Wool, warm when wet?

[Toddy]

Rik, it's simple...........you don't bung good woollens in the washing machine, and they need to air or work dry, and that's too much effort for a lot of people.

Modern fabrics are very easy care if you want stuff that washes and tumble dries in the machines. It's soft too, if inclined to be smelly if much used.
But see the swanni's and the like ? they'll still be sound and useable when three or four cagoules will have worn dead and useless in the time.

My caveat to the machine washability of wool has to be the pure new wool merino thermals Now they are good and the lack of felting isn't an issue with that layer.

M

 

[bilmo-p5]

My caveat to the machine washability of wool has to be the pure new wool merino thermals Now they are good ...

I can't comment on these, not having tried them, but wool is not the only 'natural' out there. For the past 20 yrs or so my baselayer of choice has been silk. Knitted silk underwear (eg Patra) is snuggy in Winter and almost invisibly cool in Summer. It will stand gentle machine washing, air dries in no time and last years.
The place where I buy a lot of material has what I call, 'the porn shelf'; 3 or 4 tiers of impossibly sumptious fine wool & cashmere fabrics. The sort of stuff you'd like to just chuck ten yards on the floor and hamster-nest naked into it. Bit out of my price range just now, but one day, one day... Can't help feeling that this stuff, used considerately with other wools, cottons & linens would make super outdoor gear.

 

[rik_uk3]

Because they don't mind smelling like goats by any chance?

Synthetics are great for short periods but if you've got to wear them for a few days at a time, as is often the case on expeditions, then wool has a huge social advantage providing you keep it reasonably dry.

As with all such arguments, each side has it's zealots, but choose your kit based upon you own requirements.

Someone working out of a bag in the back of the car has very different requirements to somebody four days from the nearest support.

(And before Rik starts going on about "You're never more than 10 minutes from McDonalds in this country", some people travel and some people don't.)

Well they use synthetics on extended expeditions and I suppose you could carry some deodorant/aftershave. Your right, some travel more than others (some smell more than others) and as part of my R&R I will have travelled more than most here this last year on my little 1 &2 night trips to the sun of Spain and Portugal; having been seriously ill is not the best excuse for travel but I'll stick with it Of course, I shower and change my clothes once or twice a day there and don't need a fleece as a rule

PS I'm about 20 mins from McD's.

 

[Toddy]

Lots of arctic expedition use silk underlayers. There's nothing artificial that works as well.

M

 

[RonW]

I think that in wool vs. synthetics the synthetics would probably win on the weight- and bulkinesslevels.
Hauling your gear up a 6000-7000 mtr. high mountain or dragging it 100's of miles across the Arctic would make every gram count.

 

[Aristotle]

For hill walking and mountain biking, as a base layer, My Icebreaker 150 Merino is my favourite, followed by an old-skool Coolmax(late 1990s, newer Coolmax gear doesn't seem as good) Ron Hill. Other synthetic tops lag far behind. The Icebreaker is more comfortable and smells far nicer. I also like my well-worn Howies Merino mid-layer.

As an outer, I much prefer my Paramo Velez to a membrane jacket and would not want to use a woollen overcoat as a "waterproof" on the hills, although I do wear my woollen coat (or my M65 with extra thermal layer when cold) day-to-day

 

[treadlightly]

At last year's moot I was caught in a very heavy downpour wearing a single ventile top, wool shirt under and a merino base layer under that. I wore wool trousers and a brimmed hat made of felt.

An hour or so later, having been thoroughly soaked I took stock. The water had gone through all layers at the shoulders and I felt cold there. This persisted and was something I hadn't expected. Then I remembered the shirt had a lining of viscose around the shoulders which was wet and cold. I cut it out, put the damp shirt back on over the damp baselayer and I was instantly comfortable again. By the end of the day I had dried out.

The hat, by the way, let no water through at all.

 

[John Fenna]

Because they don't mind smelling like goats by any chance?

Synthetics are great for short periods but if you've got to wear them for a few days at a time, as is often the case on expeditions, then wool has a huge social advantage providing you keep it reasonably dry.

As with all such arguments, each side has it's zealots, but choose your kit based upon you own requirements.

