The return of the woolly mammoth

[sardog1]

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?

 

[DougPaul]

My opinion has been similar--polyester works well (perhaps similarly to wool) in dry conditions, but wool works better in damp conditions.

Polyester is lighter, wears better, and stinks more than wool.

The standard clothing for white water paddlers who didn't own a wetsuit used to be wool under rain gear (maybe still is...). I also used to wear wool long-underwear under my wetsuit.

Wool retains is porosity and cushioning even when damp and is still unchallenged for socks.

Doug

 

[sardog1]

Wool is hot at huge Utah outdoor gear trade show

SALT LAKE CITY — Wool instead of synthetic fleece, carbon skis and a spoon-shaped sleeping bag are among the hottest products at the world's largest expo for outdoor equipment and apparel, where vendors are vying for a share of the $289 billion Americans spend every year on outdoor gear, travel and services.

The Outdoor Retailer Winter Market show that runs through Saturday is a merchandise bazaar for a lifestyle of outdoor adventure. Bringing together 1,000 of the world's manufacturers and distributors, it is a showcase for the latest gear and fashions before they hit the mainstream.

One hardware company, Salt Lake City-based Black Diamond, put models on stage late Thursday for its inaugural 24-piece line of jackets and stretch-woven pants. It plans to jump into wool a year from now.

Wool was rubbed out by fleece decades ago, but many exhibitors said it's back without the itch, still warm and quick to dry and it doesn't hold body odors, a big drawback of fleece.

"Natural fibers is where it's at," said Matt Skousen, of Everest Designs. "It's the real deal. Wool has had millions of years to figure itself out."

Wool is hot at huge Utah outdoor gear trade show

 

[Brambor]

I have been back to wool for the past 5 years or more but it important to point out that the most durable wool brands are actually blends of wool and some synthetics. They still work like wool , won't stink but last longer.

 

[peakbagger]

The British learned about the disadvantages of synthetics during the Falklands war. Many injuries were made far worse by having to peal off melting polyester out of wounds. The British military switched back to wool soon after and a few years the surplus market was flooded with british surplus gear.

The major breakthrough with wool in my opinion was the availability of the softer less coarse "merino" wool for base layers. I believe its a combination of genetic improvements with the sheep and the introduction of new processing techniiques but many people who formerly could not use wool now have no issues. Unfortunately the resultant material generally is three to four times the cost of gear made with old coke bottles (polyester fleece).Much as I like wool baselayers, I have found that they are less durable than polyester.

Of course PETA wants everyone to abandon wool and switch to synthetics as they regard the whole wool industry as evil

 

[DougPaul]

it important to point out that the most durable wool brands are actually blends of wool and some synthetics. They still work like wool , won't stink but last longer.

Agreed. If you wear a hole in a blend (eg 15% nylon), it still holds its shape and the hole doesn't grow as fast. Moths also choke on the synthetic fibers.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

The British learned about the disadvantages of synthetics during the Falklands war. Many injuries were made far worse by having to peal off melting polyester out of wounds. The British military switched back to wool soon after and a few years the surplus market was flooded with british surplus gear.

Fighting a war involves dealing with fire and hot objects. Since uncontrolled fires are less of a problem in hiking this is less of an issue for hikers. That said, plastics (polypropylene, polyester, and nylon) melt when heated whereas wool only smolders. (Watch out for sparks from wood fires--they can put holes in your expensive synthetic shells...)

The major breakthrough with wool in my opinion was the availability of the softer less coarse "merino" wool for base layers. I believe its a combination of genetic improvements with the sheep and the introduction of new processing techniiques but many people who formerly could not use wool now have no issues. Unfortunately the resultant material generally is three to four times the cost of gear made with old coke bottles (polyester fleece).Much as I like wool baselayers, I have found that they are less durable than polyester.

I have some (Stil-Long, for those of you with long memories) merino wool (blended with 15% nylon) long underwear bought in 1975 or 1976. It is almost as soft as my modern Smartwool merino wool long underwear. It is still in useable shape and may outlast the modern 100% wool (due to the blend). While there have been some improvements, I don't think they are very big (in terms of the final garment).

I'm more inclined to credit/blame marketing... In the early 70s, the baselayer choice was cotton fishnet, wool fishnet, or (solid) wool. The next "miracle" was polypropylene which was stretchy, somewhat scratchy, stinky, and somewhat delicate. (It wore well, but snagged easily.) Polypropylene was replaced fairly rapidly by polyester (limited stretch, no scratch, stinky, rugged, and easier to care for.) Wool was also the primary form of insulation in the early 70s until it was replaced by polyester fleece.

Polyester has a problem (for the manufacturers...)--it lasts too long. They needed something new (or old enough that many customers won't remember it) to expand their markets. While wool wasn't popular in the mountaineering community, it remained popular in other communities and parts of the world. (See, for instance, http://www.sears.com for a selection of wool long underwear.) Surprise!--wool became the next miracle.

I have had access to both wool and polyester baselayers for over 35 years and sometimes used one, sometimes the other. Each has some advantages and some disadvantages with respect to the other and I chose according to the trip and whim. I could have used either for the majority of trips.

Of course PETA wants everyone to abandon wool and switch to synthetics as they regard the whole wool industry as evil

On the other hand wool is renewable (at least the wool is, I don't know about the chemicals used to treat it) and the sheep are only sheared (not killed) while polyester is made from non-renewable oil.

Doug

 

[jfb]

I've come to think that in wet conditions, wool beats any fiber devised in a lab.

What say you?

Primaloft.

 

[sardog1]

The British learned about the disadvantages of synthetics during the Falklands war. Many injuries were made far worse by having to peal off melting polyester out of wounds.

This is also a concern for those who occasionally ride helicopters to go look for hikers wearing polyester (or cotton ...) I took to wearing only woolen base layers whenever possible (even wore a Nomex suit very occasionally when required to do so). But changing your duds at the LZ back into full backcountry gear was rarely an option, so it was mostly a matter of ignoring the possible bad outcomes. It does affect what I wear on commercial aircraft, however.

 

[DougPaul]

This is also a concern for those who occasionally ride helicopters to go look for hikers wearing polyester (or cotton ...) I took to wearing only woolen base layers whenever possible (even wore a Nomex suit very occasionally when required to do so). But changing your duds at the LZ back into full backcountry gear was rarely an option, so it was mostly a matter of ignoring the possible bad outcomes. It does affect what I wear on commercial aircraft, however.

Makes sense--you might as well bias the outcome in your favor as much as possible. I'll admit that I have worn a wool baselayer on a commercial aircraft.

Someone once spilled boiling water on my legs. I was wearing cotton pants over a wool baselayer and wasn't even close to being burned.

Doug

 

[Jasper]

Personal evidence of wools warmth when really wet. Last winter on a week long hot tenting camping trip on Pine Stream in Northern Maine I fell through the ice up to my stomach. Skin out I had wool. I was initially chilled but soon warmed up and was able to continue and set up camp in comfort. Wool works very well
for me. I am sure the petroleum base products would not have worked as well.

 

[sardog1]

Personal evidence of wools warmth when really wet. Last winter on a week long hot tenting camping trip on Pine Stream in Northern Maine I fell through the ice up to my stomach. Skin out I had wool. I was initially chilled but soon warmed up and was able to continue and set up camp in comfort. Wool works very well
for me. I am sure the petroleum base products would not have worked as well.

+1. I had a similar experience when I went in once up to my armpits. The whole way back to camp I was singing wool's praises.