Sleeping bag ratings

[Mike313]

Hi Folks,
I've seen temperature ratings on sleeping bags along the lines of Comfort +6, Limit 0, Extreme -4. Which I think I understand. What I'd like to know is, under what conditions are these ratings assessed? For example, are they calculated for someone sleeping outdoors without any other form of insulation, other than the sleeping bag? Or do they assume that you are in a tent, on top of a mat or air mattress?
Ta in advance,
Mike.

 

[sandbender]

Things may have changed since this was last discussed a good while ago, then the conclusion was that there was no industry standard for sleeping bag ratings, with most manufacturers simply making up the ratings based on whatever system they determined would be best.

In other words, a rating for one temperature from one manufacturer cannot be compared for the same rating from another.

 

[ozzy1977]

There is European standard for sleeping bag ratings now. Dont know how they measure anything though.

 

[Bishop]

EN 13537 (or EN13537) is a European standard designed to standardize the temperature ratings on sleeping bags manufactured and/or sold in Europe. As of January 1, 2005...
There is no legal obligation for brands to conform, as the criterion is optional ...
sleeping bags for military use and sleeping bags for extreme temperatures, i.e., comfort range below -25°C are exempt - wikipedia

So much for standards

What's needed is a relatively simple test that we as a community could duplicate individually with our own kit then compare results.
Something like a basic calorimeter experiment perhaps..

Place a one litre bottle of hot / just boiled water inside the bag
Hang the bag up away from the ground and out of the wind eg: in a shed or garage
Measure both outside air and water bottle temperatures at 30-60 minute intervals

Those results combined with information about the bags weight, fill density and insulation material could yield some insights.

 

[Old Bones]

This is one of those subjects which comes up time and again on pretty much any outdoor site. Outdoor Magic has threads going back years, as does UKClimbing.

Alpkit cover the pitfalls of the EN system on their website https://www.alpkit.com/spotlight/choosing-a-down-sleeping-bag , but at least there is some sort of standard test. The comfort level is the lowest temp for women, the lower limit is the lowest comfort for men, and the extreme is survival for women. Its not a bad test, but we all sleep different, and humidity levels, the type of mat you use, elevation, etc can all make a difference.

There are manufacturers which are known for being a touch optimistic (Snugpak!), but worst examples of overstating ratings are generally the cheapie brands that tend to get sold to cadets and the like. I remember Edicotts selling a Highlander bag a couple of years back which they reckoned was OK at plus 5. The manufacturers blurb on all other websites reckoned you'd be toasty at minus 5. And I suspect the 'extreme temp' gets used a lot on cheap bags without explaining thats the temp where you dont die, not where you might be comfortable.

I suspect the problem with a 'home' test is:

1) You've already bought the bag - so its a bit late

2) There are a huge number of variables even there. - what is the air temp and humidity? How could you replicate the same conditions between different people?

3) We all sleep different, and that variablity is impossible to account for. Thats why the whole system is based on averages and a standard test.

Sometimes all you can do is do your homework, ask around, and pick the best you can for what you want/can afford. Like a lot of things, a decent brand is less likely to short-change you (I hear good things about the MH Lamina range, for instance). There was a thread on OM back in 2001 (!) http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/gear/sleeping-bag-temp-ratings/393.html which mentioned that in tests

They found that synthetic bags tended to be over-rated while people like RAB and ME were actually pessimistic about how warm their bags were

Which kind of makes sense, although I suspect that synthetic has got better in the last 14 years.

The best quote I saw on that thread was this one:

The sleeping-bag temperature rating system couldn't be easier.
when a £30 bag says it is rated 'down to minus 5 centigrade', it assumes that you are using it wearing full scottish winter kit inside your double-glazed caravan, with the gas heater on full.
oh, and it has to be in august on a hot day.

other than that, it is quite accurate.

Sounds about right to me!

 

[rorymax]

Really good info there Old Bones.

Appreciated, and thanks mate.

rorymax

 

[Old Bones]

No problem. Its seem to be sleeping bag week on here, so there is plenty of info from lots of threads.

I wish I had qualified that last quote - in 2001 a £30 bag probably was pants. I suspect that most £30 bags are still pants, but the £33 Vango I got for my daughter from Go Outdoors for her PGL trip isn't bad for the price. Of course it will be May and inside when she'll use it, and its not exactly small, but what do you want for £30?

