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

231–240 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#231

Post by kragen »

CameronNemo wrote: post #100
kragen wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no, there just isn't a replacement for perfluorocarbons, that's all perfluorocarbons themselves are among the least dangerous materials in the world, but the materials used to make them are very nasty indeed

TFA mentions Gore is putting a lot of money into R&D for PFA alternatives. They may fail, not sure if that is what you meant. But they will certainly try.

no other class of materials is anywhere close to perfluorocarbons in many properties, such as low affinity for both water and hydrocarbons (and consequently fats), and ultraviolet resistance coupled with softness

additionally such levels of resistance to biodegradation are rarely found in combination with either of the previous two qualities

no other known organic compounds, out of the currently 182 million assigned cas numbers, are as thermally stable

we are not talking about the kind of research and development that a company can carry out over a commercially viable timescale; we're talking about fundamental breakthroughs in material engineering

perfluorocarbons were discovered almost a century ago, and nothing equaling or exceeding their properties in these ways has been discovered since

moreover, there are fundamental reasons to suspect that nothing ever will be; fluorine is the most electronegative element that exists or ever will exist, if we restrict ourselves to ordinary atomic matter, and there aren't any plausible room-temperature substitutes for carbon chains in this role either

so it wouldn't be surprising if the company tries to palm off inferior polyethylene substitutes as 'gore-tex' in preference to just declaring defeat, but it's not plausible that they're going to discover an equivalent or better non-perfluorocarbon alternative within the next decade or two

this is science, not magic

some things are just impossible

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#232

Post by senderista »

SkyPuncher wrote: post #227
jmull wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wool + wind shield is actually pretty hard to beat. The modern materials can be effective while being very light weight and take up little space. But I think these are much more niche concerns than most people like to acknowledge. I think the real reason the modern materials are more popular than wool+ is that they are more profitable when marketed, and hence are heavily marketed.

The problem is most wind shields are equivalent to wearing a plastic bag. The moment you start sweating, it creates a terrible, sticky, humid environment.

For active use, you’ll often stay drier under a water-repellent treated breathable fabric that doesn’t pretend to be waterproof. With most “waterproof/breathable” fabrics, you’ll get soaked from the inside long before you get soaked from the outside.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#233

Post by bamboozled »

Has anyone tried wax cotton? https://www.fjallraven.com/us/en-us/about/our-materials/g100...

I have some items from Fjallraven which is made from a cotton/pollyester blend and I find it to be amazingly breathable and water resistant (when waxed).

The thing is, I own so much waterproof gear but I hardly do a great amount of anything in the actual rain, even if hiking or camping, I usually avoid wet weather, I suspect a log of people do?

I spend a lot of time in the snow but the was cotton works fine for snow.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#234

Post by kragen »

monetus wrote: post #130
kragen wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that movie is fiction probably neither any kind of fiction, nor any kind of movies, but least of all fictional movies, are a good source for information about scientific facts, toxicology, or risk assessment

It is a dramatization of a real story, one that happened to be testified to in congress not long before the movie came out. Please take people in good faith.

i don't think the grandparent poster is posting in bad faith, i just think they're getting their information about that real story from an intentionally unreliable source

movies lie to you on purpose to manipulate your emotions

there are lots of reliable information sources about pollution risks, like mmwr, the cochrane collaboration, msds, toxicology textbooks, wikipedia, epa assessments, and so on

there is no need to make yourself dumber by making life decisions contingent on beliefs you acquired from movies

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#235

Post by postmeta »

senderista wrote: post #230

Not sure if use of recycled materials is responsible, but I bought a new Patagonia R1 fleece pullover a few years ago and it was utter garbage compared to its 20-year old predecessor (technically, same model). Probably the worst-fitting item of clothing I own, and the fabric is incredibly uncomfortable. Meanwhile, chest zipper on the original has gone out, but it fits as well and is just as comfy as the day I bought…

doesnt patagonia have some repair/lifetime warranty? might be possible to save the old one

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#236

Post by bamboozled »

senderista wrote: post #230

Not sure if use of recycled materials is responsible, but I bought a new Patagonia R1 fleece pullover a few years ago and it was utter garbage compared to its 20-year old predecessor (technically, same model). Probably the worst-fitting item of clothing I own, and the fabric is incredibly uncomfortable. Meanwhile, chest zipper on the original has gone out, but it fits as well and is just as comfy as the day I bought…

I have one and I can't compare it to your 20 year old model, but I wear it skiing everday in winter, maybe 140 days of the year, I have fo 3 years and so far it's fine.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#237

Post by syncsynchalt »

senderista wrote: post #230

Not sure if use of recycled materials is responsible, but I bought a new Patagonia R1 fleece pullover a few years ago and it was utter garbage compared to its 20-year old predecessor (technically, same model). Probably the worst-fitting item of clothing I own, and the fabric is incredibly uncomfortable. Meanwhile, chest zipper on the original has gone out, but it fits as well and is just as comfy as the day I bought…

A tailor will replace the zipper for you at a reasonable cost. I do this on my motorcycling gear as the zipper is the first to go on leather armor.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#239

Post by paulcole »

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #214
paulcole wrote: post #43

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…

Quoted post unavailable.

I don’t eat meat, I’ve never driven a car, I don’t fly in airplanes, I don’t have kids, and I live in a tiny apartment. How many of those are true for you?

I’ll allow myself the planet-killing indulgence of the jacket — which pales in comparison to those other steps I’ve taken.

Plus, I have a chronic illness that will already likely significantly shorten my life anyway. I’m not too worried about the health effects of a jacket that I wear 75 days a year.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#240

Post by fncivivue7 »

And thank fuck for that. DWR is disgusting, horrible stuff.

Stop using DWR. Buy frogtoggs or Columbia outdry and leave this stuff behind.

Outdry is lighter stronger, doesn't wear off after three outings, and the material breathes better than a wetted out goretex jacket ever will.

Unless you're in snow, goretex is next to useless.

Post reply on HN