Cheers Andrew,

I am surprised that it does not have more loft.

This does indeed help a lot. It seems that Patagonia significantly overfilled the jacket. 3 or 3.5 inches of double sided loft is comparable to a lot of other jackets. According to Richard, the total fill is more important to a point. Interesting to see that idea apparently being used.

An overfilled, smaller baffled jacket would be less bulky and better for actual belaying, in my opinion and experience.

The Nunatak Skaha Plus' specs state 3/4" baffles and 5 ounces of fill in a medium. I wonder what asking for 4 or 5 ounces of 900fp overfill in that jacket would result in.

Edited by boglins on 03/11/2013 19:08:59 MDT.

I have only seen/handled the small size but I had the impression that it had at least as much total loft as my Rab Infinity Endurance, ~3.5" at the shoulder. This jacket is much longer in the torso/neck and arms than the Infinity though.

I think I am spoiled by my Gooses Feet Parka which has similar specs but twice the loft.

Stephen, do you have an OEM link to your jacket?

I might like to buy a down jacket with similar specs but lofts to ~7" for my trip to catch the auroras this year. I tried a Bing/Google "Gooses Feet Parka" internet search but the only matching hits were for your Gear Swap ads here on BPL.

This jacket defies easy comparison with most other down jackets only because it is so densely filled with down. If laid flat on the floor, the loft at the shoulder could easily measure 4-5", but that's only because the top and bottom aren't completely touching. Instead, they're held slightly apart by the firmness of the filled baffles and presumably by the differential cut. That's why I gave single-layer loft as a more useful measurement (I thought).

By comparison, the other down jackets I have (MH Ghost Whisperer, Montbell Mirage, and an older Marmot Plasma Sweater) seem loftier but less densely filled, if that makes sense. The Patagonia is undeniably warmer than any of them, with its generous insulation at the neck being a particular strength. As Brian wrote, perhaps Patagonia is testing the theory that down can be somewhat compressed (overstuffed) and provide increased warmth with less overall volume.

This question probably has been answered in other reviews or threads, but all this has be wondering. What is the optimal density of fill for a down item (e.g., jacket, sleeping bag, etc), controlling for down quality (e.g., 800 fill, etc.), loft, etc.

At what point does overstuffing start to do more harm than good. I assume there is some sort of weight trade off. But what other trade offs are there.

@Rick - You're looking for goosefeetgear.com. He doesn't have any down jackets listed on his products page right now, but much of what he offers is custom work.

Ok, thanks Stuart. Nix to that then.

HI Rick,

As Stuart mentioned it was a custom order.

Ben is a pleasure to work with.

He was going to make me a new one with a bit more down and more pockets but as I had no interest on gear swap on the existing one I left it off.

I used in in -13f around camp recently and it was uber warm.

Cheers,

Stephen

Edited by stephenm on 03/12/2013 05:02:47 MDT.

Richard Niseley has covered this topic a while back.
If I remember correctly, overstuffing gives warmth-increases up to about 250% (a total of 3.5 times the amount of optimally lofted down), but your "rates of return" diminish. I.e. The first oz of extra down gives you a greater warmth increases than the later ones. After 250% overstuffing there is no warmth increase.
According to that the optimal down density for warmth/weight is 0% overfill, but of course this is lab testing, not field testing.
I have the link saved, but can't access it right now. Maybe someone else can post it or correct me if i am wrong.

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=68798

For my application, climbing, bulk matters. This has all made me really interested in having someone like Goose Feet build me a 3/4" baffled parka with around 100% overfill (~9.5 oz of 900 fill) that I would hope to see around 17 ounces of total weight. The best I can tell, the small, if any, reduction in insulation compared to the same amount of down fully lofted would be worth it to me.

Brian,

Ben could certainly make a Parka like thay.
Beware though he uses Ul materials to save weight. For belay use a burlier down parka/synthetic may be better.

Cheers,

Stephen

I have become convinced that loft at the shoulders is a particularly useless measurement.

I posted a thread a while back where I was surprised that a new peak XV didn't have more measured loft then an old montbell alpine parka despite having something like twice as much higher fill down. After using the peak for a winter of BC skiing including plenty of time hanging out on Northern Rockies ridge lines I can say that they aren't even in the same ball park.

The Peak has a much more "resilient" or "stiff" loft. This combined with the burlier outer fabric makes it a much nicer coat to use as a booster/belay/top layer at rest stops in alpine conditions. See also the recent BPL article on wind compression of insulation.

This may be less of an issue if you plan to wear your down layer under a shell and can camp in sheltered spots but I would hope that the new patagonia garment is intended for alpine use and designed to do well in high winds etc.

In all honesty, I've personally never had much of a problem using lighter materials for heavy insulation. I've destroyed a few shells while flailing up chimneys and aiding up Long's, but pretty much the only time I'll have my belay jacket on I won't really be doing much that will tear it up. My biggest concern would be stuffing it into the top of my pack on top of other stuff.

FWIW, the Encapsil's shell is apparently Pertex Endurance UL. I have a FF Jackorack in that material that I climb in.

I wonder what the effect of moisture (from the outside or from my sweat) would be on a 100% overfilled jacket. I have no idea, but the first two ideas that come to mind are that a denser down cluster would seem in my brain to be more likely to trap/absorb water. But at the same time, because it's so dense, will it lose loft and warmth the same way? No clue. Put aside the argument that moisture is probably an overblown risk most of the time.

Edited by boglins on 03/12/2013 12:18:08 MDT.

Thanks David and Brian.

Edited by mwgillenwater on 03/12/2013 13:51:55 MDT.

has patagucci indicated why some of the chambers on the right side have less fill than the left?

id love to hear the reason for that design ....

Hi Eric,

I returned my jacket to the Patagonia service center in Reno for that very reason, and in fact no one has been able to explain the uneven fill. A Patagonia tech who responded to my original complaint replied that it was impossible for there to be any design flaws with this garment. When I tried to explain that I wasn't labeling it a design flaw, but rather a production glitch or QC issue, she said she very much doubted it.

What's even more amazing is that they're unwilling to add more down, saying they're unable to access the closed baffle, and further that they have no "extra" Encapsil down on the premises.

Makes you wonder...

A

>A Patagonia tech who responded to my original complaint replied that it was impossible for there to be any design flaws with this garment. When I tried to explain that I wasn't labeling it a design flaw, but rather a production glitch or QC issue, she said she very much doubted it.

Now THAT'S funny!

thanks andrew for the update ...

that shouldnt happen with a limited edition flagship product IMO .... no matter who makes it ... a 1000 run 700$ jacket should be rigorously inspected prior to sale

many new products have design issues in the first batch ... denial isnt a good step, just admit it, fix it and improve it ...

i wonder if they resell your parka now to someone else ...

Edited by bearbreeder on 03/13/2013 12:47:42 MDT.