 

[Mike313]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Much appreciated.

 

[tallywhacker]

Obviously what has been said so far is spot on, every manufacturer varies but they tend to assume at the least that you need a base layer with a clo value of 1 (heavy base layer) and a camping matt or non compressible insulation underneath; at least from the testing methods i have read up on. I will add something that may be of use.

The rest of this is a take it or leave it thing. It has solid basis for applying your own system, but it might give you a headache. Personally i love this kind of thing but i am sitting a physics heavy nat science degree and love theory craft, charts and numbers every bit as much as i love being outdoors. It certainly is going to require that common sense and foresight be applied, so evaluate safety for yourself (just a little disclaimer there, yknow, just in case).


We know every body has different tolerances and we know different variables, in different situations will have differing effects and the results by nature will be subjective. It sounds like there is no way of comparing bags, too subjective, but there actually are reliable ways of comparison from tangible data. Most insulation values have an insulation rating that is much more universal forthe sake of comparison, for example: fil power, r-value, clo rating are all comparable units with meaning between various products. From these values you can account for your own variables for a personalised comfort rating instead of say snugpaks variables, you might not start off with a scale for temperatures but you sure can end up with one that is accurate for yourself (or at the very least a rough guide if you cba crunching numbers).


A very crude way of doing it is to look at loft, and this is a very crude example and method. Say, for example, 100mm of loft in 900 fil down. Most bags with the same rating of down and loft are going to be about the same ignoring draughts etc. So long as you give yourself a bit of a margin of error you can estimate an increase or decrease in loft for a static material insulation rating to gauge an appropriate purchase. Say you are warm naked at 20C, you know 100mm of loft gets you to freezing with no wind, you probably need around half that for 10C in no wind. At the least you know another bag of the same fil rating and loft is going tobe about the same for you with no wind. Just be sure you are comparing the same fil power down for a given loft.

Just keep in mind that there is a myth going around that loft is an absolute indicator for all materials, say 100mm of any synthetic is the same as 100mm of any down. This is not true, ray jardine wrote it in a book a while back and it is dead wrong.


There are more accurate ways to approach this and ways of creating your own system too. From r-value or clo (two proper units of measure unlike comfort ratings) you can find what works for you in a given situation for a given r-value or clo rating. With a bit of trial and error you have a point of reference for temperature value to use between manufacturers. I have kept track of my own logs and have my own sliding scale of what works for me at given temperatures for a given CLO value. Obviously you are always going to have to estimate some variables, for instance heavy wind and no shelter, but imo you are better off removing the variables or over preparing (there is just no realistic way of precisely accounting for things like that). So long as you always wear the same thing inside your bag, keep topatterns like a hot meal [or not] before bed things like your own heat convection/radiation rates are essentially covered automatically.

This can get as complicated and as precise as you want it to be for your use. Originally i used a pre calculated static formula as a guide for clo to warmth, one that accounts for no real world variables; eventually i was able to come up with my own formulas, by tweaking the already existing static formula to my own findings for different temperature bands. For example, i found that as i got below freezing i needed more clo value per degree celcius to keep warm, and below -5 again i needed even more clo per degree to stay warm. I then looked at the difference, noticed a bit of a pattern and predicted estimates for equal intervals there after (ifi reach those temps and find otherwise i will re-evaluate the pattern).

If you want the standard issue or my modified formulas as a guide, or to modify yourself pm me or ask. I think, from memory, the standard one is some kind of industry standard for interpreting CLO into an average warmth rating for household use. I got the formula off a government environmental health website that was well considered and made clear it did not account for variables and differing body shapes (a friend from the town hall pointed me towards it to toy with claiming they use it for reference in UK government); it also appears in many places elsewhere online, usually in an imperial measure format for the USA.


It can be as simple as you like: notes for a rough estimate and future reference; or you can take it to a new level and get to a point where you can actually somewhat accurately predict what will happen.


