I never measured it but when I laid on the pad on my back, both shoulders were hanging off the edge of the pad. I'm tall but not that wide!!! Back to te drawing board. The neo's are just too noisy!

"looking at how the tape curves around, I'd call that 18" tops."
Yup - it looks like it goes from 1.5" to 19" = 17.5" effective width.

I don't have the answers, but the sleeping pad market is ripe for good innovation. Thermarest has been innovating with insulating for less weight (ie. NeoAir Xtherm in particular), but few makers seem to be trying very hard to make things more comfortable at the same weights.

Ok all you engineer types...how much of a size/weight penalty would there really have been if they just made the darned thing 20" wide??

>Ok all you engineer types...how much of a size/weight penalty would there really have been if they just made the darned thing 20" wide??

Not enough of a weight penalty to not justify the status quo in comfort!

17.5" x 66" = 1155 in^2


17.1oz / 1155 in^2 = 0.0148 oz/in^2


20" x 66" = 1320 in^2


1320 in^2 x 0.0148 oz/in^2 = 19.54oz


So, about 2.5oz more for the extra 2.5" wide - you might even go so far as to say that for every extra inch of width, you could add an ounce of weight (to the 66" long version).

Dang. Ben got all smart on me.

Very cool math! Extrapolating weight vs. in2. They could have chosen to make it wider to match the earlier versions width, kept the depth to 3.5 to keep the R5 value and still had a very respectable weight.

I know T- When I see all that stuff I'm like whaaa?

Two of my best friends: one a math teacher, one a polymer scientist.

They call me for spelling, I call them for math.


Sorry for the thread drift!

Re BA pads: I gave up on BA pads when I saw Benders picture of a cut one. The amount of insulation was very disappointing. I will argue till I die that my original Neo air is warmer than my "R4" BAIAC. Got cold on it and I wasn't even on snow. WEAK

Edited by WoodenWizard on 02/28/2013 22:27:05 MST.

I had 3 pads by Bender when he was in service. They all were made well, and I always had good customer service from him, despite some of the later accounts.

The first pad I got was 18.5" wide when inflated (was spec'd to be a 20" pad). I let Bender know, and my next two were slightly over spec, like by 1/2-1", which was very welcome.

It's sad that guy just disappeared without a trace.

Returned mine last week to REI - I had the same issue. 20 "is a narrow fit for me to start with, but it was definitely not even that.

I wish there were more pads wider but not longer, or even a bit shorter. As a roving side sleeper, I need some width in my upper body to roll over and around on, but don't need it wide below.

The human body and its sleeping positions are not rectangles.

Just for poops and laughs, I emailed the link to this thread to BA. Here was the response:

Hi Travis-

Thanks for the email. I will certainly pass this feedback along and we appreciate it. We certainly never try to misrepresent our products and it is always tough trying to shave ounces and packed size while still keeping the pad comfortable and warm. I will pass this along to our design team now. I have used the heck out of the new Q-Core SL and have really enjoyed it. Really the same comfort as the standard Q-Core with a great packed size and weight.

Edited by T.L. on 03/06/2013 12:16:00 MST.

I remember back in mid 2000 -- BA's published "average" tent weights were always off -- meaning always heavier than actual, of course. They corrected their tent specs (probably because they knew people who spring the bucks for an SL tent would verify) -- but their sleeping bags were still spec'ed lighter than actual.

Gearmakers that publish honest specs? The boutique UL ones like Big Sky, Henry Shires, Mountain Laurel Designs, Six Moon Designs, ZPacks, etc.

Edited by ben2world on 03/06/2013 12:35:52 MST.

"Just for poops and laughs, I emailed the link to this thread to BA. Here was the response:"

So did you poop or laugh?

Well, I laughed really hard.....and well, you know the rest.

Indeed.

Thats great Travis, I never thought to send this to BA. Glad to hear they are receiving valuable feedback about their products. I am really sure he has spent a lot of great nights on the pad. Is he missing the point! We are not questioning how comfortable the pad is. Shame on BA!!

They should use a lighter denier fabric, not sacrifice width.

So, now I want to know how the SL "WIDE" that's specced at 25", **actually** sizes out. If that one's undersized as well, it might then fit in my BA pad sleeve and give me a 22" pad instead of a 20 (?).

Still frustrating that a product designer would skimp on width in a sleeping pad on the 20" platform. C'mon! Why not make'em 12" and we can just balance all night. Ultralighters would buy them! Do it, do it!!

@ Travis:

So, any response from BA?

Nope. Just what I posted above.