Forum Index » GEAR » Bias in writing


Display Avatars Sort By:
Vlad Putin
(Primaloft37)

Locale: Radio Free Pineland
Bias in writing on 11/21/2006 22:22:13 MST Print View

Anytime you read something, particularly when it is a claim of some sort, you should ask yourself "who is this person who wrote this?" Who are they? What kinds of personal or professional biases do they have? What is their job or profession? What is their education? What kinds of political or cultural views do they have? Who is their boss that editorializes their writing? And what kinds of beliefs does the boss have? Could the reviewer get fired if they write an article that sides with slightly heavier, yet more reliable gear?

Do they have any sort of financial interest in the outcome of the statement or claim? Do they get paid to write reviews and articles that touts ultra-lightweight gear in a more positive light?

Or do they just strongly believe something in particular...such as some ultra-light backpackers seem to me to be willing to sacrifice some comfort and even safety if they can keep their pack weight super, ridiculously low.

I would make the claim that most or all of the "staff" who write these BackpackingLight reviews have very strong personal biases. If they werent into ultra-light (or super ultralight as many of them seem to be), I strongly doubt they would be on staff here, writing books and reviews of gear and clothing.

Think about it. If a writer here said, "when you cut thru all the marketing crap, wool is your best best for cold wet conditions. Followed by Primaloft and Polarguard and a few other synthetics." You think theyd remain on staff here at BPL very long?

I dont.

Some just do not seem to have the ability to be TOTALLY objective and face hard, cold facts.

Goose down clothing in cold wet environments is just not intelligent. A goose down sleeping bag, if extreme care is taken to keep it dry, might be able to slide. (maybe) But goose down clothing? No.

For extreme cold dry environs, sure goose down is fine. But not for cold wet environments. Many of the staff here Ive noticed seem to be out West, where the humidity is usually much lower than on the east coast. Where the winters are cold, windy, snowy but its a dry cold.

Ive read some sardonic comments on here about the AT by Ryan Jordan himself...I detect a subtle tone here at this site among many of the staff that is anti-East coast backpacking. Which means gear and clothing for cold wet winters might not get the best and most objective reviews at BPL.

Id like to see some BPL staff writers who live and do all their backpacking east of the Mississippi. I bet reviews of goose down might be a bit different then.

When someone tells someone, "here, read this article about down versus synthetic insulation for cold wet weather" and the article ends up claiming "modern down is comparable to quality synthetics," I say that is simply not true.

Ive used goose down sleeping bags for winter and summer trips. I am not totally anti-goose down, particularly for sleeping bags.

Learn to think independently...just cause someone at some website writes an article that claims something that is highly against the norm and they appear to be an authority of some sort, doesnt necessarily mean jack squat. Their opinion means jack squat. Their research means jack squat.

Wool and certain synthetic fibers such as Primaloft, Polarguard HV and Delta, polypropylene and a few others will ALWAYS be superior to the highest quality goose down. Particularly when it comes to the necessary requirement to keep you warm in cold, wet climates, where you are sweating a lot to begin with from extreme exertion.

Some people worry about *BEEP* ants, when elephants are stomping them to death. In this case, we have people obsessed with a little extra weight but the core issue is staying WARM in a cold and WET environment. Not a cold and DRY environment, a cold and WET environment.

I hate to be redundant, but if you were going backpacking on Kodiak Island, AK, a classic extreme cold wet climate if there ever was one, what kind of cold weather clothing would you want? Personally Id want to totally avoid any goose down, no matter what kind of water repellant covering it has on it. Id go with wool, Primaloft, polypro, Polarguard HV/Delta...stuff like that.

On the other hand, if I was going cross country ski touring in the low humidity of the rockies or Sierra Nevada, modern versions of goose down are probably OK.

Vlad

Ryan Jordan
(ryan) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Greater Yellowstone
Re: Bias in writing on 11/21/2006 22:43:09 MST Print View

Vlad,

1. You might be interested in an article on the topic of clothing and sleep systems for sustained wet weather, written by BackpackingLight.com's co-founder, Alan Dixon. I think it's scheduled to be published in December or January here.

