Gear

Stove man  - you speak from experience which is good.

Backpacks are one of the least-frequently purchased items. In my last decision I was focused on a number of factors including the smooth feel of the hip, waist, and shoulder areas so it will get along with thin garments underneath such as Pertex Quantum.

My last pack purchase was a Black Diamond 16L Magnum. I've challenged myself to use that as my only pack, down from a 35L previously. I can't camp in that volume, but I can day-hike. Part of that challenge is trying to stay just-cold enough to keep carried water to minimum and that is intimidately related to sweating and cooling. My experiencei is that sweating is triggered by local heat production and not total body heat and in colder conditions you can increase output but that simply increases hotter body areas trying to pump heat to colder body areas and the hot areas sweat locally. That is, the colder, you need all the the wicking breathability you can plan, particularly the torso and the legs.

I disagree with the view of waterproof everything  - in P+P it simply means a wet belt line and more sweating. That approach will work but just mean you're performing less and carrying more.

The Proofing of pile + pertex question interests me.  Stove Man has had Ok results with immersion proofing - so I suggest that possibly  it's not so critical in less extreme conditions providing the proofing is good enough on the pertex to stop most rain getting through, and that sweating is not too intense - i.e. a dryer situation than Warhippo would be in on Dartmoor....

personally I've never proofed mine at all (Buffalo mountain shirt and Montane extreme jacket now with DIY long pitzips - both 1990's vintage) and they work for me in the (non-extreme! usually Dartmoor or work) conditions I use them in (cold - often with drizzle or sleet/snow occasionally unexpected heavy rain). 

( found via Google)

captain paranoia wrote (see)

> Also, what is the difference between "Pile" and "Fleece"?

Pile uses long, straight fibres inserted into a backing fabric, whereas fleece usually has textured fibres (i.e. fibres have 3D structure). As a result, pile wicks better, because moisture is pulled up capillary channel formed by the aligned fibres. More recent fleeces, such as ThermalPro are more like pile, in that they also have straight fibres (well, the 'fluffy' grades of ThermalPro do; unfortunately, there are also grades of ThermalPro out there that look like a conventional fleece).

This capillary wicking action is the reason that is is essential that you DO NOT USE A WASH-IN WATER REPELLENT TREATMENT FOR PILE GARMENTS. If you did, you would make the pile work like Paramo's 'pump action liner' (which is a micropile), only it would be pointing in towards the body, and thus, not only would sweat no longer wick, and rain that made it past the pertex outer would be pulled in towards the body.

For pile/pertex garments (and this includes the shelled micropile garments such as Marmot's DriClime, Rab's Vapour Rise and Montane's Krypton), use a spray-on repellent treatment on the outer fabric only.

The difference between Paramo and shelled micropile is the direction of the pile face; in Paramo, it faces outwards, and, by using a wash-in repellent, the pile forms the 'pump action liner', as the capillary action is such that it forces water out of the pile. In shelled micropile, if the pile is next to the skin, if feels dry very quickly because the tips of the pile dry very quickly. Sweat is wicked into the pile, because it isn't water-repellent. So, in theory, you could take a shelled micropile, take it apart and reverse the lining, proof it with a wash-in treatment, and end up with an alternative Paramo...

I totally agree with staying just-cold-enough; a lot of this is horses for courses - we're using P&P in different situations. I use P&P in cold conditions mainly. The only place I'd use P&P for backpacking would be Alaska, where there are prolonged cold/damp periods and its impossible to dry stuff. In almost any other backpacking condition, proofed or unproofed its too warm and doesnt wick nearly enough for me. Similarly, skiing its great for - the temperature variation between hiking up, riding lifts, skiing hard, stopping etc. is extreme, but the air is always cold enough that I can ventilate to limit sweat.

I spent some time on the PCT with a guy who mainly hiked in neoprene socks, gloves, hat and just a pair of shorts (i.e. no shirt) when it was cold.  I'm not so extreme, but I do find that most 'cold spots' can be eliminated to get my body fairly consistent.

Nowadays when backpacking I use a polartec 100 fleece (unproofed in case hippo is worried about my impending demise) and a pertex quantum windshell (proofed, albeit a little ineffectively) with an ultralight 'proper' waterproof (old montane PU breathable model) for heavy rain. This lets me adjust my degree of waterproofing/ windproofing/ wicking/ insulation perfectly.

This looks like a rather binary debate - waterproof everything or not at all, but in the end its all blends of how we're using kit and how we feel comfortable. Using wash-in does NOT (in my experience) eliminate wicking, it just reduces it for a greater gain (for me) in weatherproofing. For other people the tradeoff clearly works differently, either because of usage or comfort patterns. I'm not trying to convince people of right or wrong, but suggesting that there is an alternative to slavishly following manufacturer guidelines.