Apr 17, 2014 at 10:05 pm #1315808
Arc’teryx Squamish Kept Name & Acclaim but Tests Not the Same
Like the 2013-2014 Patagonia Houdini, the 2014 Arc’teryx Squamish windshirt kept the same name and its acclaim but, the test results aren’t the same.
For 2007 – 2008 the Arc'teryx Sqamish was made with 30d Gossamera fabric without any clear breathable PU coating (CBPU). For 2009 it was made with 30d Gossamera and CBPU coating. From 2010 – 2013 it was made with 20d Luminara and CBPU coating. For 2014 it is made with the 30D Gossamera and a MUCH less substantial CBPU coating, compared to 2013, yielding very different test results.
The following micrograph shows the 2013 Luminara weave at 20mm field of view (FOV):
The following micrograph shows the 2014 Gossamera weave at 20mm FOV:
Neither the fiber nor the weave is the cause of the significant performance differences between the 2013 and 2014 versions; it is primarily caused by the reduced CBPU coating on the 2014 version.
2013 Arc'teryx Squamish at 1.5mm FOV:
2014 Arc’teryx Squamish at 1.5mm FOV:
Apr 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm #2094196
My knowledge of fabric could fill a thimble but looking at your charts, I understand that the 2014CFM is less than ideal to adequately perform as a windshirt (>35cfm) and the HH is greatly diminished from the 2013 version? The reason I'm trying to clarify is because mine should arrive in the mail tomorrow.
If I like the fit, is there a treatment I can give this jacket to get it to 2013's performance?Apr 17, 2014 at 10:30 pm #2094199
Jeff JeffBPL Member
Good to know, I might have to pick one up. Does anyone have any real world experience with the wind resistance of the 2014 Squamish?
Also, just a nitpick, the graph with the 4 axis is quite misleading. The table you included is a much better way to show the data.Apr 17, 2014 at 10:32 pm #2094200
Jeff JeffBPL Member
Also, where do the CFM values come from? I've heard reports of values in the single digits.Apr 17, 2014 at 10:45 pm #2094204
The CFM values came from my lab testing equipment; it is the same equipment that W.L. Gore used for measuring air permeability in their related patent(s).
Where did your single digit CFM value come from and for what model year was the test done? As was noted in my initial post, since its introduction in 2007, there have been different fabrics and PU formulations for the same garment name.Apr 17, 2014 at 10:52 pm #2094206
There will be some people who feel that the characteristics of the 2014 version best satisfies their objectives; some will feel that way about the 2013 version; and some will conclude that neither do.
There is no treatment, that I am aware, you can give a 2014 version to make it equivalent to the specs for the 2013 version. The 2013 version is still available from many retailers.Apr 17, 2014 at 11:28 pm #2094210
"Does anyone have any real world experience with the wind resistance of the 2014 Squamish?"
Here's a recent thread.Apr 18, 2014 at 6:09 pm #2094456
The 2013 shows an impressive combination of breathability and hydrostatic head. It's too bad the fabric has been changed.
> The 2013 version is still available for sale, at discounts,
> from many retailers.
I don't find that to be the case at all. In the U.S., the 2013 version is virtually unavailable online.
The 2013 colors were:
thalo blue (this is a 2014 color also).
Richard, how many hydrostatic head test samples do you do per jacket? How variable are they?
ProLiteGear's Arc'teryx Squamish Hoody Review is an interesting watch:
Apr 18, 2014 at 7:23 pm #2094474
Do a Google search using the terms "arcteryx squamish". Next click the Google "Shopping" option. Determine if the Squamish for sale was one of the 2013 color options versus the 2014 color options . Only if the color is Thalo Blue, you need to further look at the fabric specification part of the retailer listing for further clarification. Yesterday and again a few moments ago, when I did this, I found these vendors still selling remaining 2013 inventory: 1) Moosejaw, 2) TravelCountry, 3)backcountry.com, 4) Zappos, 5)CampSaver, 6)Mel Cottons, ect.
Regarding the number of hydrostatic head samples per jacket, I follow the ISO 811 standard which specifies 5 different 100 cm2 sample areas per garment and avoidance of any deep crease or fold marks.