2. As well as a series of articles, with one in depth about gear, about our trek to the Arctic this June. You can read a primer of the gear we took here: Clothing: Artic 1000 Gear: Clothing Sleeping: Arctic 1000 Gear: Sleep Systems

3. You should also have a look at: Comfort and Moisture Transport in Lightweight Wool and Synthetic Base Layers.

4. And: Drying Characteristics of Select Lightweight Down and Synthetic Insulated Tops: Loft recovery and water weight gain measurements of select down and synthetic tops after a thorough soaking

5. And: 2005 High Loft Synthetic (Belay) Jackets REVIEW SUMMARY and GEAR GUIDE OVERVIEW

6. And: Lightweight Synthetic High Loft Insulating Jackets/Pullovers and Vests: REVIEW SUMMARY and GEAR GUIDE OVERVIEW

7. And: Clothing and Sleep Systems for Mountain Hiking

8. And: Thermoregulation: An Overview of Heat Loss Mechanisms and Practical Guidelines for Staying Warm with Lightweight Gear

These articles will give you a more balanced view of the biases of the BPL Staff.

PS: Nothing is warm when wet. Wet clothes suck. Down just sucks worse.

Brett .
(Brett1234) - F

Locale: CA
re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 00:22:56 MST Print View

Vlad,
Do you see the irony in titling your post "bias in writing"?
We all have biases based on the filter of our past experience, including yours for wool and against down for example.

Since subscribing to the content on this site I have learned under what conditions natural and/or manmade materials can be best utilized, solely or in combination. A reduction in pack weight is only one benefit of this knowledge. I get more performance per dollar out of my gear now, make more educated purchases, even stink less with my merino clothing. (Im with you on the wool opinion!)

It is clear from your posts you have a lot to contribute to this site; I do hope you stick around and benefit from the other posters who also have your deep experience, but also a different point of view. We may all be biased, but not maliciously so.

Vlad Putin
(Primaloft37)

Locale: Radio Free Pineland
Re: Re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 00:36:05 MST Print View

>PS: Nothing is warm when wet. Wet clothes >suck. Down just sucks worse.

That is just not true.

Wool clothing will keep you warm when its wet. I mean soaked wet. If you step off into a stream and get soaked while wearing wool long underwear as a base layer, wool pants and a wool shirt as a second layer, wearing wool ragg socks on your feet and a wool hat on your head...and you get up out of the stream and get back on the trail or head off to a nearby basecamp...the wool clothing is going to keep you a lot warmer than if you had been wearing cotton or any synthetics, much less any type of goose down.

Anybody who knows anything about this stuff knows wool is the ticket if you are serious about staying warm in cold, wet climates. You can do studies from now to doomsday that say otherwise, but wool is the best for cold, damp and wet environments.

It also cuts wind, which synthetic fleece doesnt do.

The only thing about wool, is that its heavier than synthetics or dry down. It is a shame to see an entire generation of outdoorsman and backpackers not get to utilize high quality wool clothing because outdoor companies want to push synthetic fabrics and goose down. And because whiners say its "itchy."

Some company should bring back coarse, 100% wool shirts and pants. Its the best when all is said and done.

Vlad

Vlad Putin
(Primaloft37)

Locale: Radio Free Pineland
Re: re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 00:44:03 MST Print View

>Vlad,
>Do you see the irony in titling your post >"bias in writing"?

Sure! I totally and completely 100% admit I am biased on certain subjects. This being one of them. I dont have any money to make off of this issue but I am biased and my posts reflect my biases.

The difference is that I can publically admit that I am heavily biased. Most others cannot do that.

>We all have biases based on the filter of >our past experience, including yours for >wool and against down for example.

Im not against down per se, just in certain specific situations and climates. I think down is great for certain areas of the world, particularly for sleeping bags. I have used goose down sleeping bags during east coast backpacking trips and it isnt hard to keep them dry if you are well trained and disciplined.

The problem is, a lot of people arent disciplined and are not well trained.

I just think its a travesty that someone would post an article telling someone to use goose down clothing when the poster has indicated they are going to a very cold, wet climate. Its stupid, to be honest. It reflects bias and lack of ability to tailor the gear and clothing to the particular situation.

But, getting back to me. Yeah...Im extremely biased. Totally admit it.

Vlad

Brett .
(Brett1234) - F

Locale: CA
re:Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 00:57:44 MST Print View

Vlad, glad we can agree it is ok to be biased and admit it (I am too, towards Montbell gear for example). Untill a year ago the only down I had used was in my military issue intermediate sleeping bag. The thing was the size of a pony-keg and weighed a ton. That combined with the endless warnings of freezing to death in a soaked bag led me to avoid down as a civilian hiker. But now I carry a down bag in a waterproof bag, and only open it in my water(resistant?) tent. And my down jacket has a DWR coating which gives me enough time to throw a shell on before it gets wet. Even so, I would carry primarily synthetic if my life depended on it. For that I chose Snugpaks; are you familiar with them? They are popular with the military and I sure wish I had one instead of that down bag I mentioned.

