Treated Vs. Untreated Down Submersion Test

Brad@Argali

WKR
Rokslide Sponsor
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Messages
554
Location
Idaho
I hope this video surprises you all as much as it surprised me. This isn't a scientific study, but the fact that untreated down performed better than treated down when submerged in water wasn't something I expected to happen. And to make it even more interesting, treated down took longer to dry out. And yes, we could have submerged the down samples for longer and perhaps seen different results. I'll leave future tests to other people.

When we were devleoping our sleeping bag, I decided I was tired of being told by other brands/people etc. how treated and untreated down would perform against each other in water and decided to do my own homework. IMO, this confirmed my suspicions that most of the hype around treated down is largely bogus when you think about real world application.

 
Im not sold on the treated stuff. I know it took an aweful lot of effort and time to dry out my treated Stone bag when condensation from my tent touching it wetted it out. The footbox wetted out in one night, leaving me screwed when my tipi (w/ stove) sagged onto it while raining. The stove couldnt seem to dry it out even after hours of effort but a couple boiling hot nalgenes stuffed into it every few hours helped a lot. Switching to synthetic insulation and dyneema. Oregon Coast...
 
Thanks for sharing your result.

There’s a bunch of water jar and other “tests” on YouTube claiming/showing that submerged treated down demonstrates more loft than untreated down after being subjected to water too.

Do you think they are using inferior untreated down to offer biased results? Is there a simpler explanation for why their tests run opposite of yours?
 
Thanks for sharing your result.

There’s a bunch of water jar and other “tests” on YouTube claiming/showing that submerged treated down demonstrates more loft than untreated down after being subjected to water too.

Do you think they are using inferior untreated down to offer biased results? Is there a simpler explanation for why their tests run opposite of yours?
Not knowing what those testers are doing it's hard to say for sure. My guess would be that they are not using a premium quality down.

How untreated down is cleaned has an huge impact on whether or not the natural oils are stripped during the process. Goose down is a byproduct of the goose meat market, so you can imagine processing it requires a fair bit of clean up. If you're buying cheaper down not processed correctly, it will very likely be stripped of a lot of the natural oils that make it highly water resistant. Most of the down in the outdoor market comes from China and who knows how it is processed. I can only speak to our down and our testing with any knowledge.
 
There’s a reason companies like western mountaneering continue to use the untreated down they’ve been using.

They’ve been experimenting with treated down for over a decade now and haven’t found a benefit to switching.
Years ago I bought a quilt from UGQ and they were not offering treated down anymore for the same reason.
1741367194363.png
 
I haven't read all the studies and I am guessing most are skewed to prove a point on one side or the other. I own a western mountaineering kodiak and love it. Their fabrics are great, attention to detail in production is amazing.

I also own a katabatic quilt with treated down. I bought it for a 2023 moose hunt. It is treated down and it was the first year they were running ExpeDry as their down treatment. I know when in Alaska, we had a tent leak issue that during a night of driving rain, resulted in me waking up soaked. In the middle of the night, I put up a tarp to cut off the water, put on my synthetic puffy and went back to sleep. I woke up with me and the quilt completely dry.

A few weeks back the owner of outdoor vitals was on the hunt back country podcast and he was asked about changes in the clothing and gear industry, good and bad. He said buy rain gear, because the alternatives in membrane and treatment that will meet new regulations are not nearly as effective. The good was ExpeDry, this was the best treatment for down he had seen and is a game changer for down garments and gear.

I know it worked perfectly in my situation, time will tell if it effects longevity of the product.
 
One “benefit” of treated down is it artificially inflates the fill-power. Ie “650 fill power” down, after treatment will actually test to 750…only problem is it doesnt provide any better insulation. So as a consumer we get fooled into thinking its better quality down than it really is. But as a manufacturer you can charge more for an inferior product as far as insulating value is concerned. My example of 650>>750 is just a made-up increase, I dont recall what the actual numbers were but the increase was significant when we tested it where I used to work. Thats one major reason why a lot of companies pushed it.
 
I have spent hundreds of nights in a WM Badger in very wet environments in North Idaho and have never had an issue with untreated down.
 
Back
Top