Brian, you can use hard data, but if you use it to compare one product against another, Michael will accuse of you of conjecture too.

Dena,

I'm not disagreeing with your general opinion on the bag and I realize you were responding to Franco. I was just pointing out that it was more than 2 negative comments. I already said I'm have no interest in buying this bag. I prefer quilts for one. Plus I am willing to spend more for lighter weight for another.

Eugene,

You can keep posting the same tripe, but it doesn't make it true. They listed several differntiating features. You know it. I know it. I don't know why you keep pretending it isn't true. Just because YOU don't care for stretch baffles doesn't mean others don't. Just because YOU don't care for the foot box doesn't mean others don't. I don't support this bag because of pixie dust. So you can stop making stuff up. ULA listed features. I repeated them. Head in Sand!

I don't have my pulse on all consumers but I have conducted surveys measuring consumber preference professionally so yes, I do think I have a better than average understanding.

I'm sorry for the way they listed the deminsions. I mean a backpack company offering a sleeping bag should certainly have listed the deminsions and fill weight in a manner that met your criteria.

Do you really object so strongly to more choice in the market place.

Brian,

I don't see anybody complaining about material, weight or price. I see two people questioning the rather strong negative statements of several posters based on nothing more than the information currently available.

It is one thing to say that you feel the Kelty Cosmic is equal to or greater based on your preferences and needs. It is another to lambast a company for selling something before you ever see it or know much about it. Rampant speculation by several on here.

Yes Eugene because Chines duck bag is hard data.

is this bag made in the USA? ... and also what kind of superior quality 550 fill does it use .... also is it en-rated like many of the other competing bags at the same weight and same/lower price points ...

theres no way i can justify paying double to quadruple (depending on the sale) against a bag with the same specs, same rating and is a proven commodity and recommended by BPL ... but thats just me

sometimes a product is made on the assumption that there are people who will buy it for the "brand name", or because they dont know any better ...

Not that it matters but I find it peculiar that the almost identical (not to me by the look of it to most here) Kelty bag is often recommended as a good bag at a very good price.
A common comment is "can't beat it for value for money" yet the ULA bag becomes "Chinese junk"
The way I see things, junk is junk at any price so either both bags are junk or neither is, but one could be overpriced.
The reason I say could is because I have no idea of the corresponding manufacturing costs nor the value of added benefits (baffles,footbox and hood design)
But of course I know very little about sleeping bags...
but carry on...
Franco
For the record, I have two ULA packs. Bought both at full retail price...

"Not that it matters but I find it peculiar that the almost identical (not to me by the look of it to most here) Kelty bag is often recommended as a good bag at a very good price.
A common comment is "can't beat it for value for money" yet the ULA bag becomes "Chinese junk""

I suspect the folks that labeled it junk probably wouldn't own the Kelty Cosmic Down, either. They likely prefer (and can afford) the higher end 800+ goose down bags. I think the issue for the rest of us is simply that Kelty has set the accepted price point for this type of bag and ULA hasn't explained why their similarly spec'd bag costs so much more. I'm not saying the ULA bag is junk. I have a Kelty Cosmic Down because I can't afford one of those pricey 800+ fill bags, and it's not junk. It is heavy (compared to the higher end bags) and doesn't compress as well. The ULA looks similar and I'd probably sleep happily in it, but since my dollars only stretch so far based on the info currently available to me I'd still pick the Kelty because it would save me a Benjamin. That could change if ULA all of a sudden did a better job justifying the extra expense. This may simply be a matter of poor marketing not fully explaining the features of the bag, or it may be a matter of ULA having a USA made bag vs. Kelty's chinese bag (I have no idea where ULA produces their gear) thus it's more expensive, or something else. Maybe it's lined with some space age reflective fabric that effectively raises it's EN rating. Or, it could be pretty much identical to the Kelty and therefore not worth the extra money except to people who have extreme loyalty to ULA.

Kinda funny that we have this long thread and no one emailed ULA dont you think?

As an aside - i think i know whats going on:
they made a mistake - its not a 20F its 0F and the 2 needs to be added to the 550 to get 750FP (EU!)
now it makes more sense :)

I asked some questions on their facebook page, as have others.

You can get a 850 fill bag on this one website. It's usually $209.

The website is backcountry.com, and the bag is the stoic sommnus.

