I'm seeking a UL down jacket that has a hood, has atleast 3 oz of 800 to 900 down, and a waterproof breathable shell that weighs under 10 ounces. Do any of the UL down jackets have actual built in weather shells? I inherited some money and my treat my be a new jacket to replace my 30 year old LLBean jacket that weighs 25 ounces.

I have't bought a major new piece of gear in ten years, except my camera.
Jim

If you want a hood, then you are looking at a parka and not a jacket. The two best on the market, IMHO, are Montbell's Alpine and Inner. The former weighs in at 14.2oz but as a fill weight of 4.2oz. The latter is under 10oz, but only has 2.5oz of fill. Both have DWR treatment.

I don't think you are going to find down anything that is waterproof.

You could look at the nunatak Shaka plus, 10oz, 3-4 oz of fill in Pertex Quantum (DWR). Lotsa money
http://www.nunatakusa.com/site07/garments/skaha_plus_muf.htm
or the WM Flash XR , 11oz, 3.5 fill, "water resistant'. This one has a full front zip.
http://www.westernmountaineering.com/ind...ckets-and-Vests
Franco

Western Mountaineering Flash series is what jumped into my head when i read Jim's post. I don't have any personal experience with the WM jackets, but a friend of mine is a big fan of all of their products.

I just got a Flash XR, and like it. It didn't arrive in time to take out and try in the cold weather, though (stupid backorders! )

The adjustable hood is a really nice touch. It's well made, and I'm looking forward to next winter, so I can give it a try.

I just ordered a Montbell Alpine light down parka for $175 w free shipping. Theres a lot of jackets on sale now and a lot of stores with 40% off winter clothes. I have other montbell items and they are all VERY nicely made, and light.
Jim

Jim, please let us know how you like it! I was eyeing one, but decided I've spent enough $ on gear for the time being. Also, I prefer the two thinner layers I have now to one thick one so I can "thermoregulate" better (how's that for a technical term?)

I love my alpine light jacket. With appropriate other layers, I have been comfortable from 10F to 50F in it.

I got the montebell alpine light with hood in size large. Its nice and weighs 13.5 oz. It is half as thick [read - half as warm] as my 30 year old LLBean down jacket that weighs 25 ounces except the Bean jacket has an insulated flap over the zipper, the Montebell does not. So for half the weight in 800 down I got half the jacket made of 550 down. Sort of funny huh?

I will still wear the old jacket in winter but the new jacket is a nice layering piece thin enough to go under most of my shells, and is probably enough jacket to carry as a ski warm up to put on over a fleece ski jacket and under a packlite shell.

So anyway here's a moral - if you want a down coat, you will not get one for 13.5 ounces no matter what its stuffed with. You need at least 5-6 ounces of 850 down to make a "coat" vs a layering piece.
Jim

Jim, my experience with the alpine light jacket is that it is warmer than I expect. I have a 16 year old Climb High jacket and hood that weighs 23oz. Although the Montbell is not quite as warm as the Climb High it is much warmer than half as warm (that's a convoluted mouth full) as only weighs 11oz.

I agree, weight does not equal warmth. Perhaps Jim should reconsider,or retest. ;-)

I am replying to my own post so that no one will feel challenged or threatened. My wife wore the jacket today and said gee its not very warm and it obviously doesn't have enough down in it. (Its too thin), Thickness Does equal warmth in any similar insulation and under stuffed does not equal warmth regardless of the down used. How warm this jacket is, is not a theoretical consideration, its obvious from going outside in the cold. (I live in Oregon)

Many people are so hung up with weight (or lack) of it, that they ignore it if a jacket isn't warm, as long as it fits their ultralight reality. I don't need to reconsider that this is only barely a sweater, whereas my ancient 550 (650??)down 25 ounce "coat" with a flap over the zipper is actually MUCH warmer. It would actually take 2 of these to be as warm as my old TNF coat, and that would actually weigh more.

How is this possible - gasp sputter, because both jackets have a double shell which is most of the weight in the new UL jacket and maybe half of the weight in the old jacket. just as an approximation, say 4 oz down in the new 14.9 oz jacket, and means the shell of the new jacket weighs 11 oz, say the old jacket shell weighs a pound, then it has 9 ounces of 550 down. 9x550 =4950, 4x 850 =3400, so you would think that the 850 would be warmer but its not, and this only proves my much earlier statement - "under-stuffed high down garments are not nearly as lofty or warm as people think". Or maybe the old jacket is 650 down, in which case 9x650 = 5850.

It would take another 3-4 ounces of down to make this jacket anywhere as warm as my old coat and then it would weigh 18 to 19 ounces. Which would mean an real reduction of 19/25 (24%) fo super down and modern gossamer fabrics, over 30 year old down technology. If I considered the zipper flap and snaps, it would be more like 21%, or 79% as heavy for the same warmth. Not enough savings to justify the money. BUT it does say a LOT about the hyped value of "modern down".
Jim

So, Jim, how often have we heard you say "function over weight"? We tried to tell you: Western Mountaineering Flash.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. But I agree fully, having done the light-must-be-right thing for a while, learning the hard way that the correct mantra is "the lightest fully-functional piece of gear is right." I made it to a 12 pound base weight, for one trip - insufficient comfort, and I slept cold, but at least that barely-warm meal was skimpy.

