MontBell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review

The lightest down jacket to be found, but the women’s version doesn’t have as much loft and warmth as the men’s version.

Recommended

Overall Rating: Recommended

The Ex Light matches our principles exactly. It provides remarkable warmth with minimal weight and is ideal for ultralight backpacking or any cool weather outdoor pursuit in lightweight style. However, the men’s version has over one-third more loft and 25% more warmth than the women’s version – for the same price – so we give it our Highly Recommended rating. The women’s version has more quilting, which apparently reduces the jacket’s loft and warmth, and it arrived with a faulty zipper, so we reduce the rating to Recommended.

About This Rating

M Find other top product reviews »

Print Jump to Reader Comments

by Janet Reichl and Will Rietveld |

Introduction

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 1
The MontBell Ex Light, as the name implies, is their lightest down jacket, with an average weight of 4.7 ounces for the women’s model (left) and 5.7 ounces for the men’s model (right). It’s insulated with 900 fill down, has a very thin 7 denier shell, and does not have any pockets.

MontBell states that the Ex Light Down Jacket is “the ultimate in minimalist design” and it's hard to argue with that. It combines cutting edge materials - 7 denier (0.74 oz/yd2) shell, 900 fill-power down - and minimizes features to create the lightest down jacket to be found. It’s claimed to provide more warmth than a fleece jacket with a fraction of the weight or bulk and is basically targeted to people like us who want a high warmth-to-weight ratio. So what's not to like? Is it truly a gift from heaven?

Description

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 2
Front and rear views of the MontBell Ex Light Down Jacket in women’s size medium.

The outer shell fabric is 7 denier Ballistic Airlight nylon ripstop with a surface DWR finish. This 7 denier fabric weighs just 0.74 oz/syd2 (25 g/m2), which sets a new standard for a lightweight shell fabric. Ballistic Airlight has a very tight weave and is calendered, which is a heat and stretching process similar to tensiling steel. The resulting fabric (according to MontBell) has one-and-a-half times more abrasion resistance and three times more tear strength. Calendering also makes a fabric more downproof. On the downside, calendering reduces the breathability of the fabric somewhat.

While the shell fabric is very thin, it’s also very soft to the touch. It does not snag easily and is not damaged by Velcro. That said, we note that MontBell (on their hangtag) makes a point of saying: “Please be aware that this fabric will NOT fare well if exposed to sharp objects, high abrasion situations, or the occasional campfire spark. Going ultra-light comes with some inherent responsibility.” We commend MontBell for including this very appropriate message, and we fully agree with it.

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 3
The Ex Light has sewn-through construction. The women’s version has a quilted diamond pattern (left), while the men’s version has a rectangular quilted pattern. It has a full-height #3 zipper; the closures at the neck, cuffs, and hem are snug, but not tight.

Insulation is 900 fill-power down, which is the volume that 1 ounce (28 g) of down will expand to (900 cm³/g). This is the highest fill-power down presently available, and of course it is more expensive. The amount of down in a size medium MontBell Ex Light women’s jacket is 1.4 ounces (1.8 ounces in men’s medium). The actual amount of down in the jacket will depend on the jacket size. I measured the jacket’s two-layer (front and back together) loft at 1.25 inches, which means the single-layer loft is 0.6 inch. I held the jacket up to a bright light and observed that the down is uniformly distributed and is held in place by the jacket’s quilting.

Performance

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 4
I tested the Ex Light jacket while summer backpacking in the southern Rockies, while fall camping and hiking in the southern Utah canyon country and while cross-country skiing in the southern Rockies. I wore it as an outerlayer and midlayer in camp, in my sleeping bag, while hiking on cool or windy days and as an outerlayer when cross-country skiing. Temperatures ranged from 20 to 50 F (-7 to 10 C).

I normally wear petite sizing, and it’s always difficult to get a good fit with standard women’s sizing. Size medium usually fits me the best in order to get enough girth at the hips. The women’s medium fits me fairly well: the sleeves are a bit long, but I like the extra length to pull my hands up inside the sleeves. The body has a trim fit, but is not tight. The jacket extends down about six inches below my waist. There is enough room inside the jacket to wear it over a thick baselayer.

