Patagonia Airshed Pullover Review

[Brad W]

Jarred-thanks for the insight. I don’t own a wind shirt but I hear many people raving about the versatility, just trying to figure out where it would fit in.

 

 

[Mike M]

Jarred- I’m using a Patagonia Level 4 windshirt for hunting- heavier denier/sturdier, not sure on cfm, but it’s encapsulated (vs a DWR) so pretty moisture resistant and stays that way

 

Mike

[Jarred O]

Mike,

Got it – thank you. Hard enough to find these in a medium that I gave up when looking for one last year.

Brad,

As a concrete point of data I used my Alpine Start on 1.5 hour run yesterday morning @ 9:15 minute miles. 36 degrees, before sunrise, 6mph wind, 48% humidity. Air felt noticeably nippy with a slight frost on the ground. I consider myself warm while moving. I wore nothing underneath the Alpine Start and was comfortable on the arms and torso – I did not need to vent at any point. With an Echo underneath I would have certainly needed to vent at some point.

[Brad W]

Jarred-thanks. It’s starting to make sense. Your Alpine Start at 35cfm, would require less base layer than the Airshed-50-60cfm to perform equally.  In your scenario a thin synthetic t-shirt under the Airshed may have yielded similar results?

 

 

[Jarred O]

Naw, the Alpine Start is higher CFM than that. Perhaps ~60.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/107471/

There are other sources for that. A little digging will provide CFM values for various peices although as consumers we are still largely left in the dark. Experientially I can say with confidence (having used both a Squamish and an Airshed) that the Alpine Start has a higher CFM than the Squamish (~50 I’m close but not exact on that number) and is similar to the Airshed. That is why I was using it as a point of reference in this discussion.

CFM values (again from a consumer standpoint) are vague. You would do best to consider them in increments of 10. Thus a Squamish at ~50 is slightly less air permeable than an Airshed/Alpine Start but significantly higher than a Tachyon (~20) or a current Houdini (~5). However the difference between, for example, 30-35 is not particularly significant. I hope this is good information.

Edit: I also do not mean to be monolithic. Just trying to paint as clear as picture as I can. I’m sure others could take umbrage with personal appraisal and in that there is more that I could learn.

[Brad W]

Jarred-thank you. Very helpful. It is appreciated.

[Bill Budney]

@Ryan:

“Perhaps asking a wind shirt to perform the function of a rain jacket is asking too much.”

Sure, but a wind shirt can be better than a rain jacket in light rain.

I live on the East coast. Drizzle and humidity are facts of life here. I find most rain gear miserable for hiking until the temperatures are low. A few degrees lower and the rain turns to snow, where a wind shell again wins.

(Of course, in heavy rain, then the real rain gear comes out. Or around camp/town.)

Agreed that breathability is perhaps the most important factor for wind garments. A wind shirt does not have to block ALL wind; it only has to tone it down a little.

The key is in finding the right balance between breathability and perhaps a little bit of water resistance for a given use case. This is where BPL has done a better job than most other sources of describing that balance and in finding a few garments that do the job.

Please keep up the good work. Specifically, I’d like to know CFM, HH, and MVTR for all (good) wind and rain garments.

 

[Jon Solomon]

I’d like to know CFM, HH, and MVTR for all (good) wind and rain garments.

Ha~! Everybody would like to know these measurements. Problem is, manufacturers change their lineup so frequently, by the time the testing is done, the figures will be practically out of date. Not to mention that amount of work and money it would take to acquire samples and then test them all.

In an ideal world, the manufacturers would just publish all that information themselves.

[Bill Budney]

I was referring to future reviews here on BPL.

Just suggesting that a part of the review could include sending the garment to one of the member-owned labs for CFM, HH, and MVTR testing.

(Assuming, of course, that the scientist involved is interested in such testing.)

[Author]

Posts