UKC

Softshells are still relatively new to me. I own a Vapour-Rise, but beyond that I've always just made do with insulation and waterproofs if needed.

I am however looking into softshells more, particularly trousers.

Now from what I gather there's two main types, lined and unlined. Due to my desire to use them in the snow and predominately in winter I'm leaning towards lined, because otherwise I can see postholing in damp snow resulting in wet legs pretty quickly (correct me if I'm wrong).

Now comes my point of confusion though. I gather lined softshells aren't classed as waterproof because companies don't bother sealing the seams. Why is this? Is it really so much extra effort that having a soft, fully waterproof trouser isn't worth it?

In reply to Dheorl:

I use thick softshell trousers in winter but always use a gaiter to stop the bottoms getting wet. The rest breathes better and keeps warm enough. Waterproof trousers for me get damp unless I'm winter climbing in which case always wear a shell.

In reply to Dheorl:

ive not tried a lined softshell so cant comment on that, but with regard to regular softshell jackets or trousers, they stretch fairly well, offer windproofing but in my experience absorb water rather well. I keep softshell jackets for running or casual wear. Trousers however as above are useful with gaiters in snow and cold conditions.
I dont know if Id personally notice any difference in having sealed seams in trousers, even for (running/cycling) jackets Ive found the fabric will wet out before I notice ingress through seams, different matter if it were a prolonged period of rain, but then Id be wearing a proper seam sealed hardshell then anyway.

In reply to Dheorl:
I think you might be mixing up terms:

When you say "lined" do you mean "membrane"?

As far as I'm aware, lined means it has a fleecy lining. This could equally apply to "membrane" and "non-membrane" softshells.

"Membrane" softshells are "softshell" in name, but not in nature. They're just "soft feeling waterproofs". I.e. they're no-where near breathable enough to be classified as softshells. In my opinion it is a compromise between a true mountain hardshell (very weatherproof, reasonably breathable but not enough for high output activities) and a true softshell (relatively inexpensive, stretchy, tough, weather-resistant and very breathable)

Good winter-grade softshells start off with the very well priced Decathlon 500 Warm https://www.decathlon.co.uk/for-500-warm-m-trousers-black-id_8369747.html (much loved on here)

Most decent outdoors manufacturers have one in their range now. I've been quite impressed with the Mountain Equipment Mission: http://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/mission-pant

There are loads of others and if you do a search on here there will be lots of recommendations.

P.S. I haven't used gaiters in years and my legs don't get wet unless it's truly slushy/melting/deep mush. Good softshells are very good at keeping the elements out despite not being waterproof.

In reply to Dheorl:

P.P.S - A good selection here: https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=8277

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:

I've often heard the term lined to refer to Gore-Tex, particularly with shoes. Assumed it was an acceptable phrasing with any other item of clothing that used Gore-Tex.

I've been looking for softshells with built in gaiters, just for that extra level of protection, as I know there'll often be times when I'm sinking into soft snow with them. Mountain Equipment G2 and Mammut Base Jump Tour are currently top of my list for each type (I'd love to try the Jottnar but can't find anywhere that stocks them) as I also quite like braces for winter gear.

As for the question in the OP, if you see softshells with a membrane as simply soft feeling waterproofs then do you know why they don't seal the seams so they're actually waterproof?

In reply to Pesda potato:

Thanks for the reply.

When you say the fabric will wet out, do you mean from the inside from sweat? If it's on the outside then surely sealed seams would still be a good idea as then even heavy wet clothing would still at least keep the being underneath dry.

In reply to Dheorl:
wetting out generally refers to the fabric getting wet from the outside. It depends what you want it for, if you want a softshell for same reasons that I do then its breathability as most membrane / lined jackets will get wet from sweat inside during high intensity activities.
Im sure someone more knowledgeable will be along soon to discuss the pros/cons of sealed seams.

In reply to Pesda potato:

That's what I usually interpret it to mean; I'm just confused then why you mention wetting out before the seams leak. Surely whether or not the fabric has wetted out, staying dry inside would always be a benefit?

I want a softshell to keep me dry in snow and warm in the wind and to prevent me having to put on my hardshell as much as possible.

