Do I have to worry about ruining my new Western Mountaineering bags I order if I compress them down too much when packing them inside my pack??

I packraft a lot and put my bags inside Sea to Summit eVent compression bags and to save on pack volume I really crank down on the compression straps.

I have just used North Face Cats Meow style bags that I usually pick up for about $80 or so and don't really worry about ruining the synthetic insulation that much as I just buy a new one every two years or so.

But with $600 invested in two sleeping bags I figure I should hear what the risks are before I give my WM bags the same treatment.

Thanks for any info

A good quality down bag and take a lot more abuse for a lot longer than synthetic bags. You can compress your down bags while on the trail. Just don't store them compressed for a long time in-between trips.

Thanks Benjamin!!

Yeah I store all my bags in my crawl space spread out on the floor. This is just when putting them in the pack when hitting the trail. So basically I can't compress them enough to destroy them being as they will be coming back out of the stuff sack 16 hours later to "regroup" each night??

Remember that your down bag when packed will take up about half as much space as your Cat's Meow! You'll find that a partially compressed down bag will be quite a bit smaller than a tightly compressed synthetic bag. In other words, you'll find that your down bag will take up less space even if it isn't tightly compressed.

You can compress that down bag to less than the size of a soccer ball, or maybe even to the size of a softball. Whether you really want to do this is another question, because it will also have the rigidity of a soccer ball. IMHO, it's easier to pack when the stuffed sleeping bag has some "give" and can conform to the shape of your pack and whatever else is around it. Some folks don't even use a stuff sack or dry bag but use a waterproof pack liner and just stuff the sleeping bag into the bottom of the pack. They then put their other gear on top of the sleeping bag. I suspect this practice results in just as much compression of the bag as using a compression sack, but the bag conforms almost perfectly to its surroundings so probably takes up less room.

I personally use a 13L dry bag for my WM Ultralight (short). How much I compress it depends on how much I'm trying to cram into my backpack. When I arrive at my campsite, I set up my tent first thing and then immediately get out the sleeping bag so it has plenty of time to expand before bedtime.

The main thing is not to leave the bags compressed between trips and to try not to compress them tightly when damp. After each trip, fluff up the sleeping bag (I use the clothes dryer on low for about 3 minutes) and store it loose where it can breathe. Some use the large cotton storage bag provided--store on a shelf with nothing on top.. Some hang in the closet (just make sure the clothes each side aren't compressing it; a lot of us have pretty full clothes closets). Some store under the bed (advisable to cover with an old sheet to keep the dust bunnies off). Just be sure the space is dry and relatively clean.

Edited by hikinggranny on 06/22/2010 18:04:55 MDT.

As stated, down will maintain it's loft better then synthetics after many repeated compressions.

One minor thing to consider with down is that it is easily compressed. Down's warmth is determined by loft.
So this loft must be allowed to be unrestricted.

Case in point, the time someone threw a heavy wool blanket on top of their down bag. The blanket compressed the wool so much that the person would have been warmer without the wool blanket. Now if the wool blanket had been inside the bag,...

A synthetic bag may have actually been warmer because it wouldn't have compressed as much.
But that is no real excuse to use a synthetic bag:-)

The more tightly compressed the down bag is, the more time and effort you need to spend in camp trying to fluff it up.

--B.G.--

I wouldn’t use a compression sack. It puts lots of unnecessary force on the down clusters. Perhaps the down is resilient enough, but why chance it? Also, consider that not compressing a sleeping bag allows for it to conform better and fill the nooks and crannies of your pack that would otherwise be empty space. I use a large stuff sack (25L) and pack everything else around it.

Great points about allow the sleeping bag to fill the nooks and crannies of the pack. I'll keep that in mind for sure. I'm a bit paranoid going into a 150 mile backcountry trip here in two days packrafting with down sleeping bags. We'll be 30-50 miles from the nearest trail or road for much of this trip, so getting the bags wet would be less than ideal. So I plan on using a STS eVent compression bag in addition to a bag liner. I know its unneeded weight, but a little piece of mind in the boonies will be nice I guess. Maybe I'll just stuff the bags in enough to get the top of the STS compression bag closed and snug of the bag a little on the compression straps and call it good.

Great ideas for sure

I had a WesternMountaineering Badger bag, which I never used. The stuff sack that came with it was rather large.

I believe I remember a note or label from WM that said to use the supplied stuff sack to avoid potential damage from over compression.

I don't recall such a note or label on the WM Summerlite bag. Their website says nothing about the "compression sack" subject at all.

The less you compress your insulation (down or otherwise), the longer it will last and you will maintain maximum loft. Using a compression sack to pack the item rock hard is going to crush fibers rather than just compressing them--- and do permanent damage, so I don't think it is a good idea. A good snug packing in a stuff sack is fine for short periods.

Not having enough room in your pack is a pain on the trail. If you have to really cram everything rock hard in a stuff sack, it takes a lot of time and effort and is hard on the gear. If your stuff got wet, you're screwed. It is some law of hiking physics that things will never pack as well on the trail as they did at home. Time to get rid of some items or get a bigger pack!

Yeah, not sure why I compressed my bags so tight. Always had extra room in my pack, never had to store gear on the outside. Just like to compress the pack as small as possible. I'll no doubt take it a little easier on my new bags. :D

Yesterday I took delivery on my new Eddie Bauer First Ascent Down Sweater. It was on sale at $84. & cot $103 W shipping & NEvada tax - still a bargain.

SO... I stuffed it in a very lightweight Outdoor Products waterproof stuffsack (where ALL down garments belong when in a pack).

The first lightweight rolltop waterproof stuffsack required me to stuff it too tightly so I opted for one 30% larger. And, as a poster said above, it is a more "pliable" package that will conform to other items in the pack.

Plus, it will come out at the end of the day (whether I need it or not) and regain its loft much more rapidly, with less damage to the down. Unpacking all down items every day that it's possible is just good for the down.

Edited by Danepacker on 06/25/2010 11:44:33 MDT.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, down's pretty resilient stuff. I prefer using a lightweight nylon dry bag to a compression sack. Why? Because I can get the sleeping bag compressed to the same volume, but in a mold-able shape... ie, I can get the bag tiny, then shape it into a tiny brick or something. Packs a ton easier than the hard rounded melon you get when using a compression bag!

Just fold the top of the bag once, leave the sides open, sit/kneel on the sack to force the air out. Once it's compressed, finish rolling the top down, only 4-ish turns, then flop the bag on its side and knead it out. Lots and lots of canoe tripping done this way, never a wet bag.

The compression sack lets you get the most air out too.

Well, yes, of course, Evan... but the point was in the paragraph above... "same volume, but in a mold-able shape... ie, I can get the bag tiny, then shape it into a tiny brick or something." Packing a hard ball shape is less efficient than packing something the same volume, but which contours to the pack & its contents.