 Poster: A snowHead
|
Hi
I bought a few years ago a nice Millet hardshell jacket with an ePTFE Gore-tex Pro membrane, without knowing that I was contributing to the earth pollution with the "forever chemicals". Never again. I am now interested in the new Gore-tex PFAS-free "ePE" membrane.
A french website gives some performance data from Gearjunkie.com and states that it would be about "as breathable, less waterproof and less windproof than a regular hydrophilic membrane such as Sympatex".
I am not so sure about my new ski jacket ! Has anybody tried one of these new "ePE" jacket ?
Hervé
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
@Chamrousse38, is something like Sympatex any more eco friendly?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
These "hydrophilic" membranes do not use PFAS such as ePTFE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Chamrousse38, don't you mean "hydrophobic"? EDIT - Oh I see. Interesting.
To be honest, I don't think - unless you're skiing in the rain (why would you?) or otherwise heading to wards performance limits that you're ever going to be unhappy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
If you really want to be green, you should use the Millet for as long as possible before replacing it. You've already made the "contribution". Replacing it prematurely is another one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@under a new name, if you are raising kids and you're on holiday and it is raining, you ski in the rain. Makes 'em tougher and I will admit that the vastly lower body count and soft snow made it slightly more tolerable.
However, now that they're up and away, hell no!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Chamrousse38, don't you mean "hydrophobic"? EDIT - Oh I see. Interesting.
To be honest, I don't think - unless you're skiing in the rain (why would you?) or otherwise heading to wards performance limits that you're ever going to be unhappy. |
Well, I do touring ski, and use these jackets for a wide range of activity ranging from hiking to sailing. But I agree with you, we don't need them on the groomed slopes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What’s the point of breathability?
If I go for a run in a 100% breathable technical t-shirt, it’s soaked with sweat at the end.
A cheap decathlon PU shell is 100% water, with no need for DWR treatments, and no forever chemicals. I used a PU shell for a 5-month trip through every climatic zone possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
"I was contributing to the earth pollution"
If you are bothered give up skiing 
Or purchase a new jacket if you want one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| unless you're skiing in the rain (why would you?) |
Why wouldn't you? The only reason I can think of is that your kit is not sufficiently waterproof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
If you really want to be green, you should use the Millet for as long as possible before replacing it. You've already made the "contribution". Replacing it prematurely is another one.
|
This makes sense. If you are forced to buy a "new something" why not buy a less polluting something? Regardless of what your other lifestyle choices mean in terms of the health of the planet. Never let the best be the enemy of the good!
Sometimes being out in the rain, provided one is comfortable, can be enjoyable. But mostly it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
@Chaletbeauroc,
Because it's unpleasant and the rain always finds its way in somehow*? And if it's raining there's a good likelihood the snow is saturated and also unpleasant?
And there are nice things called restaurants?
* I do have proper kit. It's not a kit failure, as such.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Chamrousse38 wrote: |
Hi
I bought a few years ago a nice Millet hardshell jacket with an ePTFE Gore-tex Pro membrane, without knowing that I was contributing to the earth pollution with the "forever chemicals". Never again. I am now interested in the new Gore-tex PFAS-free "ePE" membrane.
A french website gives some performance data from Gearjunkie.com and states that it would be about "as breathable, less waterproof and less windproof than a regular hydrophilic membrane such as Sympatex".
I am not so sure about my new ski jacket ! Has anybody tried one of these new "ePE" jacket ?
Hervé |
WIithout sidetracking this conversation too much, no one has explained how ePTFE is a danger to humans or the environment. Among its many interesting properties is that it is very resilient to chemical, physical, electrical, thermal and radiation damage. This means it is very long-lived. This is a very attractive feature in durable goods applications. It is also a problem if you are going to dump those goods in the environment (although I still make the point - there is no evidence that the substance is harmful - it's stability to breakdown means it simply won't react with the environment. One of the reasons similar polymers are used in medical devices!!!).
But I'm certain the environmentally conscious outdoors folks like us wouldn't be just dumping our old shell jackets. We'd be disposing of them properly. No?
