Companion forum thread to:

Midlayer Technology: Patagonia Capilene 4 v. Mountain Hardwear Desna Hoody

Thanks for the review

Interesting that they absorbed twice their weight in water.

The Cap4 dried faster when worn. Since it weighs less, and they both absorbed twice their weight in water, the Cap4 absorbed less water, so that's why it dried faster?

How does the R1 fabric compare to Capilene 4? I'm replacing a Patagonia fleece pullover I've owned for twenty years (it has been used a lot and is finally showing its age). I forget what the old sweater was, but basically it was the equivalent of Polartec 200 (a middle weight garment).

It would be interesting to compare dry times after wringing the garment, which is the first thing I would do if it was wet. The question being, how much water can you remove from the fabric? I imagine you would need some sort of mechanical means (like on old fashioned roller wringer) to make it objective.

It would be interesting to see how Polartec Alpha compares:
http://polartec.com/warmth/polartec-alpha

Yeah, I was thinking about this. I'm guessing the weight effect is indirect, in the sense that the lighter Cap4 is also likely thinner on average, so that water inside the fabric travels a shorter distance to reach the outside compared to the Desna. I think it's cool that the Cap4 drying rate increases slightly over time. The drier it gets, the faster it dries.

That would be cool. Hang some weights from the handle and you've got a known applied force for all garments.

I was thinking it would be cool to do what this review did but with a system: put on the wool baselayer, then Cap4, then one of two hard shells to compare the hard shell performance. The AT Beta FL is made of this new Gore Tex Active fabric that I've been curious about. You could run around with all these layers on and really get a sweat going to push everything to its limit, then measure dry times of all the layers.

"You could run around with all these layers on and really get a sweat going to push everything to its limit, then measure dry times of all the layers."

And weigh them when they're wettest and a couple times as they dry, like David did.

He soaked them in a tub for an hour. I'm curious how that compares to getting them sweaty. Maybe soaking them gets them wetter than is realistic.

I imagine the drying time curve on the Cap4 is due to more dry surface area being available, creating more lineal area of wet surface to air boundaries to transfer moisture to the outer air. There could be some influence from evaporative cooling that changes with the amount of moisture in the fabric or those wet surface to air boundaries again.

I wonder what effect the hard surface treatment has on the Desna drying time? Likewise those slick surface base layers like Cap1 vs Cap2 or other "mesh-ier" weaves. I can't help but think all those fuzzy bits increase the surface area and moisture transfer. Perhaps the more open weave traps more warm air and also adds to the evaporation.

The percent of dry weight is the same

The dry weight of Cap4 is less

Therefore, the Cap4 absorbs less water

That probably explains why it dries faster - there's less water to evaporate

And maybe that's how to evaluate clothing - you want the one that absorbs less water

And maybe the amount of water absorbed is usually determined by the weight of the clothing - so you want the lightest clothing

the material is similar (fleece grid) in looks, but the new cap 4 is lighter (less warm, but more breathable)

I've been using mine for running: very cold- a light base layer w/ the cap 4 over, cold-just the cap 4 as a base layer, less cold-just the base layer- almost always layered under a wind shirt

the cap 4 doesn't get overly wet and dries quick, it's definitely not as warm as the R1 stuff- which for high aerobic stuff I'll trade the less warmth for better breathability

I want good moisture transfer and loft/weight. Durability and cost would influence my purchase descision too.

I wouldn't make drying from a complete soaking much of a priority. Performance in real world conditions like moisture transfer under a windshirt or rain shell is the thing. I wouldn't be wearing a mid layer in the rain without a shell.

In fact it would have to be really cold before I would wear a mid layer while walking uphill with a pack. I would normally go with a long sleeve base layer plus windshirt first. I could see cold dry conditions where a base layer plus a mid layer might be nice. More often, if it is 33F~50F, there is some precip too.

Given wool's storied history as a fabric of choice by many people exposed to wet conditions, it would be nice to see a few comparable wool garments compared as well.

Perhaps a bit more scientific approach as well by for the worn dry time test. I would expect that the tester's metabolism and body heat "might" vary. One subjective question would also be how comfortable were each when wet? Some synthetics don't "feel good" when wet.