Someone working out of a bag in the back of the car has very different requirements to somebody four days from the nearest support.

(And before Rik starts going on about "You're never more than 10 minutes from McDonalds in this country", some people travel and some people don't.)

Goats smell much better than any synthetics I have been wearing for more than a few hours!
In wool I can smell OK for a week without washing..... or so I have proven imperically!

 

[rg598]

Rik, it's simple...........you don't bung good woollens in the washing machine, and they need to air or work dry, and that's too much effort for a lot of people.

M

I don't think it's an issue of it being too much work for people, it is an issue of being cold or not. If I am in the woods, and get wet, I am not going to spend the night walking around to "work it dry" (I could, but seems like a far less than ideal way to do things). If I get into my sleeping bag wet, or even sit around, then my wet wool clothing will be a problem. Every time my wool clothing has gotten wet, I have been cold, and have spent some miserable nights out because of it.

We do have to understand the properties of the materials we wear, and using wool as an outer layer in the rain, is just not a good idea in my book. While I wear wool clothing, I make sure to keep it dry. To do that int he rain, a synthetic coat has been the best thing I have found. For very little weight and volume, you can significantly inrease the performance of your clothing.

As a side note, I've worn all sorts of wool. When I was young, my grandmother used to knit our wool clothing from wool we collected at the farm. I don't know how it compares to modern wool in terms of inulation, but it was a horrible experience to wear. For years I refused to wear any sort of wool because I had memories of it being so extremely uncomfortable. Maybe it would be different now.

Also, if anyone is interested, there have been some comparisons between wool and synthetic clothing in terms of insulation (although not dealing with wet conditions): http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2011/12/comparison-between-modern-and-early.html

Oh, and there must be a lot of very smelly people here. I've never had an issue with synthetic clothing smelling bad. I've heard it said before, but have never experienced it. I mostly smell like wood smoke by the end of the trip.

 

[Martyn]

I think as Mary says, it's about understanding the fabrics and where and how they work. They will all fail if you try to get them to do something they are not capable of. For my mind, wool is best used as a base layer where the open fibres and affinity for water are useful properties for trapping air for warmth and wicking sweat away, but as outer layers they are not so good. I appreciate there are different qualities and weaves, but they all absorb water more than synthetics, both more readily and more of it, which makes them harder to dry and much heavier when wet. I like down too, nothing better for keeping you warm, so long as you keep it dry. So a mid layer is awesome, but no way as a top layer in bad weather and not without a properly waterproof synthetic top either. I love cotton top layers for their breatheability, but again, lousy when wet, even ventile gets soaked eventually and when it does, it's cold, stiff, feels horrible and takes an age to dry. On the other hand, plastic makes you sweat. Great for keeping dry, just so long as you are not working too hard. You just find a system of layers that suits you personally, your sweatiness, your workload, your need to adapt and your climate.

 

[Laurentius]

Also, if anyone is interested, there have been some comparisons between wool and synthetic clothing in terms of insulation (although not dealing with wet conditions): http://woodtrekker.blogspot.com/2011/12/comparison-between-modern-and-early.html

I'm not really impressed with a laboratory test of clothing as there are so many factors not included, especially durability. I have never own top of the range goretex gear so I can't say, but every so called breathable, waterproof jacket I have ever own, has turned out after a long exposure to driving rain, not to be so. I also sweat a lot so I get wet from within. For standing around in the cold and wet I used to be happy with an old navy pea coat. It didn't matter that it was not technically waterproof as it did the job well enough and was good enough for standing around waiting for late buses in winter rain. When I was kid it was the old fashioned duffle coat, and that saw me through the winter of 1963, short trousers and all! Not the same as arctic sledging I will grant, but this is the sort of thing that would have been good enough on deck in an arctic gale for generations of sailors. BTW these days it has to be said that I have more fleece tops than wooly jumpers, it has to be said that wool next to the skin is rather itchy.

 

[Toddy]

When there were no other options, wool was spun and woven in a huge range of configurations.
If you have time and money and intent, the range is still there, but no where nearly so available.