To be clear, this is a very different situation to the (much smaller molecule) PFAS chemicals used in DWR coatings, ski wax and other things. Those are quite nasty and are in the process of being phased out.
Now what I've said is true but may not stop a rather unscientific campaign to ban ePTFE (and PVDF etc) from being successful. So we are probably going to replace out current goretex jackets with something a bit less effective in future. Which is a good reason to look after and extend the life of your current one!
It's a bit more of a problem for something like PVDF. Thin layers of this are critical to the performance of EV batteries and semiconductors. Both industries are screaming about the EU's attempt to ban the material. Your smartphone and EV will work worse and cost more without it. Somehow I don't think US, China, Korea are going to accept that but we'll see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| snowdave wrote: |
What’s the point of breathability?
If I go for a run in a 100% breathable technical t-shirt, it’s soaked with sweat at the end. |
It means the water vapor can evaporate and pass through the fabric membrane. So you (in theory) get less sweaty and when the membrane is overcome, dry off in a breathable fabric. They are not "perfect" but they do work better than "non-breathable" fabrics. With a non-bretahbke fabric, it requires opening the garment to "release" the water vapour.
| Quote: |
| A cheap decathlon PU shell is 100% water, with no need for DWR treatments, and no forever chemicals. I used a PU shell for a 5-month trip through every climatic zone possible. |
What do you mean PU is 100% water? It's most probably mainly derived from toluene (if my chemistry A-level memories are correct). It also probably does have a DWR, if water beads on the surface of the jacket when first purchased, and that DWR most probably did contain PFCs/PFAs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
@jedster, PTFE IS classed as a PFA, even Gore admit that, though it is a large molecule compared to the PFAs people are getting worried about. I can only assume that is going to be caught under the "umbrella" of the PFA regulations so Gore have got on the front foot and come up with an alternative technology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| galpinos wrote: |
| @jedster, PTFE IS classed as a PFA, even Gore admit that, though it is a large molecule compared to the PFAs people are getting worried about. I can only assume that is going to be caught under the "umbrella" of the PFA regulations so Gore have got on the front foot and come up with an alternative technology. |
Correct.
The immediate catalyst was that California banned PFOA, PFOS, etc in DWR and the outdoor retailers wanted to take out ALL fluorinated chemistry. Gore initially campaigned against this and then decided it wasn't worth fighting. California is such a big market that where it leads scale economies often dictate.
In parallel the EU through its REACH system started an investigation into banning ALL fluorinated chemistry. There has been a massive consultation on this and the technocrats are mulling over what to do. Best guess is that there will be extended phase out timelines for those chemicals (polymers) which are REALLY useful (i.e., don't have good alternatives) and for which there is no evidence of harm. But we shall see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| galpinos wrote: |
[
| Quote: |
| A cheap decathlon PU shell is 100% water, with no need for DWR treatments, and no forever chemicals. I used a PU shell for a 5-month trip through every climatic zone possible. |
What do you mean PU is 100% water? It's most probably mainly derived from toluene (if my chemistry A-level memories are correct). It also probably does have a DWR, if water beads on the surface of the jacket when first purchased, and that DWR most probably did contain PFCs/PFAs |
I meant waterproof. Apologies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| galpinos wrote: |
| snowdave wrote: |
What’s the point of breathability?
If I go for a run in a 100% breathable technical t-shirt, it’s soaked with sweat at the end. |
It means the water vapor can evaporate and pass through the fabric membrane. So you (in theory) get less sweaty and when the membrane is overcome, dry off in a breathable fabric. They are not "perfect" but they do work better than "non-breathable" fabrics. With a non-bretahbke fabric, it requires opening the garment to "release" the water vapour.
|
Once my running t-shirt is soaked with sweat, it takes a few hours to dry in a 100% breathable environment, with the enormous benefit of mass flow to dry it (rather than just diffusion through a barely-permeable membrane). You don't dry off any material amount inside breathable waterproofs.
Mass flow is so many thousands of times better than diffusion, that a quick waft of a non-breathable jacket sends more moisture out, than any breathable jacket is going to transmit.
