Black Diamond Distance Wind Shell – First Looks

[Richard Nisley]

I lab tested an X-Large Astral Blue version of this garment. The good news that it only weighs 3.495 oz. The bad news is covered in the next post.

[Richard Nisley]

This is the first wind shell to utilize the GTI permanent DWR. I lab-tested it at 3.6 CFM; this is an adequate CFM for non-aerobic activities but is about 10x less than what is required for UL Backpacking (average MET rate of 7). The hydrostatic head only tested 246 mm H2O; this is too low to even use for a pseudo WPB when active (>300 mm HH required).

In contrast, I lab-tested the 2012 and later Patagonia Houdini’s at 3.5 CFM with a corresponding 457mm HH. Furthermore, this garment uses a DWR that lasts longer than competitive C6 (it appears to me to use a silicone oil that is not as durable as EPIC). This garment has better workmanship; the Distance Wind Shell had loose threads hanging from the seams. The Houdini is also about 30% less expensive.

This was only a first look at this GTI permanent DWR garment and I plan to do additional testing. My initial analysis is that the ripstop threads, in combination with the high heat and pressure of the DWR lamination process, causes larger pores adjacent to the smaller sized threads. These larger pores tend to reduce the HH below competitive offerings, for long-life DWR garments, for both the commercial market (Houdini silicone oils) and the military market (EPIC silicone process).

For high MET activities, I will continue to use an ~35CFM Arcteryx Squamish for UL trail backpacking and a ~35 CFM Wild Things Metacam EPIC for bushwhacking. For low MET activities, I will continue to use a ~3.5 CFM Patagonia Houdini.

[John Papini]

Richard,

I picked up a Montbell hooded Ex-Light wind shell in Japan that weights 2.03 oz (the American store only has non-hooded versions). I found your post on the Ex Light Anorak down jacket; do you happen to know the CFM of the Ex-Light wind shell? I’m happy with the 57g weight, but if it’s going perform poorly as an active layer wind shell and I need to go double weight for the Arcteryx Squamish I might do exactly that.

EDIT: I found this post, which suggests a CFM of 9.7. Sounds like it will perform better than the Houdini, but still below the ideal 35CFM for an active wind layer: https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/100192/

Thanks!

[avner d]

Great information Richard.  Thanks for sharing!

[Ethan A.]

Richard Thank you for sharing. I had asked BD for this info, though your testing is always better than relying on manufacturer’s listed specs. I’m glad BD got into outerwear, but it’s not easy to get product info from them.

Patagonia has a new wind jacket out called the Dirt Roamer Jacket that they say is 40 CFM. Unfortunately it weighs 7.8 oz. I’m guessing if they made that same jacket without the backer material, it would probably be lighter than the Squamish Hoody. Also Patagonia says their new Houdini Air Jacket is 18 CFM and 4.1 oz. Double that would be great.

If I recall right the Squamish quickly lost HH, but high CFM is more important to me in a wind shirt than high HH. I think EE says their Copperfield Wind Shirt in 7D is 35 CFM.

WildThings lists the CFM of their current Multicam Wind Shirt at 2.13, but that’s certainly a different non-EPIC model.

[Stumphges]

Richard, Many thanks for the data! One of these is supposed to arrive at my house today; I’ll be sending it straight back.

[Brad Rogers]

I’m not sure why Patagonia didn’t make their Houdini Air out of the same material as the Airshead.  Of course I’m not sure as to why they changed from the pre 2012 fabric anyways.

[Richard Nisley]

Ethan,

Thank you for sharing the new Patagonia Jacket’s CFM values. They don’t list these values on their Web site (that I could find). Does their Customer Service department provide this information?

The current Patagonia military EPIC multicam color L3A is 35 CFM. The older versions of the multicam Wild Things L4 were also 35 CFM. Ironically, my lab test of both the older versions and my most recent (Wild Things’ 2017) EPIC Coyote color L4 was only 2.5 CFM.  There was fairly recent exhaustive joint testing of the L3A between Patagonia and the US Special Forces before arriving at 35 CFM as the aerobic “sweet spot”.

[Ethan A.]

Richard, with pleasure. I’ve learned a lot from your research and observations.

Patagonia is very forthcoming with info. However, while their customer service people are generally helpful and well-trained (at least in Reno, which usually handles inquiries), sometimes you’ll happen upon someone who is newer and may not understand this stuff or may not realize they can get the info from the product folks or even worse they may think it’s corporate secrets to be guarded. If that happens, just ask another rep the next day.

Edit: I do know some people working there and in the past I’ve on occasion gone through them to find something out (usually about a new product release well ahead of time), but it hasn’t been necessary for this info. I really appreciate how open they are about their products.

 

[Ethan A.]

Richard do you happen to know the weight of the the current Patagonia military EPIC multicam color L3A 35 CFM? I’d like to pick up a multicam wind shirt for wildlife photography and watching. For that I won’t mind a bit of extra weight. Having worn military outerwear I’m going to guess 2-3X the civilian Houdini (though need to take into account that US military outerwear is often oversized, so a Small in military may fit like a civilian Medium).