In reply to Dheorl:

I think you're getting awfully confused.

There are hardshells - water-proofed, taped and breathable to a point. Most have a membrane with holes that will let water vapour escape.

Softshells may have a membrane (differnt sort) or not. The latter tend to be less windproof and made of a close knit fabric. Being less wind-proof they are better for hot weaty activity.

Softshells with a membrane are windproof and may have taped seams although most don't. They are hotter to wear.

Most softshells have a durable water repellent (DWR) coating that makes water bead on the surface. Hardshells have the same. Fabric with this looks wonderfully waterroof as the water forms beads and just runs of the surface. As the coating wears off, this doesn't happen any more and the water 'wets out' and looks wet (who'd have guessed!)

Softshells may have the appearance of an outer layer and a fleecy inner, or be clearly a single layer fabric (the latter are generally the less windproof)

For winter climbing I wear a softshell with a membrane and only wear a waterproof if it's actually raining. If it's a blue sky, no wind day, then I'll opt for the greater comfort and stretch of a jacket without a membrane.

My current trousers are very windproof and have some sort of membrane.

I think built in gaiters are fine if you're not going anywhere near a bog or heather. Gaiters also keep spare fabric away from crampon point and make a good place to keep a map or guidebook

In reply to nniff:

I don't think I'm getting confused. I understand there are hardshells and softshells, and I understand there are softshells with and without membranes. I understand all about the coatings and beading etc and they layers things are made of.

My question is, by and large, why do they not bother sealing the seams on softshell membranes. I've seen one or two that do, and I can't see any reason why you wouldn't, but it doesn't seem in the slightest bit common.

The trousers I've been looking at seem close enough over my boot that if anything gaiters flap around more, and seeing as the trousers have quite large reinforced patches seem kinda redundant to me.

In reply to Dheorl:


Because:
a) the fabric isn't waterproof, so why bother making the seams waterproof
b) to avoid confusing customers

The only time I could see the benefit of taped seams is with Powershield Pro which is almost waterproof in theory - it is basically less waterproof, more breathable Neoshell I think. If you had taped Powershield Pro jackets, then you start to confuse the fancy expensive Neoshell hardshells (which should keep you dry) with nearly-waterproof softshells which won't, with potential consumer confusion and negative publicity - maybe?

In reply to andrewmc:
I thought pretty much the whole point of GoreTex is that it is waterproof?

I feel I should add that I know there are softshells which do have taped seams and claim to be fully waterproof, so why doesn't everyone do this?

In reply to Dheorl:

GoreTex is not a softshell. It's used in Hardshell garments (all types of GoreTex).

In reply to afx22:

Ok, I'm being lazy and using the term GoreTex to refer to waterproof breathable membranes (GoreTex is definitely less to type).

So are softshells which use taped waterproof breathable membranes not really softshells then, despite being soft and being a shell?

If so then what is actually the definition of a softshell; does it require that it can't actually be waterproof? Because frankly that just seems moronic.

In reply to Dheorl:

My view is that Softshells are in the middle between old skool fleeces and waterproof / windproof hardshells. They're designed to add protection from wind and to a lesser extent, rain - more than a fleece but offer better breathability than most hardshells. There's always some products that blur the lines - especially some the new 'hybrid' items.

I can't think of a single waterproof softshell - even thought the majority will be treated with a DWR coating from new.

In reply to afx22:

Mountain hardwear chute claim to be both softshell and waterproof. I haven't personally had the chance to test either of those claims, but assuming they're not lying would you say it's a misclassification despite being soft and a shell?

If not then I'm wondering why more softshell manufacturers who bother putting a membrane into their products don't do similar. Simply curious what the downside is.

In reply to Dheorl:
I think that a softshell is simply something less than a hardshell, but there is quite a lot of variability to what one might be. I suppose for trousers the Mammut basejump is the archetypal softshell.

I modified one of the sentences in your OP: I gather because lined softshells aren't classed as waterproof companies don't bother sealing the seams - perhaps that helps. I really like softshell trousers - they might not be waterproof, but they are a lot more usable than a hardshell almost all the time

In reply to wbo:

Modifying that sentence doesn't help in the slightest because it completely misses the entire point and just turns it into a stupid circular argument!