As for wool; I prefer it over capilene for winter use; and my year round sock combo is a 5-toe wool liner and REI lightweight merino hikers. Is there any wool wear in particular you highly recommend?

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: re:Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 06:04:29 MST Print View

Brett, a source please for that 5-toe wool liner. I would really like to try a good pair of toed merino wool liners.

Currently, i use Smartwool liners (no individual toes) - alone, in multi-pairs layers, or combined with Smartwool hiking socks in colder weather - all inside of usually, trail runners, or rarely, if conditions demand it, some 28oz to 32oz per pair (in my miniscule size) light hikers.

I've tried P'Down socks (sold on this website) sandwiched b/t two layers of Smartwool liners. Extends the life of the P'Down socks, which are quite warm, but don't handle abrasion well at all, but still shorter lived than the liners and Smartwool hiking socks.

Many thanks in advance for your reply.
pj

Edited by pj on 11/22/2006 06:05:21 MST.

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: Re: re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 06:36:36 MST Print View

Vlad,

three things:

1) i notice that you don't have the "badge of honor" (the red 'M') next to your name on your posts. The red 'M' signifies that a person is a "Premium Member" of the BPL.com community.

2) i haven't checked, but it's possible that some of the links that DrJ provided may be premium content and so you wouldn't be able to view and read the fine articles. Again, i haven't taken the time to verify whether this is true or not in even one of the links, so i'm just speaking off the top of my head, but have seen this particular scenario happen before, so am assuming that it might be the case here.

3) this brings me to my point. if you feel that you would like and really make use (which i truly believe in your case you probably will make great use of it) of a BPL Premium Membership, i would like to purchase one for you.

If you are interested in this "no strings attached offer" (well, since i'm so tight and cheap and don't like to waste money, really there is one string attached, viz. you give me your word [one ex-military guy to another - your honor is at stake here] that you have both the time and inclination to really make use of the Premium Membership and read the articles with an open mind , i will be very happy to contact BPL via their support Forums (or DrJ if he reads this Post can post back or PM me) to find out how i can pay and have them apply it to your current non-premium membership.

You seem like a decent guy (though a bit opinionated - i guess it takes one to know one!) with a real interest in backpacking, so i don't think i'm taking much of a risk here that it will turn out that i wasted my time and resources in this instance.

Oh,...plus you get discounts on gear, like tiny lightweight folding Titanium Esbit stoves, at the BPL on-line "store" - i know from your other Posts (haven't missed reading one yet) that this is of interest to you.

So, whada'ya say? Let me know.

sincerely,
pj


EDIT:
Vlad, it just occurred to me that if you don't see this Post soon, i may be unable to reply to you or touch base with BPL regarding my offer until later this coming Sunday, due to some holiday plans. Please don't take my lack of immediate response as a "re-consideration" or a "reneg". I'll check back as often as i can over the next few days - which won't be very often and some of the next few days won't be at all if all plans come off as planned. Have a great holiday yourself. take care, pj

Edited by pj on 11/22/2006 08:35:58 MST.

John S.
(jshann) - F
Re: Re: re:Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 07:50:15 MST Print View

PJ, Brett is probably using the Injinji Tetrasock.

http://injinji.com/tetratsok/outdoor.htm

Edited by jshann on 11/22/2006 07:52:26 MST.

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: Re: Re: re:Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 08:08:16 MST Print View

Thanks John, i'll check out your link after posting this. take care,pj

p.s.
cool animated GIF avatar you have there. very creative.

Edited by pj on 11/22/2006 08:22:16 MST.

Don Wilson
(don) - MLife

Locale: Koyukuk River, Alaska
Re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 08:14:09 MST Print View

As a BPL staffer I'll chime in with a few words.

Do BPL staffers have biases - sure. Do we try to manage those biases when we review products or provide recommendations - yes.

There is quite a diversity of opinions and styles among the staff, including several who favor wool over synthetics in many conditions. We have healthy and vigorous debate on these types of topics all the time.

I will say this, I have never been approached by anyone at BPL to change my opinion or to write a favorable review on any product. If anything, we are always reminded to be more critical, more edgy.

