EM-Chiseller
Thru Hiker
Nice... Very nice. If I hadn't bought an FKT quilt... I could have been temptedBlue Bolt has released 4th iteration of its quilt.
Solo Quilt v4.0 – Blue Bolt Gear
blueboltgear.com
Zzzzleeping Systems Snooze & Updates
- Thread starter Odd Man
- Start date
Rog Tallbloke
Thru Hiker
Does anyone have experience with Alpkit Cloudbase inflatable sleeping mats? Any good? I'm looking for a non-insulated, light but reliable pad of this cellular type.
Odd Man
Thru Hiker
Wearable Primaloft Gold bag for wet conditions
www.sitkagear.com
Kelvin Aerolite 30 Sleeping Bag | SITKA Gear
The Kelvin Aerolite 30 Sleeping Bag is a multifunctional layer for active time in camp, cold glassing sessions or dreaded midnight nature calls. Synthetic PrimaLoft® Gold Insulation with Cross Core™ technology replicates the aesthetics and performance of down insulation, but with warm-when-wet...
www.sitkagear.com
Alf Outdoors
F.K.A tarptent
Back to working out R-values...I cannot find any info on the R values of closed cell foam mats/pads using the newer ASTM FF33400-18 standard...Probably because it requires very expensive test equipment to actually test each mat and closed cell foam mats are usually budget items with low profit margins, making it too expensive.
The resistance to heat flow, from the top of the mat to the bottom, is measured by placing a hot plate on one side of a sleeping mat and a cold plate on the other.
Electronic sensors then determine how much energy it takes to keep the hot plate at a consistent body heat. The test gear probably costs several thousand dollars...It's certainly looks complicated and sophisticated enough to warrant that sort of cost.
During this test, the sleeping mat must be inflated to a specific pressure (0.5 psi) and the hot plate must be applied to at 2pa pressure. The temperature of the heated plate is set at 35֯C / 95֯F to mimic body heat. And calibrating the machine before each test is a very complicated process.
But that first requirement seems to rule out using the ASTM FF33400-18 standard to rest the R value of closed cell foam mats in the first place, as obviously you cannot inflate a non inflatable mat to a specific pressure...So anyone claiming to definitely know the R value of a foam must be be mistaken, because as far as I can tell no foam mat has ever been tested using the same test gear to that standard.
The resistance to heat flow, from the top of the mat to the bottom, is measured by placing a hot plate on one side of a sleeping mat and a cold plate on the other.
Electronic sensors then determine how much energy it takes to keep the hot plate at a consistent body heat. The test gear probably costs several thousand dollars...It's certainly looks complicated and sophisticated enough to warrant that sort of cost.
During this test, the sleeping mat must be inflated to a specific pressure (0.5 psi) and the hot plate must be applied to at 2pa pressure. The temperature of the heated plate is set at 35֯C / 95֯F to mimic body heat. And calibrating the machine before each test is a very complicated process.
But that first requirement seems to rule out using the ASTM FF33400-18 standard to rest the R value of closed cell foam mats in the first place, as obviously you cannot inflate a non inflatable mat to a specific pressure...So anyone claiming to definitely know the R value of a foam must be be mistaken, because as far as I can tell no foam mat has ever been tested using the same test gear to that standard.
Odd Man
Thru Hiker
The manufacturers have provided them.
Sleeping Pad R-Values of 2024 - SectionHiker.com
A backpacking or camping sleeping pad's R-value measures its resistance to heat loss to the ground w
sectionhiker.com
WilliamC
Thru Hiker
Interesting that generally the air mats increased in R-value with the new standard, while the SIMs and CCfs decreased. I wonder how a pressure of 0.5psi relates to how most of us use our mats in the real world?The manufacturers have provided them.
Sleeping Pad R-Values of 2024 - SectionHiker.com
A backpacking or camping sleeping pad's R-value measures its resistance to heat loss to the ground w
And I still maintain that a CCF pad is warmer in practice than an inflatable of similar R-value - perhaps if I blew the air mats up harder? If only someone would invent a CCF mat as comfortable as an air mat.
Odd Man
Thru Hiker
Also how much does the air temperature and moisture inside the inflatable mat affect the R-value? Those were probably standardised for the official testing, but what's the effect on the field?
Alf Outdoors
F.K.A tarptent
Only some manufacturers have provided them...The bigger expensive brands that can afford to pay to have their mats tested. Not the cheaper budget brands.The manufacturers have provided them.
