UKC

Has anyone any experience of Pattagonia’s high end hard shells versus similar offerings from Arcteryx? Thanks

All Gore Tex Pro products are made to a fairly comprehensive spec so they are all quite similar. 

Some of the cost behind Arc'teryx stuff is in the name, but there kit is often just one small step ahead of similar offerings from other companies. But that is reflected in the high price. I personally don't see the benefit in paying twice as much for the small gain in durability and performance. But if you want that extra edge then that decision is yours to make.

With most kit I think it helps to get a good fit, especially with Gore type membranes having a snug fit helps them breath better. I would try them on and see which fit best and have the features you find important. 

In addition, some of Arcteryx' flagship products, such as the Alpha SV jacket, are made locally (for them) in Canada, which accounts for at least some of the high price.

For your average user, Nothing except the cut/fit. And that is the with all ’name’ brands. 

If you’re a guide or something similar, that uses the gear 24/7/365, well then you should already know. 

Fit is the main difference, if you ignore the price. 

Patagonia tends to have a roomier fit and will certainly be a better choice if you're a slightly stockier gent, whereas Arc'teryx tend to have a more athletic (read smaller) fit. 

In terms of quality you'll find them to be similar in my experience. 

My advice would be that unless you're operating at a very high level, avoid going for the 'Fast and Light' offering from either brand and instead look for the 'Bombproof in mixed weather' jacket. 

From Patagonia this would be the Triolet, from Arc'teryx the Beta AR. 

These jackets will last much longer, run 'quieter' (i.e. less rustling) and perform just as well for a weight compensation of 100g or so. They're also cheaper so it's really a win win. 

There's also other aspects to consider such as company specific policy - by way of example Patagonia has an impressive environmental stance and are very happy to repair their products, meaning that a broken zip or small tear doesn't put paid to £400 of jacket. I'm not aware that Arc'teryx carries out a similar service but I'd be happy to be proven wrong. 

Personally I'd go for the Triolet - my girlfriend has one and it's bloody excellent. She comes down off the mountain after a day of damp, sweaty off piste in crap conditions and her down jacket is bone dry underneath the shell. 

Thanks

So you’d not go for their high end stuff like the Patagonia Pluma and the Alpha SV?

I suppose the question is how much you really value the micro gains and whether you're willing to pay for them. We tried the Pluma but found it loud in use and lacking that 'bombproof' feel that the Triolet has - perhaps this is merely an opinion but for £200 more we didn't really see a worthwhile difference. 

Weightwise the difference is 135g or so which means you're paying £1.50 per gram saved which seems a bit mental unless you're really going at it on proper hard stuff where collective weight makes a big difference. 

The Alpha SV is a cracking jacket but it's double the price of the Triolet for a 75g weight saving, and whilst it's arguable that the Alpha SV is more sturdy, at double the cost you could literally buy a triolet, wear it to death and then buy another one and wear that to death before you've even caught up to the initial cost of the SV so I'd say it's not worth it unless you've got deep pockets and big performance goals. 

I can't comment on Patagonia, but I bought an Alpha AR at the start of this year and have used it pretty extensively for Scottish winter climbing and ice climbing here in Iceland and it's undoubtedly the best waterproof jacket I've ever owned - I used to really try hard to avoid having to get the hardshell out in anything other than heavy rain but now I don't mind at all. It's certainly blown my previous jackets from companies like Rab out of the water completely.

Remains to be seen how it lasts in the longer term but I have had very positive experiences with Arc'teryx customer service in the past so I'm reasonably confident I'll be using it for a few years yet! 

Whats the difference (in real life) between Gore Pro and non-Pro? EG the Arcteryx stuff tends to be Pro and the Pat Triolet is non-Pro?

My 2014 alpha SV lasted 3 Scottish winter seasons, replaced last year with a Patagonia triolet which barely lasted this one. Arctyrex wouldn’t help with broken zips etc but Patagonia did a grand job patching and repairing (for free) something which I had basically wrecked myself. Definfitly a difference in fabric durability, but I like that Patagonia stood behind their product.

I've owned a few Arcteryx jackets, including the sv. Most of the stuff I've had was very very good, but last year I picked up a triolet cheap in a sale with the the intention it would be a glorified dog waking jacket. It's half a suit of armour. I sold the Arcteryx gear and I have never questioned the decision. I've had the triolet on in some pretty shitty weather and other than stiff zips I can't really find fault with it.

But outside of Patagonia's stellar after sale service which jacket did you prefer?

A little off-topic perhaps but these two jackets both have something I've always found lacking - laminated hoods. They seem such a rare thing in non-British designs and it really puts me off a number of brands, especially for a higher spec jacket.

Am I alone in my dislike of them?

For me, the GTX Pro is noticeable more breathable than the 'regular' GTX

I've got a Regatta jacket which I find outperforms both for a quarter of the price.

Which Patagonia and Arcteryx jackets are you comparing it too Jim? Sounds interesting.

Someone told me they'd heard a rumour that Jeremy Corbyn has either a Patagonia or Arcteryx jacket.

OP: despite me being a Patagucci loyalist for 30+ years, if I was getting a new full-weight shell now I'd likely go for a Sherpa Lithang. Really well cut jacket from a pretty ethically sound company, and there are a few deals on them floating around.

Funnily enough I have one from Sherpa, the Ang Tharkay. Seems to work well thusfar but haven't really done anything dramatic. It'll see plenty of skiing this winter though so should be well tested. 

"I picked up a triolet cheap in a sale with the the intention it would be a glorified dog waking jacket."

I cannot comment on either of the high end gore tex jackets in discussion BUT I can recommend what is IMO the ultimate dog walking jacket for bad weather. 

https://www.thebushcraftstore.co.uk/ridgeline-monsoon-elite-ii-waterproof-s...

My experience of Arc'teryx is generally poor, for instance I have and Alpha SL jacket which is about the least breathable I've had the misfortune to use. Whereas my Patagonia hard shell I still use in winter (it's too worn and hence no longer waterproof enough for summer) as it's both comfortable and well designed.

But when buying new these days I tend to look for Paramo.

Whats the difference between 'N100p-X 3L GORE-TEX Pro' and '3-layer, 3.4-oz 40-denier 100% recycled nylon plain-weave GORE-TEX® Pro shell'?!

What does the N100p-X signify?

This is the Alpha SV versus Patagonia's 'Pluma'

Denier is a textile measurement used to quantify fabric weight by the linear mass of a single fibre, 1 denier= 1 g / 9000 m or 0.11 mg/m

The N100p-X on the Alpha SV is a 100 denier nylon face fabric. The X denotes materials with a high weight/durability ratio. This is a plain weave fabric as oppose to say ripstop.

The Pluma has a 40 denier recycled nylon face fabric, comparable to that the Arc'teryx Beta LT, or the body sections to the Alpha AR.

Typically the higher the denier the more durable the face fabric. 

http://images.arcteryx.com/pdf/S13_GORE-TEX_Fabric_Chart.pdf

How on earth did you manage to pay that much for a regatta jacket ?