Additional note if that lot sparked interest:

Just keep in mind to understand what the unit you are using for comparison means. For example CLO value is often given as clo/gm^-2 (CLO per gram per meter squared); so to interpret it you need to multiply the clo/gm^-2 rating of the insulation by the gm^2 rating of the insulation (all layers and absent of shell weight ofc). Just to clarify here m^-2 indicates per meter square in proper formula use, not a minus figure. It is unlikely you will find a clo value opposed to clo/gm^-2 value stated by the manufacturer of insulation as they have no way to know what the finished item dimensions are. In simple format the conversion formula is: CLO=((CLO/gm^-2)*(gm^-2))

R-value is probably more user friendly, i don't know for sure i have not looked into it but it seems to be in common use by people who are not expected to have mathematical fluency or a calculator. I am told r-value converts into clo so you can compare between the two and draw a comparison for a vast range of materials although the formula i was given was incorrect and i have not looked fr the proper version. I use clo because the insulation i use, climashield, is rated in clo on the data sheet and i am familiar with it so there was no point in converting to r-value for me.

Down fil rating probably loosely converts into r-value and clo too, but i don't use it and well, i am not going to spend hours online looking for something that might not even be needed


Hope some of this is of use, if anyone see's caveats in this anywhere please do say so that i can revise my own methods.

 

[PDA1]

Thfe point of EN ratings is that all mfcs who provide EN ratings have had tests done at authorized test stations using standard procedures, so the ratings are directly comparable. the EN standard makes use of a 2.5 cm CCF mat underneath, and has bosy sized "manekins" inside simulating the heat source of a "standard" male and female bosdy. The rating assumes that the sleeper is using a base layer of insulation, wearing a hat and socks , and if a mummy type bag, have the hood cinched over the head. The "low" temp rate is that at which you(probably) won't die of hypothermia, so look only at the comfort rating for a sensible temperature. Women should look for bags designed and made for the female form, as for them, EN comfort rating is more critical (females typically sleep significantly cooler than males). Note the use of a 2.5 cm CCF mat. That is much thicker tham most people use. To give your bag a chance, be active jsut before settling down to increase core temperature, and eat, drink a high calorie, easily digested food (Mars bar, hot chocolate etc.) to keep your internal fires burning while you sleep. I can't emphasise enough the importance of an adequate sleep mat. So, before cursing the manufacturer for being less than truthful about temperature rating, think, are you adequately equipped. If you are in the USA, thentoughluck, because a lot of US bags are not EN rated. The REI web site has a pretty good section on sleeping bag ratings in the USA.

 

[tallywhacker]

Correct me where i am wrong, but it appears to me the main gripes mentioned by people are not that eu ratings are not comparable, they are standardised so they obviously are; but the problem is that manufacturers do not have to use them and often opt for non standardised methods. A further problem mentioned is that even a standardised test like that will not necessarily give ratings to suit, they are at best a rough guide for captain average on an average day out. Find me an average person (height, mass, metabolism, sleeping style) and find me a stable environment... That cannot be helped though, they have to have a standard, but as such people should always keep in mind that even with eu comfort rating it can sway; or apply their own variables to a proper unit of measure like clo/r-value

Even if the eu temperatures where reliable on temperature rating these eu standards are not as common as you might think, in fact i have never seen a bag advertised as meeting eu standards in europe. Not from a lack of looking either, i have made various quilts this year and have been all over companies ratings (at least the brands i would want to borrow ideas from) while trying to find a rating system for my own items. In fact what i found was that most companies do not want you to know how they test!

The truthful thing is that while you should of course use a mat, wear base layers etc etc manufacturers do skew the temp ratings with their own tests. Snugpak at last count also required you be in a tent and sharing with another occupant.. Might as well throw a hot water bottle in there too! That should be cursed, it is misleading.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

A lot has already been said about the ratings. After getting fed up with cold nights in my snugpak bags (both SF1 and SF2), I recently bought myself a mountain hardware lamina synthetic bag, and had my first warm nights sleep for years. I chose the bag because it explicitly mentioned the EN rating for the bag. There is no requirement for manufacturers to test their bags, but there is a way that we can encourage them to do so. Only buy bags that are EN rated, and clearly state that they have been tested to the EN standard. Perhaps then they will get it.

Montane and Mountain hardware both clearly state their EN ratings. I don't know about other companies. Who else does?

Julia

 

[Andy BB]

Don't forget the draping ability either - bags that snuggle down on you keep you much warmer than bags that don't!

Another factor often ignored is the effect of time and usage. Bags - both down and synthetic - absorb body greases etc, which damage the loft. The easier the bag is to clean, the more likely it is to be washed and therefore retain its thermal efficiency. Ditto its ability to retain its shape and loft after washing. Anyone who's had a down bag professionally cleaned after a long period of use will know what I mean!