I have woollens so soft that they can be worn against a baby's skin with no itch, no rash, no problems. I have wool so tightly spun and woven that it will hold air against the pressure of water to six feet, (and I have tried it ) I have wool that was the stuff that the old policemen's cloaks were made from, and the woollens that firemen's jackets and trousers were made from that were both water and fire proof.

Nowadays we have a huge range of fabrics, but we're asking different things from them now. Lightweight, effectively disposable (a gaberdene coat lasted 30+ years easily and was a classic family hand me down) since no modern fabric lasts well in UV and wear. To make them waterproof they are layered, and these delaminate, the breathability becomes compromised even with 'recommended' waterproofers. Machine washable, and in the lastest fashionable colours too

Find what suits you, what you can live comfortably with, but be a bit wary of synthetics near open fires. Cotton too come to that, especially flannel types.

I'm sticking to my silk, linen, wool and a wax jacket, over the top when needed, for my ramblings

As an aside; garment wool ought not be scratchy. Scratchy wool is usually very kempy, that's the straight, stiff hair that helps the sheep shed rain. Most kempy fleece are used for rugs and carpets, but it's comparatively cheap so it's being used for some heavy blankets and coarse woollens. The higher the crimp (the little wriggles in the fleece) the finer the quality. Merino is excellent, but so is combed mohair, and angora too.
The coarse stuff is still warm for outdoor clothing, but it's not waterproof since it's not tightly spun or woven.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[mrcharly]

I think that in wool vs. synthetics the synthetics would probably win on the weight- and bulkinesslevels.
Hauling your gear up a 6000-7000 mtr. high mountain or dragging it 100's of miles across the Arctic would make every gram count.

A couple of years ago a Himalayan expedition tried clothing that was a replica of the very first Everest expeditions.

Apart from the shoes, they found that it equaled or exceeded the performance of modern synthetics.

This was in dry alpine/himalayan conditions, mind.

Those people who think wool fails compared to synthetics aren't using it right. If you are doing a high-activity sport (such as road cycling) in poor conditions, then you will get damp or wet, either from rain or sweat. If you use wool as a base and mid layer, you'll stay safe, if not comfortable.

That's my experience from thousands of hours of riding tens of thousands of miles of riding in Yorkshire, year round, rain or shine, +30C or -15C.

+10 to Toddy's long post.

 

[rg598]

@Martyn-I agree completely.

@ Toddy-The wool my grandmother used to knit with still had dry grass embedded in it. You would have to pull out small pieces from time to time.

@mrcharly-Do you by any chance remember who it was? I know Hoyland did a test by wearing the clothing for a few hours, and concluded that it was superior. His reasons unfortunately are rather perplexing. I read somewhere that a team tried to do it with Mallory's clothing, but had to change into modern gear before completing the climb, stating that they could not do it with his clothing. I have not been able to find the article since. Does anyone else know about who, if anyone, actually did the climb. I'm sure there are others who have tried it.

 

[rg598]

Okay, to answer my own question...the only attempt I have been able to find on Everest with replica early 19th century clothing was that done by Conrad Anker and Leo Houlding in 2007. They were wearing exact replica clothing that Mallory wore int he 1924 expedition. They managed to reach 7300m before switching to modern clothing because they decided it was too dangerous to continue with the replica clothing. Everest is 8848m. Here are some comments from Anker after the attempt:

What was the highest altitude you wore the authentic 1924 outfits to?
We wore the period clothing to 7,300m – it was pretty cold. Initially, in the development stages of the film, it was like, ‘Well we’ll climb right to the summit in it’. But on the mountain it became too challenging to wear it right to the top and we weren’t prepared to risk our lives.Was it difficult to climb in the hobnail boots?
Yes it was because the hobnails kept falling out. Wearing boot-leather soles on ice was super slick. At one stage, Leo was worried his toes were frozen. It took about an hour to get the circulation going and that was awful. He knew his career would be over if he lost a toe.How do you think Mallory and Irvine survived so long in this kind of gear?
The fact that they got as high as they did wearing the clothing they did is the most remarkable aspect of their achievement. My theory was, once you get used to the equipment you acclimatise a little to the local temperature. As long as they were moving it was okay, they were able to thermo-regulate, but as soon as they stopped it was too cold. Some of their team did suffer frostbite on their hands and feet.

