements to clo, you don’t know anything about their published claims. And this goes for many of the main batt insulation products. Concerning the Crosscore product, I tested one garment using this material and it did not do well. You can see my test here: https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/evaluation-of-thermal-performance-of-five-synthetically-insulated-jackets/Jan 13, 2021 at 10:11 pm #3693699Weekend Gear GuideBPL Member
Hi Stephen. Thanks for the confirmation of the ~1 clo/oz/yd2 value.
Regarding the testing, MH in the video did mention that the best competing insulation was 2.7 CLO for 100gsm, which works out to exactly the 0.92 clo/oz/yd2 value, which is coincidently what Primaloft claim for Primaloft Gold.
Thus, I think MH is using the same test standard that Primaloft uses, if they were able to replicate Primaloft’s 0.92 clo/oz/yd2 value of Primaloft Gold.
I did see your test results for Primaloft Gold insulation with Crosscore. Interesting results.
If you were to add a column for clo/oz/yd2, what values would you get? Wondering how close they are to the claimed marketing values.
Thank youJan 13, 2021 at 11:12 pm #3693707Stephen SeeberBPL Member
I cannot add the final column. My numbers reflect the value of the complete garment. This includes the face and liner fabric weights. It also includes the thermal resistance reduction that results from quilting. Also, testing a completed garment will probably never provide maximum loft that is achieved when an insulation sample is laid on the test surface of a guarded hot plate or my permeation kettles. I can supply the data you request only when I have the bare insulation. The problem with me performing tests on bare insulation is that I cannot purchase many of the insulations that are used in garments. Some are proprietary and others are sold in large quantities. I have purchased some insulations for testing but wish I could get a wider variety.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.