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

201–210 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#201

Post by contravariant »

noasaservice wrote: post #44
meindnoch wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What is it that makes fluorine added to carbon chains so much more versatile? I kind of get why carbon is so versatile, but what is that makes fluorine so special and why can't some other potentially less harmful halogen do the job?

Edit: Ah adding chlorine destroys the ozon layer, what's why.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#202

Post by cwwc »

bradlys wrote: post #161
1MachineElf wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get this — but in the Lakes district (England) or anyplace in Scotland, rain at 40F is still common yet folks are unperturbed and continue their daily outdoor activities.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#203

Post by s0rce »

askvictor wrote: post #136
hammock wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

| Why it works for road cycling but not much else. My guess is that road cyclists have a tendency to buy new gear on a shockingly frequent basis, so if your jacket only lasts a year it's not really a problem.

And you don't wear a backpack on a road bike.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#204

Post by s0rce »

kccqzy wrote: post #187
numpad0 wrote: post #140

> "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar. > As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line. That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were so…

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

I think the issue is more in manufacturing and disposal not use. Don't overheat your pan and you are fine. The garments also used PFAS based coatings for water repellent coatings which are also bad.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#205

Post by danuker »

kccqzy wrote: post #187
numpad0 wrote: post #140

> "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyethylene (ePE) Membrane for AW22" didn't exactly catch my eye. I sent an email out to Gorewear and asked about it, but there was nothing to test and it fell off my radar. > As it turns out, that press release was a big deal. Expanded polyethylene is the future of the Gore product line. That sounds reasonable, and by the way, today I learned we were so…

Why is this demonization of Teflon aka PTFE? I mean yes PFOA and PFOS are pretty bad, but PTFE should be pretty safe if you don't overheat it. I mean I just purchased a non-stick cooking pan and it contained PTFE coating; should I be worried now?

“At normal cooking temperatures, [Teflon]-coated cookware releases various gases and chemicals that present mild to severe toxicity.”

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/stainless-steel-or-cast-iro...

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#206

Post by ch4s3 »

1MachineElf wrote: post #158
keitmo wrote: 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…

As others have pointed out, getting we when its 40F can quickly turn into hypothermia really fast. You can also get sweaty, then cold on a 40-50F day in a rain jacket if you're moving around a lot. Being cold and wet is no joke.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#207

Post by sligor »

askvictor wrote: post #136
hammock wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

| Why it works for road cycling but not much else. My guess is that road cyclists have a tendency to buy new gear on a shockingly frequent basis, so if your jacket only lasts a year it's not really a problem.

Road cyclists don't wear backpack and don't touch rocks or branches like most other outdoor activities. Backpack + body movement will rub and wear out the naked goretex membrane quickly. And of course, rocks and branches will cut it.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#208

Post by ch4s3 »

wgjordan wrote: post #192
wernercd wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed]

The CDC's ToxFAQs page on Perfluoroalkyls [1] is one starting point, refer to the full 993-page report [2] for all the gritty details. Here's a high-level summary of the evidence on cancer risks: > The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC 2017) concluded that PFOA is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), and EPA (2016e, 2016f) concluded that there was suggestive evidence of the carcinogenic potenti…

My question for things like this is how do you get exposed? Does it absorb through the skin from a garment under normal conditions?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#209

Post by cobalt »

fnordpiglet wrote: post #111
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…

ePTFE and it’s story is amazing. https://www.wired.com/story/how-gore-tex-was-invented/

it's a little more complicated actually: http://www.no8rewired.kiwi/nz-inventions/eptfe-aka-goretex/

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#210

Post by acdha »

keitmo wrote: post #149
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.?

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.

Interesting. I had the same rule of thumb but haven’t followed the field closely since the early 2010s.
Post reply on HN