- Sep 20, 2016 at 10:09 pm #3427251
Ken T.BPL Member
Montbell does not advertise here ?Sep 20, 2016 at 10:11 pm #3427252
@hilightLocale: Directorate X
Ha!Oct 4, 2016 at 12:17 am #3429246
Gary PikovskyBPL Member
@gosha007Locale: New Hampshire White Mountains
Just got the Nano Air Light and tested it out. IMO, after much comparing over the years, the following combination beats Patagonia and Montbell and pretty much anything else for breathability, comfort, weight to warmth ratio (in addition to being a whole lot more flexible ):
Base layer – Cap 4 (5.4)
Middle – Possum Down sweater (7.9oz)
Outer – Arcteryx Squamish 2014 version 50cfm (5.5) or Arc Incendo Hoody (3.3)
Insulation – Your pick. Mine is Nunatak Skaha vest (6.0 or Goosefeet down vest)
Shell – Your pick – mine is Arcteryx Norvan (6.4 or Arc Norvan SL 4.4)
Nano Air Light is cool, works well and looks good, but I would not replace it with a classic layer system. Wondering about this “review”…Oct 13, 2016 at 6:22 am #3430921
I took a look at the Montbell alternative this week while in Japan, and while I have considerable respect for MB, their UL offering just looked and felt much cheaper (which it literally was at 12,000 yen vs 34,000 yen incl. tax for the Patagonia hoody), but to the point that I didn’t want to buy or wear it. So I went for the nano air light, but not without considerable financial misgivings. Being of ahem “bolder” ahem build than the athletic, I went for the XL, which at 5ft 8″ means the arms are a little long, and it wears more like an anorak (which I like). I chose the black over the blue, not least because it felt slightly thicker. Maybe my imagination. It might get a bit hotter on a sunny day, though. Dear Patagonia in Fukuoka, please become a tax free shop! I resent the extra tax!Oct 22, 2016 at 7:02 am #3432329
Early impressions of the Nano Air Light – I really like it, but with my (elderly) metabolism, I find it can get too hot and at other times too cold; the range of temperatures it accommodates with comfort is (so far) not quite as wide as I’d hoped. That might be more a function of my individual case – aging, not so fit at present, climate here, local terrain etc. Still experimenting with suitable base layer. Early days – will have a much better idea in six month’s time. I’d like the zip to be a little deeper (longer) for even better ventilation when open. The stretchy hood is convenient. I dig its compact size in my pack and light weight.
I note also this is the “Light” version (I also have and love the old regular version); I’m wondering if one day we’ll see an “Ultralight” version – with less insulation value, lighter weight again, etc.Oct 24, 2016 at 11:08 pm #3432723
For anyone who actually owns the piece, how are you feeling about the sizing? I’m going to buy one, but I’m just not sure which size to order as I feel I’m either a medium or large. For reference, I’m male, 5’10, 165 pounds with a runners build.
I prefer the hoody not to be skin-tight or “painted on,” however, I obviously don’t want to swim in it either. I know – picky … haha!
I see that it has a trim, alpine fit, but Patagonia has been hit or miss for me in the past. Any help would be great, thanks!
I should note that I intend to use this Nano-Air Light primarily for multi-pitch ice/alpine climbing in the Adirondack high peaks as my ‘main layer’ until my lightweight hardshell is warranted to curb spindrift or high winds. I plan on wearing a Patagonia Lightweight Capilene long-sleeve shirt underneath the Nano-Air Light. At the belay, I will wear my Rab Neutrino Endurance for full wind/temperature regulation.
This will be my first “active insulation” piece and I’m just buying into the theory of using lightweight active insulation in place of my non-membrane softshell, which obviously weighs a lot more than the Nano-Air Light does.