People often focus on how light Mallory's clothing and boots were, but they forget to mention that they provide about half the insulation of modern clothing used on Everest.

There have however been successful recreations of Scott's and Amundsen's race to the south pole. Their clothing seemed to be more adequate, but then again, they could afford the higher weight because they were not climbing.

Anyway, this is all I was able to find.

 

[treadlightly]

Very interesting, thanks.

 

[Toddy]

There's another thread about kapok. The information there is that the 1953 expedition that conquered Everest wore kapok filled boots, and not one man in over thirty involved had frostbite or damage to their feet
The kapok was totally enclosed in a waterproof membrane, the decision was that damp feet, so long as they were warm, weren't in any danger. Seems to have worked.

Sounds like our wool under waterproofs too.

cheers,
Toddy

 

[mrcharly]

rg598, that is probably the test I read. Didn't see the full details, thanks for the info.

As for 'why wear wool', here is something to make us all think:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16709045

 

[sandbender]

Was down the lottie digging today, so swapped the cotton sweat shirt for a Bison Wool one and bunged it on over my T-shirt. Really comfortable until I sat down for a brew and started shivering and felt damp and cold. The problem? A cotton T-shirt. Whipped it off, stuck the wool Bison back on and topped that off with a paramo top - toasty, albeit a little itchy.
Cotton sucks and I should have known better, but was in a bit of a rush this morning and grabbed the first thing I found.

I usually wear a Woolpower 200g top under my Bison Guide shirt, that generally keeps me warm and comfortable while on the move or at rest. Today it was a little chilly, about -5c with wind at around 15 km/h and I wore exactly the same set up but with a 600g Woolpower top over the 200g one. Everyone else I met had dressed like an Eskimo, whereas I had my sleeves rolled up.

I find that the woolpower gear "does exactly what it says on the tin" it keeps me warm even when it is wet, However I do make an effort to keep it dry by wearing a poncho or jacket of some kind if it is raining heavily.

 

[Laurentius]

Okay, to answer my own question...the only attempt I have been able to find on Everest with replica early 19th century clothing was that done by Conrad Anker and Leo Houlding in 2007. They were wearing exact replica clothing that Mallory wore int he 1924 expedition. They managed to reach 7300m before switching to modern clothing because they decided it was too dangerous to continue with the replica clothing. Everest is 8848m. Here are some comments from Anker after the attempt:

What was the highest altitude you wore the authentic 1924 outfits to?
We wore the period clothing to 7,300m – it was pretty cold. Initially, in the development stages of the film, it was like, ‘Well we’ll climb right to the summit in it’. But on the mountain it became too challenging to wear it right to the top and we weren’t prepared to risk our lives.Was it difficult to climb in the hobnail boots?
Yes it was because the hobnails kept falling out. Wearing boot-leather soles on ice was super slick. At one stage, Leo was worried his toes were frozen. It took about an hour to get the circulation going and that was awful. He knew his career would be over if he lost a toe.How do you think Mallory and Irvine survived so long in this kind of gear?
The fact that they got as high as they did wearing the clothing they did is the most remarkable aspect of their achievement. My theory was, once you get used to the equipment you acclimatise a little to the local temperature. As long as they were moving it was okay, they were able to thermo-regulate, but as soon as they stopped it was too cold. Some of their team did suffer frostbite on their hands and feet.

People often focus on how light Mallory's clothing and boots were, but they forget to mention that they provide about half the insulation of modern clothing used on Everest.

There have however been successful recreations of Scott's and Amundsen's race to the south pole. Their clothing seemed to be more adequate, but then again, they could afford the higher weight because they were not climbing.

Anyway, this is all I was able to find.

Wim Hof got to 24,278ft in only a pair of shorts and boots. I think it has nothing whatever to do with the material but the attitude and physical ability. I daresay Mallory and co were as well equipped as they could be and better than some, it was not the materials that let them down, but the weather against which today's climbers are no better equipped if it turns bad.