As far as west coast bias is concerned, it is true that most BPL staffers live in the western US. We do have some from outside the US, and Alan Dixon, our product review director, lives in Washington, DC. But we travel quite a bit, and I think our range of testing conditions has been fairly diverse. And I expect that our diversity of test conditions and locations will continue to grow. I for one, am hoping to get out to the east coast for some hiking in 2007.

ROBERT TANGEN
(RobertM2S) - M

Locale: Lake Tahoe
Re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 08:33:06 MST Print View

PJ, under that gruff Viking exterior, you are just a sweet, sweet soul. And sweetness like that just makes me want to puke. (No, cancel that, that's just my sick, sick mind burping again. Ignore that remark.) Serioulsly, PJ, your generosity and good-heartedness just make me want to give you a big hug, and a long, long kiss, (No, cancel that, that's an even sicker compartment of my deranged mind. Just pretend I never said anything.)

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: Re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 08:43:44 MST Print View

Robert,

the way your post started out, i was in stitches, beside myself with laughter (i laugh silently, with only gasps of breath and forceful exhalations punctuating the silence, accompanied by paroxyms of spasms shaking my upper body, and then periodically snort like George Costanza - just to give you an idea of my current condition - my wife still, after all these years laughs AT me when i'm laughing)

now where was i...oh yes...i started out laughing, but then got "grossed out" (i think the young 'uns still use that expression???). don't equate "grossed out" with offended - i generally get vivid mental images of what i read, hence the "grossed out" part.

honestly, i think you might be more grossed out hugging a short, hairy, smelly, old geezer like myself.

as far as the last part, what do you think my avatar is carrying a battle-axe for, if not for occasions like you describe?!!! there, you've been forewarned, my obligation to your safety is ended. proceed at your own risk, my friend.

Bradford Rogers
(Mocs123) - MLife

Locale: Southeast Tennessee
Re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 09:37:07 MST Print View

Have you ever read a review of anything that was written by a totally unbiased reviewer? I am OK with a reviewer having his or her biases assuming they try and keep them to a minimum. I find it hard to believe any "good" review from someone who doesn't have "bad" reviews of products as well. I feel that BPL does some of the most subjective reviews in the industry. You should also note that they refrain from reviewing any of the BPL products even though it would be easy for them to slap together a favorable review. They leave the reviews of their products to word of mouth from the end users.


I have found some publications tend to only had out praise in their reviews probably due to not offending the company who's product is reviewed since often, that company is also an advertiser (of potential advertiser) in the publication. Publications sometimes must tread that thin line, but that most often results in their loss of credibility. For Example: I subscribe to Sound and Vision magazine. While I enjoy the reviews and think they are helpful in showing the positive in new products on the market, it has been years since I have seen them give any product a truly negative review. Therefore, I take their praise of products with a grain of salt.


It would be nice to have some reviewers on the east coast, but the PNW is just as wet as many areas of the Appalachians. Overall, I feel that BPL is one of the most unbiased reviewers of backpacking gear available. I also find BackpackGearTest.org to be good amateur reviews. Unlike most “reader reviews” (not just here btw) who tend to love the product or bash it because of a bad experience (nobody bothers to review a piece of gear they feel is just average) the reviewers at Backpack Gear Test do not get to pick the products they review and other than getting to keep the gear when they are done, are totally uncompensated.


While all of us have our biases including the writers here at BPL and at every other gear, automotive, or electronics (etc…) publication have their biases, I still feel that the BPL staff turns out some of the best reviews and articles in the industry. I am not SUL like some of the staff (21lb pack weight), but I definitely feel that I have gotten my moneys worth.

Edited by Mocs123 on 11/22/2006 09:38:04 MST.

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: Re: Bias in writing on 11/22/2006 09:58:16 MST Print View

Bravo Brad. Excellent words. Keen insights. Exemplary presentation. I'll add my "Amen" to your words.

BTW, good point on the PNW vs. the NE and wider AT area. PNW gets more overall rain, and has more rainy days (up to 180 per yr in some places, i understand, compared to 80-120 for So. CT), but, and this is NOT AT ALL to meant to diminish in the least your fine and correct observation, ours often comes down heavier for most or all of 2-5 days. I only mention this to bring to light a difference for anyone who is interested. It is NOT meant to correct in the least your astute observation. Even with this heavy NE rain though, there has probably been only one year (a few yrs ago) that we topped Olympic Nat'l Park (according to our local TV Meteorologists) - Olympic had a relatively "dry" year too i understand. We had 120 rainy days and totalled over well over 100" of rain that year (i'm now forgetting the precise number of inches) and many of those with all day moderate to heavy rain (we often get 2"-4" of PEAK rainfall per hour which can last for a couple of hours and still come down pretty heavy, but lighter on each side of "the peak" rate for 24+ hrs). On the AT, i understand, that year is widely known as the wettest (and muddiest) year in recent history.


