Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

cyclingnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#21

Post by epgui »

p1mrx wrote: post #7
ck2 wrote: post #4

Maybe we can mimic some of the effects found in nature without chemicals and make hydrophobic surfaces based on their nano-level properties? Or like ducks use preen oil, something closer to that.

Isn't nature made of chemicals?

It is, and you’re totally correct to point that out. Also “you know what he meant” is not a good reason to downvote you, because no, nobody knows what is meant by “chemical” if it isn’t literally “chemical”.

One could guess that they meant “synthetic chemical”, as if that was somehow meaningfully different than a “natural chemical”, but it’s not and it’s just as wrong.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#22

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

mc32 wrote: post #6
ck2 wrote: post #4

Maybe we can mimic some of the effects found in nature without chemicals and make hydrophobic surfaces based on their nano-level properties? Or like ducks use preen oil, something closer to that.

There is already an XVIII century technology and WWII popularized option called millerain. But it requires some maintenance and isn’t “light” as preferred by cyclists and runners.

Odd choice. Writing “18th” is faster for the writer and the reader.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#23

Post by OJFord »

jmclnx wrote: post #3

"All" is a bit over the top. I have Carradice bags and a Poncho and they work fine. I have ridden in very heavy rain without issues.

I have a Carradice poncho too, love it, but I think we're just in a different market segment; it's perhaps 'all' to an every-last-gram-shaving more 'cyclesport' audience.

(I also have a couple of pairs of brandless rubber galoshes that would be unaffected. They're waterproof but I actually wear/wore (when I was cycle-commuting) them year-round - more to protect leather soles from the pedals than uppers from the rain.)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#24

Post by profile53 »

epgui wrote: post #21
p1mrx wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't nature made of chemicals?

It is, and you’re totally correct to point that out. Also “you know what he meant” is not a good reason to downvote you, because no, nobody knows what is meant by “chemical” if it isn’t literally “chemical”. One could guess that they meant “synthetic chemical”, as if that was somehow meaningfully different than a “natural chemical”, but it’s not and it’s just as wrong.

In most casual English conversation, “chemical” is implied as “[man made] chemical”, though I will admit that may not be obvious to people for whom English is not a first language. It’s obvious to (almost) any native speaker what is being said, and to willfully ignore that is to be pedantic for the sake of arguing.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#25

Post by BurningFrog »

nwah1 wrote: post #9
TrispusAttucks wrote: post #2

I am not optimistic about the future of sustainable specialized materials. It seems very likely that the same structures that give modern high tech materials their unique abilities are the same ones that make them so environmentally unfriendly.

We are in the middle of a biotech revolution. Figuring out how to scale up bioengineered materials is a likely source of impressive materials. Nature is full of stuff like spider silk, chitin, bone, phosphorescent materials, sponges,etc.

"Natural" materials can be just as toxic as manufactures ones.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#27

Post by lotsofpulp »

profile53 wrote: post #24
epgui wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, and you’re totally correct to point that out. Also “you know what he meant” is not a good reason to downvote you, because no, nobody knows what is meant by “chemical” if it isn’t literally “chemical”. One could guess that they meant “synthetic chemical”, as if that was somehow meaningfully different than a “natural chemical”, but it’s not and it’s just as wrong.

In most casual English conversation, “chemical” is implied as “[man made] chemical”, though I will admit that may not be obvious to people for whom English is not a first language. It’s obvious to (almost) any native speaker what is being said, and to willfully ignore that is to be pedantic for the sake of arguing.

Is the fact that something is man made a problem?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#28

Post by vlabakje90 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #19
elric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading something about the trillions of chiken bones we discard annually are something of a problem. "The dose makes the poison" seems to apply to the environment as much as it does to the individual.

Curious what the problem is? Animals with bones have existed for hundreds of millions of years. The environment knows what to do with them. PFCs by contrast do not exist naturally in the world and they act as a toxin in the environment.

Never before has there been a time where billions of chickens were killed each year. The dose make the poison.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#29

Post by aziaziazi »

CydeWeys wrote: post #19
elric wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading something about the trillions of chiken bones we discard annually are something of a problem. "The dose makes the poison" seems to apply to the environment as much as it does to the individual.

Curious what the problem is? Animals with bones have existed for hundreds of millions of years. The environment knows what to do with them. PFCs by contrast do not exist naturally in the world and they act as a toxin in the environment.

Around 200 billions chickens are slaughtered each year, not sure how that compare with their population during previous hundreds millions of years.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#30

Post by acdha »

wyre wrote: post #13

For anyone not familiar with what makes Shakedry so revolutionary is its ability to be waterproof, highly breathable, and incredibly lightweight. Its weight and breathability make it incredible for active sports like cycling or running. These jackets weigh around 100-150g depending on features and size and can pack into the pocket of a cycling Jersey, all while being waterproof and preventing the athlete from overhea…

> waterproof, highly breathable, and incredibly lightweight

This is basically the way most outdoors products have been marketed since the previous century so I’m not sure how much we’re actually talking about here. What I was hoping to see in that article was something more quantitative — does “heavy and doesn't breathe as well” mean something is 20% heavier or 200%, etc.?

Post reply on HN