Different UQ

[Syb]

ZMad2000's thread about a karo-like UQ got me thinking about longitudinal baffles that didn't run all the way to the ends. A different twist of what ZMad200 did. In this example there are 8 total chambers but you would only have to fill the top 4 and then move the down around. Are there reasons why this isn't done already? It would save a minor amount of weight but also less time measuring the exact amount of down needed per chamber. I like this idea but want some feedback as to the pros and cons. Kudos to ZMad200 for the idea.

[jdneri]

I love this idea.

[trinni]

pro:
- shifted down stays in the 'chamber' you've moved it to
con:
- down can only be shifted sideways
- shifting down the snake takes ages

[Knotty]

Syb - I think it would be very hard to move the down around. No real benefit over traditional baffle method.

[trinni]

Found another pro. It would be possible to center all down (from left to middle and from right to middle ...along the snake... + from top and bottom along the baffles) -- but I really wouldn't want to move the down along that labyrinth (I'm a lazy guy ). Besides, I cannot imagine a situation I would want the down to only be right in the middle of my quilt.

[Jazilla]

What if instead of a snake you put the two gaps in each baffle but staggered. That way you could move the down around easier than snaking it around but it would stay where you wanted it to? Something like this.

diff%20uq%20baffle%20idea.jpg

[ZMad2000]

The major issue that everybody is bringing up is that the down will be hard to move around. Now from what i have read there has to be one "hard" part to making a quilt. With the standard baffles its weighing the down. With the karo its the sewing of those little baffles. With this method is going to be moving the down i suspect. A "Universal hard part" is stuffing the down. Well thats not too hard its just a pain.

In the end its all about preference. For the DIYer to decide which "con" they want to deal with.

Now time to figure out which baffle design i am going to use!!! Length wise is going to be the best since i wont need to cut a curve in the baffles.

Also if you want you could punch holes in the noseeum in order to make it easier to move the down around. I think EMS is doing that with their new sleeping bag. Here is a vid of the "new tech". Punching the holes should also make it a few grams lighter for you UL and SUL guys.

[ZMad2000]

Ok i think this is going to be the pattern i am going to work with.


I am calling it the ZUQ!!!

Now Think of the possibilities!!! Dont just sign your quilt. Baffle you sig!!!

[flatline]

how much would the down move each time the quilt is "stuffed and un-stuffed" in the sack? i guess my question is how would it affect the use of the quilt?

[silentorpheus]

I haven't personally worked with down (yet) - but I can think of a few things that are worth considering.

First, while longitudinal baffles seem to be used by some sleeping bags, I have to question their efficacy in an underquilt. With latitudinal baffles, the arc of the body/hang may cause the down to pool to the middle of the quilt a bit, but at least you will still have down from head to foot, giving you the full benefit of whatever the length of the quilt is. If one were to use longitudinal baffles, you wouldn't get much (if any) left to right shifting and pooling of the down, so the full width of your body would stay insulated. But the sag/arc of the hammock and quilt and body would ostensibly result in the down eventually shifting and pooling in the center - thus reducing the insulating ability of the head and foot end of the quilt. This may or may not be an issue in an overnight setting - I guess that would take some real world testing to figure out. But it's the first major flaw I see to that type of design.

Most quilts seem to use latitudinal baffles, perhaps for that reason. I think I read somewhere a while back that Te-Wa was using or experimenting with diagonal baffles, which I think makes much more sense than longitudinal. That way you get the benefits (if there are any) of longitudinal baffles when laying on a diagonal in your hammock, but you don't get as much of the negative pooling effects of gravity that seem inherent in true longitudinal baffles (as above).

Otherwise, I would have to agree with some of the above posters, that I'm not sure how much easier it would be to originally stuff that quilt, in the production stage. Sure, you'd have a lot less measuring of down at the beginning, making it more attractive to those who are, for example, re-purposing down as opposed to buying it in pre-measured amounts. But then I would think that any time saved is negated by the amount of time it would take you to try and distribute the down effectively through the labyrinthine chambers you have created. Think about how much of a pain it is to re-thread a drawstring on a stuff sack or pair of pants or something when you accidentally pull out the cord. Now consider that task but make the thing you're trying to thread through the channel have virtually no weight and very little substance or mass to speak of. Not impossible, but sounds like a chore to me.