Cart
Editor's Note: This article was opened to the public on July 22, 2010. To subscribe and see Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2010 articles as they are published, click here.
Will Rietveld and Todd Walton inspect Rab's newly revised line of sleeping bags
UK-based Rab showed their improved Neutrino series of sleeping bags at Outdoor Retailer. Featuring Pertex Quantum shell and liner fabric, 800+ fill power down, and half- to three-quarter-length #5 YKK zippers, the new line of bags is available in six gender-specific mummy styles as well as a top-bag.
The Neutrino mummy bag is available in the following variants:
| Name | Fill Weight | (Claimed) Total Weight | (Claimed) Temperature Rating | MSRP |
| Neutrino 200 | 200g | 650g | 43F | $250 |
| Neutrino 400 | 400g | 850g | 28F | $310 |
| Neutrino 400XL | 450g | 900g | 28F | $360 |
| Women's Neutrino 400 | 400g | 850g | 28F | $310 |
| Neutrino 600 | 600g | 1050g | 14F | $420 |
| Women's Neutrino 600 | 600g | 1050g | 14F | $420 |
In addition to these mummy-style Neutrino bags, Rab changed their Neutrino SL top bag. The Neutrino SL features 800+ fill power down on the top and hood, combined with 100 g Primaloft Sport insulation on the base of the lower legs - presumably to improve warmth in that area where the insulation is compressed by the user's legs. The bottom of the torso area has no insulation and is designed instead to fasten to a sleeping pad with an integrated pad sleeve. The Neutrino SL features 200 g of fill, an overall claimed weight of 600 g, and a 32F temperature rating for an MSRP of $240.
Reader Comments
You must login to post comments.
Forum Index » Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2009 » Rab Neutrino Sleeping Bags (Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2009)
(addiebedford) - BPL Staff - MLife
Locale: Montana
Companion forum thread to:
Rab Neutrino Sleeping Bags (Outdoor Retailer Summer Market 2009)
(MichaelRedbeard)
Why can't they just say that the Neutrino 200 is 1lb 4ozs 31.25grams. Hell why not just say 1lb 5ozs, I mean its .75 grams shy of an extra full ounce. Ha Ha Ha make us do the math and think that because they are using the gram word that its a light bag (By the way, this criticism is being directed towards the company not the reviewer from backpackinglight.)
(retropump)
Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
Why can't they be consistent in their units of measure? Measuring the weight in grams and the temp rating in degrees F is just plain ugly!!!!!
I disagree that using grams makes them look lighter...would you rather carry 650 units or 1.43 units (1lb 7oz by my calculations)??
(greg23)
Locale: Colorado
Lynn,
1 lb 6.9075 ounces by my calculation...
(retropump)
Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
hmph
Edited by retropump on 07/28/2009 20:52:41 MDT.
(retropump)
Locale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
"1 lb 6.9075 ounces by my calculation..."
I am in the habit of rounding to significant figures, plus my scale only goes down to grams (~1/28th of an ounce), so any units smaller than this are meaningless in my real world.
Either way it's 1.43 lbs....and that's pretty heavy for a +6 celsius bag!!
Edited by retropump on 07/28/2009 20:52:10 MDT.
(awsorensen) - MLife
Locale: South of Forester Pass
Still doesn't work.
It's 28.3495231
So why not round the gram and be that much closer to the real thing then round an ounce which doesn't even equal anything to me other than it is about what I put in my mouth when I take a drink of something.
(MikeMartin) - BPL Staff - MLife
Locale: North Idaho
>> Why can't they be consistent in their units of measure? Measuring the weight in grams and the temp rating in degrees F is just plain ugly!!!!!
Oops. That one is my fault. Rab lists both Celsius and Fahrenheit values for their temp ratings. I should have used their Celsius units to be consistent.
Or...I should have converted their weights to ounces to be consistent with BPL's usual units. (Yes, our "usual units" is another topic for discussion...)
Sorry.
(surnailz)
Locale: White Mountains
I think having both sets of conventions is best for the international nature of BPL's audience. I couldn't care less which one is put first, but having both is a welcome addition for sure...
-jim
(4quietwoods) - MLife
Locale: Michigan
Hmmm. Wonder how they're cut? The 400 is about 30 ounces total, with about 14 ounces of fill. A WM Summerlite is 19 ounces with about 9 ounces of fill and 59" shoulder girth. A WM Megalite is 24 ounces with 12 ounces of fill and 64 inch shoulder girth. My guess is the Rab shell is heavier duty and/or the bags are really wide cut...?
(scfhome) - M
Locale: Chocorua NH, USA
Another "why can't they ...?"
Why can't they make a sleeping bag with the zipper centered over the chest(a full zipper so you can back zip from the foot to ventilate the feet). They used to. So much easier to zip and unzip for a side to side sleeper. It is kind of ridiculous that I had to make my own pattern and sew at length, when I would gladly pay for a finished product. Are there not other side to side sleepers?
(MartinCarpenter) - M
Not sure about this.
Current warmth/weight for their quantum series: 250 fill = 650g, 400 fill = 900g/-3 (C), 600 fill = 1100g /-15 (C). iirc those are meant to be relatively slim cut with quantum inside/out.
Full length zips on the bigger models I think, which does make a big difference to overall weight. Its hard to see how the new ones qualify as a useful upgrade.
In fact their current top end bags use a 96/4 mix with 750+ EU/850+ US so on the face of it they've downgraded the down quality at least a little - if you look at the spec sheets on lighthikers blog the lightests bags in this series seem to be using 90/10 down so the 800+ is presumably US measurements.
Perhaps these aren't meant to be the top end of the new range though? That would make more sense of the down. I guess we'll find out soon enough :)
Edited by MartinCarpenter on 08/01/2009 04:15:08 MDT.