# need gear for CO



## hi2u (Jan 17, 2010)

sup guys im moving to colorado and im from south dakota so the weather i would assume will be alot different. just wondering what type of gear is used for the most part, not worried about spring ill just put on a 5k jacket i would think that would work for most sunny days...

but for december was thinking these if i can find them for 50percent off
Bonfire Baker Shell Jacket - Men's at REI.com


just not sure which pants to get yet any suggestions?, u think 15k be to warm around CO? never really been there in the snow season...


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Depends on the day, what kind of riding you do and your tolerance for heat/cold.

I get chilly easily. Muggy conditions (hot, humid) don't bother me as much as they do other people. I would rather been a little hot than cold.

I wore 15k shells at Breck/Key/Vail. Nice on the cloudy, windy days but a little bit warm on the sunny days.

however, that is why most snowboard gear has ghetto slits for ventilation.

Waterproofing is for when I crash into the snow and keeping the chilly out of my bones when I am on the lift.


----------



## AWNOW (Sep 12, 2009)

I have had the 686 smarty pant for about 3 years now. I took the liner out of them and basically wear them year round. Even in January my legs do not get cold, just open up the vents when it is May/June.


----------



## hi2u (Jan 17, 2010)

Tarzanman said:


> Depends on the day, what kind of riding you do and your tolerance for heat/cold.
> 
> I get chilly easily. Muggy conditions (hot, humid) don't bother me as much as they do other people. I would rather been a little hot than cold.
> 
> ...


think ill go with 10k then and just layer on the cold days, i h8 when i sweat and its always wet inside me... im still a beginner though so its hard to make up my mind


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

It's Colorado. The driest, lightest snow in the US. You can get away with 5k gear no problem here. In the late spring when storms come in heavier you might want 10k gear. It also can get very cold in Dec-Jan. I've been out plenty of times where the temps barely get above zero, a few times where they don't Throw in a good amount of wind and it can be brutal. So have good layers, or a puffy you can go to. 

Generally speaking I go with shells and layer up underneath.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

And btw, 5k, 10k, 15k, has nothing to do with how warm the gear is. That is a measure of how waterproof and breathable the gear is. Insulated vs non insulated is what you are talking about.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> Generally speaking I go with shells and layer up underneath.


This. I don't own one stitch of insulated waterproof gear. All of my waterproof gear is just the shell. I'm a hot natured mofo so unless it's down in the single digits, I'm probably just wearing shells with mid-weight thermals underneath. When it get's really cold, I'll put on lightweight fleece over the thermals. Uninsulated shells just give you a lot more versatility because you choose the level of insulation.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> And btw, 5k, 10k, 15k, has nothing to do with how warm the gear is. That is a measure of how waterproof and breathable the gear is. Insulated vs non insulated is what you are talking about.


Mmm. Wrong. I will guarantee you that 15k gear will insulate better than 5k gear.


----------



## AWNOW (Sep 12, 2009)

Tarzanman said:


> Mmm. Wrong. I will guarantee you that 15k gear will insulate better than 5k gear.


He is not wrong, 15k, 10k, and 5k are all measurements of water proofing. Generally, they correlate with a lower CFM, which is how much wind is going to be moving through fabric. The lower the CFM, the warmer the gear. Higher "waterproofing" (as the snow industry oddly classifies it) means lower CFM, which is the metric you should have discussed. Your claim is like saying a sports car is good at handling because it is aerodynamic, and you ignore talking about it's suspension and tires.


But, as we all know you are just a gaper with an ego who has been riding 6 days and somehow feels compelled to comment on things you have no first hand knowledge of.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Seeing as how we're venturing into my turf here (thermodynamics, heat transfer and mass transfer) you should probably shut the fuck up instead of being butt-hurt about an argument you lost 8 months ago.

Waterproof clothing will certainly trap more heat that non-waterproof clothing. How much more depends on a combination of factors.. the specific materials (and weave, to some extent), the relative humidity and the ambient temperature.

Of course, if you have anything intelligent to say that bolsters your argument, then by all means, share.

-EDIT-

Reading your post again. I find it funny that you mention CFM.... a measurement of volumetric flow rate. I work in a lab where I test filters and measure pressure drop across different membranes all day some weeks. 

I look forward to reading your weak (and ultimately incorrect) argument.


AWNOW said:


> He is not wrong, 15k, 10k, and 5k are all measurements of water proofing. Generally, they correlate with a lower CFM, which is how much wind is going to be moving through fabric. The lower the CFM, the warmer the gear. Higher "waterproofing" (as the snow industry oddly classifies it) means lower CFM, which is the metric you should have discussed. Your claim is like saying a sports car is good at handling because it is aerodynamic, and you ignore talking about it's suspension and tires.
> 
> 
> But, as we all know you are just a gaper with an ego who has been riding 6 days and somehow feels compelled to comment on things you have no first hand knowledge of.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I still stand by my statement.

What you are talking about is not going to make a noticeable difference to the end user. Split it down to minutia and sure there is a bit of a difference. Two identical jackets with different waterproof ratings but the same breathe ability are going to be just as warm. Well until you add wind, wet snow, and other elements into the mix...

AWNOW's explanation is pretty much text book industry standards by which outerwear is judged. Both of you should knock off the personal insults. Pretty please with sugar on top.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

I think I figured out why AWNOW is so upset.



Car-Eating Rabbits Invade Denver Airport*Car-Eating Rabbits Invade Denver Airport*








Travelers parking their cars at the Denver International Airport are falling victim to something worse than high fees: rabbits. The rodents seem to love the delicious soy-based wiring compound in cars built after 2002.