"Perhaps a bit more scientific approach as well by for the worn dry time test. I would expect that the tester's metabolism and body heat "might" vary."

There's the article where they had a garment that had a different material on each side of the garment

Edited by retiredjerry on 01/09/2013 20:50:29 MST.

> Given wool's storied history as a fabric of choice by many people exposed to wet
> conditions,
That was greasy wool - wool which still had the natural lanoline still in it. Yes, effective stuff, but:
It has a strong wet-wool smell
It is much heavier
It dries much more slowly

Translation: wool has been superceded for outdoors performance gear.

Cheers

you can get some pretty light merino pieces, but for the same weight they definitely dry slower than most syns

they do "feel" warmer when wet vs syn and they have better odor control for longer trips, but I agree w/ Roger - for the most part they are going to be out performed oz for oz vs most syns

I'm curious how a capilene 4 + Pertex combo would stack up against Rab's Boreas hoody. Given that the Boreas lacks DWR, I don't doubt it would be worse in any sort of precip.

Would the boreas outperform the reviewed combos, though, in cold and snowy conditions?
Alternatively, what about summer backpacking in an often windy alpine environment (Wind Rivers etc)?

Other than performing the test on a variety of people and averaging the data (which would be too ponderous, I'd have to find a bunch of people my size, for one), there wasn't much else I could do to control for variables during the dry tests. Outside conditions and my activity level were equal. Close enough for these purposes.

Wool has many virtues, but for reasons detailed in the article is simply outclassed in realm of midlayers. Once you get into fabrics beyond the 200 g/meter class the warmth/weight ratio of wool is not good, and the moisture retention goes well beyond the point of desirable moisture buffering towards being dangerous. You can make a good case for wool as a soft shell-ish outer layer if it's the old, lanolin-included type. My Pendleton plaid shirt has a pretty good DWR, a bit of wind resistance, is tough, quiet, and resists sparks around the campfire. I used it over a wool t and the Cap 4 hoody while hunting this fall.

Various types of windshirts can be mixed and matches with these midlayers to suit different conditions. In spring and fall around here we get lots of blustery days around freezing with mixed precip. The Cap 4 and hard shell windshirt (Quantum, Houdini, etc) is for me a great combo there. The shell may wet out, but body heat keeps the moisture from going further. The same combo may, oddly enough, be too warm at colder temperatures if the stress of liquid precip is removed from the equation. Cap 4 and Boreas works well for aerobic effort in pretty serious cold without serious wind, conditions where a hard shell windshirt might trap mositure inside.

"Cap 4 fabric at left, with old Patagonia R ½ fabric at right. The added dead air space in the Powerdry High Efficiency, used in the former, adds functionality and warmth while cutting weight. It is a truly impressive fabric."

Some older waffle grid fleece pull-overs were quite warmer than Black Diamond light versions of fleece pull-overs, but were also quite a bit heavier, so never got used.
So a Cocoon PG Delta puffy, about 1/2 lb, was worn over the BD pullover for activities in camp (under the vestibule when wet/windy)(and also in the sleeping bag if needed).

The new CAP 4, at around a half pound, sounds like a waffle grid that is much better than the BD in terms of both weight and insulation value. Thank you for the steer.

There is one reservation. It's often been said that the smaller the air pockets the more insulative the material. The larger grid on the Cap 4 certainly makes the fleece lighter, but wouldn't it also make it less insulative than the tighter grid shown in your picture of the R 1/2, that is apparently no longer available. The R1 pullover is closer to a pound, the reason the waffle grid got left home in the first place, so that's out. I hope the half pound CAP 4 will make a warmer replacement for the BD plain fleece pullover that is no lighter, and of course, the CAP 4 can be used under a shell if the trekking gets cold enough.

So if we look at the pro's and cons of the Cap4 and Desna what would your thought be on the Patagonia Piton Hybrid Hoody?



http://www.patagonia.com/us/product/mens-piton-hybrid-hoody-for-alpine-climbing?p=31810-0-175

It uses the Powerdry fabric but adds Windpro Hardface on the chest. This would seem to offer the best of both worlds. The high performance of Powerdry of the Cap4 with the strategic wind resistance and moisture buffering of the Desna.