Evaluation of Thermal Performance of Five Synthetically Insulated Jackets

Many thanks

Bears out my own experience with my Nano-puff and certainly dissuades me from buying anything except a continuous insulation for my next synthetic puffy

maybe the reason some jackets are worse, is (weight of jacket – weight of insulation)

if it uses heavy fabric or extra features then it will have more grams / R

Hi Jerry:  That is true and described in the report.  As near as I can tell, because I could not get fabric info for all of these, face and liner fabrics don’t seem that different.  However, as stated, this is a study of the entire structure and not just the insulation.  The fabrics are a substantial part of the weight, so adding insulation will always improve the grams/R ratio.  You can see the insulation weights in the results table.

“if it uses heavy fabric or extra features then it will have more grams / R”

So it makes sense, to me, to add as much insulation as possible with as few seems as possible..

The style in Seattle these days seems to be minimal insulation with sewn through seems every 2″.  Lost opportunity to create a warmer garment, in my opinion.

Daryl and Daryl:  There are people here with more experience than I have on this subject, but  the support and therefore the  seaming requirements will vary with the insulation type.  You can see that the Nano Puff and the LL Bean jacket, which both use Primaloft Gold variants use the greatest number of seams and they use through seams so will have a substantial performance hit.  The Arcteryx jacket has the fewest seams and the least hit on thermal performance.   If you are suggesting that manufacturers add quilting to achieve a particular look that is not required for the insulation support, that certainly would be a lost opportunity for not only warmth, but possibly lower production costs.

Very interesting results Stephen. Thanks for sharing!

Do you think that the amount of loft in the insulation had an impact as well on the results and help explain why Primaloft Gold insulation with Cross Core Technology did not perform as well as expected, despite having the same 60 g/m2 as Coreloft, Primaloft Gold and Plumafill jackets?

It seems to me your results have an even stronger correlation to the loft than the g/m2.

I could not find any information on line as to how the Aerogel is integrated into the Primaloft.  Also, the construction of this jacket uses a great deal of through seams.  If  the manufacturer publishes the thermal resistance of a continuous batt, that number will drop significantly when lots of through seams are involved.  Average loft in the completed jacket will be a good bit less than total loft in a batt.  The plumafill jackets have fewer seams than the Primaloft jackets and the Coreloft jacket had the fewest seams and therefore most potential loft for a 60 g/m2 insulation.  I think the best way to answer the question would be to test actual insulation batts.  Ripstopbytheroll has some Climashield available but they are sold out of their Primaloft gold.  If someone knows where various insulations may be purchased, I would do that.  In any case, I was surprised and disappointed by the performance of the Cross Core variant.

to me, aerogel maybe has theoretically high insulation per weight, but it’s so exotic, mostly just marketing

people can say “I have an aerogel jacket” which sounds very impressive

Very informative, I was already curious about the LLBean… thanks!

I purchased  Aerogel gloves from a company that makes aerogel insulated clothing.   I will be able to wear them   and see how they perform  but measuring the thermal resistance won’t be feasible with my setup.  I have some qualitative methods for glove testing, so that might provide some useful information.

Just a small thought. We often put a shell of some sort over a lightweight jacket, either a windshirt or a storm shell/raincoat. Would it be worthwhile with your current test set-up to evaluate the added performance boost of doing so?

Especially for such oversewn garment like my NanoPuff with the fashion oriented exterior stitching

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/86574/#post-2064835

I was literally getting ready to punch “Buy Now” on a jacket among those tested.  Not so fast, my friend!  I’ll be digesting this article first.  Many thanks.

Hi John:  I could do that.   Here is a hint.  When I was testing the  LL Bean Packaway  I measured the R value as shown in the image reproduced in the report, including the losses for seams.  I also measured the R value at the center of a quilted square where maximum loft was achieved.  The R-value at the point of maximum loft increased 17% over the average R value.  So, that is probably the maximum benefit of a shell in still air for that jacket. The Nano Puff has more quilting than the Packaway, so I would expect greater benefits for the Nano Puff.  In windy conditions, the shell will flap and convection flows will occur between the shell and underlying garment.  So, the increase in R value provided by a windshell will be reduced.    The Micro and Macro Puffs have some relatively large stitching holes through which daylight can be seen.  They don’t make up a large proportion of the surface area, but I am guessing in strong  winds would provide significant opportunities for air infiltration.  The Macro Puff  has horizontal through seams to hold the insulation in place.   Each horizontal through seam terminates on each end with one or two decent size holes that easily let daylight through.  So, in high wind conditions, the outer windshell will reduce the opportunity for high winds to penetrate the Macro Puff. As you can see, part of your question is easy to test but it will only reveal part of the more complex real life experience.

