OK, thanks for the explanation, Smee!Originally Posted by Smee
OK, thanks for the explanation, Smee!
every company out there stuffs their quilts beyond "spec" the numbers vary and are usually not publisized, but i can gaurantee nobody uses 0%. alot of companies refer to "overstuff" as adding more down to the quilt (upon customer request) than comes "standard". the standard isn't 0% though.
Brandon,
This is argument for the sake of argument. The only publicized and accepted standard is "Fill Power"! If everyone is basing their claims of over stuffing on their own normal stuffing amount, then there is no standard.
Last edited by Smee; 09-19-2009 at 16:27. Reason: unfinished when posted
smee, i'm not arguing with anything anybody said, just adding info to the collective knowledge since the question was brought up.
there is no "industry standard". nobody refers to an actual overstuff % in reference to their filling practices (except jrb to my knowledge). everyone has their own "secret recipe" which they don't advertise, and it will vary from company to company weather or not they use the term "overstuff".
but just because a company doesn't advertise "overstuffed", it doesn't mean they're using 1oz of 800 fill down per 800cu.in of volume.
"most" companies who use the term "overstuff" use it in reference to allowing the customer to have more down installed in their bag beyond their standard amount, or perhaps in relation to the amount used beyond last year's model etc., but not in relation to any set industry standard.
alot of folks here on hf use it to describe how much they use beyond the 1oz/800cu.in calculation, but most companies don't use the term like that i don't think.
i also don't believe the correlation you gave about 1 oz of 800fill down taking up 800 cu.in is accurate. i know that's what everybody thinks, (and what i always thought as well) but i'm pretty sure when they do fill power testing it's alot more complicated than simply measuring the max volume of 1 oz. first it gets conditioned, then sits for a day or 2, then they put a weight on it to crush the down and then remove the weight, they let it loft back up for a certain amount of time (probably not very long) and then take the reading. that reading isn't at it's max potential volume, but just after it's been compressed. it's probably even more complicated than that and i'm not trying to act like i fully understand how it's measured, but i can tell you i just measured out exactly 28g of my new 850+ fill down that's been sitting around totally uncompressed for several days, that's exactly 28g/1oz (verified on 2 different scales) and it fills a volume of (11" x 11" x 14") which is 1694 cu.in. does that mean i stumbled onto some 1694 fill down? no it doesn't, because it wasn't measured according to the testing standards. the down apparently will loft to alot more than it's labratory given rating which apparently isn't a maximum volume, but something else. also, the size of the container will effect the volume, the smaller the square area of the bottom of the box, the higher the down will be stacked, and the more it will compress itself from it's own weight, but the larger the surface area, the less high it will be stacked, the less it will compress itself and the higher the volume will be, so you should get different volumes depending on the dimension of the container. measuring the the volume when the down is 2" deep will give ALOT higher volume per wt. than if you measure it 12" deep.
measure a fully uncompressed oz of your 800 fill, i think you will find the measured volume will not correlate to it's given fill power rating.
Last edited by warbonnetguy; 09-20-2009 at 01:30.
got any of that 1694 fp down? id like to get my hands on some!
Haha!
the industry standard for testing watches the down loft up while a 1 ounce weight is applied and remains in place until no further movement is detected - that's the easiest way it was described to me, at least.
ok, sure. it was explained to me awhile ago, maybe that's what they said to me too, i knew a weight was involved. the container has to be a set diameter too i believe and the conditioning process and the time frame have to be followed to the letter.
i was just surprised at how much volume 1 oz really takes up.
This is all so very interesting - consider also density (as some of you here have spoke) in addition to "fill" and there adds another aspect to warmth.
"Fill power" gives said given volume to a baffle but then stuff beyond that maximum volume and you are then increasing density, right?
Density it seems, (to a point of course) increases warmth to keep the air that is trapped in an enclosed space (baffle) from convecting or circulating air. I think it would probably not take too much - just a little - stuff beyond maximum volume for a baffle to slow or eliminate convection. Too much density and then you are now increasing conduction - less warmth and more weight.
Maybe another thread or topic on it? Is there one like this here already? maybe near the vapor barrier discussion stuff? I'm new to this forum stuff.
hope i'm not rambling...
kirk
Here's a link to some interesting and enlightening articles about down processing and testing (for fill power, etc.)...Articles about Down Testing.
"The more I carry the happier I am in camp; the less I carry the happier I am getting there" - Sgt. Rock
This is all so very interesting - consider also density (as some of you here have spoke) in addition to "fill" and there adds another aspect to warmth.
"Fill power" gives said given volume to a baffle but then stuff beyond that maximum volume and you are then increasing density, right?
Density it seems, (to a point of course) increases warmth to keep the air that is trapped in an enclosed space (baffle) from convecting or circulating air. I think it would probably not take too much - just a little - stuff beyond maximum volume for a baffle to slow or eliminate convection. Too much density and then you are now increasing conduction - less warmth and more weight.
Maybe another thread or topic on it? Is there one like this here already? maybe near the vapor barrier discussion stuff? I'm new to this forum stuff.
hope i'm not rambling...
kirk
you are correct, the density of the down plays a big role in how warm it is as well. but you're right again, too much density and it probably begins to lose efficiency through conduction.
my experience with checking volume was that an oz of 850 takes up about twice that much space, but everyone's overstuffing quite a bit beyond that (1oz for 16-1700 cu.in) and is probably necessary. i feel like anything near 1oz/800 cu.in is still too sparse, and that's apparently around 50% compression which is interesting. i've also noticed quite a variance between different companies in what they believe to be "ideal"
I did the pemi loop in NH whites this past weekend - I was using speer winter tarp, MWUQ and HR over, merino leggings, socks, shirt, well insulated jacket with toque and hood, made camp in around 2500-3000 ft (warmer and trees)- on friday it was very windy in the region (blew so hard I stumbled a couple of times around Mt. Lafayette), my temp reading was around 35F and I needed to pay close attention to tucking the HR around me well - else I was chilly. Myself, I would not push down below 32F with the HR, and this is with a terrific UQ and clothing.
related question - I have these two quilts - one of 4" and one of 2.5" - is it warmer to put more insulation below or above?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks