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

241–250 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#241

Post by syncsynchalt »

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…

Having spent the last fifteen years cycling daily, rain at 1C / 33F is colder than snow or ice at any temperature.

I'd rather be in -20C temps than wet in rain at just-above freezing temps.

Florida rain is not comparable.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#243

Post by twic »

jkqwzsoo wrote: post #86

Thinking about it for a minute, I’m not sure why we need fluoropolymers for waterproof technical fabrics. Unless I’m very much mistaken, PDMS rubber, polypropylene, polyethylene, and other materials provide similar levels of water resistance, without requiring the use of fluorine-containing compounds. Most explanations I read for Gor-Tex-type materials using PTFE (e.g., [0]) reference the hydrophobicity of the materi…

PTFE also repels oil. That means that the holes in the face fabric and the pores in the membrane don't get clogged up with oil from the wearer's body. Do those other polymers have that property? I honestly have no idea how significant this is compared to the hydrophobicity though.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#244

Post by markdown »

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…

> I feel that rain doesn't phase me at all.

Me neither, but I live in Fiji. I suspect I'd absolutely hate the freezing rain of the Pacific Northwest.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#245

Post by fingerlocks »

bamboozled wrote: post #233

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…

Cotton retains water. It’s the worst possible fabric for wet weather. Many people have died from hypothermia caused by their own sweat freezing in cotton garments. It could be argued that the entire motivation for creating synthetic fabrics is to eliminate the water soaking property of cotton.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#246

Post by topaz0 »

throwaway5959 wrote: post #222
s0rce wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don’t overheat the pan you use to cook food with heat?

Yes. i.e. 400-500F is much more likely to be harmful to health than 300F. This is why teflon pans are not a good choice for things like searing meat, where you really want the surface to be very hot. Of course, you can still do plenty of cooking at 300F.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#247

Post by [deleted] »

dragonwriter wrote: post #135
hombre_fatal wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They weren’t completely wrong about fats, we just know there’s a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats now. Don’t throw the baby out. Canola oil looks like a superfood when you swap butter for it in the literature.

> They weren’t completely wrong about fats, we just know there’s a difference between saturated fats and unsaturated fats now. We knew that in the early 2000s, too. And in the early 1990s, which is more when when the war on fats was actually happening; by the early ’00s, the diet trend had focused on low-carb diets, reversing the war on fats.

[deleted]

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#248

Post by switchbak »

version_five wrote: post #181
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #116

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 threw out all our nonstick stuff after I observed the coating routinely coming off into food. The exception is for eggs, we have a dedicated pan we only use for them, and although I've just read the other comments here about how easy it is to fry an egg in other pans, I find it goes much better in nonstick. And only frying eggs + using a plastic spatula seems to pretty much eliminate any wear on the coating.

I polished up a lodge cast iron pan to get a smooth finish, seasoned it properly with grape seed oil, and cook with butter. It works so well, it feels like I'm using a non-stick pan.

Not sure why, but using a little butter instead of oil seemed to be the key.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#249

Post by YLE118 »

postmeta wrote: post #235
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

It might be better to find a tailor/repair shop. I lost a favorite pair of ski pants when I sent them in for azipper replacement. Not sure if something got mixed up in the paperwork but I requested they be returned, not replaced if the repair was too expensive/difficult. The pants I got lasted many more years but the others would have too. Unfortunately zippers are just hard to replace if the teeth get damaged. They tend to be sewn in early in the assembly process.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#250

Post by bawolff »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #108
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. Side note: I wish HN would change Wikipedia links to desktop by default. It seems most people post the mobile version. It is a bit annoying, because when you are on mobile, a desktop version gets switched to mobile by wikipedia; but if you are on desktop, you end up with a mobile version which is not optimized for desktop reading.

I filed a ticket with Wikipedia about this exact issue years ago. I get pinged every other year when a new ticket is merged with it. Apparently, some journalist wrote an article years ago about mobile Wikipedia being a better experience on desktop, and now they refuse to do anything about it. All you can do now is get an extension that redirects you. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/redirect-mobi...

Bug tickets are generally not the place where political decisions get overturned, so you will probably be waiting a long time.
Post reply on HN