I've seen claims from some softshells that they would be waterproof if the seams were sealed, so why don't they just seal the seams? As shown by the chute pants, it's clearly possible, so are the companies which mention it but don't do it just being lazy and cutting corners, or trying to save money because they figure no-one cares or is there an actual downside to it?

In reply to Dheorl:

I'm going to guess from this statement:
"Dry Q® waterproof, breathable technology keeps you dry in a variety of conditions"
http://www.mountainhardwear.com/mens-south-chute-jacket-1616411.html

That a variety of conditions means "not British downpours"

Therfore, I conclude that manufacturers dont tape the seams because the jackets aint waterproof (in the true meaning of the word) in the first place.

That concludeds todays lesson. The Hymn for today will be from Chapter 2, Verse 4.

In reply to Dheorl:
I think the general uncertainty derives from the way the word 'softshell' has evolved. Originally it meant a waterproof fabric that didn't use a membrane (no PU, no PTFE, no nuthin' else so Ventile is a softshell). Nowadays it seems to be applied equally to membrane waterproofs with a fleece liner.

The strict definition still stands and describes Nikwax Analogy: http://www.paramo-clothing.com/en-gb/performancetechnology/fabrics/#

While I think Buffalo also make waterproofs covered by the original definition, I only have experience of the Nikwax construction. There's a thin outer fabric and a thick, stretchy inner. The outer is windproof and with a DWR treatment also lets rain ball up and roll off. The DWR eventually fades but the inner fabric actively pushes water outwards, purely by the weave. Tape on the seams would just get in the way of the transport and will trap water between the two fabrics. The inner is not stitched to the outer because such a thread would act as a wick and channel rain inwards (good to remember if you tear your trousers). They're only joined at the ankles, waist and zips.

You can dry clean it (great when the sprogs have been playing with wax crayons), wash it in bio powder, stick it full of pins et c. et c. and just have to reproof it occasionally.

As far as waterproof goes, I've never owned a Goretex or Event garment that didn't either leak somewhere or collect condensation somewhere else. I use Paramo trousers in the winter and while I get a wet backside if I sit in a puddle (water will squeeze through in a pressure leakage), I don't get wet in all-day rain and I don't get wet in all day-snow.

The BIG drawback is that strict softshell constructions are pretty thick and get really bloody hot between early spring and late autumn (often the coat is my only upper garment). That means an alternative waterproof is essential for the summer and in that case you may as well use it all year round with an extra layer underneath in cold weather...

Regards,
D

In reply to Dheorl:

Taping seams costs more (relatively significantly) and reduces breathability (probably only slightly).

In reply to Oogachooga:

http://www.mountainhardwear.com/mens-straight-chuter-pant-1616471.html

"An uncompromising, fully waterproof softshell pant that breathes and stays warm all day long. Offering uncompromising hardshell waterproof performance in a softshell pant"

Lesson still open...

Got any other insightful conclusions??

In reply to Dheorl:

Softshells originated as non-waterproof, non-membrane items of clothing. Good for a bit of rain but not a downpour, and a hell of a lot more breathable than a waterproof jacket.

Softshells became popular and a bit of a cash cow and Gore-Tex wanted in, producing "waterproof softshells" and forever blurring the lines between types of clothing.

Now there's a whole range of membrane/lined/sealed/waterproof/non-membrane/unlined/whatever jackets and trousers out there sold as "softshell"

Take your pick, but know that getting a lined/Gore Tex/membrane doesn't give you any of the breathable advantages of true softshell.

In reply to defaid:

The reason I'd rather not use a hardshell is the complete lack of stretchiness. Never really experienced even slight dampness with my GoreTex jacket though, maybe you've just been unlucky (or sweat a lot I guess).

In reply to Dheorl:


Ugh.

Well if manufacturers want to ignore the well-established meanings of the words as used by normal consumers:
hardshells = waterproof
fleece = normal non-windproof fleece
softshell = something in between, either unlined (not windproof) or lined (windproof)

then we are reduced to a single definition of softshell: marketing bull.

