Live data from Hacker News

PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

cyclingnews.com

161–170 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#161
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years I've said "any clothing manufacturer that promises something is both 'waterproof' and 'breathable' is lying to you". Shakedry actually delivers on this promise. FWIW I do endurance cycling in the Seattle area, a.k.a. "The Pacific NorthWET". We tend to stress the hell out of waterproof clothing.

In Florida, living between the coast and the everglades, rain is a daily occurrence. Having grown up there for 20 years, I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all. I have questioned the averseness northerners have towards getting wet. Living in Maryland now, so many I've interacted with will just not go outside all day if there is rain. They've been raised by parents who've trained them to wait for the rain to stop, t…

Rain when it's 40F out hits different. It's not 70 and raining. It makes you much colder.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#162
post #31

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.

Given our ever-expanding definition of "environmentally unfriendly" and our ever-contracting definition of "sustainable", I'm actually not sure that anything actually makes the cut in the long run. Everything "effects the environment" in some way, after all.

Welcome to the degrowth mindset, where anything that represents technological innovation by mankind is perforce evil and must be stamped out.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#163
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…

[deleted]

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ditched them a while ago as well. I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before.

Because in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case. Your stainless steel, high carbon steel, and cast iron pans require using a small amount of oil/butter to have nonstick cooking properties.

> in the early 2000s there was a war on natural fats. Nutritionists declared all fat bad. We now know that to not be the case.

Saturated fats were and remain to be generally thought unhealthy (if we say things like 'all' or 'always', we're almost certainly spreading misinformation; the world doesn't work that way). Other fats (polyunsaturates and monounsaturates) are believed to be healthy or neutral. There is ongoing uncertainty and debate; the degrees and nuances change; we don't get sure, hyperbolic answers.

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/well/fda-healthy-food.htm...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/well/good-fats-bad-fats.h...

I'm not a grammar and spelling critic, but I'm going to be a style critic here (sorry to the parent; lots of people write this way): Hyperbole commonly leads to misinformation. 'War', 'all fat', 'nutritionists declared', 'bad' etc. divert us to an emotional, adversarial contest with a strawperson enemy, rather than into the pursuit of truth, whose object is always nuanced and whose pursuit is difficult enough as it is.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

> especially eggs Cooking eggs on a stainless pain isn't particularly difficult, you just need to change your technique and use quite a bit more preheating along with more oil or butter than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan. So, it's useful in that sense, but it's not as if we wanted for pan fried eggs before non-stick existed.

> along with more oil or butter than you traditionally would for a non-stick pan

Which means you're trading one health benefit for another.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ditched them a while ago as well. I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

What is the difficulty with fish and eggs? I ask because I used to use eggs to deglaze my cast iron skillet. Cook something and then when I'm done cook scrambled eggs in it to soak up all the debris. As a plus side the eggs have the flavor of whatever you're cooking.

(To be clear, I'm really interested in what the issue is. This isn't meant to be asking a question as a form of sarcasm.)

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I only use cast iron or stainless steel and it makes me wonder why I ever bothered with non-stick before. Because they are incredibly useful when it comes to certain kinds of food, especially eggs and fish. I find all the "self-congratulatory" posts on the topic of non-stick pans, and demonization of people that use them, of the "thou doth protest too much" quality. Tons of renowned chefs, like Jacques Pepin, have…

I'm a fairly poor cook and I have to say, the "make a French omelette on a cast iron" challenge is just about the easiest challenge I've ever done. Cast iron + butter is incredibly non-sticky (ditto for carbon steel, which has the same seasoning properties but is thinner). I've read online so many times that French omelettes are The Reason to use nonstick pans; I was shocked when I first tried making one on seasoned…

What brand of pans do you recommend?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#168
post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For years I've said "any clothing manufacturer that promises something is both 'waterproof' and 'breathable' is lying to you". Shakedry actually delivers on this promise. FWIW I do endurance cycling in the Seattle area, a.k.a. "The Pacific NorthWET". We tend to stress the hell out of waterproof clothing.

In Florida, living between the coast and the everglades, rain is a daily occurrence. Having grown up there for 20 years, I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all. I have questioned the averseness northerners have towards getting wet. Living in Maryland now, so many I've interacted with will just not go outside all day if there is rain. They've been raised by parents who've trained them to wait for the rain to stop, t…

Getting wet is one thing, getting wet in the cold for hours on end is another. For example, the onset of trench foot can happen in under 12 hours.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

As a runner myself, does being waterproof make that much of a difference? I've done pretty cold runs with various layers of under armour (or related) and while you don't stay dry, you do stay warm, and you will dry out pretty quickly if the rain stops. Only thing I can think of would be very rainy and very windy weather but those are pretty rare in my area.

When it’s very wet, being truly waterproof and breathable makes a huge difference. It’s both much more comfortable and keeps me much warmer over the course of a 4-8 hour long run.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#170
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.?

It's night and day different with other waterproof tech. Goretex publishes all the specs you want like hydrostatic head rating (how many mm of water pressure it can withstand), breathability, etc. Shakedry was better and lighter than anything else we've ever seen. The only con against it is that in high abrasion situations (like shoulder areas of jackets when wearing a heavy backpack) it can wear out. People in the o…

Interesting. I have a fair amount of older ultralight stuff and while it definitely did the job I certainly felt that there was a sharp knuckle in the price curve where the extra cost wasn’t worth it.

Durability is a big factor now though since I’m primarily bike commuting where it’s about daily use & weight is less important.

Post reply on HN