New Nemo Tensor Sleeping Pad

The insulated Tensor’s temperature rating puts it at roughly R3.5, not that great.  The insulation is very thin.  It looks like a comfortable design though.  I agree that they should publish R-values, regardless of what they say, it causes them to lose a LOT of potential business.

read this on the original neo air and thermarests

https://backpackinglight.com/thermarest_neoair_prolite_deluxe_le_mats/

and this

https://backpackinglight.com/gossamer_gear_thinlight_foam_generic_foam/

to get an understanding of R-values as it relates to air mats and stacking em with foamies

the original SOTM articles are members only but the above arent

notice the BPL approach which measures the actual R value then confirms with real life usage

as a VERY general guide for men …

as you can see a “30F-40F” pad can have a “r-value” of anywhere from ~1.7 to 2.9 … and thats just for men ……

do you see the problem now?

;)

If I remember wright, the R-value of the original NeoAir was 2,5. The SOTM showed, that in their measurement, it varied between 1,6 and 6,1.

• so I read a lot higher (which is nice) but also definitely lower. And that was only in their measurement. So the range can be even bigger if the testconditions are expanded. So even if a brand says the R-value is 3,5, if the range is actually a value between e.g. 0 and 10, it doesn’t say a lot. That brands then state an R-value, is nice, but a lot of info is not being mentioned.
• we need some standardised test be it expressed as an R-value, a temperature, a range of one of these or something completely different.

That the R-value is usually expressed in the imperial way is ok but we simply won’t know that because noone mentiones the unit. It is like saying: I have a 0° sleeping bag, but there’s a big difference between expressed in °C or °F.

oh come on …

everyone whose been around the block knows that the R-value of an air pad depends upon its inflation

of course if you leave an airmat mostly deflated it will have a LOWER R-value

the reviewers themselves stated

It may be appropriate here to comment on this wide range of R-values (1.6 to 6.1) in relation to the claimed R-value of 2.5 and the claimed thickness of 6.9 cm. There is no way you will ever manage to get the thickness quoted when you are sleeping on the mat, but the claimed R-value of 2.5 corresponds roughly to a thickness of 3.5 cm (see graph above). This is quite a low thickness, so clearly Cascade Designs is being quite conservative with their warmth claim here. This is consistent with our observations at the start about the degree of customer support the company gives in handling any return mats. The company can be relied upon.

as you can see above for the most part unless mostly deflated the original neo air meets or exceeds its original R 2.5 specification

i want to make the next point absolutely clear

Using “temp ratings” for airmats does NOTHING to solve the varying inflation with air mats

think about it for a second … is there is less thermal resistant when the mat is somewhat deflated … the temp rating will also DECREASE correspondingly

so let me ask you folks this … is nemos 30-40F at full or partial inflation? … is it for men or women? … or is it just for for men who sleep a tad cold? …

the EXACT same criticisms of R value also apply doubly to to temp ratings

as to the SI vs american R-value … everyone who isnt brain dead can recognize which one it is at a glance, it a factor of 5.7 after all so if it says its R1 and a winter pad, you know its SI … and vice versa

;)

It’s interesting to hear everyone’s viewpoint on how mattresses are marketed re: whether real and useful information is being presented or just marketing fluff.

I’m not going to lie, I like Thermarest (and all Cascade brand) products, so if you want to label this as coming from a fan, ok, but I really like the information TAR provides. Clear, simple, easy to understand. This for the XLite…

Thanks for all the responses everyone. And for the links. They were super helpful. Nemo said their mummy cuts would be available in mid april. After reading all these comments and articles, I’m thinking that I’ll try the mummy insulated version. Although I would be interested to see how the noninsulated one performs. It really is too bad that there isn’t an industry standard for R values. Would have made this so much easier.

Another read: http://www.nemoequipment.com/pdfs/classroom/Sleeping%20Pad%20Rvalue%20Writeup%204-14-14.pdf

So can the owners of the Tensor please, pretty please do a cold sleeping test in the 20a with the insulated pad and give us your thoughts after? Would be a huge help to everyone here.

The R-value discussions are great, but in the end we still don’t know if this could be an neo-air or xtherm replacement?

ask yourself this …

if nemo really cared about “accuracy” … why dont they state the conditions of how those “temp ratings” were arrived at?

for example

• men or women?
• age?
• what is the sleeping bag assumption? or is it a quilt?
• what clothes are they assumed to be wearing?
• was it tested on a manikin or did they simply use a thermal plate to derive an R value and then use a chart?
• what was the inflation level on the pad? was a dummy of the proper weight placed upon it to simulate real life compression?
• was the pad tested at different temps or did they simply test at a particular temp and call it a day?

etc …

these are ALL criticism that some folks here seem to be making of R-values but want to give nemo a FREE PASS

at the end of the day a “TEMP RATING” is just their version of a R-value rating but more confusing … unlike en-rating where the testing conditions and assumptions are well known … no one knows how nemo arrives at their temp rating and what assumptions they make

its not exactly like they are forthcoming about it either

so is that 30-40F for a man or woman? … at what inflation level? … what clothes are they assumed to be wearing? … bag or quilt? … and whats the rating of that bag/quilt?

all these matter and will affect both the real R-value and the REAL WORLD USAGE

im sure they are fine pads …. but theres no real excuse for not providing the R-values, which their “temp ratings” are basically derivations of

;)

I think it’s pretty obvious that it’s no XTherm replacement, but it should be a suitable XLite replacement.

But yes, nothing compares to real world testing.

Eric, if you mean me as one of those who want to give Nemo a free pass, I never said that. :)

dude yr a eurobum ….

you give EVERYONE free euro rail passes … darn commie socialist pinkos

;)

are you calling me a commie ? :)

if a pad is at 40F or 10F is there a different R value?

As this was only partially answered (according to me), an addition: the answer is yes and the r-value when tested at 10°F can be higher or lower than the R-value tested at 40°F. I read an article showing even that something with an R-value of 5 can be warmer at certain temps than something with an R-value of 6. Now, I said before that there is no standardtest, but I wonder now if even one single standard test would be enough. The value and how it changes depends namely also on the construction method and, as we know, there quite a few different constructions methods for sleeping pads. So a test suitable for self-inflating pads would actually not be suitable for CCF-pads. A bit like the tests for sleeping bags. They work for most SB’s but you shouldn’t use them for quilts.

I asked Nemo directly a few years ago about R values and their response was that unlike sleeping bags, there was no universal testing methodology that provided consistent results.  No idea if that is true.

That’s true. And that is supposed to be the reason why they don’t give R-values but temperature-values. But as also said in a post in this thread, they also don’t tell how they got to these values.