November 20, 2015 8:16 PM MST - Subscription purchasing, account maintenance, forum profile maintenance, new account registration, and forum posting have been disabled
as we prepare our databases for the final migration to our new server next week. Stay tuned here for more details.
Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Sleeping Bag Baffle Direction
Display Avatars Sort By:
Greg Mihalik
(greg23) - M

Locale: Colorado
Sleeping Bag Baffle Direction on 02/10/2009 21:58:55 MST Print View

Just wondering why baffles run Across the body versus head to foot.

It seems that for a quilt, head to foot baffles would provide a better seal at the pad than would cross-body baffles.

They might require a tricky mid-body cross baffle, but other than that, why not?

What is the history, logic, propensity... behind our current cross-body norm?

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Sleeping Bag Baffle Direction on 02/10/2009 23:49:36 MST Print View

With a full-length tube it would be too easy for all the down to migrate to the ends, leaving the middle bereft. Cold ...


Greg Mihalik
(greg23) - M

Locale: Colorado
Re: Sleeping Bag Baffle Direction on 02/11/2009 08:07:37 MST Print View

My thoughts exactly.

Except - if you 'magically' put a cross baffle in at, say the hip region, then each tube would then be shorter than a typical circumferential tube - 40" versus 55" for a quilt.

So it seems like a better arrangement, IF you can get that cross baffle in place.

The cross baffle certainly makes mass production harder, but posted elsewhere is the comment that Golite does this in their Ultra 20's.

But then I have to ask 'Since it is not done this way, what Are the reasons?' and hence this post.