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

41–50 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#41

Post by hammock »

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…

Shakedry is just a bare goretex membrane, as far as I know…aka without the outer shell fabric.

Not sure it’s revolutionary.

You reduce weight and bulk by eliminating the outer fabric but at the expense of abrasion resistance. Why it works for road cycling but not much else.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#42

Post by pstuart »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #22
mc32 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing it played well with the WWII lettering.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#43

Post by paulcole »

acdha wrote: post #30
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.?

This is what makes ShakeDry so revolutionary. The nonsense brands have been saying about waterproof and breathable is actually real.

I’ve done 30 mile runs in the pouring rain w/ my ShakeDry jacket and come out “dry” at the end. The material never wets through. The only downside for me is that it does wear “warm” so I mostly wear it in under 45F degree weather — which coincides nicely with Portland’s rainiest weather.

My jacket was around $300 and more than worth every penny.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#44

Post by noasaservice »

meindnoch wrote: post #26
noja wrote: post #18

Will the replacement for PFC be something very similar that is equally dangerous?

It will be something that turns out to be a carcinogen/endocrine disruptor 20 years from now.

I know you're being sardonic... but it will likely be another fluorine based chemistry that is hopefully more biocompatible (flush out of body easily), and not cause undue harm.

The perfluro- line of chemicals are quite amazing.. if it werent for them being completely obnoxious and stay in the body like lead.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#45

Post by thaumasiotes »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27
profile53 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

For many people, yes. It's also a very common belief that one and the same state of the environment is bad if traceable to human actions, but good otherwise.

The working premise in many environmental discussions is that humans carry an inherent moral taint and whatever they do creates a problem that needs to be corrected, because it came from an evil source, regardless of whether the resulting state of the world is good or bad.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#46

Post by loeg »

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…

Yeah, I just got one this year and it's amazing. Around 100g, super rain resistant and breathable.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#47

Post by buzzerbetrayed »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27
profile53 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don’t think that is what people are suggesting. Rather, man made is unknown. At least the long term affects are. We can confidently say that natural chemicals, even if they’re bad for you, likely won’t have a giant, unexpected impact on the world. Whereas there are a lot of man-made chemicals that are likely harmless. But less is know about the long term affects of injecting it in to all of earth’s various natural systems.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#48

Post by acdha »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27
profile53 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Often, yes: novel compounds can have side effects which take years to understand (e.g. DDT‘a impact on bird populations lasted past the point where its effectiveness was rapidly tapering) and depending on what characteristics something was picked for you can end up with something which doesn’t biodegrade and is thus a long-term problem if it doesn’t turn out to be harmless.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#49

Post by loeg »

paulcole wrote: post #43
acdha wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.?

This is what makes ShakeDry so revolutionary. The nonsense brands have been saying about waterproof and breathable is actually real. I’ve done 30 mile runs in the pouring rain w/ my ShakeDry jacket and come out “dry” at the end. The material never wets through. The only downside for me is that it does wear “warm” so I mostly wear it in under 45F degree weather — which coincides nicely with Portland’s rainiest weather…

> The only downside for me is that it does wear “warm” so I mostly wear it in under 45F degree weather

Yeah. For cycling, I wear short-sleeved summer jerseys under the Shakedry down into the 30s Fahrenheit. It gets pretty warm and sweaty in the high 40s but beats alternatives. (I'm up in Seattle.)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#50

Post by hammock »

noja wrote: post #18

Will the replacement for PFC be something very similar that is equally dangerous?

What some of the industry has been doing is switching to shorter chain PFCs… eg C6 instead of C8 which have a shorter half-life in the environment (and presumably the body). They are toxic but less so.

As for the PFC-free DWR membranes that apparel makers have been using, I don’t know enough about them but I don’t believe them to be toxic per se.

Post reply on HN