To judge how good a sleeping bag really is, ask a couple of simple questions before buying. Forget the hype and hyperbole.

- Will the manufacturer (or retailer) guarantee its loft for the life of the bag, and provide evidence that he will honour this lifetime guarantee, preferably over several decades of trading?

- Will he guarantee this loft-for-life regardless of how many times you wash it in your machine at home?

Then go and buy a bag from Wiggys, who is the only manufacturer on earth who will do both (or either, come to that!)

 

[Old Bones]

I think your right - EN ratings are not perfect, but they are at least some sort of objective baseline. I suspect that pretty much all the big decent manufacturers use them now, but remember that that the test costs money, so some very small but high quality manufacturers may not bother, and of course at the lower end of the market, the potential customer would have no clue what an EN rating might mean, and therefore manufacturers dont bother. Looking at the REI website (because we can all dream!), REI, Marmot, etc do have EN ratings, but Big Agnes bags seeming did not. However, when I checked on their own website, at least one of their bags did. If its a decent brand bag, the rule of thumb will be that EN ratings are standard. If we buy this brands, report back to them that the ratings are useful, and that if you dont bother, we aren't going to bother buying your kit, then yes, hopefully it should be standard.

There are exceptions, for instance, PHD. However, even though I couldn't find an EN rating, their guide is not that dissimilar to the EN parameters http://www.phdesigns.co.uk/temperature-ratings-for-down-sleeping-bags-and-down-clothing . And of course its PHD, so a bit like asking if Savile Row is good enough!

I think that this REI guide is pretty fair http://www.rei.com/learn/expert-advice/sleeping-bag-backpacking.html , and echo's Andy BB's comments - that there are lots of variables, many of them down to the individual.

I dont expect to buy a suit off the rack and it to fit perfectly. I know that if I spend more than a Mr Buyright number, then it will fit better, but t even a good and reasonably expensive Italian suit will still need a nip and tuck, if only to get the trouser length right. Manufacturers have to deal with the 'average'. If you want it perfect, either be 'the average', or go bespoke. Much the same goes for bags, except we tend to only find out just how warm they are for the individual when we are in the middle of nowhere!

I'm not sure that many brands could make the sort of promises that Andy BB wants. There are a huge number of possible problems there, including washing at home ('well yes, I did put it on a 90 degree wash with Persil, but why is that a problem?'), and how it was used. The brands we are talking about have a reputation to maintain, but they are also businesses that have to make a profit. There is a balance to be struck.

 

[Andy BB]

Old Bones - ......I'm not sure that many brands could make the sort of promises that Andy BB wants. There are a huge number of possible problems there, including washing at home ('well yes, I did put it on a 90 degree wash with Persil, but why is that a problem?'), and how it was used. The brands we are talking about have a reputation to maintain, but they are also businesses that have to make a profit. There is a balance to be struck.

Interesting comment there. And of course, you're right - a manufacturer would have to be completely happy that his gear would hold up to the promises. Which is why no other manufacturer in the world will do it, because their manufacturing processes can't provide the goods.

But Wiggy does, and has been doing for at least the last 3 decades. And his guarantee has been in place all of that time, including his earliest bags. And he's still the biggest manufacturer of sleeping bags in the USA (all the major USA companies actually get their bags manufactured in the Far East, so you're actually paying a huge premium for a name-tag!) I gather even some of the Snugpak kit is now manufactured there nowadays.

As to the MH "Lamina" bags, here's an interesting read from Wiggy's website http://wiggys.com/legacy/jan13.cfm
If Wiggy had been telling porkies, he'd have been sued out of business, but I guess Mountain Hardwear didn't bother for some reason......... And if you thought this article was damning, you should read some of his more aggressive ones!

I also find it interesting that he doesn't advertise his products in the usual mags, and because he won't give these mags his bags for free, they don't test them either. Yet he's still in business through word-of-mouth recommendations.

So, you pays your money and you makes your choice. Personally (and I have no links to Wiggys other than as a satisfied customer) I like a product where the manufacturer is prepared to guarantee his stuff for life.

 

[Quixoticgeek]

Interesting the support for the wiggy bags.

I had a look through their website at their bags. The claims seem to be a little interesting, and not entirely upto speed on the metric system... "The Ultra Light is a +20 degree F (approximately 0 degrees C)" I'm pretty sure that 20°F is -7°C...