The airport denies that rabbits were the cause of the damage to numerous vehicles, but local mechanics — and more precisely, local dealerships — seem to think of the place as a haven for the furry predators. The camera crew shot a BMW guy pointing to a fantastic-looking E30, but we're hoping the car wasn't one of the targets.


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

Having worn a multitude of waterproof clothing (both snowboarding and motorcycling) I can tell you for certain that the more water-resistant a material is, then the less it lets air through as well.

Heat is transferred in 3 different ways (conduction, radiation, convection). Conduction and convection are the ways that we lose heat out on the mountain. Without getting into a drawn out explanation, even though the conductive properties of 5k/10k/15k fabrics are very similar (if not identical), the amount of fluid (air and water) that these fabrics are permeable to is not. The heat capacity of water is very large and even a small change in limiting how much water permeates the shell goes a long way. The difference will be most notable on a dry, cold day when you are sweating a lot under your shell... and less notable on a warmer day when you are not sweating (making for less of a difference between the relative humidity around your skin and outside the shell).

Disagree if you want, but there is a difference.


killclimbz said:


> I still stand by my statement.
> 
> What you are talking about is not going to make a noticeable difference to the end user. Split it down to minutia and sure there is a bit of a difference. Two identical jackets with different waterproof ratings but the same breathe ability are going to be just as warm. Well until you add wind, wet snow, and other elements into the mix...
> 
> AWNOW's explanation is pretty much text book industry standards by which outerwear is judged. Both of you should knock off the personal insults. Pretty please with sugar on top.


----------



## linvillegorge (Jul 6, 2009)

Wow, this thread went from helpful to full on BUTTHURT in about 3.4 seconds.

LOL


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Tarzanman said:


> Having worn a multitude of waterproof clothing (both snowboarding and motorcycling) I can tell you for certain that the more water-resistant a material is, then the less it lets air through as well.
> 
> Heat is transferred in 3 different ways (conduction, radiation, convection). Conduction and convection are the ways that we lose heat out on the mountain. Without getting into a drawn out explanation, even though the conductive properties of 5k/10k/15k fabrics are very similar (if not identical), the amount of fluid (air and water) that these fabrics are permeable to is not. The heat capacity of water is very large and even a small change in limiting how much water permeates the shell goes a long way. The difference will be most notable on a dry, cold day when you are sweating a lot under your shell... and less notable on a warmer day when you are not sweating (making for less of a difference between the relative humidity around your skin and outside the shell).
> 
> Disagree if you want, but there is a difference.


Like I said minutia...

No one is going to notice a significant difference. Argue it all you want. Layering choice will have way more effect than what you are talking about.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Also as far as the outdoor industry goes, they do not use waterproof ratings to rate warmth. The use insulation for that. I suppose you could convince them otherwise, but that is the way it is for now...:laugh:


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

No one uses engine displacement to rate fuel efficiency, but those two characteristics are also linked.



killclimbz said:


> Also as far as the outdoor industry goes, they do not use waterproof ratings to rate warmth. The use insulation for that. I suppose you could convince them otherwise, but that is the way it is for now...:laugh:


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Tarzanman said:


> No one uses engine displacement to rate fuel efficiency, but those two characteristics are also linked.


You're a geek.


----------



## AWNOW (Sep 12, 2009)

linvillegorge said:


> Wow, this thread went from helpful to full on BUTTHURT in about 3.4 seconds.
> 
> LOL


Amazing how some people act when they realize they are wrong, isn't it?


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

I did mention conduction. You should re-read my post.


Snowolf said:


> It seems to me that Tarzanman is only focusing on a part of the whole equation here....:dunno:
> 
> Sure, if something has a higher waterproof rating, it seems "logical" that it would trap more water vapor and limit heat transfer away from the body. The problem with this however is the breath ability rating affects this by deliberately allowing this to occur to prevent sweating which is a really bad thing in cold weather. If things were as simple as his argument alludes to, then the warmest thing a person could wear would be a black trash bag with a total, 100% waterproofing rating....:laugh:
> 
> ...


----------



## hi2u (Jan 17, 2010)

let me make sure i got this right, so i dont go out and buy gear that i dont need.

15k is the best for all occasions(because it wont get me wet), just make sure its not insolated(then i can just layer)
5k is the worst because i will get wet easier...


----------



## Tarzanman (Dec 20, 2008)

You are either ignoring, or don't understand the finer point that I am making. Ceteris parabis (all other things being held constant, including the amount of insulation), a 20K jacket will insulate better than a 5K jacket since waterproofing impedes heat transfer.

If that weren't the case, then there would be no need for breathability ratings on waterproof clothing because they would flow as much air as non-waterproof shell.

Also, heat loss due to radiation is nigh negligible on the side of a snowy, windy mountain when you're wearing multiple layers of clothing. We usually ignored the term when doing problems in my college heat transfer class since the amounts were so tiny in comparison.


Snowolf said:


> I stand corrected; you did in fact bring up conduction.....:thumbsup:
> 
> Regardless, I still stand by my points that it is the resistance to conduction and the ability of the material to reflect infrared radiation that gives a garment it`s insulating ability, not it`s waterproof rating.
> 
> On a clear, dry -20F day riding in Alaska, I will take a 5K jacket that has a lot of insulation like Dakron over a 20K nylon shell with no insulation, but that's just me....


----------

