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

341–350 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#341

Post by drewm1980 »

japanuspus wrote: post #334
adultSwim wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love to see a return of waxed canvas as an outer shell material.

Fjällräven is a very well-established Swedish brand that makes exactly this, and even have their own brand of wax. As far as I know, none of their products have any synthetic membranes. Here in Denmark, "Fjällräven" is a household name to the point that it can be used to refer to their small backpack model. [0]: https://www.fjallraven.com/

Their waterproofing wax is a mix of paraffin and bee wax. So if the whole point is to avoid petrochemicals or avoid animal products, this isn't a solution.

Perhaps soy wax could be used for this...

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#342

Post by lwhi »

acdha wrote: post #170
qbasic_forever wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like the revolution comes from what happens when you sweat.

I read that most waterproof fabrics do a good job of keeping water out. It's what happens when you sweat that makes the difference.

If there's water on the outer layer .. the sweat staying inside (soaking you from within). This is where this fabric excels .. removing the external water layer; allowing sweat to exit.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#343

Post by jimnotgym »

fingerlocks wrote: post #245
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.

What about Ventile cotton? That absorbs water and turns waterproof.

It was used for immersion suits in the war!

It was a long time favourite with hunters and special forces due to it not rustling. It was also very durable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventile

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#344

Post by hackernewds »

drewm1980 wrote: post #341
japanuspus wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fjällräven is a very well-established Swedish brand that makes exactly this, and even have their own brand of wax. As far as I know, none of their products have any synthetic membranes. Here in Denmark, "Fjällräven" is a household name to the point that it can be used to refer to their small backpack model. [0]: https://www.fjallraven.com/

Their waterproofing wax is a mix of paraffin and bee wax. So if the whole point is to avoid petrochemicals or avoid animal products, this isn't a solution. Perhaps soy wax could be used for this...

You either accept natural products (beeswax) or accept unnatural products (pfoas). what's the alternative?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#345

Post by ehnto »

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 this particular use case of PTFE makes it very prone to breaking up into small particles and ending up (quite permanently) in the environment and potentially in you. They're not very strong garments.

But this is true of most plastic fabrics, and plastic fabric is to blame for much of the microplastics in our lifestyles. Just throwing a nylon top into the dryer and you'll see all the lovely little plastic fabric particles making their way into your laundry.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#346

Post by ehnto »

jabl wrote: post #329
tartoran wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your pans are good, they’re actually bad for the industry because they have no death and the industry wants to sell you something “better and improved” every year.

Indeed. Over here every slightly larger supermarket has an aisle full with various Teflon cookware. Cast iron and stainless? Nowhere to be seen, you have to go to some specialty shop to find them. They last forever, so the market must be tiny compared to all the coated stuff that wears out in a few years.

It blows my mind that Teflon doesn't scare the pants of consumers. Marketing and media must be very good for it.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#347

Post by ehnto »

jmull wrote: post #219
throwaway892238 wrote: post #195

I must be a weirdo.... I just wear lots of wool, and a thin windproof/rainproof jacket with armpit zips. I get sweaty but I stay warm (as long as I'm moving)

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.

Not going to lie, being able to fit an entire waterproof jacket in it's own pocket the size of a wallet, and slip it into some a small day pack is a pretty big win for travelling.

But generally speaking I do think we're going a bit crazy with the exotic materials in travel/active gear. It's probably just not necessary for a lot of people's use cases.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#348

Post by ehnto »

hackernewds wrote: post #344
drewm1980 wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their waterproofing wax is a mix of paraffin and bee wax. So if the whole point is to avoid petrochemicals or avoid animal products, this isn't a solution. Perhaps soy wax could be used for this...

You either accept natural products (beeswax) or accept unnatural products (pfoas). what's the alternative?

Get a little wet sometimes I guess.

At least if we use beeswax we can approach it sustainably, filling the world with microplastics doesn't seem like a sustainable thing to be doing.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#349

Post by jibbit »

refurb wrote: post #315
waste_monk wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If humanity up and disappeared tomorrow, most of the environmental damage from cars, overpopulation, etc. would sort itself out in a couple of hundred years. PFAS, however, are extremely chemically stable and some of them will still be around in 1,000+ years time. They also bioaccumulate, and biomagnification occurs in predators (similar to mercury). It is a massive problem and the repercussions will be with us for a…

If there are no humans around does life on earth have any value? It’s just another planet among billions.

You can’t be serious?

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#350

Post by refurb »

jibbit wrote: post #349
refurb wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are no humans around does life on earth have any value? It’s just another planet among billions.

You can’t be serious?

100% serious.

Value is 100% a human construct. If there are no humans there is no value, at least in any sense that we talk about it.

If you disagree then argue your point. Asking if I’m “serious” is not an argument.

Post reply on HN