They might be guaranteed for life, and will survive a nuclear fall out, and can be washed in the jet blast of a 747... but they weigh ¾ of a ton, and seem to have a volume about that of a shipping container (ok, I may be exaggerating a little...).

I would be interested to see what rating he thinks his bags have for women... It would also be nice if the site listed obviously the size when compressed of the bags.

As with everything, there is a trade off between light weight, durable, affordable - choose two.

Would you carry a heavier bag 200 miles, if it meant that it was more durable over life? or would you rather use a bag for half a dozen trips, then get another? The cost advantage of synthetic bags makes it easier to stomach as a limited use item...

Julia

 

[Old Bones]

They might be guaranteed for life, and will survive a nuclear fall out, and can be washed in the jet blast of a 747... but they weigh ¾ of a ton, and seem to have a volume about that of a shipping container

That made my day!

Andy BB - We get it, you really like Wiggy bags! And apparently, so do many other people, looking on the websites of Backpacker Magazine (forum), Outdoorreview & Trailspace. However, even many of the positive reviews point out that the bags are relatively bulky and heavy (in comparison with similar synthetic bags), and there are one or two review which are very negative http://www.outdoorreview.com/cat/pr...-s/super-light/prd_77474_2956crx.aspx#reviews .

And on many websites, I got no hits at all. He might have sold a fair number of bags over the years, but in terms of the market, he's a pretty small player, and many of his customers seem to be people who prize certain features more than others.

I get the impression that the owner of Wiggy's is a 'character' with 'strong opinions'. Thats fine, but I did notice that according to one forum post, he allegedly had flamed the forum of another manufacturer, and continued to do so despite being warned http://www.backpacker.com/members/vdeal/forums/replies/page/69/ . If you've got a good product, there should be no need for that. And one or two people have complained about the amount of loft after a couple of years, the difference between stated and actual weight and temp rating,etc, , but were not happy with the reply from Wiggy's customer services dept.

And he's still the biggest manufacturer of sleeping bags in the USA (all the major USA companies actually get their bags manufactured in the Far East, so you're actually paying a huge premium for a name-tag!) I gather even some of the Snugpak kit is now manufactured there nowadays.

He may well be the largest manufacturer of sleeping bags in the US, but thats not exactly a huge field. Small niche brands for hiking gear are all over the US, and there are other sleeping bag companies who do make their stuff in the US (Kifaru (who he apparently flamed), Western Mountainering, Featured Friends, Nunatak, Exxel, Butler and Equinox, etc), but their volumes are relative small, compared with MH, Thermorest, Marmot, TNF, REI, etc.

The costs of production in the far east are much lower, and the same goes for UK manufacturers. I certainly dont think that your automatically paying a 'huge premium for a name tag'. Indeed, you may be paying a lot less than you would because of the economies of scale involved. And these smaller companies tend to sell direct (just like out own Alpkit), which reduces costs.

If you love Wiggy's, good luck to you. However, like Quixoticgeek, I'm not sure I want to carry around any extra weight than I want to, and I have no need to vacpack a sleeping bag (quite the opposite). For most people, simply looking after a bag well and washing it properly every so often will be fine (my Snugpack is over 20 years old), and that if you do that, your sleeping bag will be a good investment, even if you spent a fair amount of money on it.

 

[Andy BB]

Oh, Wiggy is certainly a "character", and his over-forceful defense of his bags on various US websites has led him to being banned from many. And as a result, many have made ludicrous criticisms of his kit that clearly isn't based on reality. (along the lines of "I'd never use Wiggys kit even if I was naked in an Alaskan blizzard" ) And I've said before that he's the most abrupt "salesman" I've ever talked to! If he had any commercial sense, he'd let someone else handle customer-facing roles and concentrate on the production and development side. But having said that, he still produces many thousands of the bags and other products annually, and is hugely respected by those - military and civil - who need top quality stuff in extreme conditions like Alaska. He's no cottage industry wallah, turning out the odd dozens of bags run up on an old Singer.

As to the weight issue, definitely a fair point. And in the UK, or abroad in shoulder months, I often use a lightweight down bag. However, its only fair to compare like with like.

Wiggy's standard-size superlight bag is rated down to 0F which is -18C, and most have confirmed that his temperatures are pretty spot-on, assuming an effective ground mat. I have gone down to -20C in mine and slept comfortably in base layers, although if expecting those temps I'd probably take my Ultima Thule to be on the safe side.