One problem I have had with the Ex Light Jacket, from day one, is that the zipper is very difficult to start. Rather than damage the zipper by forcing it, I wore the jacket as a pullover during the entire five-month test period. The problem seems to be a faulty zipper in my case, but it does emphasize the issue that ultralight garments are more fragile.

Another thing I discovered is that the women’s version of the Ex Light Jacket has less loft than the men’s version. As mentioned, the measured double-layer loft of the women’s size medium I tested is 1.25 inches. I measured the loft of my husband’s size large (2008 model) Ex Light Jacket at 2.0 inches. That’s a 37.5% difference! The fill weights are 1.4 ounces for the women’s jacket and 1.8 ounces for the men’s, which seems to be proportional to jacket size. When viewed side by side, men’s jacket is clearly loftier than the women’s. The reduced loft is likely due to the smaller quilting pattern in the women’s version, which may compress the down more. Personally, I would prefer to have a jacket with the loft of the men’s version, and I recommend that women interested in this jacket take a look at the men’s version first to see how well it fits. You will get a loftier jacket for the same price. I imagine however, that some women might prefer the slimmer look of a less lofty jacket.

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 5
To determine if the loft difference between the women’s and men’s versions significantly affects warmth, we conducted a “relative warmth” test (developed by subscriber Richard Nisley, which he posted in the Backpacking Light forums). We inserted a heating pad pre-heated to 105 F (41 C) into each jacket (back side up; room temperature at 60 F/16 C) and measured the surface temperature after one hour with an infrared thermometer (left). The surface temperature of the women’s version averaged 90.3 F (32 C), and the men’s averaged 67.6 F (20 C) (right). That’s a 25% difference, meaning the men’s version is significantly warmer than the women’s version of this jacket.

In my field testing, I did in fact find that the Ex Light provides more warmth than a fleece jacket, with a lot less weight and bulk, as MontBell claims. I wore the jacket as an outerlayer while hiking and carrying a pack on cool and windy days and found it to be very wind-resistant and warm. Abrasion from the shoulder straps of my backpack did not damage the thin shell. I found that it is not easily damaged from brush while hiking or skiing through branches, but I am always careful.

In camp, I wore the Ex Light as a midlayer most of the time. In the cooler temperatures I experienced in camp (33-45 F/1-7 C), I did not find the jacket warm enough by itself, so I normally wore another jacket over the Ex Light and sometimes a shell jacket over that.

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 6
I did not have an opportunity to test the Ex Light Jacket in rain or snow, so I tested it's water-resistance by placing a puddle of water on the shell for an hour (left), then checking for leakage. About half of the water soaked through the seams and collected on a tray inside the jacket (right). The fabric surface wetted out, and the down was wetted inside in the area surrounding the puddle.

I found that the jacket’s DWR finish repels water well, up to a point, but the fabric eventually wets out. Most of the water transmitted went through the seams and not the fabric.

Montbell Ex Light Down Jacket Review - 7
The Ex Light comes with a stuff sack (0.3 ounce) made of the shell fabric, and it is properly sized for the jacket. The drawcord is longer and thicker than it needs to be, but that can easily be changed.

Comparisons

There are no other down jackets available as light as the MontBell Ex Light. The following table compares the Ex Light to the lightest down jackets from other manufacturers. For comparison, the listed specifications are manufacturer data for a men’s size medium (or unisex medium). All jackets have sewn-through construction except the Nunatak Skaha, which is baffled.

Jacket Shell Fabric Fill Power Measured Single-Layer Loft (in) Features Weight (oz)
(men’s medium)
Cost (US$)
MontBell Ex Light Ballistic Airlight
0.73 oz/yd2
900 1.0 Full zip, elastic cuffs and hem 5.7 165
MontBell Down Inner Ballistic Airlight
1.1 oz/yd2
800 0.85 Full zip, two side pockets, elastic cuffs and hem 7.3 150
PHD Ultra Down Pullover MX Microfiber
0.88 oz/yd2
900 1.3 Half zip, reach-through front pocket, zippered security pocket, elastic cuffs and hem 8.0 ~284
Nunatak Skaha Pullover Pertex Quantum
0.8 oz/yd2
850+ 2.0 Half zip, baffled construction, drawcord hem, elastic cuffs 9.0 319
Western Mountaineering Flash Dot-Ripstop Nylon
0.9 oz/yd2
850+ 0.9 Full zip, hood, two side pockets, elastic cuffs and hem 9.0 260

The closest competition is MontBell’s own Down Inner Jacket, which weighs 1.6 ounces more and costs $15 less. The Down Inner Jacket has a more durable 15 denier shell, less lofty 800 fill down, and two hand pockets. A parka version is also available. The Ex Light Jacket is made of cutting-edge materials (900 fill down and 7 denier fabric), and is nearly devoid of features, so you are paying more for the lower weight.

