“Performance” wool. What is the draw?

Merino doesn't make me itch. Most synthetics will, if worn next to the skin for 8+ hours.

The "I-can't-smell-myself-or-offend-strangers" factor is what keeps me wearing wool. It also has that magical property of retaining warmth even when wet because of the way the fibers absorb the water, which mitigates the down side of "slow-to-dry". I also really like the hand/feel of the finer micron lower weight wool fabrics … the 150gr/m stuff is by no means heavy.

The real down sides in my mind are high price, its weak abrasion resistance (pack straps and belts like to chew it up, especially the thinner finer stuff) and to be honest I HATE the way wool smells when it is fully wet-out from precipitation. When it rains heavily, the "wet-dog" smell is evident even with the choice expensive brands.

EDIT TO ADD emphasis on Max's comment below … not all wool is made equal.

Not all wool is performance wool. YOur wool hat or socks might be loads different than performance wool.

Finely woven, bodymapped Merino Wool garments with 2% elastane make great baselayers. The drying time is not "forever"- often it can be nearly as quick as a synthetic, and since the fibers are hydrophobic, you won't feel clammy. As for the dryer, I dry my performance wool on low heat with all the rest of my clothes, cotton etc, and there's no shrinking. I use Ibex, Smartwool, and Icebreaker.

So, I would maybe re-examine some of your perceptions of wool. You might be surprised!

Hi Rusty,

Some of the issues you mentioned is why i like wool-synthetic blends instead of pure wool. It's hard to say more exactly, but it seems like from my limited testing and experience so far, that if a garment has at least 40%-45% wool to rest synthetic, it will help a lot with the stink issue. Obviously more is better in that regard, and i find my baselayers that are made of 55% wool and 45% nylon don't stink and dry in a decent time. I have a Patagonia winter hat made of 55% nylon to 45% wool which also doesn't build up much odor.

I have some Rab MeCo stuff which uses a blend of 65% wool to 35% cocona polyester and that works well in most regards. However, it's on the low end of synthetic to wool ratio i think.

A lot of wool that is used for outside clothing companies is treated to both shrink and itch less. This is usually done by removing the scales with barbs on the outside of the fiber. These are what can "felt" under right circumstances and make a wool garment severely shrink. Without the scales, a wool garment can shrink some, but it's very little compared to the garment which has started to felt. Throw in some synthetic into the mix, and it will shrink even less. Provided the fiber is fine (small) enough to begin with, a wool fiber without the scales/barbs will also feel much less itchy

What i would like to see is a garment made out of 60% to 55% polygiene treated polyester or polypropylene, to 40% to 45% wool.

You might also want to check out Alapaca based baselayers. Some similarities and differences to sheeps wool. Alpacas are innately more sustainable, and the fiber does have some advantages to sheeps wool. Per similar fiber size, weave, thickness an alpaca garment will tend to be a bit warmer and dry a bit faster and be less innately itchy (because the scales/barbs on same are smaller and less hooked, but again on performance sheep's wools these are often removed). I would love to try a Alpaca synthetic blend baselayer. However, don't think i've even seen a synthetic blended one yet and the others tend to be pretty expensive.

Just a clarification, sheep's wool isn't truly hydrophobic. The surface can repel water some, especially if natural oils are maintained, but it still absorbs a lot of moisture–more than any other fabric.

What's interesting about wool is that it can absorb a fair amount of moisture before it even feels wet. I think it also generates a wee bit of heat in the process somehow, which is really interesting and unusual.

Linen and Hemp has some of the property of being able to absorb moisture without feeling as wet, but it is not near insulating when wet like wool–probably because of the difference in thermal conduction. Wool is fairly non conductive and linen/hemp is quite conductive thermally.

The main benefit to some of the newer, higher quality merino wool stuff is it doesn't stretch out badly on you when wet. I like a wool base layer for hiking in the rain all day when I will be constantly damp. In that situation it's more comfortable and warm than a synthetic base layer.

The only extra education you need is that wool will not keep you any warmer than anything else when wet. All the other deficiencies you have noted are there.

One thing I will repeat is that wet wool stretches badly and is weak.

Well, why the big vibe? LOTS of marketing dollars. Lots of spin. Lots of fashion promotions. All for the lucrative street fashion market.

Cheers

"… wool will not keep you any warmer than anything else when wet."

I disagree. I have worn wool base layers for extended periods over 5,000 miles along the PCT, the CDT and the AT (read: very different environments.).

The strength of the fabric in circumstances regarding consistent abrasion is a valid criticism … particularly considering the price. My experience however dictates that it acts as a MUCH better insulator when wet than any comparable fabric of comparable weight. My favorite property (apart from not propagating sweat-stink) is that the same fabric will keep you remarkably cool in elevated temperatures. My least favorite property … the "wet-dog" smell I mentioned above.

" … All for the lucrative street fashion market." While I hate marketing hyperbole as much as the next person and agree that it is a driving factor in the elevated market price, I have to point out that wool had made its mark in outdoor performance apparel long long before such high fashion markets existed.