By the way, in reviewing the image for the Macro Puff, I noticed that there are vertical cool lines that looking much like the horizontal cool lines that correspond to the through stitching.  However, there is no vertical through stitching, just the cool vertical lines.  The reason for this is unclear from simply examining the jacket.  This can also be seen in the Micro Puff.   The reason for this is unclear-whether the horizontal through stitches somehow stress the insulation, producing vertical lines of  compression or, whether there is some internal vertical structure in the batts that can only be seen by taking the jacket apart.

I’ve not been able to test it myself with just a simple UL windshirt as my windshirts are very slim cut and the big heavy Goretex storm parka simply collapses any loft in the garment even while relatively static. But I’ll accept a 17% improvement happily.

Terrific test, thank you.

I own several of the garments listed, including the Patagonia Micro-Puff, Nano-Puff, and Montbell Alpine Light.

My less than imperical “sense” from using these garments absolutely corresponds with your findings. The newest of the three I have is the Micro-Puff, and spent the past week with it. I found it slightly, but noticeably, warmer than the Nano-Puff (I’ve got three of them).

I would say however, the Micro-Puff’s fabric seems less robust than the Nano-Puff. I bought the Micro-Puff to replace a Mountain Hardware Ghost-Whisperer which is the most overrated garment I’ve seen in the last few years (perhaps ever).

The Micro-Puff Hoody (9.9 oz) will be my backpacking jacket for summer here in Montana. The Montbell Alpine Light will remain my go-to for colder weather in the backcountry.

Something I would like to see is that same test done with the budget option of the old military liner.

Empirically my liner when used as a cardigan is about the same warmth as a Nanopuff.

I don’t use the jacket liner for walking or ski touring now but I have used them in the past and I am using one to boost the warmth of an old ski parka for lift based skiing.

Synthetic loft  degrades too quickly

I have 3..nanopuffs.

1.. is purely for around town wear.  I wont even sit in a chair or vehicle wearing it, because that crushes it.  It has much more loft than the others. It still has stiffness and body to fabric.  Looks nice, is far warmer than others.

2…used to be for around town ..until wear  got to the point it lost its body and stiffness  and looks like a old rag.   It has less insulating value. I will wear that one most of the time because dont care about it anymore.

3 is paper thin . Fraction of new loft. No body at all. Used for hiking. Stuffed, slept in, washed.  Stuffed in pack for flying.   It has very little warmth , and looks like _hit. It didnt take long to get that way either.

3 RAB Xenons Degradation Compared

Richard can you infer that a Arc’teryx Nuclei FL Jacket Men’s that is compose of Coreloft™ Continuous 65 (65g/m²) insulation would degrade as the Rab Xenon hoodies you tested?

Ever tested insulation loss of synthetic after running thru washer/dryer a couple times?

My most worn nanopuff looks like an old dishrag.  It can be worn comfortably inside 68F house, thats how little insulating value it has now. It doesnt even appear to have any lofted chambers…its flat.

These ultralight  synthetic items are priced about 4x too high given the rapid degradation. Imo.   use Nice around-town , very light use jacket though.  I prefer fleece instead now for hiking in wet weather

When working in outdoor retail stores back int the 80’s&90’s at I remember being informed somewhere along the way that synthetic insulation was simply going to gradually “decay” over time no matter what, even without using it. The story I got from some “voices of authority” was the decay had mostly to due with the “petroleum based” chemistry used in the making of the insulation itself, and there was no way to stop the decay from happening, and this was the case for all synthetics, but would obviously vary by insulation type.

While I have no idea how much that information was founded in actual science, it certainly did leave an impression on my early adult brain at the time. And over the past 25/30 years of using many synthetics, I simply “expect” that they will run their course, and that is ok. And for most of the newer stuff out there these days? I’d suspect it would not have the same clo value even just hanging in a closet for a year.

But my old TNF goose down bag from the 80’s? Well, my son is using that these days without issue…

Ken,

No one has published accurate Climashield Apex degradation characteristics. By accurate, I mean laser thickness averaging delta and insulation value measurement delta. The delta should, ideally, be a weekly comparison after typical UL backpacking use (compressed during the day, a few hours of lofting to simulate camp chore use, and then sleeping with the garment on). I have done this for a month, with 800 fill down, and measured no degradation.

Look at my RAB Xenon tests: edge thickness measurement was nearly worthless for tracking the degradation. I needed laser thickness averaging and insulation testing every week to see what was happening. At minimum, at least insulation testing every week is necessary to track the degradation.

The cop-out response to this type of testing would be a chorus of “You ruined it because what you did to it was unreasonable. I don’t compress or sleep in mine and it feels just as warm to me after x time.” Hence, there needs to be a strong consensus as to a reasonable test criteria as the first step.

What is the longest trip most people make? 10 days?

So a reasonable simulation would be compressing into the garments pocket or small stuff sack provided a dozen times, preceded by and followed by washing according to the instructions.

I think user soiling can be implied as some people are better at keeping clothing clean than others.

Repeat 3 times as most UL synthetic hi-loft garments only seem to last the “Average” person about that long