Assessment

The MontBell Ex Light Down Jacket is truly in a class of its own - the lightest down jacket available. Its only close competition is the MontBell Down Inner Jacket and Parka. For hikers wanting hand pockets, the Down Inner Jacket adds them at a modest weight increase, and the Parka version adds a hood.

Nevertheless, I am not totally happy with the lower loft and warmth of the women’s version of this jacket compared to the men’s version. I went down to a local outdoor store and measured the loft of the Ex Lite Jacket there to verify my home measurements and found the same difference. I also compared the men’s and women’s version of the MontBell Down Inner Jacket and found that the women’s jacket has 30% less loft. The women’s version of many lightweight down jackets has more quilting to make it more stylish, and also to give the jacket a lower profile (news flash: women don’t like to look fat, or even puffy). While some readers argue that slightly compressed down insulates better than fully expanded down, the extra quilting on the women’s version of many down jackets seems to go beyond that. Why should men get a loftier/warmer jacket, for the same price? Seems like the reverse ought to be the case! I may be in the minority in my thinking though, because I value warmth more than style.

Overall, I am very impressed with the amount of warmth the Ex Light Jacket provides for its miniscule weight, as well as its versatility. While many down jackets are simply too warm to wear while hiking uphill, the Ex Light is more comfortable on the trail, and it cuts the wind very well. If it gets colder or windier, a shell over it is usually enough.

Specifications and Features

Manufacturer MontBell (http://montbell.us/)
Year/Model 2009 Ex Light Down Jacket
Style Full zip jacket
Fabrics 7 denier Ballistic Airlight 0.74 oz/yd2 (25 g/m2)
Insulation 900 fill-power down
Construction Sewn through with 2.5-in (6-cm) diamond quilting (women’s), 3.25 x 4.25 in (8 x 11 cm) rectangular quilting (men’s)
Loft Measured two-layer loft 1 in (2.5 cm)
Features Down filled stand up collar, full height front #3 YKK zipper with one slider and storm flap under zipper, elastic cuffs, simple sewn hem (not elastic), stuff sack included
Weight
Measured weight, women's medium tested: 4.2 oz (119 g)
Manufacturer specified average weight: women’s 4.7 oz (133 g), men’s 5.7 oz (162 g)
MSRP US$165

Disclosure: The manufacturer provided this product to the author and/or Backpacking Light at no charge, and it is owned by the author/BPL. The author/Backpacking Light has no obligation to review this product to the manufacturer under the terms of this agreement.


Citation

"MontBell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review," by Janet Reichl and Will Rietveld. BackpackingLight.com (ISSN 1537-0364).
http://backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/montbell_ex_light_down_jacket_review.html, 2010-01-19 00:00:00-07.

Print

Reader Comments

You must login to post comments.

New Visitors: Create a new account
Username:
Password:
Remember my login info.

Forum Index » Editor's Roundtable » Montbell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review


Display Avatars
Sort By:
Addie Bedford
(addiebedford) - MLife

Locale: Montana
Montbell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review on 01/19/2010 12:25:46 MST Print View

Companion forum thread to:

Montbell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Montbell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review on 01/19/2010 12:50:34 MST Print View

Interesting observation on the loft, however according to Richard Nisley in a couple of forum posts, the total amount of down per unit area is a better indicator of warmth than the loft. Although I find this difficult to get my head around (he rates the PHD as warmer than the much loftier Skaha on this basis), it may mean there is little loss of warmth due to increased baffling.

