well done Eric for spotting the deliberate mistake, it is indeed 33% as you say. The main point I wanted to make was that there is room for a hell of a lot more stuffing in a 90 gram shell before you reach 170 grams. As for EN ratings, I have not had time to look through the material you linked in your post (thanks), but I will do. Fair comment as ever.
>Microbaffles are of debatable importance. For a jacket, they make a lot of sense. For a down sweater they do not. For the items you mention, 1-3oz of fill, it seems to matter a lot what the intended use is. As a sweater, ie, under something or a light covering for colder weather, a typical non-baffled construction is fine. For stand-alone use, you want the baffles for the additional warmth over those areas normally sewn thrugh.
Perhaps I should clarify here that by 'micro-baffle' I mean small sewn through chambers used in most UL jackets, which should not be confused with a traditional baffled construction that creates a rectangular or in some cases trapezoidal down chamber. As for the importance of micro-baffles: their importance will also surely be relative their impact on the fill quantity; heat transfer is not the only factor here. What if they are actually killing the loft of the down and lowering the efficiency of what little insulation is there?
>Just wanted to point out that according to Pajak's website the -40C/-40F rating for that sleeping bag is actually the "Extreme" rating under the EN norm. The "limit" rating which is what most sleeping bag manufacturers quote is a fairly average -;19C/-2.2F. It's definitely not a sleeping bag for use anywhere near -40C
Looking at the Pajk workbook, it says the Radical 16H is 'the warmest sleeping bag in it's class', which would be false advertising if what you say is true. Moreover, I think it is quite normal for manufacturers to use the extreme rating in their advertising rather than the limit rating. I'm sorry if the article seems to imply it is a bag to be used at -40C, I took it for granted that everyone understands these ratings -and how they can be manipulated-. Is there any comparable mainstream bag you would use at -40C?
>Also it might have been worth mentioning that the Pajak down is I'm assuming 750FP under the EU rating, which would equate to around 800 FP US. So it's not a hugely different from 850 or 900 fp that say Montbell or Arc are using (or even Rab, they use the US system).
Not hugely different on paper (although lower is lower in my book). In practice the price is quite a bit lower, what if manufacturers are skimping on high fp down to save money when they could just use more of a lower fp? The point I and many others make here on the BPL site is that there is no official comparison between fill powers in 'real world' conditions. Whilst the difference may be only 50fp points in the laboratory, there is strong annecdotal evidence that this difference changes once the down is exposed to any kind of 'real world' humidity. Check the review and associated commentary on the Mont Bell Plasma Jacket for more on this issue. What matters here is the internal structure of the down, not it's volume in the laboratory.
>Unfortunately this means the premise of a few of those claims is wrong. 750FP down is definitely not a substitute for higher fill powers.
According to whose measurements? Like I said, there are simply no figures to use. I do not state it as a fact in the article, but rather leave it as an open question. When I am proven wrong by an experiment I will be the first to admit it.
>("No matter what criticism may be leveled at the Radical 16H, it shows one thing that is beyond question: things can be done differently." 'fraid not)
Perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that the Radical 16H is not made of the lightest materials available, has a highly complex internal structure, and yet still achieves ,in your own words, 'a fairly average -19C/-2.2F'. Is that not different?.