sardog1
New member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2003
- Messages
- 2,579
- Reaction score
- 231
This sentence from Andrew Skurka's account of gear used on his Alaska-Yukon expedition, "Northern exposure", got me to thinking of my recent devolution back to wool:
"Synthetic fibres may perform better than natural down insulation when damp, but in my experience, synthetics are still cold when they get soaked."
From my six years in the Pacific Northwest, I realized some time ago that synthetics kept me tolerably warm in really wet conditions as long as I was actively moving, but not so much when I stopped for any long period of time. I've come to think that in wet conditions, wool beats any fiber devised in a lab. (Down has its applications in cold dry conditions, and I've deeply appreciated its qualities in AK and MN, but it's rarely useful in the backcountry in New England, IMO.) I'm willing to pay the weight penalty for the other benefits of wool. (You fire users will understand one of those ancillary benefits quite well ...)
What say you?
"Synthetic fibres may perform better than natural down insulation when damp, but in my experience, synthetics are still cold when they get soaked."
From my six years in the Pacific Northwest, I realized some time ago that synthetics kept me tolerably warm in really wet conditions as long as I was actively moving, but not so much when I stopped for any long period of time. I've come to think that in wet conditions, wool beats any fiber devised in a lab. (Down has its applications in cold dry conditions, and I've deeply appreciated its qualities in AK and MN, but it's rarely useful in the backcountry in New England, IMO.) I'm willing to pay the weight penalty for the other benefits of wool. (You fire users will understand one of those ancillary benefits quite well ...)
What say you?