The above "color" hotlinks didn't work. The 2014 colors can be found at http://www.backcountry.com/arcteryx-squamish-hooded-jacket-mens?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6Z29zc2FtZXJhIG55bG9uOjE6MTpnb3NzYW1lcmEgbnlsb24 and the 2013 colors can be found at http://www.backcountry.com/arcteryx-squamish-hooded-jacket-mens-arc3495?ti=U2VhcmNoIFJlc3VsdHM6bHVtaW5hcmEgbnlsb246MTozOmx1bWluYXJhIG55bG9u
Prolite Gear's tests were done on a 2014 Squamish version. Their wind resistance test is not close to any international standard and there is no way to correlate it. Their hydrostatic head test is closer. Their HH cylinder appears to be much smaller (about 1/2 of the test area) than the 100 cm2 called for in the standard. Also they wait for visible leakage into their test cup whereas the standard calls for recording the point where water appears in the third place for the standard 100 cm2 test surface. For the 2014 version, I found 3 visible water points at 70mm and they found dripping into their test cup at 200mm.Apr 18, 2014 at 10:18 pm #2094500
Well I can't say that I'm too terribly excited to see a performance drop from last year but, as the Pro Lite gear video mentions, I think this will work well with the nylon shirt I wear when I'm hiking. This is my first Arc'Teryx purchase and I'm otherwise highly impressed with how this garment is stitched together but time will tell for the fabric.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to test it and share your results.Apr 18, 2014 at 11:01 pm #2094504
You are welcome. Your positive buying experience reinforces that each individual's decision, regarding what is best for them, is the product of their uniquely ordered objectives and reliable information. Testing, at best, only provides reliable information.Apr 19, 2014 at 1:40 am #2094511
I'm sticking with my story: Availability of the 2013 model is very limited:
moosejaw: XXL – Blue Onyx
travelcountry: L – Thalo Blue, Cayenne
backcountry: XL – all colors
campsaver: noApr 19, 2014 at 5:29 am #2094523
Ryan SmithBPL Member
Thanks for doing this Richard. These tests really help us make informed decisions.
RyanApr 19, 2014 at 6:20 am #2094529
Steve KBPL Member
@skomaeLocale: northeastern US
The high air permeability is not a problem here. I intend mostly to use the Squamish as an active piece and thus far it has been superbly comfortable for cycling and peak bagging. Since I work hard, overheat easily and sweat a lot the higher air movement is certainly welcome. I am happy with the Squamish.Apr 19, 2014 at 6:42 am #2094535
Ito JakuchuBPL Member
Stephen, does the hood have side adjustments too? Or only in the back.Apr 19, 2014 at 7:00 am #2094536
Not Stephen but it only has the rear adjustment. Edit to add that the shock cord runs over the bill as well but it just has the one adjustment point.Apr 19, 2014 at 10:04 am #2094572
Your point is well taken about the quickly shrinking 2013 Squamish inventory. Some vendors that had them a few days ago, such as Zappos, now don't. I found some additional ones today such on eBay (4 size large) and Amazon (mixed sizes and colors).Apr 19, 2014 at 5:48 pm #2094673
Ito JakuchuBPL Member
Thank you Ian, seems like enough adjustments with the one cord..Apr 19, 2014 at 5:52 pm #2094674
It's a nice design which cinches down really well and I don't feel restricted when moving my head from side to side. I'll try it with a helmet later but I'm starting to understand what all the Arc'teryx hype is all about assuming this jacket is typical quality for them (at least from a construction perspective).Apr 20, 2014 at 12:48 am #2094728
The hood of the 2013 Squamish is less adjustable than the 2014, right?
How is the fit in the torso of the 2013 Squamish? I've read some reviews that there's a lot of extra fabric in the stomach area. I tried on a 2014 Patagonia Houdini today, and it's relatively trim in the torso which I like.Apr 20, 2014 at 2:41 pm #2094804
Woubeir (from Europe)BPL Member
should this changes over the years show changes in weight of the fabric because their are no differences in weight from 2006 according to their workbooks and I wonder if this is logic ?Apr 20, 2014 at 3:30 pm #2094814
Aaron CroftBPL Member
I agree with Stephen about liking the changes. I can overheat pretty quickly, so the increased breathability is something I enjoy during cycling, climbing, and hiking. Also, the 2014 squamish has a slightly increased torso length compared to the 2013.
Overall I'm very pleased with it as a windshirt and it has become a go-to piece of gear for me during the daily bike commute. I guess it all depends on what you expect out of a windshirt.Apr 20, 2014 at 5:40 pm #2094828
I don't know if I correctly understand your question but if so, no. The three years I tested are most differentiated by the CBPU formulations and not the fabric weights. It is not inconceivable that the identical weight fabric could be used every year and there could still be very different performance characteristics based on the CBPU formulation used.Apr 20, 2014 at 5:56 pm #2094829
Max DiltheyBPL Member
I believe hood adjustability was about the same. At any rate, I owned both versions and both hoods were the best I've ever used, no problems with either.Apr 21, 2014 at 12:58 am #2094893
A review on Arcteryx.com says that the 2013 Squamish moved to a top-back cinch… I assume instead of the 2013's front cinch?
The 2013 is tempting, but the reputed baggy stomach is making me hesitate… plus the high price.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.