Or we could just ignore MH for spouting crap. I've always taken softshell = non-waterproof and I think most other people do. I am perfectly happy to have a stretch, woven, multicoloured flashing thing and call it a hardshell, provided it is waterproof...

In reply to andrewmc:

So what about materials of a tight enough weave they're for all intents and purposes waterproof but don't have any sort of membrane? Are they softshell because they have no membrane or can they not be because they're waterproof?

It seems the MH marketing is no more bull than the definitions used by consumers.

In reply to Dheorl:

I'm not sure. Probably mainly production & material cost, weight and "perceived need" i.e. why bother taping seams on a garment that doesn't claim to be waterproof? If they taped the seams and called it a "waterproof softshell" it would encroach upon their "hardshell" product ranges. Also, taping reduces breathability.

In reply to andrewmc:

'... Or we could just ignore...'

I think that sentence is spot on.

In any case, Mountain Hardwear's page states, 'Fabric Body: Dry Q® 3L Soft-Shell' where I take 3L to mean three layer so the actual fabric is probably Dry.Q Elite, which seems to be a 3-layer wide-pore PTFE membrane and so by any definition surely a hardshell.

D

In reply to Dheorl:

I own a Haglofs "goretex softshell" jacket that I managed to pick up for €100 as it had only been used twice. Nice cut & colours but the material is a poor compromise. It's not really stretchy enough to be significantly stretchier than a hardshell, it's far from breathable enough to count as a true softshell and it gets quite soggy around the sleeves when it's damp.

I think you're missing something fundamental - no current "woven" material is waterproof (as far as I'm aware) in the commonly agreed sense (i.e. 1000mm static head of water http://www.outdoorgear.co.uk/hydrostatic-head.asp ) and no "membrane" materials are as stretchy and breathable as a woven softshell.

If, as you have stated in your previous post, someone comes up with a super-breathable, woven, non-membrane fabric then UKC will explode and all other fabric companies will probably go bust. It shall be called Wondershell ®

In reply to Dheorl:

Tight weave fabrics don't tend to be waterproof. They are used for wind resistance. The membrane in between layers of fabric create the waterproof barrier.

Soft-shell is best used where it is cold and dry so alpine type stuff where snow is more likely than rain or for activities where you are moving a lot and generating heat/ sweat.

However I prefer soft-shell for Scottish winter based on the fact I run hot and generally stay more comfortable even tho I may get a bit damp.

I only tend to use a hardshell when dog walking if I am honest.

In reply to Dheorl:

'Soft shell' is, and always has been, a rather vague marketing term, covering a range of fabrics and designs that provide a varying degree of protection from the elements (wind, rain and cold), varying from not much more than a Pertex windshirt, up to something that is near-as-dammit a waterproof hardshell. This is probably a good place to start:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=67315

This had a link to a very interesting document, that's now moved here:

http://images.mec.ca/media/Images/pdf/rennies_softshell_v1_m565775698305113...

The generally-accepted key features of a soft shell fabric are stretch and some degree of water resistance.

I usually suggest there are four flavours of soft shell:

1. robust, non-membraned, stretchy, wind resistant fabric
This could be things like Schoeller Dynamic
2. robust, non-membraned, stretchy, wind resistant fabric, with dual weave (i.e. giving a softer, wicking or lightly insulating inner face, and robust outer face). e.g. Pertex Equilibrium or Schoeller Dryskin
3. shelled micropile, with a wind-resistant shell fabric lined with a wicking micropile inner. e.g. Marmot DriClime, Rab VR. At a push, you might include Buffalo, and possibly even Paramo (although this uses the micropile in the other direction, and is treated with 'anti-wicking' DWR to force water out of the pile).
4. membraned laminate fabrics, with shell, membrane and usually a fluffy inner face. e.g. Schoeller WB400

Gore then fancied adding to the confusion by creating their 'Gore-tex SoftShell (TM)', which is really nothing more than a full waterproof hardshell with a fluffy inner scrim. It's not really 'soft shell' except in marketing speak; "Malibu Stacy with a new hat":

youtube.com/watch?v=DaOgZwk9rN8&

If a membraned fabric is used with seam sealing to make a garment, then it's really a hard shell. It might only nod to soft shell by being a bit more stretchy than normal hard shell fabrics.