So, I overreacted, buying gear that was mostly functional, but heavy - and went to an 18 pound base weight. Now I'm back to a 15 pound base weight, but that's just an accident. I chose the right gear this time, comparing several functional pieces and choosing the lightest piece that still gets the job done. And, since getting there, I've laughed at rain, hiked longer days, ate better, and slept warm every trip.

Actually, the Flash jacket might not even be warm enough for your needs; I think we all misunderstood at first what you were looking for. I find the Flash to be a bit warmer than my Patagonia down sweater, but it's still not something I'd rely on for all my insulation in seriously sub-freezing temperatures. (However, if I layer my Flash vest under it, I might give it a try.)

I didn't really look hard at it when I was looking (I just wanted a sweater-weight piece), but the WM Flight looked like it might be a warmer piece.

Think !

We and the industry have gone through a lot to get to where we are in sleeping bag ratings for warmth.

There is nothing currently comparable for jackets/parkas/pants/vests. Admittedly, because of the dramatic variable of exercise/metabolism and the generation of substantial and variable body heat such a standard will be harder to achieve than the one for sleeping bags.

So, you are complaining that without realistic clothing ratings you bought something you are unhappy with.

Perhaps you should take some responsibility for buying in such an unregulated market, because you were subject to such hype.

There will be no end to this (and your complaining) unless two things happen.

1) we lobby for objective and scientific standards for rating cold weather outdoor clothing to eliminate the consumer risk of life and limb from false representation by manufacturers and retailers.

2) we educate ourselves better in the science/technology of warmth of warmth and comfort. in this way, we will be able to better avoid the shortcomings of the likely limited consumer protection of regulated warmth ratings that will eventually be created.

You will perhaps notice that the great majority of down goods sold utilize a higher percentage of feathers than are contained in the 850+ cu. in. high loft expensive goods widely promoted.

In other words, we need to understand the contribution of feathers to practical down/feather blends in outdoor clothing.

Lets face it. The USA is one of the least scientifically literate advanced societies. The consequences of this show up in situations like what you have experienced.

Rocketman
For once I have to agree with you. The lack of valid standards for comparison combined with the desire for lighter gear leaves a void. But this is the topic of my post, which if you read between the lines is this "HAS THE DESIRE FOR LIGHTER AND LIGHTER PRODUCTS WITHOUT SOLID BASIS OF COMPARISON DRIVEN THE MARKET TO PRODUCE INFERIOR PRODUCTS?" or if the term inferior is unacceptable, then "products which have been designed with more consideration of weight based marketing than function?"
Jim

Thnanks

These are two very different thesies statements.

Firstly, I am very confident that testing has been done on weight to warmth ratios of the most popular garments. There has been very few reviews of a Montbell down jacket not being warm enough-- the complaints were manly aimed at the Therma-wrap (a synthetic jacket). Obviously I cannot speak for everyone, but I do own a Montbell inner and it has kept ME warm to +28 degrees with a Cap 3 baselayer-- I don't expect much more for a three-season down jacket.

I guess that the majority of the BPL forum just freeze to death with the same jackets.

So your story and my story differ. I guess without real lab testing, this is an argument that will go on forever based upon *indivdual* results. So once again, I ask you to remain un-biased, because from my research you are in the minority and it is you who is the anomaly. So what I am to make of that; should I jump to the same extreme conclusions as you?

Your second question is regarding weight verses function. There is no doubt that to acheive lighter weights some function needs to be sacraficed; but I pose you the question that if a garmet keeps you warm to its expected tempreture, then what more function do you need? I purchase a down jacket because it keeps me warm, not for that nice napolean pocket or velcro closures.

That's pretty funny and I can completely relate to that experience.

And I think it perfectly makes the point of what happens when you let marketing hype influence your decisions.

But it's hard not to let that happen, especially with "New Technology".



That doesn't mean much to me. I think that complaints are relative to the status of the brand and price of the product. People are less likely to complain about a product that they believe invites the envy of their acquaintances, or one that they paid a premium for. I have witnessed this too many times to ignore it.

Remember Perrier Water? In the 1970's People bought it with their lunch at restaurants but never drank it. It was trendy.

Reviews are biased and based in large part on marketing hype, trends, and brand status, so they do not reflect real user opinions (No one would admit Perrier Water actually tasted awful).

And the opinions of the inexperienced cannot possibly be weighted the same as highly experienced users of the same product.

Considering that he has products from the same company, and a long history of using them, I believe he has a valuable context to compare both the products and they way were marketed to their real world performance that few of the reviewers you read could have, and to be fair, you must consider your own experience in comparison too.

I trust Jim to cast petty influences aside and relate an accurate evaluation of a product and how it performed as compared to its marketing claims and his expectations based on them. Before I dismissed what he said, I'd first re-evaluate my own opinion to see if I was mistaken, even a little, about some of my conclusions.

