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

51–60 of 397 posts

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#51

Post by profile53 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #27
profile53 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In most casual English conversation, “chemical” is implied as “[man made] chemical”, though I will admit that may not be obvious to people for whom English is not a first language. It’s obvious to (almost) any native speaker what is being said, and to willfully ignore that is to be pedantic for the sake of arguing.

Is the fact that something is man made a problem?

It’s a good question and in my opinion, it depends entirely on the compound.

But that wasn’t the point of my comment. I am calling out people being pedantic and nitpicky just to argue, instead of recognizing the very obvious intent of the great-grand parent’s comment and debating something with merits, like whether man made chemicals are inherently bad.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#52

Post by wyre »

ghaff wrote: post #36
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more of a case that they as a business have no way of making money without this pollutant not that the pollutant itself is not an issue. I have worn plenty of boots with Gore-Tex reinforced regions and they most definitely break down and become frail and brittle given enough kilometers of trekking.

I'm honestly not convinced how much good Gore-Tex does in a boot. I've bought boots with Gore-Tex because I liked them for other reasons but I'm not sure they were appreciably more water resistant than those that were "waterproof." Certainly my heavy leather boots (or my winter books that have rubber or whatever on the lower part of the boot) are more resistant.

Gore Tex is going to be much lighter and more pliable than leather or rubber.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#55

Post by c1ccccc1 »

profile53 wrote: post #24
epgui wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is, and you’re totally correct to point that out. Also “you know what he meant” is not a good reason to downvote you, because no, nobody knows what is meant by “chemical” if it isn’t literally “chemical”. One could guess that they meant “synthetic chemical”, as if that was somehow meaningfully different than a “natural chemical”, but it’s not and it’s just as wrong.

In most casual English conversation, “chemical” is implied as “[man made] chemical”, though I will admit that may not be obvious to people for whom English is not a first language. It’s obvious to (almost) any native speaker what is being said, and to willfully ignore that is to be pedantic for the sake of arguing.

So which of the following count as "man made" chemicals?

Alcohol or vinegar from humans intentionally fermenting things?

A metallic aluminum alloy?

Sulfuric acid (which sometimes occurs naturally)?

Turpentine?

Soda-lime glass?

I get that it generally refers to substances that are more on the very artificial side, requiring advanced knowledge of chemistry to produce, and to have a connotation of harmfulness / toxicity. But it's not at all obvious what the speaker would consider to be a "chemical" because that varies from speaker to speaker.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#56

Post by hammock »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #16

I've always used Nikwax waterproofing products. PFC free and amazing for tents and shells.

You are getting dinged on semantics but I’m here to +1 you for Nikwax. Its major competitors, like Gear-X and whatever else all use PFCs, and do not indicate this on the label. While the entire Nikwax portfolio is PFC-free

And yea, when people put sno-seal or whatever else on their winter boots they typically call it “waterproofing” even if it’s not technically the same meaning of that word as what you would say about a rain jacket

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#57

Post by hedora »

hammock wrote: post #50
noja wrote: post #18

Will the replacement for PFC be something very similar that is equally dangerous?

What some of the industry has been doing is switching to shorter chain PFCs… eg C6 instead of C8 which have a shorter half-life in the environment (and presumably the body). They are toxic but less so. As for the PFC-free DWR membranes that apparel makers have been using, I don’t know enough about them but I don’t believe them to be toxic per se.

From the article (so, the replacement is not just another equally bad chemical with an acronym that starts with "PF"):

When it comes to Gore Fabrics, it has actually telegraphed its next move, at least to an extent. Back in September, a press release went out but never got much traction. I remember it coming through my inbox at the time and the title "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. Like existing products, it's available as a three-layer fabric with a membrane-embedded between an inner and outer face fabric. It still carries the "Guaranteed To Keep You Dry" promise and it's still a microporous breathable design. What's different is that it is free of PFC [ed. Per-fluorinated compounds] and half the weight for footwear and clothing. It's currently unavailable in any cycling product, so for now, it’s a waiting game to see how it performs.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#58

Post by olivermarks »

olivermarks wrote: post #8

Given that many cyclists also have deep climate anxieties and conservative (with a small'c') attitudes it sounds as though 1970's era pvc coated nylon and cotton will make a resurgence

Whilst PVC is most frequently made from salt and oil, in some regions of the world PVC is made without using oil feedstock at all (substituting oil-derived hydrocarbon with bio-derived hydrocarbon feedstock). PVC is therefore far less oil-dependent than other thermoplastics.

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#59

Post by hammock »

hedora wrote: post #57
hammock wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What some of the industry has been doing is switching to shorter chain PFCs… eg C6 instead of C8 which have a shorter half-life in the environment (and presumably the body). They are toxic but less so. As for the PFC-free DWR membranes that apparel makers have been using, I don’t know enough about them but I don’t believe them to be toxic per se.

From the article (so, the replacement is not just another equally bad chemical with an acronym that starts with "PF"): When it comes to Gore Fabrics, it has actually telegraphed its next move, at least to an extent. Back in September, a press release went out but never got much traction. I remember it coming through my inbox at the time and the title "Introducing New Gore-Tex Products with Innovative Expanded Polyeth…

I wasn’t too clear but I kind of switched topic from the membrane to the DWR coating to give an adjacent example of how the industry has approached reducing PFCs.

ePE refers to a replacement of the ePTFE membrane (which, in a 3 layer piece, is sandwiched between the liner and outer shell). That’s not what I’m referring to.

What I’m referring to is the DWR coating on the outer shell (that keeps the membrane from “wetting out”). Traditionally it was PFCs but there are non-PFC options now

The ePE membrane sounds cool though, if it works

Re: PFC bans are going to change waterproof garments

#60

Post by _0w8t »

paulcole wrote: post #43
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.?

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…

I remember US army like 10 years ago compared different fabrics and have found eVent was performing significantly better than Gore Tex. Does ShakeDry really better than alternative according to some realistic tests?
Post reply on HN