There are always better deals out there. That doesn't mean that a company should not introduce a new product. If you think about it most of the products that we like are made in china. it does look like this cottage company wants to "sell out" , I think people here do not like that. In all reality it might be a + EV (expectation) decision.

All I know is that this bag doesn't appeal to me, for a little more you could get a feathered friends or zpacks Cuben fiber bag! The fact is there are always better deals out there, and if every company tried to be the "best deal" they would all go out of business.

I am also curious where this bag is made. I hope the USA and not some far off Asian country.. I almost wonder if the 550 is a typo.. Hahaha that would be some funny stuff.. I mean not really, but due to all the negative comments it would be haha.. It almost doesn't make sense...

Actually Lawson, that WOULD be hysterical!

I heard the 550 comes from seaguls, thats the state bird for Utah.

Lawson,

Even if 550 is a typo, there's another typo or missing data. The weight of that bag would be extraordinarily heavy if it had higher quality down. Synthetic? I don't know enough about those to know what it should weigh, and don't care to look. The weight might be acceptable if it had a goretex shell or fully integrated Klymit pad, but they've done a terrible job of marketing this thing if it is.

Perhaps ULA is trolling us. That would make the most sense, at least to all but one of us. After all, most of us are having a hard time believing that Ultralight Adventure Equipment would sell what appears to be a low grade chinese duck down bag. If that's the case, then they've trolled harder than any company I can think of. Five Ten comes closest when they tried to troll a while back with a tactical kilt, but found that people actually wanted it, and then sold it.

i dont see why they cant use at least 650-700 fill down .. i mean you can buy cheap 650-700 fill jackets for < 50$ ...

Has anyone from ULA confirmed the 550 down?

It's also been listed as 550 by Klymit and by reporters from the various shows where it was shown at.
I think it really is 550.

There's only 2 reasons that I can think of for the 550.
One is to make it cheaper, and the other is that the stiffer down and feathers in the lower grades of down hold the lofting up better in very damp conditions.

As I mentioned previously, I think this is a consumer-grade bag, and is not targeted at specialty ultralight users such as we have on this website.


Oh, and I do think that this is aimed at using the Klymit pads on the inside of the bag.

one of the "advantagess" of using the klymit pad is the light weight ... a heavy bag totally and utterly renders that argument obsolete ...

The North Face has been embroidering '550' on the sleeves of their down jackets for quite a few years now. I wouldn't be surprised if most consumers now think 550 is the gold standard for down, and thus ULA/Klymit are targeting that group :)

Yes, I agree.

However, there are numerous bags from other large manufacturers which are just as expensive and even heavier than this ULA/Klymit bag.

That's why I'm saying that they are targeting the average consumer with this bag.

Here's an example:
Kelty Light Year Down 20
$239.95
2 pounds 14 ounces
600 Fill Power

That makes this ULA bag look like a bargain. It's lighter and its cheaper, and Kelty is one of the biggest selling bag makers around, with huge sales volume to make great economies of scale in production.
Yes, I'm aware Kelty also makes the Cosmic 20.

But the point is that customers gravitate toward other aspects, and if that weren't true, then Kelty would only make one bag, and that would be the Cosmic 20.
So, the consumer market is wider open than the SUL hiking crowd.

My friends think I'm nuts for spending over $400 on a WM Alpinlite bag with a 20 degree rating, when there clearly are 20 degree bags for much cheaper than that.

Edited by towaly on 09/13/2012 11:42:16 MDT.

Tom, we still do not know the amount of fill in this bag so we cannot even compare it to other bags in the same price range. We have no idea whether it will actually meet the expected warmth rating in a manner that provides some comfort.

I believe the Kelty bag is EN tested. I can also find the fabric specs online. Complete size measurements. Even where it is made. And of course the annual sales that knock off 30% off the MSRP make it an even more compelling choice.

On ULA's Facebook page a question was posed as to where this bag is sewn. Chris replied that he thought Asia (this is a big place, last time I checked) and that it was sourced by Klymit. In other words, one way to look at this is a simple re-badging of a Klymit bag with the ULA brand. For all we know this was part of the agreement in having Klymit develop and supply the suspension pad for the Catalyst. We just don't know. To be frank, it seems a little light for a 550 20 degree rated bag so I am interested in the fabric and the amount of fill.

ULA backpacks are low on weight and high on performance in comparison to mainstream offerings. I think where the sleeping bag is throwing many of us for a 'loop' is that this bag is neither light nor high on performance and probably not what most of us expect from ULA.

Time will tell.