I also feel the need to remind readers of your avatar … It is obvious you are an enemy to fashion by any definition.

del

Please someone tell me where clingy 150wt merino tees are a high fashion statement, so that I may move there and finally experience what it's like to be cool.

Yes, wet means cold. But some clothing will keep you at a tolerable body temperature, even when very wet, as long as you keep moving. When you stop moving you need to get into something dry. Are you implying that if your clothing is wet, you might as well take it off? That's not true. Because if you hands or cold and you put on soaking wet fleece or wool gloves, your hands will become warmer after a few minutes, not colder – in my personal experience. And in my experience, wool does do a better job at insulating while wet. In cold rain/snow I wear midweight wool gloves and I don't worry about them getting wet, I regularly get them wet enough that I wring water out of them, and they have always kept my hands toasty.
I think that warmth while wet requires a certain amount of body heat production to work, which is why warmth while wet does not work when you aren't active, and it may be that you are a colder person and it doesn't work for you as well. That's one possibility here.

"Well, why the big vibe? LOTS of marketing dollars. Lots of spin. Lots of fashion promotions. All for the lucrative street fashion market."

How is wool fashionable? Street fashion – no way. But even in outdoor "fashion", most people can't tell something is wool by looking at it. And being wool doesn't make it look nicer. Most outdoor wool clothing has the same fit, cut, and look as synthetic clothing.
Maybe some people have been duped by exaggerated claims that manufactures say about their wool clothing, but fashion is the wrong word for it.

Now in street fashion, stuff that looks like traditional wool clothing does have a fashion value. But most of that is fake wool made from acrylic.

"Well, why the big vibe? LOTS of marketing dollars. Lots of spin. Lots of fashion promotions. All for the lucrative street fashion market."

So, that's why the Scottish Highlanders wore so much wool for so long in their near constantly wet and often cool to cold climate eh, they had been swayed by the marketing dollars and fashion promotions…. I had always wondered about that, thank you for clearing that long standing mystery up.

I'd be the first to say that wool does have some weaknesses and issues, but so don't synthetics. Sometimes thin synthetics dry too fast when it's cold, making you colder.

I think blends are where it's at, you get some of the good from both worlds, and less of the negative of each. Added strength, durability, and speeding up of drying from the synthetics— odor control, a little more warmth while wet than most synthetics (barring polypropylene, which doesn't seem to be used a whole lot nowadays anyways), and less "flash cold" effect of pure, wicking synthetics.

With that said, i do rather like P.P.H.E. However, polygiene as durable as it is compared to most anti-stink treatments, is rated for a 100 washes. If you wash a garment once a week, then that's about two years. If you wash once a month, get quite a bit longer, about 8 years. All assuming that polygiene's estimate is fairly accurate–it may not be compared to real world use that includes abrasion or degradation from other activities besides washing (and i imagine the more physically active you are, the faster it degrades. A thru hiker might wear it out quite a bit faster). Personally, i would prefer to have truly for the life of the garment anti-stink. Even my baselayers that only have 55% wool to 45% nylon are really good at controlling odor and the nylon is not treated.

It would be interesting if BPL ever tested how low of a percentage of wool to synthetic would be effective at preventing odor buildup and significantly reduce the flash dry cooling effect.

del

del

"Anyone who has spent a few overnights in sub freezing weather learns to change out of any wet clothes ASAP after making camp."

Well now I have to respond considering that is a straw-man argument.

No one was suggesting that wet wool would keep you warm while sleeping in sub-freezing temperatures. For the level of the clarity you demand I should also note it will not keep you warm in outer space nor at the bottom of the ocean.

I do not always experience the luxury of staying dry while hiking. Outside my living room it actually rains, sometimes for days. In these conditions, while actively engaged in physical activity and when the temperatures dip below 60F with a stiff breeze (cold is a matter of perspective), wool has demonstrated itself … in my personal non-corporate un-advertisement-bound experience … to be better in assisting thermoregulation than similar weight materials.

Carry on.

> that's why the Scottish Highlanders wore so much wool for so long in their near
> constantly wet and often cool to cold climate eh, they had been swayed by the
> marketing dollars and fashion promotions.
Yup.
That, and the fact that very often the only fibre the Scots could get was off the sheep. Cotton, linen, silk … expensive stuff for the nobility. But the women could make greasy-wool fabric for 'zero' cost.

Fwiiw – I spent 27 years in textile research, with a really heavy focus on (Australian) wool. They tried EVERYTHING to persuade athletes to wear wool under a range of conditions. Free samples was the least of it. I have tried wearing wool under a range of conditions. The consensus was always the same.

Wool-blend socks – good.
Anything else – I found better (much) synthetic fabrics.

Oh – and drying speed – about 12 hours for wool clothing, and down to 15 minutes for synthetic. Soaking fleece top: squeeze 'dry', put on, get moving, warm and pretty dry in a quarter of an hour.

YMMV
Cheers

"That, and the fact that very often the only fibre the Scots could get was off the sheep. Cotton, linen, silk … expensive stuff for the nobility. But the women could make greasy-wool fabric for 'zero' cost."

