Dan, you've closely followed the two threads, and you did misconstrue the following:

"Using argon for a weeklong trip in cool weather would set you back $112 in argon costs and fill your pack with nearly 2 lbs in argon canisters.

As Nate clearly indicated, "See link later below about our new recycle pump that sucks gas out of the vest and puts into reservoir so you can make 1 canister last for up to years." Obviously, the pump will add weight but it won't be 2 pounds of argon canisters.

I'm just suggesting we all play nice and fair :)

This reminds me of course of the Neo Air debacle when that one was first announced.
Many here and in the other forums explained at length and with great passion why it would not work.
Sight unseen I decided then that it was going to be a success.
Why ?
Because of what it can do (light, comfy, tiny packed size) rather than what it cannot (warm ice, be unbreakable,cheap)
That is how I see things. Some focus on negatives , I like to see the positives.
What I see with the Klymit is a reasonably affordable light and possibly comfy (more than a blue mat anyway...) mat that will fit inside the pack .
Add a thin pad for security and or warmth and you have a pretty good set up for the shoulder season.
Sure you will be able to puncture that, so you can with most, but well you take your chances at time.
BTW, no I would not suggest this for a Patagonian expedition.
Franco

Brad, I did mention that recycling pump and it's potential in all of my posts on the subject of argon.

I think the X Frame is a good summer pad. I'd use one...especially a short version. I also think the 'loft pockets' are a good idea when used with a sleeping bag.

Edited by dandydan on 11/05/2010 19:41:50 MDT.

was tested to astm standards i believe when it first came out

so you knew you were probably getting the stated R-value

i have yet to see the R-value for the klimat pad ... not even on their site other than the reference Dan alluded to

just give me that number .... thats all i ask ... with and without argon ... lol

I think Klymit's hesitation to publish an R-value is because of the complexity that the loft pockets/cutouts add. I can understand this. They are counting the users sleeping bag to provide some of the insulation and a simple R-value for the pad wouldn't reflect this. If you use this pad with a sleeping bag that lofts down into these cutouts, then it would be warmer than if you used the same pad with a sleeping quilt that does not loft down into these pockets.

So the R-value will vary depending on the rest of your setup. For a quilt user you can count on about R-1 the air space in the cutouts and slightly higher (ie. R-1.1) for the rest of the pad since it's also essentially an airspace with a two thin layers of nylon.

If you use a sleeping bag, then you'd have about R-1.1 where you are on the pad (head, shoulders, hips mostly) and in the cutouts you'd have whatever R-value 1 to 1.5" of down provides which is pretty high, but only in a few areas.

I don't know much about the insulating properties of argon, but some quick research indicates that argon is 67% as conductive as air. I'm not certain how you translate this into R-values.
http://www.decompression.org/maiken/Why_Argon.htm

Edited by dandydan on 11/05/2010 19:47:11 MDT.

they can give an r value with an en-rated 30 F bag .... and another one with a 20F bag

i can claim anything i want but until i back it up with cold hard facts its all spin ...

and no "testimonials" arent a substitute ... you hear those testimonials all the time on informercials

at the end of the day all a pad does is insulate you from the ground, hopefully at low bulk and weight, and in comfort

without quantification of that value ... its all mumbo jumbo

like silver wires in speakers ... lol

I have my doubts that the reason for their hesitation to publish the R-Value is because of the complexity added by loft in the cut-outs. I don't see why they can't just publish the R-value for the actual pad, both filled with argon and bog standard air. If argon is 67% as conductive as air, the difference may not be that great.

I've not passed judgment on this personally, but I'm guessing that there's a good reason when a company which appears to be using the angle that they make super-technical products for super-technical people chooses not to publish the technical details.

Sounds like Klymit is actually producing goods, which gives them a leg up over the many other new gear makers who have come before with big promises but ended up not delivering any finished product.

Love my Neo Air, but still hate inflating and deflating the these type of pads. On my next Spring weekend trip, I'm going to try and use a Z-rest short with my pack under my feet. It probably won't work for me as I have not slept well in the past using a closed cell pad.

Inflating a Neoair isn't that bad- use a pump! I use a super easy MYOG pump that does other stuff for me as well. Weighs 1-2 oz and had doubled as packcover, groundcloth, part of my bearbag setup, stuff sack and/or pack liner.

Klymit, just send me a pad and I'll test it and post the results.

The X Frame should be quite painless to inflate since it requires a lot less air than NeoAir. Klymit says it takes 2-4 breaths, whereas a full length NeoAir takes about 14 deep breaths and a small NeoAir takes ~9 deep breaths. The X Frame is thinner (1.5" vs. 2.5") and has all those cutouts, so the air volume required is much less.

Based on our considerable research we are not aware of any standard or ASTM testing method for ground pads. We have contacted Kansas State University environmental lab and we were told the hot plate method used to determine R-value varies from manufacture to manufacture changing methods to improve results. Variables like air movement in the chamber is varied to affect the results in a more favorable way depending on what the manufacturer is trying to accomplish.