I'm planning a simple experiment on this - I'm going to ride on my turbo trainer with a tshirt and breathable waterproof, and a new t-shirt and non-breathable waterproofs, and weigh how much moisture is in each combo. Wanna bet whether the difference is statistically significant?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@snowdave, got to say, we have cheapo Decathlon cagoules (purchased out of necessity) and they are truly unpleasant to wear vs tech kit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
| @snowdave, got to say, we have cheapo Decathlon cagoules (purchased out of necessity) and they are truly unpleasant to wear vs tech kit. |
They’re definitely a lot more crinkly and not as sophisticated as hundreds of pounds of goretex (and my long trip was done with a much higher end montane PU waterproof) but do you find them much sweatier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@snowdave, we do, possibly as they're only worn in wet humid weather ? but deeply unpleasant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
All I can say is that most modern mechanical seals rely on PFAS and banning them will have huge consequences. Ski jackets are the least of our worries
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
What’s the point of breathability?
|
Marketing to increase price  My experience is no waterproof material is particularly breathable - including goretex. I'm sure with proper testing you can demonstrate some do let more vapour pass through, but it's not enough to mean you won't be sweaty mess inside. If breathability is important just find a jacket with big pit zips. Sometimes the simple cheap solution works best!
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| abc wrote: |
It wouldn’t be “equally damp” if it were actually good quality ones. It would be less damp as the sweat moisture had evaporated.
| Quote: |
| How would you quantify breathability in use? |
Not “in use”, at least you can’t measure (“quantify”) it without some dedicated equipments. |
That’s the point of the proposed experiment. Does water evaporate? The only dedicated equipment required is a set of scales (and a turbo trainer so I can ensure same amount of work is done).
| abc wrote: |
In use, however, I can easily tell an impermeable jacket from a permeable one (not just “barely” though). You want to feel the differences in a crude way, try a nylon rain jacket! You’ll get not a single drop of rain water in, but of the sweat? You can probably “quantify” it…  |
It’s interesting that you find nylon doesn’t breath- goretex most commonly uses nylon as the carrier/face fabric.
I guess, as @boarder2020 says, marketing can be incredibly effective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calling the water barrier membranes as “nylon” is like calling carbon fiber bike as “plastic bike”
But, chemistry is not a required course for high school.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
However in ancient times one would not have used a neoprene taped garment to ski in, and would not have skied in the rain either. Most people still don't do that.
So that's the wrong logic for most people most of the time.
If you can't afford breathable, any old coat will work [been there, done that]. That will likely will be better for snow sports than taped neoprene, which is a very poor choice as above.
It's not hard to find very breathable coats remarkably cheaply compared with lift ticket prices; I don't think the cost argument works.
Personally, I find breathable stuff works way better in some conditions, and no worse at any other time, so it's my choice for most things.
| wrote: |
| Has anybody tried one of these new "ePE" jacket ? |
No, I have one, but I'm waiting for the snow.
But the DWR is probably going to work like any DWR, and I expect the breathability to work the same as the old stuff as they still quote the numbers for it and they're similar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| phil_w wrote: |
But the DWR is probably going to work like any DWR, and I expect the breathability to work the same as the old stuff as they still quote the numbers for it and they're similar. |
FYI, the PFAs regs have made a far bigger change to the DWR than the membrane. DWRs now will not last anywhere near as long and your jacket will need washing/re-proofing a lot more regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Finally... somebody who answers the question
Thanks for your answer. Please let me know.
Please note that DWR (superficial treatment on the outside fabric) and membrane are two different things. "ePE" relates to the membrane. Figures show a lower breathablity than Gore tex Pro, but figures are figures and I am curious to hear what people think about it before buying one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| stevew wrote: |
| All I can say is that most modern mechanical seals rely on PFAS and banning them will have huge consequences. Ski jackets are the least of our worries |
Indeed, PTFE tape is ubiquitous in plumbing for example. Given its cheapness, I have invested in a lifetime supply of the stuff as a DIYer who does their own plumbing. There are just so many scenarios where there is no good alternative to PFAS that one would hope some sense breaks out but I am not hopeful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