I think you missing my point about bringing the Scots into it. A couple of the arguments against wool here is that it takes too long to dry and that it doesn't have any more warmth while wet properties than other fabrics like synthetics. Essentially, some are arguing that it completely sucks in regards to moisture and moisture management.

I was pointing out that the Scottish Highlanders lived in a pretty harsh environment in many ways, often very wet, and often cool to cold. If wool did not have some good properties along these lines, then they would not have been able to survive that difficult environment, if anything, it was the wool above the linen, cotton, silk, etc which did allow them to survive that challenging environ. Granted, to some extent their wool was a bit different than "performance wool" of today in that it was very greasy which kept it more hydrophobic. A tightly knitted or woven and then well felted wool jacket that is also "greasy" (lot's of lanolin), can be used as a rain jacket effectively.

Look, i'm not saying the stuff is ideal, and as mentioned, when i use wool i prefer blends. Rab MeCo is about as high a wool to synthetic ratio (65% to 35%) that i like to go. But, i just don't view it in a black and white manner, to me, it has both strengths and weaknesses, just as synthetics do.

That flash dry effect of well wicking and quick drying synthetics can be a minus in some conditions–in very hot and dry conditions, and in more significantly cold conditions if there is a lot of sweat involved–it can make you pretty cold until you are completely dry.

Because wool wicks in a completely different, "non spreading" way, because it absorbs a lot of moisture into the inside (and is slower to release same), and because it's very non conductive thermally, it doesn't chill you as severely in cold conditions when wet with sweat. Now, if you get a dunk in the river or creek, that's another thing, and yeah take the stuff off and put some synthetics on. I always bring a back up, UL 100% synthetic shirt on colder weather trips.

"Oh – and drying speed – about 12 hours for wool clothing, and down to 15 minutes for synthetic. Soaking fleece top: squeeze 'dry', put on, get moving, warm and pretty dry in a quarter of an hour."

Richards' tests and research indicated that it was more the thickness and weave of the garment that most affected overall drying time. But yes, with a fleece or what not, you can wring it out and speed up the process. I think we are talking less mid and thermal layers here and more baselayers though. Certainly a thin wool baselayer will take longer to fully dry than a synthetic, but then again that is not always a bad thing.

Anyways, i do like the performance of blends so far for thin baselayers. I would like to test how little wool percentage it would take to cut down on odor and flash dry cooling effect in combo with synthetics. Since it's late spring here and already pretty consistently warm, i will have to wait till mid fall or so. I have some cheap baselayers made out of an interesting combo of 30% wool and 70% polyester on the outside, and 100% polyester treated with silver on the inside. I plan to wear them inside out and see how much 30% wool helps with odor, and staying warmer when wet during cold temps.

I often wonder how a base-layer like the Model Tee would perform, it's a combination of Merino and polyester. I've got a Baked Alaska winter top for cycling but rarely use it because it's too warm but I might use it for walking because it's as tough as nails and reasonably light.

http://www.groundeffect.co.nz/product/WIN/MOD/

"Oh – and drying speed – about 12 hours for wool clothing, and down to 15 minutes for synthetic."

Guess it depends on who you ask, and where they live, but that matches my experience.
I jumped the gun based on the internet hype a few years ago, and bought in to the tune of 4+ sets of baselayers, which, after "field testing", I have since used for work, casual, or camp/sleepwear(it IS very comfortable when relatively inactive), but do not find suitable for hiking in at any temperature with my region's year-round high humidity.
Wet out easily, even at low temps, and stay wet. Won't even dry when hung overnight. Hot and clingy when I tried them in warmer temps, and things just get worse after they're soaked, since the humidity already greatly hampers evaporative cooling.
To add insult to injury, in spite of the cost, they aren't even durable.
They're comfortable for what I do use them for, but I learned the hard way that those baselayers were not a very good choice or investment on my part. Probably would have been a lot happier if I'd just bought a set and used them when I go out West…

It's hard to say Daniel–haven't tried that kind of "blend" yet, one that uses all synthetic for one side and all wool for the other.

I would imagine that if the all wool goes on the inside, it would tend to have issues that an all wool layer does, taking too long to dry.

I like blends wherein the synthetic and wool are weaved together in the same layer. Helps it to wick more in a spreading way (see the links that Rick posted for Prolite Gear, and their test of Rab MeCo vs all wool) which speeds up drying time, strengthens the garment and increases overall durability, allows you to use thinner forms.

My personal opinion is that these blends are best for more severely cold and drier kind of weather, and good to ok for colder and wetter. I don't like wool for warmer temps, whether drier or humid, but to be honest i haven't really tested in them in a warm and more dry climate so can't say–certainly didn't like them for the warm and humid weather.

Thanks for all the replies, everyone!

Fleece is good for a mid/thermal layer. I don't wear wool sweaters and the like as a mid/thermal layer. I was talking solely of thinner baselayers here, and i think that's what most of us have been talking about. If you add 30% plus synthetic to such baselayers, it can really increase the durability of these.

Well, with the new Polartec Power Wool coming, it might be interesting to test if there is a difference between those blends where the wool is on the inside and the synthetic stuff on the outside (so still 2 seperate layers) and real blends that mix wool and synthetics (so 1 layer)?