Brad, it seems once a big company makes a great product, it’s going to be discontinued and replaced with something worse at some point for a while or for good. Sometimes there’s a sensible reason behind it (material supplier upped prices and was dropped) and often it seems there isn’t.

 

 

[Richard Nisley]

Ethan,

The Patagonia L3A is a multicam color active insulation jacket without a hood. My size XL weighs 18.5 oz.

A hooded multicam windshirt 1.0 from Wild Things weighs 9.9 oz in XL. Their low CFM spec is for the Coyote color version. A simple breath test will confirm this for you.

[Ethan A.]

Got it. Saw a reference to Level 3A being made with Polartec Alpha. You mentioned older versions of L3 being 35 CFM – wasn’t L3 the fleece layer and L4 the wind layer?

I’d be interested in a 35 CFM hooded wind jacket in multicam or if not available, in a drab natural color. Are you saying the Wild Things wind jacket is 35 CFM?

[Richard Nisley]

The 2017 WT 1.0 L4 in multicam is 35 CFM and 300 mm HH. The military has not changed the specs for this L4 and so a 2019 order should result in the same product.

You are correct; the L3 is a Polartec Thermal Pro Hi Loft. The L3A combined Polartec Alpha insulation and the L4 windshirt into one garment.

[JCH]

This is a very interesting and informative thread.  Thank you Richard and Ethan for the education.

I know it is not terribly well thought of on this forum, but lacking any comparative experience I have been fairly happy with my 2oz Montbell Tachyon anorak.  Given the information in this thread I have been attempting to find L4 windshirts for sale, and ran across the ORC Industries Level 4 Windshirt (Camo version).  Has anyone seen/used/tested this one?

[Richard Nisley]

6 of us in my adventure group own this garment.  We originally purchased them for two years of AK non-trail packrafting.

They are true pseudo wind & rain windshirts. This is the US Special Forces Block 1 model that was originally field tested for use on Kodiak Island, AK. It never requires a DWR refurbishment

Size XL weighs 11.5 oz; uses 75 denier EPIC fabric which is unscathed by alder thickets and devils club; I lab tested its breathability at 3.6 CFM; and I lab tested its HH at 492 mm H2O (>300 mm HH needed for active rainwear).

We found that the windshirt material never leaked in pre field-use-shower testing but the zipper backings did. We coated the zipper backings and zipper seam, plus the hang loop, threads with Sil-net. After those mods, for active use, we never experienced any internal wetness during weeks of all-day rains while bushwhacking in AK. For static use you will need a Dri-Ducks, poncho, or other type of conventional rainwear.

[JCH]

Hmm…3.6 CFM is much less than I was hoping for.

[Stumphges]

I received a black one last night. It passed the 2 cup test, so this specimen exhibited >300 mm HH. I was not able to suck air through and have no way of assessing CFM below 10. Might be some color to color or batch to batch variability with regards to HH.

One thing that I did like about it is the fit. It is cut roomier through the chest than the Alpine Start but still trim through the waist. So an athletic fit as opposed to the Alpine Start’s slim fit. Fits similar to Arcteryx stuff from the early 2000s (before they too went in for the pec promenading Euro cut).

But still sending it back, as the CFM x HH is way lower than the Alpine Start and 2017 Squamish I currently use alternately.

A real pity that BD did not pay closer attention to the fabric specs and how the coating process might affect the pores of the fabric.

[Brett Peugh]

Richard, would you be willing to test a Greg Norman Epic jacket so I have those specs in comparison to my Patagonia Gen II Level 4?  Also have you done any testing on the OR Ascendant Hoody which would be somewhat similar to the Patagonia Level 3a?  Thank you.

[Richard Nisley]

Brett,

i will only test garments that are currently available for sale and applicable to UL backpacking.

[Richard Nisley]

Stumphges,

After reading your post regarding your black version of the BD Distance passing a “2 cup” test, I did this same test on the blue version, that I previously HH tested at 246 mm H2O. It leaked, as I would expect, from the less than a 300 mm HH test reading using a commercial testor. Without any pressure on the  2 cup water ball, it dripped in too many locations to count.

The issue with the non-uniform pore sizes can be seen on the side of the test water ball. Each of the drops is starting adjacent to a thicker ripstop thread.

Please post a picture of what your black version of the BD Distance looks like while holding 2 cups of water in a loose ball.

[Brett Peugh]

Okay, I know I won’t really be spending money on the newest anymore as most of them seem to not live up but thank you.  I know the Greg Norman Nextec Epic jacket weighs a few ounces more than my Patagonia Gen II Level 4 but is not as breathable but much more waterproof.

[Nicholas Couis]

Are there any current Patagonia gear that i could use that would fit the specs.

[Jarred O]

Nicholas,

No.

A longer answer would still be no but would also include that you could get a windshirt from WT in their multicam option and this would satisfy the ~30 CFM and >300 HH requirements.

[Richard Nisley]

Nicholas,

Not 35 CFM but Patagonia’s 20 CFM Airshed option would be good alternative for aerobic output in cold weather or slower hiking in summer mountainenous terrain.

[Brad Rogers]

Wasn’t the old pre 2012 Houdini ~35CFM?

[Author]

Posts