Hope that clarifies my question a bit!Oct 24, 2016 at 11:22 pm #3432725
I think it is rather slim fitting, so you should upsize. I have an older (2014?) regular Nano Air that is Large, and I’m pretty sure I could wear it OVER the XL Nanon Air Light. I’m 5ft 8.5 inch height, and weigh too much (93 kg?); the Light fits quite well, except the sleeves are too long (but ok). The length of the garment is just as I like it – slightly on the long side, so good protection. My GUESS is that XL should fit you. Kindly don’t shoot me if I’m wrong. It’s possible the garments shipped to Japan have different fittings, but the size labels were definitely US, not Asian.Oct 24, 2016 at 11:45 pm #3432728
Mine fits snug – similar to arcteryx in fit rather than typical patagonia. It feels a bit tight when putting it on and taking it off since you have to wrestle it a bit since its a pull over. However, when on it feels good since the garment has a fair amount of stretch to it. I am 6’3″, 190lbs, and I have a size “L”. nano-air light hoody.Oct 24, 2016 at 11:50 pm #3432729
Cor blimey Bill, you must be wearing it like a T-shirt! Isn’t it short?Oct 25, 2016 at 9:55 am #3432758
Here are two photos of size L. The body is a tad short but not too bad. Arms are fine due to the elastic material at the cuff. I have relatively long arms/legs compared to torso.Oct 25, 2016 at 2:54 pm #3432802
Thanks guys for the quick responses. Bill, you have me wondering again. Your size large looks like it fits you almost perfectly. I’m not as tall and weigh close to thirty pounds less at 165.
I tried on a Nano-Air Hoody at a gear store in both medium and large. The medium fit, but was a tad tighter than I normally like, but definitely manageable. I swam in the size large Nano-Air Hoody – way too big.
I’m wondering if the Nano-Air Light Hoody fit is close to the regular Nano-Air Hoody? Do any of you guys have the original Nano-Air Hoody for reference?
Thanks!Oct 25, 2016 at 3:26 pm #3432808
Sorry Christopher, I’ve never tried on a Nano Air Hoody (non-light version). In normal (non-slim) patagonia garments, I usually get a size L for the right arm length and shoulder width, but the waist/torso is a bit too baggy. I suppose if I were right between sizes I would recommend sizing down the NA light hoody since the material is a bit stretchy. I don’t recall if the normal NA hoody has stretch.Oct 25, 2016 at 4:31 pm #3432823
Chris, that was the point of my Oct 24 11:22pm post, the regular nano air sizing seems much larger than the nano air light sizing. My large size nano air hoody c. 2014 is a larger fit than my XL nano air light hoody! (Also I checked XL nano air lights in blue and in black, just to be sure, as I wasn’t expecting to fit an XL, and their sizing was consistent with each other. The large size nano air light hoody I tried on was too short, and a bit too close fitting.) But you should definitely try on the Light for yourself to make sure of the sizing. My opinion is that most jackets and parkas are too short; I don’t like the bomber jacket style for outdoor gear, which should provide better protection of the lower body.Oct 25, 2016 at 5:24 pm #3432826
Thanks, Robert. I apologize for the redundancy. Your text threw me along with your 93kg weight listing. When I read Nano-Air then Nano-Air Light in the same paragraph, I must have missed your intentions. I’m concerned about the possibility of an “Asian fit,” but you seem confident the sizing label on your Nano-Air Light is US.Oct 25, 2016 at 6:42 pm #3432842
<span style=”font-size: small;”>Chris, I specifically checked with the Fukuoka Patagonia store that it was US sizing, not Asian, and was assured it was. I attach photos of my black XL Light on top of my 2014 grey L Regular Nano Air, purchased in Seoul from DoBongSan Patagonia store (who also confirmed US sizing. I think this model was subsequently updated or superceded).</span>
<span style=”font-size: small;”>The body lengths are about equal, maybe the XL Light is a little longer at the back. The chest width of the L Regular is definitely greater than that of the XL Light. The arm lengths of both are similar.</span>Oct 25, 2016 at 7:00 pm #3432847
They are both XL. I thought I had better check the label just in case, and quelle horreur…
Sorry to mislead anyone, nominations for my being idiot of the year will be welcomed. Exit stage right…Oct 25, 2016 at 7:02 pm #3432848
Robert and Bill, I’m blown away with all your help. Thank you so much for going out of the way to take photos. It didn’t go unnoticed or unappreciated! I think I will go with the large. If it’s too big, then I’ll simply exchange it for the medium.
I’m kind of surprised that no online retailers have this, or any other piece from the “High Alpine Kit” available. Patagonia.com is the only place to buy anything from that line. I wonder if Patagonia is doing this purposefully or they just haven’t caught up with inventory …
Robert, no worries man. I screw up all the time … You’re in good company!Oct 27, 2016 at 1:10 am #3433051
Bruce GBPL Member
Richard wrote: ‘Montbell (MB) is now selling their “Nano Air Light Hoody – Better Mousetrap” aka the UL Thermawrap Hoody.
