Is anybody on here up on their waterproofing and breathability specifications?

Olydog09

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
241
Location
Spokane, Wa
I see some manufacturter's (usually higher end suppliers) listing waterproof and breathability specs. Does anybody know how big a difference there is between the numbers?

As an example the Kuiu Chugach has specs listed as: 20,000mm/24hr/40,000g/m2/24h

And the FirstLite Boundary has specs of: Completely waterproof (20,000mm) and unsurpassed breathability (30,000 MVTR)
Compact and lightweight


The Core4Element Torrent is listed at: 15,000 mm waterproof (highest)
15,000 mm breathable (highest)


I notice Kuiu listed 24hours in their specs and C4E listed (highest). I am guessing that would make the Kuiu better as it held a higher rating for a 24Hr period while the Torrent by C4E was notating their rating was at the highest point?

I am just trying to understand what these ratings mean and how they are achieved and how much of a difference these ratings make to be able to differentiate between the quality of the products vs the cost of the products.

If any of you are up to speed please enlighten. i will be researching this online and will add what I find. Thanks
 
The biggest problem with those ratings is the actual testing methods are standardized. And some companies test before printing some afterwards so there's a lot of info to wade through....

Mike
 
They mean nothing...

The results of field experience is what matters.

There's a lot of truth to that!

I'm fortunate enough to see the testing done inside the lab, and as HC mentioned, its not always apples to apples

I don't wanna get in the middle of anything to do with rain gear again, as the last time we had a plant come on Rokslide.

Pit zips breath better than anything:), but there's a difference in materials for sure!

If you have all the rain gear privately tested by a 3rd party, the #'s are much different than what the tag says.

Kenton from first light has researched this pretty heavily as well...maybe he'll chime in.
 
The numbers used for waterproofness and breathability are the outdoor industry's attempt to standardize a test for how well fabrics shed water from the outside and shed sweat from the inside. There is an older link below that explains it pretty well. One of the problems with these tests are that different fabrics and coatings (camouflage patterns) can affect the overall numbers. For instance when we tested our jackets the breathability went down nearly 8k to 31.5k after printing. The laminates are also affected by what fabrics and glues are used. Its kinda up to the company to give the actual numbers, some chose to be conservative while other manufacturers chose to make more generous claims.

http://www.evo.com/waterproof-ratings-and-breathability-guide.aspx
 
Are the claims by First Lite leaning towards conservative, or best case scenario (generous)?
 
Our camo printed shell tested at 31.5K and most of our ads claim 30k and the same shell tested at 22k for water resistance and we advertized 20k.
 
I do know there isn't a good, soft shell, light weight, breathable rainsuit designed for strenuous climbing on the market yet. Hard shells can be loud and hot, Russell L5 Cyclone beads nicely and is silent but could use pit zips...most of the softshells hold water and gain weight.
 
Our camo printed shell tested at 31.5K and most of our ads claim 30k and the same shell tested at 22k for water resistance and we advertized 20k.

Just curious…,

Is your “Dry Earth” color printed like ASAT or other camo options...?

Would the “Dry Earth” have tested out with different results…?

Thanks,

Lou
 
Last edited:
I have to think our dry earth color would test higher than a camo printer version. A similar construction non camo fabric tested at 38k but it was not exactly the same so i cant say for sure. We figured we would go with the lowest number. The jackets are available in ASAT, Max-1, and Xtra.
 
Back
Top