Sleeping Pad R-Values of 2024 - SectionHiker.com
A backpacking or camping sleeping pad's R-value measures its resistance to heat loss to the ground w
For eample, there is no data for my 7mm WWAGO foam sit pad, which my SSM Mk2 is based on (it's made from 6 of them), and there is no data for a Tesco camping mat, which my SSM Mk3 is based on.
The ASTM FF33400-18 standard is not a globally agreed standard and it may never be while the equipment used to measure R values to that standard is so expensive to purchase and operate...They need to get the Chinese manufacturers on board as they are the largest producers of sleeping mats, both CCF and inflatable, in the world. Most of the big brands get their inflatable mats made there too to cut costs so it would make sense. Then the Chinese could test them at source, so to speak, and publish the results on ads on aliexpress etc. It could be a decade or more before that will happen...Meanwhile, we still have no idea what the ASTM FF33400-18 standard R value of our mats is.
Odd Man
Thru Hiker
That's what exactly it is, an agreed industry wide standard. It's up to the manufacturers to adopt the standard or not, but they can't use the standard to promote their products unless they comply with the standard.
Since most companies manufacture their goods in China, this means Chinese have also the option of test them according to the standard, maybe they just choose not to?
It's unlikely that the non-brand / unknown brand CCF mat has higher R-value than a TAR Z-lite or Nemo Switchback, just like the unknown brands' sleeping bags vs established brands'.
Last edited:
Yeah I've used one bikepacking a few times @Rog Tallbloke, it's a lot more comfortable than I was expecting
I needed something that wasn't as chunky as my usual mats to use inside a hooped bivvy and this one didn't disappoint
Balagan
Thru Hiker
There is no data because the manufacturer and/or distributor is not interested in providing accurate information. The reason is very probably because the answer is "not much".
Last edited:
Rog Tallbloke
Thru Hiker
The R value of a S2S ultralight non-insulated is 0.7
The ultralight insulated is 2.7 and weighs 140g more.
The R value of a ridgerest is around 2, and it weighs around 280g.
I find it hard to believe that 140g of insulation in the S2S provides as much R value as a ridgerest, and I don't trust any of the figures much.
Balagan
Thru Hiker
I don't disagree with what you are saying and I would also take all R-values with a pinch of salt. However, I'm not sure how it relates to my point about the lack of R-values for cheapo CCF mats.
Rog Tallbloke
Thru Hiker
I didn't disagree with that either. As a rule of thumb, I think 0.5R per 100g of mattress isn't far out, regardless of type.
Whiteburn
Thru Hiker
There’s little magic in in the thermal conductivity (R) of a CCF mat, for plain sheet CCF, it’s simply a function of thickness.
CCF is simply polyethylene with small gas bubbles in it (usually air or nitrogen), the composite R value being dependant upon the density of the foam. Polyethylene has a thermal conductivity around 20 times that of air/ nitrogen so for a given CCF thickness the more polyethylene that’s present (higher density foam) the lower the resultant R value. However, changing the foam density from 30 kg/m3 (typical) to say 40 kg/m3 would only reduce the R value fractionally. The counter point being the mechanical strength of the mat will probably be increased (polyethylene is stronger than air), manufacturing methods will also vary the bubble size which can influence the overall structure 'feel'.
I’ve always used R = 1.0 for a 6mm CCF mat as a rule of thumb, IMO this is good enough, who really cares if a lab test comes up with 1.05 or 0.95 (no manufacturer can magically achieve substantially higher).....it’s a bit like discussing how sharp a sewing needle is.
Whiteburn
Thru Hiker
You were obviously a whoose......in the 'good 'ole' days it was luxury to find a spot of deep heather to lay down on.My rule of thumb is... if you are the sort that can just sleep on a CCF mat, R values wont/shouldn't matter to you anyway.
.... remembers hardy youthfulness.
Balagan
Thru Hiker
Deep heather! In my days, we'd be thankful if five of us could share a soggy stuff sack in a ditch.
Balagan
Thru Hiker
Or, in other words, not much.
Rog Tallbloke
Thru Hiker
I find that a 6mm ccf plus 5cm uninsulated air pad is warm enough outside winter. That combo comes to around 600g.
Odd Man
Thru Hiker
Odd Man
Thru Hiker
Relaunch on IndieGoGO
www.indiegogo.com
Feature packed like no other sleeping system.
Bivy Shell | Water Repellant Insulation | Vapour Barrier Liner | Draft Stopper | Integrated Hood | Check out 'Feature packed like no other sleeping system.' on Indiegogo.
www.indiegogo.com
Back in Pack
Section Hiker
Just seen this. I have been looking for a euro-produced -30C sleeping bag. The criterion expedition 900 with its 850FP down and 1.5kg seems like a really good option for the weight/price.
Last edited: