Topic
is it EPIC? how can I tell?
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) › is it EPIC? how can I tell?
- This topic has 17 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 5 months ago by Stumphges.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Oct 26, 2020 at 5:57 pm #3681215
Fascinated by the search for a unicorn wind shell, I bought on eBay a “Gen III Windshirt.” Nothing was stated about ECWCS or PCU. The seller says it is from the “first contract run” and was issued in 2005 or 2006. When it arrived, I was worried that it wasn’t really EPIC, because it lacks the waxy feel that I associate with EPIC. It feels like a somewhat heavy hiking shirt. I did the tests prescribed by Richard Nisley (see below). My question is whether there is a general technique to verify that a fabric is EPIC (or some equivalent silicone-encapsulated fabric).
If garment-specific data is needed: The Patagonia style code is 19026F5, consistent with the seller’s claim about 2005-2006. There is a Patagonia tag but no EPIC or Nextec tag
Two-cup test: At first no water came through the bottom. When I tilted the ball to look closer, a few small drops came out. I realized my mistake and kept the ball upright. After one minute, no more drops. I started applying light pressure, and very soon droplets formed all over the bottom of the ball, then started falling steadily. I estimate my grip was sufficient to hold a stack of 16 8.5×11 sheets in a cylinder of diameter two inches — not much pressure at all.
Darth Vader test: I think I can force air through the fabric, but the effort required is so high that I can’t be sure I’m not letting air leak out the sides. This disappoints me.
Any knowledge of how to find out if this fabric is really EPIC? Maybe the first contract run didn’t specify a CFM or was a dud?
Oct 26, 2020 at 6:32 pm #3681221Could you put up a photo of the hang tag?
Oct 27, 2020 at 9:29 am #3681278Oct 27, 2020 at 11:26 am #3681299Hi Mark,
Does it specify spandex content?
Oct 27, 2020 at 12:29 pm #3681312No. “100% nylon, exclusive of trim.”
Mark
Oct 27, 2020 at 8:08 pm #3681348Mark H,
Epic is not a fabric, it is a fabric treatment, and many different fabrics were marketed using this treatment. The most common was the treatment of “Epic Malibu” by Black Diamond on its single wall tents, The fabric was a pale yellow polyester. It was replaced by Black Diamond some years ago for its single wall tents. In more recent years some manufacturers advertised sleeping bags and garments treated with Epic. But haven’t seen it advertised lately. My experiences with it were not good.
There is a thread about sources of Epic treated garments on BPL that you might search for.
Oct 27, 2020 at 8:11 pm #3681349I don’t know that one. But Patagonia has been very helpful when myself and others here have asked about specific tag numbers:)
BTW, the military Epics that I have all perform higher in dynamic (shower/hose/rain) testing than in static (2 cup/Suter test). I don’t know why.
Oct 27, 2020 at 8:15 pm #3681351Yeah, to add to what Sam said, Roger Caffin’s pointed out that Siliconw, being hydro-, bout not oleo-, phobic is vulnerable to soiling by body and plant oils and then loses its repwllancy. Unlike conventional DWR it can be field washed with powdered detergent.
Oct 27, 2020 at 9:13 pm #3681360Sam, I’ve read everything I could find about EPIC, on BPL and elsewhere. The negatives don’t seem fundamental to me: apparent difficulty of manufacturing consistently to a high CFM spec, vulnerability to the fouling that Stumphges described, failure to meet (unrealistic?) expectations about leakage and wet-out. Have your bad experiences involved problems other than those?
The technology seems fundamentally sound, the military seems to like it, and I had a good experience long ago with a Wild Things EPIC-PrimaLoft jacket, except for the PrimaLoft. (Come to think of it, I might already have an EPIC wind shell. I should dig up that WT jacket and see what it has become while I wasn’t looking!)
Stumphges, I will ask Patagonia about the style number. Do you just call their customer service number and start asking technical questions, or is there a process for finding someone who knows the history and the technology?
Oct 28, 2020 at 8:44 am #3681390Why cover up the Patagonia label? Concerned about infringement clause?
Oct 28, 2020 at 9:40 am #3681398Yeah, just call them and ask what the fabric is – give em all the info on the tag and they will prob call u back after speaking with design team. Actually, I think I’ve always emailed.
Oct 28, 2020 at 9:53 am #3681402Epic treated cotton burns like waxed paper. Maybe why not as much use if being made of the tech.
The Epic Malibu I bought for bivys was inconsistent in the coatings. Some came waxy/sticky, some not. Kind of like the early Cuben Fiber it was an expensive crap shoot.
Oct 28, 2020 at 10:26 am #3681410The epic praetorian I have experience with is all consist, maybe cuz it was mil spec.70 d, not sticky in the slightest. I have fabric or garments in six colors.
Oct 29, 2020 at 5:42 pm #3681588SIMULACRA: I don’t know what you mean by “infringement clause.” Regardless, I wasn’t trying to “cover up” the Patagonia label. I would have done a much better job than that! Also note that I identified the garment as Patagonia in my initial post. Rather, I was using the pen to hold down the smallest white tag, which wanted to curl up.
Stumphges, Patagonia Customer Service referred me to the Lost Arrow Project, their military contracting arm, and LAP declined to help me because such windshirts are “not sold commercially so we are unable to validate products you are requesting information on.” I am going to go on the assumption that the garment is EPIC-treated.
owareusa.com, thank you for that information about fire hazard and inconsistency of product. By referring to cotton specifically, do you imply that other EPIC-treated fabrics do not pose a fire hazard?
Oct 29, 2020 at 7:04 pm #3681600I tired burning about a dozen samples of swatches they sent me. The ones with cotton burned continuously when ignited with a flame. The others melted, but didn’t continue to burn and went out. That doesn’t mean there is no fire hazard or that the synthetic versions are flame retardant. I don’t know.
Oct 29, 2020 at 9:10 pm #3681610@ Mark H,
I got that you stated this, which is why I asked the question, to what appeared to be an attempt to cover up the label. I stand corrected, thank you.
Oct 29, 2020 at 9:36 pm #3681612I have examined 5 of these things. A good way to tell is under a microscope. They tended to do a sloppy application of silicone. So, you will see areas with blobs and areas of minimal coverage. Just so you know what you might be getting, air perm ranged from .43 to 1.2; HH ranged from 245 to 1083; MVTR ranged from 1080 to 2700. The one with the highest HH, as a result, also had the lowest MVTR, so, you are going to get wet in that one, one way or another. So, for a windshirt, mediocre MVTR and generally, HH no better than any other windshirt. I am not sure why the silicone is so important because if you are in serious rain, you are going to get wet and cold anyway. If you really want Epic, I have an L3a Polartec Large Regular that I would like to get rid of. PM if you are interested. It is good as new and I have never worn it.
Oct 30, 2020 at 6:46 am #3681627As I mentioned upthread, all of the Epic garments I have demonstrate better water-resistance in dynamic situations than in static tests. As Stephen mentions, Epic Praetorian tests pretty similar to Some conventional windhshirts, like the current Patagonia Houdini, with low (<2 CFM) air permeability, and pretty high (>300 mm) hydrostatic head.
But I have a Gen II Level 4 jacket made with Epic Praetorian and it is significantly more water-resistant than a Houdini in shower testing, in rain, and when blasted with pressurized water from the kitchen sink. That last informal test was quite unusual, as it was the most resistant of any of around a dozen fabrics I tested at that time, some of which I later found out performed better than Praetorian in a Suter test.
The Epic Innsbruck of the Gen II Level 5 is less water-resistant, but also quite impressive in this regard.
I have no idea if the Epic silicone encapsulation is responsible for this improved water-resistance as compared to the conventional windshirts I have, and I rather doubt it, but there it is. If I were taking a week-long bushwhacking trip I would strongly consider taking the Gen II Level 4. It is tough, its water-repellancy is excellent and relatively permanent (and can be restored if soiled with field washing), its water-resistance is better than any other windshirt I have, and it breaths well enough that I could wear it comfortably below 50 deg if I kept my output below around 6 METS. The Level 5 would work as well or better, I think, but is very heavy. The only other garment I have that might do as well against sustained abrasion and rain would be the Columbia Outdry EX Featherweight, and that is not even close to as durable as 70 denier Epic.
-
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.