Bill

I think you are all chasing an illusion. There are as many measures of "warmth" or "quality" or "adequacy" as there are people. You can "standardize" the product measures, but cannot standardize people.

All reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt. It is meaningless to say the jacket was warm to 28 degrees. What humidity? What wind? Sitting for 5 minutes? Standing for 20 minutes? Walking? Daytime with sun shining, nighttime pee? Did you put it on when you were warm? Did you put it on after you got chilled? Were you sitting on cold ground or on a warm pad? And on and on..

I want honesty - good photos, statistics and details - pounds of fill, construction details, weight +/- standard deviation for smallest to largest size, exact source of down, exactly what materials are used, detailed photos of all features, loft measured at key locations, how many and where are the sewn-through seams, etc. Then I can make up my own mind whether to buy or not.

Honesty in marketing has definitely gone out the window the last decade or so. Buyer beware.

Daisy
you hit the nail love. Seems there are only 2 statistics given, down fill rating (bogus) and total weight....? Weight for what? Insulation or shell? Besides that you might learn whether the shell is "water proof?", but they won't say "our shell is under stuffed to save production cost of expensive fill and to make it 1/2 ounce lighter than the competitor so you'll buy it because we know you don't really care about junk like loft and stuff."

For my own usage, a down jacket is for when I stop the aerobic activity of getting to camp, and intend to kick back in the evening sitting on a foam pad with no campfire, and I expect that down garment (and my down pants) to provide all of the insulation required to keep me warm. OR for if I break a leg and the down jacket is all I have, I don't get hypothermia. IT does not mean - "Its sorta warm worn with a bunch of other stuff that probably weighs more than my 30 year old down coat."
Jim

I have a question (probably dumb...but I'm new) regarding down jackets vs synthetics: Do the synthetics lose their warmth and insulation after a few years like I have heard about synthetic sleeping bags? I know there is a big debate between people about whether to get a down or synthetic sleeping bag and I was wondering if the same was true for jackets. I went with a down bag based on what I have read as far as down lasting many years longer and the fact that your bag should not really get wet (the synthetics only other advantage over price). Jackets however seem much more likely to get wet so i am wondering if that tips the scales toward synthetics.
I have been looking at the Montbell Alpine light that has been mentioned but I am wondering if there are other jackets that I should consider.
My main focus is a jacket that I can wear at camp during the night and in the morning when the temps are in the low to mid 40's, but also will be comfortable in the breezy 50's and 60's (I will be camping in the VA area mostly with a trip to NM/AZ this summer). I believe Thecook mentioned he was comfortable from 10-50 degrees and I am wondering if others agreed (and yes I know this will vary, but I am looking for everyones thoughts as a collective which will give me a better idea of how it will function). I dont really want a super heavy winter jacket or parka with a hood, instead I am looking for more of a fall (early winter) type jacket that I can use for temps around 38 to 60.
Thanks
PS What is DWR? Someone here mentioned it, and it was mentioned on the one of the reviews for this jacket on backcountry. I am guessing it has something to do with water resistance (perhaps "down" water resistance?), but am not 100%. From the review it sounded like it could be applied to the jacket to help with water resistance...is this possible? Is adding a water resistance chemical to a down jacket recommended?
PPS I am 5"9 150 and tend to run cold.

I haven't noticed a significant loss of loft in my synthetic jackets. Can't say the same for my sleeping bags. The only real advantage I see in down for a jacket it that it's lighter for the same warmth, or to put it another way, warmer for the same weight. And the really light down jackets have to be sewn through more than synthetic to keep the down in place, a possible disadvantage.

I use a thick down jacket when it's really cold because an equivalent synthetic one would be much heavier, and I use a thin down jacket (Montbell) when I'm counting ounces and rain is not expected. When it's really cold I don't count ounces.

For the temp range you're looking at, my suggestion would a fairly light outer jacket like the Montbell Thermawrap, used with another layer you can remove to cover the whole temp range. That gives you more versatility.

I have never owned a synthetic jacket so can't speak from experience, but logically, the same conclusion can be drawn.



Not really. In colder temperatures then a down jacket is preferable because of the weight to warmth ratio. For temps in the low 20s and up, then it is the same old debate.



It doesn't matter, wet down or wet synthetic still won't keep you warm. However, I don't know about you, but when it rains, I put on a rain jacket or my windshirt.



For temps around +38 to +60, then there is no need to torture yourself over down verses synthetic-- there are great options for both.

-Montbell Thermawarp
-Montbell UL Inner Down (probably overkill above +45/+50)
-Eddie Bauer's Down sweater (Heavier than the above, but the price is great-- plus they have 10% off this Saturday)
- If you have money to burn then Feathered Friend's also have excellent lightweight, but they will set you back $200+
-Patagonia also has a down sweater and the NanoPuff

Personally, for three-season Colorado I use Montbell's UL Inner and combined with a Capilene 3 I can be comfortable to the mid/upper 20s. Which is fine for my location.

Winter is a different ball-game.



DWR stands for: Durable Water Repellent and "repellent" is the key word, don't confuse with "resistant"