Soft-shell hard-sell?
Soft-shell garments are supposed to combine insulation, wind resistance, and water repellancy (or even waterproofness). They are cool, but are they really better? The gear-lusting side of me wants to say yes, but the practical side keeps saying “hold on.”
Soft-shell jackets are not light. While my Arc-teryx Delta fleece jacket weighs about a pound and provides sufficient warmth for most uses, a similar soft-shell jacket may weigh close to twice as much. This is not good for backpacking.
On the other hand, a soft-shell jacket should let me dispense with a shell jacket that I carry for rain and wind protection. The combination of the Delta jacket and a light Goretex parka could well weigh the same as or more than the soft-shell. However, problems remain.
A soft-shell jacket is less versatile than the combination of fleece jacket and shell. In cold and dry conditions I don’t wear the shell if I’m moving and generating heat. If it is warm and rainy I may only want the shell without the extra warmth of the fleece jacket. I could not adapt to these circumstances with a single soft-shell jacket.
Product descriptions using terms like “water repellant” and “resists rain” feed another nagging worry, reinforced by product reviews that confirm that these jackets are not really waterproof in most cases. (The lack of a hood in most of these jackets is another tip-off that they are not designed to be serious rain gear.)
So, what are they good for? Ignoring the admitted collness factor, my hunch is that they are more abrasion resistant than light Goretex gear. They are likely pretty good for around-town use where you can get out of the weather quickly. They are probably also good for cold and damp weather when you are working hard enough to keep warm.
Bottom line? I’m going to resist the impulse to get a soft-shell jacket, at least until the prices come way down.
– Dan
—–
December 24, 2003 -
Posted by gdanmitchell |
Commentary
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dan's Outside 
Soft-shell hard-sell?
Soft-shell garments are supposed to combine insulation, wind resistance, and water repellancy (or even waterproofness). They are cool, but are they really better? The gear-lusting side of me wants to say yes, but the practical side keeps saying “hold on.”
Soft-shell jackets are not light. While my Arc-teryx Delta fleece jacket weighs about a pound and provides sufficient warmth for most uses, a similar soft-shell jacket may weigh close to twice as much. This is not good for backpacking.
On the other hand, a soft-shell jacket should let me dispense with a shell jacket that I carry for rain and wind protection. The combination of the Delta jacket and a light Goretex parka could well weigh the same as or more than the soft-shell. However, problems remain.
A soft-shell jacket is less versatile than the combination of fleece jacket and shell. In cold and dry conditions I don’t wear the shell if I’m moving and generating heat. If it is warm and rainy I may only want the shell without the extra warmth of the fleece jacket. I could not adapt to these circumstances with a single soft-shell jacket.
Product descriptions using terms like “water repellant” and “resists rain” feed another nagging worry, reinforced by product reviews that confirm that these jackets are not really waterproof in most cases. (The lack of a hood in most of these jackets is another tip-off that they are not designed to be serious rain gear.)
So, what are they good for? Ignoring the admitted collness factor, my hunch is that they are more abrasion resistant than light Goretex gear. They are likely pretty good for around-town use where you can get out of the weather quickly. They are probably also good for cold and damp weather when you are working hard enough to keep warm.
Bottom line? I’m going to resist the impulse to get a soft-shell jacket, at least until the prices come way down.
– Dan
—–
Share this:
Related
December 24, 2003 - Posted by gdanmitchell | Commentary