Thanks for posting such an even-handed set of observations.

Edited by pj on 11/22/2006 10:05:10 MST.

Ryan Jordan
(ryan) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Greater Yellowstone
Wool: warm when wet? on 11/22/2006 10:37:27 MST Print View

>> Wool clothing will keep you warm when its wet. I mean soaked wet.

If you are wearing clothing that is soaking wet, the rate of body heat loss due to CONDUCTION is so fast that the type of clothing you are wearing is immaterial, because WATER controls the conduction rate.

If you get soaking wet, WRING out your clothes so that water plays less of a role.

Once water content of clothing continues to decrease, entrapped air in fiber interstices now controls the resistance to heat loss.

Wring out cotton and you do not have this luxury because the interstices have collapsed due to a lack of fiber resiliency (e.g., a lack of "springiness") and you don't recover your entrapped air.

Wring out a synthetic and you recover your entrapped air, but there is still much water in the interstices because the water cannot ABsorb INTO the fiber, it sits at the surface (i.e., ADsorption ONTO the fiber surface). Result: evaporative cooling is dramatic with a synthetic.

Wring out a wool garment and you recover your entrapped air AND because wool is porous and can ABsorb water INTO its fiber, less water is ADsorbed ONTO its surface. The result is that wool fibers release ABsorbed water at a slower rate in response to heat addition (loss from the body) than a synthetic fiber, which releases ADsorbed water at a faster rate in response to heat addition (loss from the body).

The short story is that wool fibers act to DAMPEN (slow down the rate) of evaporative cooling, and heat loss due to conduction via water-skin contact as a result of its absorptive nature (which is different than a synthetic) and its fiber resiliency (which is different than cotton).

But warm when soaked - i.e., when the pores are saturated?

Not in my world.

Wring it out, you need to avoid conductive heat loss and restore the airspace in the interstices.

Chapters 5 and 6 of Lightweight Backpacking and Camping address this issue as well.

Edited by ryan on 11/22/2006 10:38:48 MST.

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
a bias? perhaps, but he balances it out with... on 11/22/2006 10:49:08 MST Print View

...statements like these taken from the BPL.com store webpage for the book DrJ link to in his prev. Post in this Thread [note: emphasis mine]:

"Preface: The Benefits of Going Light

Some hikers, upon converting to the ultralight style of backpacking, become rabid proselytizers for the cause, convinced that everyone needs to get their base pack weight below 10 pounds to avoid the eternal damnation of 65-pound packs. Though it may border on blasphemy—since a good chunk of my recent life has been devoted to creating ultralight gear and getting it into the hands of like-minded enthusiasts—I’m not convinced that everyone needs a small base pack weight. If you are young, in great physical shape, your trips consist entirely of relatively short distances into the backcountry to establish base camps for day trips, and you already own a bunch of traditional backpacking gear, you can probably save yourself the trouble of reading this book. "



yeah, we all have inate biases, but it's statements like that fr/GVP which DrJ was willing to publish (not to mention the keen understanding displayed in DrJ's post about "ADsorption" and "ABsorbtion") that make me trust him and cause me to reject my own erroneous understanding in favor of his wisdom and knowledge.

Edited by pj on 11/22/2006 12:01:29 MST.

Vlad Putin
(Primaloft37)

Locale: Radio Free Pineland
Re: Wool: warm when wet? on 11/22/2006 12:00:58 MST Print View

>> Wool clothing will keep you warm when its wet. I mean soaked wet.

If you are wearing clothing that is soaking wet, the rate of body heat loss due to CONDUCTION is so fast that the type of clothing you are wearing is immaterial, because WATER controls the conduction rate.
----------------------------------------

You are talking like cold water immersion hypothermia stuff here. In such a case, your best bet would be a wet suit or dry suit. What do divers usually wear under their dry suits in polar diving? WOOL LONG UNDERWEAR! If a little bit of wickedly cold water seeps in around the edges of the dry suit, a heavy wool long john set will take care of it.