THe Superlight regular size weighs 4lbs. THe Snugpak bag that weighs 4lbs (actually 3lb, 13.729oz) is a Softie Harrier 10, and it's stated rating is -7C Comfort, -12C Extreme. And most think Snugpak temp recommendations are a trifle optimistic. Their top bag - rated at -20C comfort, is the Antarctica RE, weighing in at 6lb 8oz.

So yes, against down bags, Wiggy's bags are heavy and bulky. Against similarly rated fibre bags, however, they are at worst no heavier, and in real terms normally lighter.

Over the last 40-odd years I've had dozens of bags, normally good quality, from the Blacks Karakorum to Ajungilak to Snugpak to Velandre stuff and a variety of military bags. All of them have lost their loft and warmth over time. My Wiggy bags haven't (despite me keeping them in compression sacs when not in use), and unlike all the others, if they ever do, I'll send them back to Wiggy to get a free replacement!

Its a fact of life that we all get a bit territorial and protective about our stuff, whether its a car, dog, tent, stove or sleeping bag. Sad but true. With bags, its difficult to be factual because we haven't all slept in all the different bags in the same conditions, so we often rely on the latest hype or "next new thing" the mags are all raving about. So I'll finish by restating the simple fact that Wiggy bags are the only ones - in the World - who guarantee their loft and workmanship for life, regardless of how often its washed, or kept in a compression sack, and have honoured that guarantee for decades. That works for me. Those who want to pay more for a poorer product without those guarantees can do so with my blessing

 

[Old Bones]

he's the most abrupt "salesman" I've ever talked to! If he had any commercial sense, he'd let someone else handle customer-facing roles and concentrate on the production and development side

I can imagine! Ones review I read of their bags was straight down the middle - one loved it, one hated it http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi...ws/display_reviews.html?forum_thread_id=12546T. Its was the fact that the one who didn't get on with it commented 'I saw no point in bringing these observations up to Wiggy's as they are known to be less than receptive of any kind of criticism' which surprised me.

There is a very entertaining thread http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com/showthread.php/4833-Wiggy-s-sleeping-bags/page4 , where the majority of users are actually very positive. One or two point out that there are lighter bags around, and that perhaps a better hood and a neck baffle might be nice, but overall very positive. Many of them seem to use them while hunting, including for sheep (I assume that Alaskan sheep are a bit more macho than the ones around here...).

Even the dissenters are relatively polite and thoughtful. Oblio 13 pointed out that he thought that his Feathered Friend bag was better than his Wiggy bag. The reply from Wiggys Alaska agent - 'Sounds like you know next to nothing about sleeping bags to me... But thanks for the ignorant comments.' Earlier he somewhat urgently told someone asking about the fill and how it compared emperically, to which someone then asked 'Hey Marc (the agent), been taking your Goji juice? '. The fact that another posted regarding the owner 'if he weren't so onery and crumedgenly about his stuff he would be better recieved'. I think they might need to rethink their customer facing personnel...

The number of small scale (relatively speaking) USbased manufacturers is to be welcomed, and I hear excellent things about Feathered Friends and Mountain Mountaineering.

I agree about Snugpak - decent bags (I've owned the 12 for about 20 years), but not as warm as they claim.

Ultimately, we take a chance when we buy a bag (even more so if we are buying sight unseen), because its not until we are using it that we find out what it can actually do. Its good that you've found a bag that does the job for you. Hopefully we can all do the same - although in my case it will be when I can actually afford it, which is looking to be a fair while...

 

[Andy BB]

I read the Oblio comments (Wiggy's bags are filled with Polargard - he just gives it a fancy name. Heavy, bulky, and simply nothing special. The military finally wised up and dropped him as a supplier.), and, quite frankly, the agent's comment about him was correct (if somewhat aggressive!) He clearly doesn't understand how and why the Wiggy bags are made as they are. Interestingly, pretty much every other post on that thread from people who had actually used Wiggy bags was hugely complimentary. I'm guessing Oblio is one of those Wiggy haters I spoke about earlier, judging by the moderator editing for forum violations....He clearly prefers down to anything else, which is fair enough, but then you move into a separate discussion on down's relative fragility, loss of insulation when wet, cost of professional cleaning etc.

And then there's that guarantee...........