The equally-resilient substantially-continuous MB Exceloft has ~twice the clo/oz; the MB is less weight at 9.3 oz. vs 10.2 oz.; the MB has similar high breathability face fabrics; and the MB costs only $165 vs $249.’
Richard, I really respect your experience, reviews and observations. If you could please expand on what makes these two garments comparable? Patagonia is claiming this new 1.6-oz 30-denier is more breathable than the original Nano Air’s 1.3-oz 20-denier shell fabric. I know you thoroughly tested the standard Nano Air so I’m curious about your observations here.
I am a fan of MB but the STRETCH Exceloft and Balistic Airlight sound proprietary and thus hard so to compare. I know you know what all the names align to with the actual material manufacturers as well so that would be great to know. I assume you tested this jacket since you refered to the specific clo value. I would be all over this MB jacket if the breathability is similar. I like the look and it’s lighter even with hand pockets. That is a huge trade off having no hand pockets. Thanks!Oct 27, 2016 at 4:36 pm #3433144
Richard NisleyBPL Member
@richard295Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
See my Nano-Air report https://backpackinglight.com/forums/topic/99527/
To condense this topic to its essence:
Oct 28, 2016 at 1:40 am #3433211
- Your MET rate when backpacking is ~7 versus ~1.75 when doing camp chores. So 400% less insulation is required when backpacking for any given temperature.
- Fleece (240 CFM) and whatever windshirt you want to use (35 CFM for pre 2012 Houdini) has been the historical solution.
- The new active insulations are fleece/windshirt alternatives that use insulations without fine fibers (hence low clo/oz) and high CFM fabrics because they don’t have to block the fine fibers.
- High efficiency down or cut-staple synthetic insulations needs less than 10 CFM fabric to keep the fine fibers (high clo/oz) from migrating through.
- Both Alpha and Exceloft are substantially continuous insulations that don’t require less than 10 CFM fabrics to block fine fiber migration. Exceloft has a higher clo/oz than Alpha.
- MB specifically targeted the active insulation layer with this product. Historically they have been accurate in their specifications. I have done detailed tests of the Exceloft insulation but I haven’t tested the fabric they use for their active insulation. You can do it crudely with a breath test similar to how you test windshirt breathability.
Bruce GBPL Member
I never pictured the Nano Air Light or other active insulation garments as an insulator that can also replace a wind shirt/WPB lightweight shell. I’m trying to gauge if this new generation of lofted active insulation jacket and or vests can provide more warmth and flexibility as temperatures drop. Especially when compared to an R3 Hoody or similar. They are much lighter than the R3 at ~19oz. If you are able to manage heat when hiking a lofted jacket would give you more warmth in camp. At .382 Iclo I’m thinking not. Thanks!Oct 29, 2016 at 2:51 pm #3433405
Paul SBPL Member
How does the R3 hoody compare with the Nano Air hoody (regular) in terms of clo value?Oct 29, 2016 at 5:21 pm #3433426
Richard NisleyBPL Member
@richard295Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
The R3 is 184% the warmth of the Nano Air Hoody if you don’t wear a windshirt over the R3. With a properly sized windshirt over the R3, the difference is 206%.Dec 10, 2016 at 9:21 pm #3439930
Armand CBPL Member
I had a Nano Air jacket for a very short time and this looks like it resolves many of the issues that ultimately led to me returning it.
Trimmer fit on Nano Air Light is most welcome. The cut on the Nano Air was very boxy on my frame in a large. Was not a fan of how much material pooled around my waist.
The reduction in insulation should result in better and more comfortable layering under something like a Houdini or Ferrosi. The additional importance of this is the Nano Air fabric is very “grabby” so the reduced bulk should mean less bunching under for athletic cut softshell sleeves.
All around, I like what see in the Nano Air Light and will consider it when it comes time for gear replacement.Dec 16, 2016 at 2:18 pm #3440700
Jason FengBPL Member
Anyone compared this to the Outdoor Research Deviator hoody?Dec 29, 2016 at 12:32 pm #3442252
Armand CBPL Member
Very different animals the Nano-Light and Deviator. I don’t think OR really has a competitor in their arsenal. Maybe the Vindoo hoody which will give you that more sweater like plush feeling. Or the Uberlayer, but that’s more of a competitor to the Nano-Air.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.