Soft shell jackets for skiing

[lowangle al]

@lowangle al thanks for the tip. I wish their website listed what % is polyslester, and what the water repellant is. From my days riding horses in the southwestern mountains I have a waxed cotton canvas duster--just cotton and wax so far as I know--, but as it goes down to my ankles probably not suitable for skiing haha

Mcs, you could cut that duster down to just above knee height, get a chinstrap for your cowboy hat and get after it!

[mca80]

There's a neat analogue in the construction industry. A recent obsession with air tightness, and materials that are supposed to work both ways, keeping moisture out while also simultaneously letting vapor escape. I am dubious and wouldn't be surprised to see all sorts of problems arise decades down the road from these methods. I built my small cabin that way, tyvek, grace ice and water shield, caulk and silicone everywhere. But next cabin I build will be totally of logs and with a sod roof, no manufactured insulation products. Same reason why I prefer linseed oil paint to latex or acryllic--the later act more like plastic to keep moisture from penetrating wood but consequently seal that wood in a way that hinders it from acting as the natural living substance it is. Linseed oil is far superior over the long run because the wood's moisture content will vary based on conditions.

[mca80]

Mcs, you could cut that duster down to just above knee height, get a chinstrap for your cowboy hat and get after it!

Ha! I have actually at times gotten clammy in that duster, though nowhere near as bad as with the synthetics I have tried. As for the cowboy hat, a strap may be needed for downhill speeds, not sure--it stayed on in all but the highest winds on horseback. Maybe I'll wear it out skiing through the woods tomorrow--supposed to be sunny for the first time in weeks so will be handy.

[Stephen]

There's a neat analogue in the construction industry. A recent obsession with air tightness, and materials that are supposed to work both ways, keeping moisture out while also simultaneously letting vapor escape. I am dubious and wouldn't be surprised to see all sorts of problems arise decades down the road from these methods. I built my small cabin that way, tyvek, grace ice and water shield, caulk and silicone everywhere. But next cabin I build will be totally of logs and with a sod roof, no manufactured insulation products. Same reason why I prefer linseed oil paint to latex or acryllic--the later act more like plastic to keep moisture from penetrating wood but consequently seal that wood in a way that hinders it from acting as the natural living substance it is. Linseed oil is far superior over the long run because the wood's moisture content will vary based on conditions.

I think a lot of current building standards go toward energy efficiency.
I don’t like low air exchange, but it is energy efficient.
I think the best option there (and very loosely related to the original topic) is heat exchanger tech.
Warm up the inlet air with the exhaust air so as to have both thermal efficiency and fresh air.
I tolerate cold air leaks at home as a source of fresh air.

[mca80]

I think a lot of current building standards go toward energy efficiency.
I don’t like low air exchange, but it is energy efficient.
I think the best option there (and very loosely related to the original topic) is heat exchanger tech.
Warm up the inlet air with the exhaust air so as to have both thermal efficiency and fresh air.
I tolerate cold air leaks at home as a source of fresh air.

Energy efficient....for now. But what happens in 3 or 4 decades? We don't really know. Wood needs to breathe. Will be interesting to see what happens to the passiv haus in 3 decades. In any case it is an experiment based on science, which means it could go massively awry. It could work, too. No telling. I prefer techniques that held up for hundreds of years.

My future construction will be logs, sod roof, snow as additional ceiling insulation, and a 1 ton masonry stove. May not be as energy efficient after production as the wrapped house with styrofoam and plastic, but my carbon footprint despite burning a bit more wood will be just a fraction of what goes into the ultra-tight platic/foam house.

[Stephen]

Maybe the real problem is everyone living above about 20* latitude. Just move back towards the equator (and give up a/c) problem solved?

What would I do with all my skis?


Now, back to Soft shell jackets for skiing…

[lowangle al]

Did I mention getting something with enough coverage to ventilate from the waist down.

[wabene]

Nice gams!

[JB TELE]

I've been using the black diamond alpine start for years. It's the best wind resistant layer for being active. It's significantly more breathable than most wind shirts on the market.