I was personally not impressed with the ExLight. The fabric that they tout as revolutionary is only a fraction lighter than the industry standard Pertex Quantum used by the likes of Nunatak in the Skaha. The weight savings are miniscule over their standard UL inner if you take the lack of pockets into account, and I didn't observe the loft difference that is shown in that chart (my partners men's UL down inner is fractionally loftier than the equivalent ExLight that I measured). So IMHO, the ExLight is mainly a marketing exercise, the biggest thing separating it from the UL inner being the pockets. However, if you don't want pockets and don't mind spending an extra $15 to lose them, the ExLight is as light as you will find in a down jacket, and that's important in this family ;)

Brad Fisher
(wufpackfn) - M

Locale: NC/TN/VA Mountains
Re: Re: Montbell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review on 01/19/2010 14:53:58 MST Print View

Good review and good points Lynn. I have the Montbell Ex and like it very much, but your comments are very valid. I found it on sale, so the price difference didn't really come into play. I also double it with my Patagonia Down Sweater on really cold days and it works very good.

Matt Lutz
(citystuckhiker) - F

Locale: Midwest
Re: Montbell Ex Light Women's Down Jacket Review on 01/19/2010 15:39:30 MST Print View

Good job smacking Montbell for making the women's jacket colder than the men's version. The added seams are superfluous and having less down also doesn't make sense.

I tell my scouts at winter camp that I don't care what you look like as long as you're warm. Some giggle, some see the truth in the matter.

Daniel Benthal
(DBthal)

Locale: Mid-Coast Maine
Women's vs Men's on 01/19/2010 15:53:02 MST Print View

I was also surprised at how much less loft my wife's Montbell Alpine Lite had then my men's version.

Still a great jacket, but I want my wife to be WARM!

Dan

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: Women's vs Men's on 01/19/2010 16:02:19 MST Print View

You're dealing with a Japanese company and Japanese women are considerably more adamant about their clothing being form-fitting and as slim as possible. Japanese women in general will not buy bulky clothing. MontBell is just catering to their demands. MontBell is also divided between two branches, the trendier "MontBell", and the more technical "Zero-Point" line, in which women's clothing is spec'ed the same as men's.

PS. Japanese women in general are much colder than western women (anemia is very high in Japan) so it would make sense for them to want warmer clothing, but visit any Japanese outdoor store and the women's clothing is always much slimmer and thinner than men's. They do tend to do lots of layering with thin layers (which actually makes sense. When Mallory's body was found on Everest a few years ago they found that his clothing was much less bulky than modern counterparts, consisting of many thin layers, and actually much easier to move in. Researchers have found that his clothing was perfectly appropriate for Himalayan climbing).

PPS. If women and men outside of Japan want to have more of certain types of clothing from MontBell perhaps I can suggest what Japanese, men and women, are always forced to do with popular US and European brands here that invariably don't fit them very well: officially contact the company in question and work with them and distributors to develop clothing and shelters specifically designed for your needs. Fifteen years ago Marmot, The North Face, Patagonia, Mountain Hardwear, Aigle, Haglofs, Scarpa, Zamberlan, Lowa, Jack Wolfskin, Fjell Raven, etc. were impossible to find in Japanese sizes and Japanese outdoor enthusiasts were very frustrated with the lack of choices. So they worked for a long time to develop models that fit the Japanese sizes. Now I have problems finding pants and shirts that fit me, but Japanese are buying those brands in record numbers!

Japanese being Japanese I'm pretty sure that MontBell would be more than willing to work with the US market and customers (after all they specifically designed and built certain shelters that are only available outside Japan) in developing clothing for that market. I don't think these online reviews are going to make much of an impact in changing MontBell's design plans, since Japanese are much more respondent to workable solutions and direct correspondence than public criticism. And you have to remember that in the mid-90's, when MontBell first tried to enter the US market, they were severely burned by a number of US distributors who made big orders and then didn't pay for them. MontBell had to close its stores in the US and start again. So they certainly don't trust Americans yet. Until that trust is firmly reestablished probably they are going to be very careful before putting out lots of designs that won't sell in Japan.

(Yes, I've been using MontBell product for a long, long time (since 1977), have used a LOT of them, and no, I'm completely unaffiliated with them)

Edited by butuki on 01/20/2010 05:00:04 MST.

Mark McLauchlin
(markmclauchlin) - MLife

Locale: Western Australia
Re: Re: Women's vs Men's on 01/20/2010 01:05:14 MST Print View

Thanks team for the review. I have been putting off my purchase until this was done.

