The newer 900-fill Hydrogen bags come with a tiny XXS stuff sack, which really puts the STUFF back into that term. Any experiences with loft degradation when using this sack over the course of time? (month-long hike or similar) Also, are Marmot's 900 fill (touted) bags truly higher warmth/weight than the 800 fill of only a couple years ago? My new 30 deg Hydrogen weighs the same as the old 30 deg Hydrogen, and seems about as lofty.

My '03 Marmot Pinnacle lost a little loft after its first two-week trip. I replaced the stuff sack with bigger (and lighter) one.

As I understand it. The current 900 fill down and the earlier 800 fill down are bacisally the same down. What seems to have changed is how the down is lofted before the test. The earlier test allowed for the down to spend five days lofting and drying in a low humidity room being stirred and blown with a warm hair dryer. The down was then put into a graduated cylinder with an approx. 70 grams plate on top of it and its volume measured. The current test is the same but allow the use of dryers more like those used to dry your clothing at home. I think there is a limit to the amount of time the dryer can be used. But reguardless of the specific rules, it allows the down to made far drier then would ever be possible in real world conditions, and therefor test at a higher loft then it will ever measure when actually in use.

Yea, I got a long and it still had the xxs stuff sack... oh well, the first few times it was pushy, but now it goes in there just fine...

John,

you wrote:

>>"the first few times it was pushy, but now it goes in there just fine..."

one question. another Thread has recently covered "stuffing" and loft. i'm wondering, what does this tell you? the stuff sack hasn't gotten any larger, right? has your insulation begun breaking down, resulting in less loft & therefore, warmth (making it easier to stuff)? let me know if you've pushed it near it's temperature limit "the first few times", and then again "now (that) it goes in there just fine". or, do you not see any difference, either because you haven't pushed the lower limit of its comfort range or because it's still holding up fine at its lower limits?

any info would be appreciated by many readers here, myself included.

Why have a super light bag w/ such a heavy stuffsack?
I ditched the Marmot packcloth stuffsack as soon as I had gotten the bag--switched to a Granite Gear sil-nylon #4( a little larger than the stock stuffsack. In a year and a half of use and perhaps 30 nights, it has kept it's loft.
2 weeks ago at 11,000 ft. on the slopes of Mt. Conness, my hydrogen bag kept me warm to 23 degrees with constant 20+ mph winds. I was in a Tarptent Virga (!) and wore my BMW pullover to take the edge off.

Edited by kdesign on 09/24/2005 10:30:51 MDT.

I have a MontBell Hugger #3. It's got a drawstring built into the lowest baffle... in the footbox. Using this drawstring you can simply stuff the bag into itself. It's a LOT less compressive than the tenny tiny stuff sack that came with the bag. That stuff sack is so tiny, I used it once and that was it. I was too afraid to jam my expensive new bag into that insanely small tube. I'm getting a small pack in a month or so (a MLD Prophet 25)... so if I find I don't have enough room, I will go to a stuff sack. But I won't use the one that came with the bag. I'll get a Granite Gear stuff sack that's a couple of sizes bigger than the stock stuff sack (say that 3 times fast... lol).

Edited by davidlewis on 09/24/2005 12:14:50 MDT.

Haven't pushed the bag to lower limits before or after stuffing into the OEM bag provided. Obviously all bags lose some loft when compressed, and a slightly larger stuff sack might afford you 10% less compression than the factory bag, but I'm not sure if that's going to make a major difference in performance.

However, I am interested in buying another sil-nylon bag to save 2 ozs over the marmot 2.5oz stuff sack.
My only concern is that sil-nylon might not be as Waterproof as the factory bag. But my experience is beginning to show that sil-nylon bags hold up just as well especially inside your backpack. True or False?

Overall, I feel like Marmot would not purposely give you a too small stuff sack that would degrade the performance of the bag. I will agree that the stuff sack they provide is not UL, but jeez another $10--I guess so...just takes time to warm up to buying another stuff sack to save 2 ozs lol... Which size you guys go up to?

The current stuff sack fills the bottom of my vapor trail 2/3rds across the bottom, maybe time to let if fill all the way across w/ a Large spinsack?

John,

Kevin uses the Granite Gear #4 Silnylon stuff sack. I use the same stuff sack for my Feathered Friends Vireo. Granite Gear lists the weight of this stuff sack as .69 oz, on my scale mine reads about .6 oz.

Rich

Edited by naturephoto1 on 09/24/2005 13:58:22 MDT.

John,

i use a kitchen trash bag for my sleeping bag (or both my sleeping bag & bivy shelter - if i'm not using a tent that trek). the kitchen trash bag is waterproof & i can fit more in it if i want to - sorta' like a pack liner. as food volume decreases, due to consumption, i can allow the bag to loft more & take up more pack volume & still be totally contained in the kitchen trash bag.

to futher conserve loft when packed and to lower both the pack's & my CG, when my food weight is high, i place my 15oz. WM HighLite bag or my 23oz Montbell BurrowBag UL above the following days food - the food going in the bottom of the pack. of course, the current days food is placed in a more readily accessible location.