A single Protocol B aging cycle results in rapid degradation of all common light weight shelter fabrics other than Epic Alpine. There is no point of doing additional aging cycles for batch submission 1 due to the dramatic reductions in HH experienced for most products. If other batch submissions are needed, a "Delicate" wash cycle will probably provide a small enough HH reduction granularity that it can be plotted.
I took pictures of every test head position and created a written record of the general locations of the major voids for each CTF3 (Cuben) test. This information is voluminous and if posted, will be done at a later time.
Until my testing is duplicated by Roger Caffin in part or in total, all data is just one fallible man's opinion. It is my attempt at trying to understand how different light weight shelter materials test in both their virgin state and after a simulation of real world rain storms, stuffing, and un-stuffing.
My current preliminary understanding is based on limited data that has not been verified nor exhaustively analyzed:
-Virgin tests are a reasonable indicator of initial shelter material quality. If you are a recreational user, this information should be adequate to make a buying decision.
-For expedition users (defined as multi-month) ventures in routinely bad weather, such as coastal Alaska and other long distance trail hiking during the rainy season. (I routinely do these types of trips and this is the primary reason I started looking for answers.) For this class of users, interested in the lightest possible weight achievable through CTF3 variants, it appears that only CT1K.18 and up (defined as .18 Mylar with varying amounts of Spectra) products will maintain the ISO 811 minimum of 1,500 mm H2O after the simulated aging defined in Protocol B.
-Lighter weight CTF3 materials appear to degrade at a rate similar to silnylon and at a slower rate than PU coated fabrics. Whereas silnylon and PU coated fabrics can be rejuvenated, I am not aware of any well tested method to recover CTF3 HH once lost. This by no means is to say that there are no CTF3 HH recovery options, just none that have been both tested for efficacy and are easily found via Google.
-Only one silnylon/PU combo product was tested. Its degradation was restricted to a single horizontal thread. If this is not a repeatable phenomenon, this material seems to be superior to PU coated fabrics as it relates to both weight and HH degradation.
-Last but not least it is interesting to note that I wanted to determine if what I experienced in the real world with my CTF3 tarp's rapid degradation could be simulated. Anyone with a DIY HH tester, as designed by Lance Marshal, a home washing machine, and a small sample of any tent shelter material should be able to not only duplicate my tests but more importantly add to our collective knowledge base.
-To all those that provided test samples, A BIG THANK YOU. Nothing new would be known without your assistance.
-To all those who will do their independent testing, also A BIG THANK YOU. I have more questions than I do answers and I eagerly await your discoveries.
- For supplemental detail regarding how the first aging test was conducted see my latest post in Lance Marshall's thread entitled "DIY HH Tester".