Cheers

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Women's vs Men's on 01/20/2010 12:35:58 MST Print View

I would not jump to the conclusion that the women's jacket isn't as warm as the men's, it just has less loft. Richard Nisely often reminds us that it's the total down fill per unit of area that determines warmth. A women's size M is substantially smaller than a men's size M, so it may be that, per square inch, the women's is still warm, but I would still be concerned about all that extra sewn-through stitching.

I think Montbell USA has a pretty good grip on their markets. After all, almost no one noticed when they pulled a slight of hand and took the world's lightest jacket (the origianl UL down inner with snaps and no pockets), and listened to customer comments asking for a zipper and pockets. The people got what they asked for, and seemingly without any weight penalty...until you realised that there was definitely a weight penalty, but they up-sized everything so what was previously a size M, was now called a size L, but weighed the same as the old size L (which was now called a size XL).

Of course, this gave them the opportunity to redesign the new jacket, to lose the pockets and make it look lighter once again, and market it as something revolutionary in the UL world! very cunning indeed.

Madeleine Landis
(yurtie) - MLife

Locale: Central Oregon
consider the women's UL Thermawrap jacket on 01/20/2010 12:55:56 MST Print View

I hope this isn't off topic but it is related. I got a Montbell UL Thermawrap jacket last summer (usually wear S but needed a M) and wore it 21 days straight right off the shelf; slept in it, hung out in it, hiked in it when cold, which it was at 11,000'+. It was incredible. So light & thin yet quite warm-- I think because it breaks the wind. It was way nicer than the cashmere sweater I used to take for my middle layer. With a Patagonia thin wool 2 t-neck, it is 'the bomb' & has become my go-to jacket for yoga and around the house too. I also love the deep pockets & total close form fit around lower torso, hips and arms down to wrists. It has little stretch panels that work like darts in those 2 areas, so no bunching. Durability seems good for seeming so fragile, & I wash on delicate in front loader, hang to dry, which it does pretty fast. The only thing I would improve is make the neck opening smaller as it gaps. I may take in a tuck or bring a silk chiffon scarf to solve that.
Have been lusting for the down jacket too, tho would miss the pockets. Would be interesting to compare the warmth of it to the Thermawrap. Do you think I'd need a M in the down jacket too? Thanks for the review

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Women's vs Men's on 01/20/2010 17:24:37 MST Print View

"I would not jump to the conclusion that the women's jacket isn't as warm as the men's, it just has less loft."

I dunno, Lynn. The results of the relative warmth test seem pretty convincing to me.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Women's vs Men's on 01/20/2010 17:48:13 MST Print View

"The results of the relative warmth test seem pretty convincing to me."

Where were those results? I must have missed them.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Women's vs Men's on 01/20/2010 18:27:30 MST Print View

"Where were those results? I must have missed them."

Toward the beginning of the "Performance" section.

James Klein
(jnklein21) - M

Locale: Southeast
Relative Warmth Test on 01/21/2010 05:50:14 MST Print View

I would be interested in seeing more detail on how this test was preformed. The temp. differential measured accross the men's jkt (thru its thickness) was ~37degF and the womens was ~15degF. This indicates the thermal resistance of the mens ver. is more than double that of the womens (~2.5X). I would doubt if there is that much difference in warmth btw. the two.

Richard Nisley
(richard295) - M

Locale: San Francisco Bay Area
Calendering vs Tinseling on 01/21/2010 12:04:15 MST Print View

Calendering vs Tinseling

This review states, “Ballistic Airlight has a very tight weave and is calendered, which is a heat and stretching process similar to tinseling steel. The resulting fabric (according to MontBell) has one-and-a-half times more abrasion resistance and three times more tear strength. Calendering also makes a fabric more downproof. On the downside, calendering reduces the breathability of the fabric somewhat.” Calendering and tinseling descriptions were mixed up in this review.

Calendering

Calendering is a finishing process applied to fabrics. During calendering, the woven fabric is passed between several pairs of heated rollers, to give one or two shiny flat surfaces. This generally improves the fabrics down proof-ness and wind resistance at the expense of breathability.

Tinseling

Tinseling is a fiber-melt spinning and tensioning process that improves the tenacity of the fibers. The definition of tenacity denotes the strength of a yarn or a filament of given size. Numerically it is the breaking force in grams per denier unit of yarn or filament size (grams per denier, gpd). For testing, the yarn is usually pulled at the rate of 12 inches per minute. Tenacity equals breaking strength (grams) divided by denier. It is generally synonymous to ultimate tensile strength.

Nylon fibers are commonly manufactured in the range of approximate breaking tenacity (g/Denier) of 3 to 9.5. The spinning rates for fibers run from about 1000 m/min up to a maximum of 6000 m/min for fully molecular oriented fibers such as the Montbell ballistic nylons. The technology also uses highly polymerized nylon to which an additional component is added to prevent decomposition and degradation of the polymer by stabilizing its molecular structure. The required very high rate of spinning, in combination with the extremely small denier, results in technical challenges that are very difficult to overcome.

BPL Testing Opportunity

The insulation weight only accounts for approximately 20 to 50% of the total weight of a garment. Low denier fabrics result in low weight garments that are of primary interest to UL backpackers. There is more than a 300% difference in the tenacity range for the same fabric weight from different sources. The tenacity of the fabrics used in a reviewed garment or bag should be tested by BPL, or at minimum, reported in the reviews. This would allow the readers to better gauge the probable long term durability of reviewed products.

Edited by richard295 on 01/21/2010 12:25:32 MST.

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Relative Warmth Test on 01/21/2010 12:42:20 MST Print View

""Where were those results? I must have missed them."

Toward the beginning of the "Performance" section."

Thanks Tom. Wow. That is an unacceptable difference. Thanks goodness we only have the men's (UL inner) version in our household.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Relative Warmth Test on 01/21/2010 18:24:05 MST Print View

"Thanks goodness we only have the men's (UL inner) version in our household."

Ya see! Men are good for something, after all. No men, no men's version. ;}

Lynn Tramper
(retropump) - F

Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Re: Re: Re: Relative Warmth Test on 01/21/2010 18:34:50 MST Print View

"Ya see! Men are good for something, after all. No men, no men's version. ;}"

I feel my whole world has shifted under my feet. I finally have to admit men ARE good for something :-0

James Klein
(jnklein21) - M

Locale: Southeast
relative warmth test on 01/22/2010 07:41:50 MST Print View

I don't want to sound like a broken record here but...

I sincerely doubt the results of the relative warmth test are valid. The test results indicate that the men's version is ~250% warmer than the women's - not 25% as stated in this review.

If we believe Montbell's specs I can't imagine this much of a difference btw the two:
A women's version medium has 1.4gr fill; the men's medium is about 1.8 - both 900fp.
Looking at the sizing charts the men's medium appears to cover ~10-20% more surface area than the women's medium - so the amount of down spread out per unit area is about the same (ie the uncompressed thickness of each should be comparable).
Yes the women's version has more chambers - meaning more compression but that probably won't matter terribly much (as Richard has pointed out many times).
Will all of this it appears: an appropriately sized women's version may be just slightly less warm than a men's version (it would probably also be slightly lighter). Let's say, with appropriate supplemental garments, the men's medium is capable of keeping me comfortably warm down to 45degF. I would wager the women's large would keep me equally warm at 48degF. Now, if I am to believe the results of the test: in the same scenario the women's large would probably only keep comfortable to about 60degF

Edited by jnklein21 on 01/22/2010 13:44:09 MST.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Relative Warmth Test on 01/22/2010 17:40:58 MST Print View

"I finally have to admit men ARE good for something :-0"

Now, now, Lynn; Let's not go overboard. Let the tectonic plates beneath your feet stabilize before jumping to hasty conclusions. ;}

Sally Ranzau
(sallylou)

Locale: Northwest
great jacket!!! on 01/23/2010 09:00:42 MST Print View

I have hiked and backpacked since last August with my Montbell Womens Ex Light jacket. It is one of the best pieces of equipment in my pack! Have used it in rain/snow storms under a North Face HyVent DT anorak rain shell; on top of Tiffany Mtn in cold winds (wind resistants is good); as a warmup jacket during lunch breaks. The jacket is always in my pack, weighs nothing, loft pops back.
Highly recommended by this avid Northwest outdoors woman.Dinner on Cutthroat Ridge