4 ms·

I didn't see more details in the article, but my guess is they were taking and averaging multiple temperature reads across the body. That is, core temp should o

I didn't see more details in the article, but my guess is they were taking and averaging multiple temperature reads across the body. That is, core temp should only be within a narrow range like you say, but fingertip temp will vary much more widely. All in all I found this to be a very strange article. If you just look at the data, I think a reasonable conclusion is that modern gear is vastly better at its function than old time Mallory gear. It's much lighter and keeps the wearer much warmer than old gear. But the whole tone of the article is about "myth busting" and how there haven't been really that many improvements in gear. I'm just looking at their charts and data and wondering what they're smoking.

fwipsy 7mo ago
I think they're "debunking" a strawman argument that old gear was completely useless
- db48x 7mo ago
  Obviously that older gear wasn’t useless, since real people used it to climb the exact same mountains that people climb today. It’s pretty clear from the text that they have debunked the idea that modern synthetic materials have outstripped older materials in performance. At the start of their project they expected modern gear of similar capabilities to be lighter. What they found was that modern gear’s advantage is primarily that it is simpler to use. Instead of seven carefully–chosen layers of wool and silk, you can wear a single coat. That single coat is also effective over a much larger temperature range than the older clothes. Really this should not be all that surprising, as the expertise required to pick those layers has been condensed by engineers into the design of the coat. The modern climber no longer needs that same expertise, just money to buy the coat. This is the same story of specialization that has powered our economic growth for centuries. You and I no longer need to know how to grow vegetables, or shoe a horse, or design a circuit. There might still be advantages to knowing how to write a sonnet or plan a battle, but for the most part we can leave these tasks to specialists who can get better results than we can. Those specialists in turn can leave other tasks to us. Everyone gets more efficient as a result.
  - jkubicek 7mo ago
    > It’s pretty clear from the text that they have debunked the idea that modern synthetic materials have outstripped older materials in performance... That single coat is also effective over a much larger temperature range than the older clothes. It feels like these two statements are in contradiction. FWIW, I do a lot of hiking / backpacking / snowboarding in various conditions and "effective over a much larger temperature" is the #1 thing I shop for. If I can have 1 jacket that I wear from the time I get up in the morning until lunch, that's worth more than any other feature. I hate having to stop a hike to strip off a layer and I hate having to find a way to carry my jacket while snowboarding.
    - db48x 7mo ago
      > outstripped older materials in performance As measured in mass needed for a given amount of insulation. They expected the modern materials to achieve the same protection from cold while being lighter. That’s not what they found. > If I can have 1 jacket that I wear from the time I get up in the morning until lunch, that's worth more than any other feature. Yes, I suspect that many people think adaptability is even better than raw performance. After all, most of us don’t have a sherpa who can carry our jacket while we snowboard.
LeifCarrotson 7mo ago
A few things are lighter, but others are basically the same. Check the graph: https://i.imgur.com/WKcLVDt.png https://i.imgur.com/WKcLVDt.png Across their boots, legs, and upper body, they're at 6.578 kg/14.4 lbs for the old gear and 6.373 kg/14.0 lbs for the new gear. Yes, the newer gloves and headgear are significantly lighter - 1.132 kg/2.5 lbs vs 0.463 kg/1 lbs, and I don't know what they're bundling in "accessories", but the difference is nowhere near what I would have imagined. Also, I've got some lightweight modern gear from companies like Patagonia, Montbell, Sea 2 Summit, REI, and others, and if I could get the same performance out of waxed canvas and leather at the same weight I'd ditch those systems in a heartbeat. The nylon is finally ripstop, but it's thinner than ever and tears when you rub your shoulder on a thorny branch. But I don't think you actually get the same performance at the same weight. You're colder and have to be more careful about stopping and getting hypothermia, but your old gear weighs the same? Then you should get more of it.

fwipsy 7mo ago

I think they're "debunking" a strawman argument that old gear was completely useless

db48x 7mo ago
Obviously that older gear wasn’t useless, since real people used it to climb the exact same mountains that people climb today. It’s pretty clear from the text that they have debunked the idea that modern synthetic materials have outstripped older materials in performance. At the start of their project they expected modern gear of similar capabilities to be lighter. What they found was that modern gear’s advantage is primarily that it is simpler to use. Instead of seven carefully–chosen layers of wool and silk, you can wear a single coat. That single coat is also effective over a much larger temperature range than the older clothes. Really this should not be all that surprising, as the expertise required to pick those layers has been condensed by engineers into the design of the coat. The modern climber no longer needs that same expertise, just money to buy the coat. This is the same story of specialization that has powered our economic growth for centuries. You and I no longer need to know how to grow vegetables, or shoe a horse, or design a circuit. There might still be advantages to knowing how to write a sonnet or plan a battle, but for the most part we can leave these tasks to specialists who can get better results than we can. Those specialists in turn can leave other tasks to us. Everyone gets more efficient as a result.
- jkubicek 7mo ago
  > It’s pretty clear from the text that they have debunked the idea that modern synthetic materials have outstripped older materials in performance... That single coat is also effective over a much larger temperature range than the older clothes. It feels like these two statements are in contradiction. FWIW, I do a lot of hiking / backpacking / snowboarding in various conditions and "effective over a much larger temperature" is the #1 thing I shop for. If I can have 1 jacket that I wear from the time I get up in the morning until lunch, that's worth more than any other feature. I hate having to stop a hike to strip off a layer and I hate having to find a way to carry my jacket while snowboarding.
  - db48x 7mo ago
    > outstripped older materials in performance As measured in mass needed for a given amount of insulation. They expected the modern materials to achieve the same protection from cold while being lighter. That’s not what they found. > If I can have 1 jacket that I wear from the time I get up in the morning until lunch, that's worth more than any other feature. Yes, I suspect that many people think adaptability is even better than raw performance. After all, most of us don’t have a sherpa who can carry our jacket while we snowboard.

LeifCarrotson 7mo ago

A few things are lighter, but others are basically the same. Check the graph: https://i.imgur.com/WKcLVDt.png https://i.imgur.com/WKcLVDt.png Across their boots, legs, and upper body, they're at 6.578 kg/14.4 lbs for the old gear and 6.373 kg/14.0 lbs for the new gear. Yes, the newer gloves and headgear are significantly lighter - 1.132 kg/2.5 lbs vs 0.463 kg/1 lbs, and I don't know what they're bundling in "accessories", but the difference is nowhere near what I would have imagined. Also, I've got some lightweight modern gear from companies like Patagonia, Montbell, Sea 2 Summit, REI, and others, and if I could get the same performance out of waxed canvas and leather at the same weight I'd ditch those systems in a heartbeat. The nylon is finally ripstop, but it's thinner than ever and tears when you rub your shoulder on a thorny branch. But I don't think you actually get the same performance at the same weight. You're colder and have to be more careful about stopping and getting hypothermia, but your old gear weighs the same? Then you should get more of it.