Based upon our conversations with Kansas State, we favor the method of using a mannequin for testing as opposed to a hot plate as it more closely simulates the weight distribution of a person sleeping on the ground displacing air support of pads at pressure points adversely affecting its performance in those areas which has less negative effect on the Inertia X Frame (IXF) as it is the only pad that uses higher pressure for support and comfort. We think this would be a better approach and it should be standardized so everyone does it the exact same way using a mannequin simulating a true camping/sleeping experience, rather than one small square section of a pad with no weight on it.

Also, we were told that the temperature at Kansas State lab is limited to close to freezing which may show comparable results for two separate pads, when in reality one of the two would perform better at colder temperatures. Some manufactures have attempted to manipulate the test standards to show their pad performing under more adverse conditions. All of which is to say, there is no current absolute standard and the industry desperately needs one.

As for our pad, the Inertia X Frame (IXF) it is an effective 3 season pad very comparable in warmth to other pads in our category based on our extensive lab and field testing and that of the thousands of people using our pads now. We have positioned it also as a second pad for deep winter camping to keep a foam pad off the ground for effective snow camping. While it is subjective as we have not done mannequin testing in a lab yet, we have done hot plate testing and field testing and have anecdotally proven the effectiveness of loft pockets which allow the sleeping bags fibers to loft into the void creating a more effective convective heat trap than is found in inflatable pads that do not have dead air generating fiber down or foam.

For those of you who might be thinking of placing an order, we have free shipping for the holidays and also the option to get a free baselayer with your order, check out the website for more details.

I would suggesting the tests you do have ... Facts speak a lot louder than claims

as someone said extraordinairy claims require extraordinary evidence

Jason claims a very good personal experience: http://www.adventureworldmagazineonline.com/gear/klymit-inertia-x-frame-pad/

Okay,
So I ordered one of these the second I saw it at BPL OR Day 1.
I got it in the mail and got a chance to use it already.

First things first. I sleep like a rock on my back and don't move an inch all night. I have fallen asleep with books and even a soda can on top of me and wake up in the morning with them still in place.

Next, I usually sleep without a tent if it's not raining so I have the hardest time not getting holes in my inflatable pads. For this reason, I always use my 1/8" X 24" X 72" 2 ounce pad under the inflatable.

I also only weigh 160 and I can actually over inflate it orally.

All of these combinations makes this pad perfect for me. I am also big into adventure running and usually use my Osprey Talon 11 for 2 to 3 day trips and I need everything to fit. This pad ROCKS! At least it does if you are a still back sleeper...
I just folded it over twice before rolling it up and ended up storing it in my fabric sunglass case. That is how small this thing rolls up.

So if you don't like it, maybe you just don't get it; Or maybe it just doesn't get you?

Edited by awsorensen on 12/17/2010 20:41:54 MST.

Thanks Aaron, it's nice to read a review from someone who I know (or feel like I know after years of reading your posts). I wish I could all night on my back like you.

As a long time Neoair user, I will say that the X-Frame is very atractive.
1) Weight is very attractive, as always
2) Performance, both definitive (raw tests) and subjective.
3) Size
4) Durability/reliability

Lately, I have been been increasingly disapointed with my neoairs due to problems with reliability and performance. I have had 4 pads. 2 have had problems, and, neither was a puncture which I was anticipating. (Ballooning: ie delaminination of one or more cores. And, general fabric leaks in multiple spots.) Both failures effected performance, but, neither was catastrophic. But, they cost money. Money to buy, money in my time spent to have them serviced.

So, I am considering other options as a disastified customer.

Yes, I would also like a more definitive test, not a subjective one. Perhaps a table of several 3 or 4 tests would be the easiest to assimilate. One alone, one with a 0C bag, one with a 3/8" foam on top of the pad.

Subjective tests are usually positive. What they "don't say" is more difficult to pick out than "what they say." But, I know how to swallow a pill.

Given Klymit's interest in body maping, a manikin test would be acceptable. I understand about "wiggle" room in tests... And I understand about real world performance as opposed to lab performance.

Soo, get on with the tests. I will be waiting for the results! In my book, anything close to a thermorest guidelite would still be good ;-)

jdm

I got the Thermarest Prolite a year ago

New model which replaced the Prolite 3

The Prolite weighs 16 ounces, only an ounce more than neoair, 1 inch thick, $100.

I used the Guidelight for years, still works fine, but it weighs almost twice as much

I've use the Prolite about 60 nights without any problems

It looks like something a clown would make out of a balloon.

After looking at all the new options, I'll stick with my 1" Thermarest. The things have 30+ years of field testing and they work well with minimal failures.

But good luck with the cutting edge. There has to be someone willing to fold balloons in the hopes of finding a better widget otherwise we would all be sleeping on blue foam.

Edited by kevperro on 12/18/2010 11:52:38 MST.

James Marco,
You bring up a very valid point, so Matt and I made this video for you today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrpBcEiTHXQ