"Every day above ground is a good day"
I dont wan to argue the differences between a UQ vs pad... I just happen to have a pad at this time and want to make it work for the time being until I can afford a fancy down UQ....
Get busy living, or get busy dying.
Hmmm...
I'll have to go back and check R values again...
****************************
So many projects, So little time....
****************************
of course R value is only conduction - ccf pads also block convection and vapor. if the down underquilt was air tight it would be more effective. however it may then have some condensation problems on the warm side like some people have with the pads.
uq's also have a shell, baffels, and a suspension, and some degree of ineffiency. all these jack up the weight beyond the r-values of down vs. ccf, which i am interested in hearing by the way.
Aren't r-values given on a per inch rating? you would have to figure the weight of ccf per inch.
also, you will need a wider uq than you would a ccf pad.
i have found my sil uq is just inefficient enough that vapor can escape enough to avoid any condensation. it fits pretty snug, but it doesn't have a seal around the edges or anything, and since it's not actually touching your skin, it breathes just enough, i've never had any condensation.
missed this the first time. I too bemoan the bulk of underquilts. Something I routinely have done with a pad is roll it up and attach on the outside of the pack. So I was musing that perhaps I could do something like that with an underquilt if I had a waterproof tube, e.g. made of sil and seam sealed (or the low-tech version : in a plastic bag, stuffed into a tube. ) A long cylinder is the right shape for exterior attachment to a pack.
Grizz
That there is a mighty fine idea Grizz. Sounds like a good project for next week; I'll let you know if it works.
Bookmarks