If you email the manufacturer of a windshirt or softshell, they may be able to tell you the air permeability of the fabric in cfm (cubic feet per minute). You want something with a CFM of 30-60.

[Jurassien]

The OP stated this in the first sentence of the opening post:
".......... if anybody recommends a good, breathable, very packable soft shell for backcountry XCD skiing".

In the second sentence he makes this comment:
".......... not breathable enough, too heavy, way too bulky to be worth bringing on any trip".

then he goes on to say:
"I’d like one that is very light, very packable, VERY breathable........."

So his priorities have been repeatedly stated and are very clear, namely:

• very low weight

• very low bulk

• very breathable

To this he adds:
".....preferably with a hood, and with some ability to keep me dry when it’s snowing. Oh, and I wouldn’t want to spend more than $150 or so".

He then signs off by speculating that his expectations might be unrealistic.

His expectations are not unrealistic, but some of the suggestions offered have been far from the stated criteria. The answer is very simple: not a particular brand nor garment design, but the shell material itself - namely Pertex. A shell-garment (no insulation) made from Pertex is:

• very light

• very packable (i.e. has very low bulk)

• very breathable

The one that I personally use barely merits the description "jacket" - a "wind-shirt" would be more appropriate. Nonetheless it does have a hood, a full-length zip, and provides "some ability to keep me dry when it’s snowing" and, to crown it all, it cost considerably less than $150. So let's measure it against the stated criteria:

• very light: Check; it weighs 175g

• very packable: Check; about the same volume as an orange

• very breathable: Check; it passes the "lip test" - a membrane jacket does not.

The minimalistic hood protects the head and ears, but not the face - for that I use a balaclava which incorporates a neoprene membrane to protect the chin, cheeks and nose. In more extreme conditions the goggles come out. The material is not waterproof, but because it is extremely thin it dries very quickly from body warmth alone after a squall, although it is unsuitable for a prolonged downpour. It works best as an outer shell to garments which provide warmth when damp, namely fleece and wool. It should be clear also that a jacket with such minimal weight comes without bells and whistles. It has one zipped chest pocket - useful for stashing your mittens when you stop - but practically no other "features". It is a windproof and does a very good job of protecting the wearer from wind. I do most of my XC-skiing in the Norwegian mountains, and they have been known to get the odd bit of wind up there in winter.

The system can be made even more breathable by.............taking the jacket off! That might seem like a smart-ass thing to say, but if there's no wind, what do you need a jacket for? XC-skiing is a strenuous activity and you can quickly get warm (and sweaty-wet) even without a shell of Pertex , Goretex, or any other tex. My jacket has such minimal bulk that I don't even have to open the rucksack to stash it - it can be stuffed down inside the front of my fleece shirt until it's needed again.

Why don't I just state the brand/model/price/where purchased, etc.? Because 1) it was purchased more than 10 years ago and the particular model is no longer on the market, and 2) several manufacturers of outdoor clothing offer similar garments. Just look for Pertex, no insulation, and check the specifications for weight, hood, etc.

I would add that, although I'm extremely fussy about weight, I actually carry TWO jackets. The other one is a membrane smock (i.e. no full-length zip) and weighs 280g. I have almost never had to wear it in the mountains in winter, but have often been very glad to have it in the peripheral valleys where rain is more likely than higher up. Both jackets together bring a total of 455g on the scales - considerably lighter than some of the suggested solutions, so I have lightness, low bulk and can choose between windproof and very breathable or waterproof and clammy.

Robustness was not mentioned as a criterion, and Pertex is not robust. If you take a tumble on boilerplate you will have one or more holes in your Pertex shell. Also, if you're skiing in the forest don't go shaking hands with the trees. "Ya pays yer money, ya takes yer choice" - and if ye'r on a long tour, ya takes yer needle and thread with ya.

Apologies to those who were expecting me to say "buy xxx model, of xxx brand from xxx dealer for xxx dollars".

So much for my expert advice on Pertex windshirts/jackets. Now, who do I send the bill to?