As for the issue of 'lining', I'd say that a membrane is not a lining (unless it's a drop liner*...). 'Lining' is a very long established term in tailoring and clothing, meaning an inner garment in a lightweight fabric that is either sewn into, or otherwise attached to a thicker outer layer; think of the silk or viscose lining of a suit, or the mesh or lightweight nylon lining of a 2-layer waterproof (i.e. shell fabric and membrane layers, as opposed to a three-layer fabric with shell, membrane and scrim).

Boots and shoes can have a waterproof lining, but that's because they use an inner bootee made of a robust membrane laminate; it really is a lining as used in the established sense above. The outer material of the boot isn't waterproof, and the liner is relied on to keep the user's feet dry from external water. Due to the flexing and grit issues, such waterproof footwear liners don't tend to survive very long.

* Waterproof drop liners are the same; the outer shell isn't waterproof, but the waterproofness of the garment is provided by a 'drop line', which is a fairly robust three-layer laminate. These are quite popular in Italian tailoring, to make coats that use traditional outer fabrics, but provide complete waterproofness for the user, by inserting a drop liner. The other fabric will get wet (although treated with a DWR), and may get heavy, but the liner prevents water penetrating to the clothes below.

In reply to Bish:


Tight weave fabrics can be made either wicking or quite water resistant, depending on their surface treatment. If you treat them with a DWR, they become quite water-resistant, because the weave interstices are so small that the capillary forces generated by the DWR prevent the water droplets penetrating the weave.

On the other hand, with no DWR (or even adding an 'anti-DWR' wicking treatment), the fabric will actively suck water into the interstices, because the surface energy is working in the opposite direction.

Pertex was originally developed as a fabric to make typewriter ribbons, which needs something that wicks very well, allowing the ink to spread and then reflow into the ribbon.

This phenomenon is present in micropiles used for DriClime and VR (wicking), and in Paramo (DWR treated). In the former case, water is pulled into the coniform channels created by the micropile, and in the latter, pushed out of the coniform channels.

In reply to Alasdair Fulton:


They've changed the fabric and design of the Forclaz 500 Warm this year. The inner face is much fluffier. The fly is very shallow; I thought at first they had the women's version on the men's rack, but, no... I'm not sure I'd fancy trying to get my weenie out.

I haven't tried them on, but I'm not sure that the changes have been for the better. Shame, because I love the prior incarnation.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I hadn't ever looked at the old ones, so didn't spot the difference. My girlfriend tried the women's version but apparently they're not designed for bums - she had to go up a few sizes to get them on, but then the waist was massive!

In reply to Dheorl: to th op, which one have you looked at, liked, disliked?

In reply to Dheorl:

I think you're looking for something that doesn't exist. "Softshell" was a term that evolved to describe a non waterproof outer garment that was windproof and kept you warm and "dry enough" to negate the need for a waterproof. It was typified by the pertex/pile garments originally but as manufactures cottoned onto the fact that the system worked, they made Buffalo equivalents that didn't look like a bag of spuds (I miss my Patagucci Mixmaster) but need a term to advertise them under. Once the term was coined, brands saw opportunity and we now have a whole plethora of jackets and trousers marketed as softshells.

So, instead of looking at manufacturer's descriptions, what do you want these softshell trousers for and what's wrong with the waterproof ones they are replacing?

I love my Patagucci Backcountry Guide trousers so for me, a heavy weight non-membrane softshell is what I want.

(Couple of additional pints, the Mountain Hardware trousers linked aren't "softshell" in any sense that I understand it, there are a waterproof membrane with a sift ace fabric, like Gore-Tex C-Nit. Also, the reason manufactures often don't seal seems is tat they aren't allowed to by the membrane manufacturer, i.e. if you have a Gore-Tex waterproof shell and a Gore-Tex Winstopper/Softshell, Gore-tex won't allow you to seal the seams of the softshell as that confuses the difference between their products)