Topic
Evaluation of North Face Futurelight
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › Gear Forums › Gear (General) › Evaluation of North Face Futurelight
- This topic has 32 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by Christopher S.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oct 27, 2019 at 11:17 pm #3616095
Hi Stephen
Interesting. Anything is possible in a howling gale. If you go Alpine, gales are always possible. And in cold weather, condensation on the inside of a jacket is very likely, just from your sweat and the cold air.
Mind you, despite all that, I have never had any rain penetration through stock silnylon fabric in my tent.
Never trust a salesman. Especially one who guarantees to keep you dry (without knowing the conditions)!
CheersOct 28, 2019 at 12:30 am #3616100The tent performance is an example of where the conservation of energy assumption becomes important, as it will in an actual jacket to an unknown extent. Here, some of the kinetic energy is dissipated in the elastic tent material. This will happen to some extent on a jacket as well. The number in the posting shows that the failure mechanism is possible but does not refine all the variables. You can only do so much in an hour.
However, I definitely agree with your final statement.
Oct 28, 2019 at 9:20 pm #3616212So let’s take a look at some of the claims out there for Futurelight.
Revolutionary New Process
Nope. As Reimer’s Outdoor Magazine review points out, “It’s similar to, if not the same as, the process used to make Polartec’s NeoShell and Outdoor Research’s AscentShell—also air-permeable membranes.” OR claims a half decade lead in terms of their electrospun membrane as well as all the same attributes for it that TNF claims for their nanospun membrane.
Waterproof
Sure, but so is Ascentshell and Proflex if we take 10k HH as the standard.
Very Stretchy
Yup, but Ascentshell is stretchy and Proflex is very stretchy.
Breathability/MVTR
This is really where the biggest claim is so far with the 75k MVTR. By comparison Proflex is only 35+k and Ascentshell 30k. So, assuming they are all using the JIS L1099 standard Stephen mentioned, Futurelight more than doubles them in MVTR. But Stephen’s testing does not correspond with that and neither do some of the reviews. The reviews rarely make a direct comparison between Futurelight and Ascentshell or Neoshell, but when asked in the comments section to compare to Neoshell a recent reviewer states:
“In terms of breathability it felt like Neoshell can compete with FUTURELIGHT although I didn’t do any lab tests on this. But FUTURELIGHT is was better in keeping the moisture outside my jacket. That’s why I concluded “there is nothing comparable on the market”. When your watercolumn is not able to keep the moisture out on very wet days than breathability won’t help you either.”
https://wepowder.com/en/forum/topic/269270
This statement would seem to be confirmed by Stephen’s testing. Higher HH than Neoshell, but not any more breathable. What I would really like to see is a direct comparison between an Ascentshell jacket and similar Futurelight product. I have seen 15k HH, 30k MVTR mentioned in some reviews of the OR Interstellar and Realm jackets. I suspect that Futurelight is probably about on par with that. OR’s own statement on Ascentshell:
“Bottom line: AscentShell is best for people who want a stretchy, waterproof jacket that is extremely comfortable to wear during high-exertion activities, but it isn’t great for burly monsoon conditions or instances where you’re standing still in a downpour.”
So far, the reviews of Futurelight have all been very positive and I don’t doubt that it performs well. I just don’t see it as “revolutionary” compared to some of the other products that are already available.
Oct 29, 2019 at 2:08 am #3616281When I see the word “revolutionary”, red flags go up, always.
When it comes to the language of outdoor equipment marketing, there is absolutely nothing revolutionary about the spin, that’s for sure.
May 28, 2020 at 10:25 am #3649715Stephen – have you done any testing on the 1.2 osy DCF WPB material? The MVTR claim is >50K at ripstopbytheroll….thanks!
May 28, 2020 at 12:55 pm #3649748I have not. It sounds interesting though. No DWR to maintain and claimed high MVTR. That is a powerful combination. Perhaps a competitor to Shakedry? I wonder how stiff this fabric is and how well it ages? Are you planning on making a garment or a tent with it?
May 28, 2020 at 2:09 pm #3649768I was thinking of using it as the top material for a bivy….bottom is the usual non-breathable DCF bath tub floor…
Oct 18, 2021 at 11:26 am #3729953Honestly I think they are all just licensing Neoshell – Polartec and a lot of these companies will license out their membrane tech and then they just rename it to something “proprietary” and revolutionary with a few specs tweaked to their liking.
So far by far my favorite is Polartec Powershield Pro – its the same membrane as Neoshell but tuned to have less HH and higher CFM. I have a heavy jacket and pants I use for resort skiing from Patagonia (discontinued) that passes more air than anything else I have tried. and 5000HH should be plenty for most waterproof jackets
And in response to Murali – I have made a Neoshell bivy – it works VERY well
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.