On land, a wet suit or dry suit isnt appropriate for a backpacker. A couple layers of wool will suffice though.
---------------------------------------

If you get soaking wet, WRING out your clothes so that water plays less of a role.
--------------------------------------

I agree with this, very common sense advice.
--------------------------------------

Once water content of clothing continues to decrease, entrapped air in fiber interstices now controls the resistance to heat loss.

Wring out cotton and you do not have this luxury because the interstices have collapsed due to a lack of fiber resiliency (e.g., a lack of "springiness") and you don't recover your entrapped air.

---------------------------------------

Cotton is totally worthless as a cold weather fabric, that is well known.
-----------------------------------------

Wring out a synthetic and you recover your entrapped air, but there is still much water in the interstices because the water cannot ABsorb INTO the fiber, it sits at the surface (i.e., ADsorption ONTO the fiber surface). Result: evaporative cooling is dramatic with a synthetic.

Wring out a wool garment and you recover your entrapped air AND because wool is porous and can ABsorb water INTO its fiber, less water is ADsorbed ONTO its surface. The result is that wool fibers release ABsorbed water at a slower rate in response to heat addition (loss from the body) than a synthetic fiber, which releases ADsorbed water at a faster rate in response to heat addition (loss from the body).

The short story is that wool fibers act to DAMPEN (slow down the rate) of evaporative cooling, and heat loss due to conduction via water-skin contact as a result of its absorptive nature (which is different than a synthetic) and its fiber resiliency (which is different than cotton).

----------------------------------------

This sounds kosher to me, wool dries out more slowly than most synthetics. But down dries out even slower than wool and when wet, it loses all loft...its totally useless.

Thus, why use down products in cold, wet environments? If a person is well trained and disciplined, a down sleeping bag can slide. But down clothing? Come on man.
----------------------------------------

But warm when soaked - i.e., when the pores are saturated?

Not in my world.
---------------------------------------

You'd be surprised...
--------------------------------------

Wring it out, you need to avoid conductive heat loss and restore the airspace in the interstices.

Chapters 5 and 6 of Lightweight Backpacking and Camping address this issue as well.

This post was edited by ryan at 11/22/2006 10:38:48 MST.
----------------------------------------

I will get very specific here. Wool is warmER while wet, than any other fabric. It wont keep you as warm when wet as it will when its dry, but the fact it keeps you warm while wet at all is a big big plus.

Also, lets be realistic here. How often do backpackers ever let themselves become soaked to the pore? If it happens, either youve been on a river somewhere or an accident has occurred such as stepping off into a large stream or river.

So lets just say you become "sort of wet" or "highly damp." Even from heavy perspiration while humping it. Wool will keep you warmer than any other fabric under such conditions.

You are aruing against everything thats ever been said about wool clothing.

Wool IS warmER when wet compared to all other fabrics. (Except possibly Paramo, which I know little about but have heard great things about it).

The real issue here is obsession with super lightweight. When this occurs, it is impossible to be totally objective.

Vlad

Brett .
(Brett1234) - F

Locale: CA
5 toed sock for pj on 11/22/2006 12:26:14 MST Print View

p j, sorry, just read your post now.. the 5-toed wool sock I use is by Montbell. If you can't mail order it, let me know and I'll mail you a trial pair. (be advised Im in Japan so the mailing cost would be a few bucks higher)
The more I test new merino wool the more I like it. The only problem (if you can call it that) is its TOO warm. I believe the lack of adsorbtion limits the rate of evaporative cooling, so it lags behind my metabolic changes, absorbing perspiration instead of 'forcing' it to evaporate and cool me.. Capilene keeps up with my metabolic changes quicker (the flash cooling others talk about)

Here's the sock, Montbell calls it a 5 toed "travel" sock. I was doubtful when reading about reduced odors compared to poly socks, but it truly works. (oh yeah, your color choices are HCH, MBN, and the ever popular "NV")

https://www2.montbell.com/japanese/asp/products/Spg_shosai.asp?cat=3004&hinban=1108610montbell 5 toed wool travel sock. a good base layer

Edited by Brett1234 on 11/22/2006 12:30:52 MST.

paul johnson
(pj) - F

Locale: LazyBoy in my Den - miss the forest
Re: 5 toed sock for pj on 11/22/2006 12:30:41 MST Print View

Brett, thanks for the reply and link. i'll take a look at the Montbell website.