So, in my search for a rain jacket, I was considering a few that were super lightweight and supposed to be very breathable. Then I came across a blog that talked about something I knew on one level, but hadn't actually taken to the logical conclusion.
Every rain jacket with a waterproof membrane (Gore-tex, eVent, etc.) has at least 2 layers of fabric to it: the actual waterproof membrane, and the outer layer that is visible to the world. That outer layer is there to help with durability/abrasion resistance. The outer layer also helps with waterproofing by having a chemical waterproofing agent on it. That chemical does fade over time, though. Hence the reason REI sells waterproofing washes and sprays.
Breathability is how much air (especially water vapor) can escape through a material. The more breathable a jacket, the less you sweat while wearing it. The less breathable, the more you are going to sweat, even in cold weather. Usually, the waterproof membrane is the least breathable part of a jacket. This is why most membrane manufacturers are in a race to make more breathable, but still fully waterproof, materials, and it is a huge advertising point.
The process of "wetting out" pretty much negates all benefits of breathability. Wetting out is what happens when the outer layer of a jacket gets soaked. It becomes so full of water that there is no longer any breathability because the water forms an air-proof barrier. The waterproof membrane might still be protecting your skin from the rain, but the lack of breathability means you are going to get wet from sweat. This is why most jackets have some sort of venting, be it a flap on the back or pit zips.
The jacket that first caught my eye was the Outdoor Research Helium II jacket (http://www.outdoorresearch.com/en/mens-helium-ii-jacket.html). Super lightweight, very packable, and supposed to be highly breathable. The lack of pit zips, though, turned me off.
The next jacket was the Marmot Essence (http://marmot.com/products/details/essence-jacket-new). Just as lightweight, this one uses pit vents instead of zips to save the weight of the zippers (every ounce counts on long hikes). Also very packable and breathable even without the vents.
Looking at Marmot brought me to the Super Mica (http://marmot.com/products/details/super-mica-jacket-new). It only weighs a bit more than either of the other two, uses the same waterproof membrane as the Essence, has pit zips, 2 pockets (the other two only have one), AND has reinforced areas where a backpack will be resting. I picked it up and have needed it on one hike so far. The breathability is no joke. I think I'm going to be very happy with it on the trail.
Thursday, July 30, 2015
Monday, July 27, 2015
Protecting food (and us) from Bears
One of the biggest pains, gear-wise, on the trail will be bear-proofing our food. There are two generally accepted methods of dealing with this: hanging your food and/or bear canisters.
Hanging your food is the most convenient. All you need is a sack of some sort, some rope, and a high enough branch that's a bit away from your campsite. Toss your food in the sack, tie the rope to the sack, sling it over the branch, and tie it off. All done. Doesn't take up much room or weight. The problem with this is that most National Parks don't allow that method.
Bear canisters are pretty much what they sound like: big jugs that you stick your food in that bears can't get into. These do have the advantage that if bears try to get your food they can't crush it, and they help seal the smells in so bears are less likely to try in the first place. These are required for hiking through most national parks. The downside is that they are big, bulky, heavy, awkward chunks of plastic.
Right now, in the lead for Bear Canisters is Lighter1 Big Daddy (http://lighter1.com/products/). One of the lighter canisters on the market, it still weighs in at 2lbs 4oz. Not ideal. Also awkward to pack.
A new contender on the market is the Ursack S29 (http://www.ursack.com/product/ursack-s29-allwhite/). Not yet approved for use in most national parks, it is a bear-proof BAG. Made of bulletproof material, this 7.8 oz container can be used to play tug of war by 2 bears holding it in their teeth and come out unscathed. This would be much easier to pack and much lighter than a bear canister. There are a couple downsides, though. First, bears can grab it and run off with it, so hanging it out of their reach is still recommended. Second, your food will get crushed by a bear if you use it alone. This is why they make an aluminum liner (http://www.ursack.com/product/ursack-aluminum-liner/) made of airplane grade aluminum (adding 10.8 oz, the system is still lighter than most bear canisters of the same volume). Third, bears can smell the food through the bag, so the company recommends the use of odor proof bags to help avoid drawing bears to you.
I'm really hoping the Ursack is approved by the parks I'll be trekking through by the time my trip rolls around.
Hanging your food is the most convenient. All you need is a sack of some sort, some rope, and a high enough branch that's a bit away from your campsite. Toss your food in the sack, tie the rope to the sack, sling it over the branch, and tie it off. All done. Doesn't take up much room or weight. The problem with this is that most National Parks don't allow that method.
Bear canisters are pretty much what they sound like: big jugs that you stick your food in that bears can't get into. These do have the advantage that if bears try to get your food they can't crush it, and they help seal the smells in so bears are less likely to try in the first place. These are required for hiking through most national parks. The downside is that they are big, bulky, heavy, awkward chunks of plastic.
Right now, in the lead for Bear Canisters is Lighter1 Big Daddy (http://lighter1.com/products/). One of the lighter canisters on the market, it still weighs in at 2lbs 4oz. Not ideal. Also awkward to pack.
A new contender on the market is the Ursack S29 (http://www.ursack.com/product/ursack-s29-allwhite/). Not yet approved for use in most national parks, it is a bear-proof BAG. Made of bulletproof material, this 7.8 oz container can be used to play tug of war by 2 bears holding it in their teeth and come out unscathed. This would be much easier to pack and much lighter than a bear canister. There are a couple downsides, though. First, bears can grab it and run off with it, so hanging it out of their reach is still recommended. Second, your food will get crushed by a bear if you use it alone. This is why they make an aluminum liner (http://www.ursack.com/product/ursack-aluminum-liner/) made of airplane grade aluminum (adding 10.8 oz, the system is still lighter than most bear canisters of the same volume). Third, bears can smell the food through the bag, so the company recommends the use of odor proof bags to help avoid drawing bears to you.
I'm really hoping the Ursack is approved by the parks I'll be trekking through by the time my trip rolls around.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)