PDA

View Full Version : Base Layer/Insulation


scububa
February 1st, 2011, 08:58 PM
I tested my new base layer out on our 1/30/2010 dives at Bennett Springs. The test turned out to be of a different nature than initially intended.

Setup –
I dive a DUI CLX 450. My primary base layer is 4th Element Arctic. I have used various base layers with fair results. Mostly polypro types from light to mid weight. I was looking for additional insulation without a lot of bulk (who isn’t, eh?). When I dove Mackinaw and Huron, I’d get chilled on deco. In those conditions, I have a thinsulate jacket that works well for insulation, but it adds more bulk than I’d like. Basically my legs and feet are okay, but my chest core gets cold.

New Gear –
I bought Under Armor Base 2.5 top and leggings. UA had Heat gear, Cold Gear, and Base 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 (lt, mid, hvy) styles. Recently, they came out with a Basemap 1.5 and 2.5. The Base style reverts back to something similar to ‘waffle weave’ (if anyone remembers the old cotton long johns) in a hi-tech fabric. Air pockets and moisture channels, I believe, are the benefits. The Basemap 1.5 and 2.5 put heavier weight material at the core and a lighter weight at extremities and hot spot vents. The 2.5 uses the heavier 3.0 on the core with 2.0 at the forearm, arm pits, inner arm. The leggings have the lighter weight on the back of the calf, lower portion of shin area. Best to look at the UA site. http://www.underarmour.com/shop/us/en/pid1210356-Men-s-Basemap-2-5-Crew/1210356-019 (http://www.underarmour.com/shop/us/en/pid1210356-Men-s-Basemap-2-5-Crew/1210356-019)

Evaluation –
The fit is tight. Not stupid tight, but more than just snug. This is good for a base layer under primary insulation. It stays in place as you put on the over layers and as you move around and dive. It has a soft feel and doesn’t feel like you are putting on a plastic bag when it’s cold. It has a nice style, so the top wouldn’t look bad if you kept it on to go to lunch, etc. (How you handle the legs is up to you ;-) Pulling on my Arctic pieces was as easy as pulling on over bare skin and a lot easier than pulling over minimally snug base layers. I would think that you’d buy your normal size, so true to size, IMO.

Moisture management appears to be excellent. This dive tested a different attributes than I set out to test. We dove at Bennett Springs State Park which is a cavern dive. I thought I’d explore the cavern and spend a lot of time doing drills with stage bottles, etc. So, that would let me evaluate the insulation. The events unfolded differently. The water was a bit warmer, at 57°F, than Roubidoux normally is at this time of year (by about 5°F). And the flow was very strong. (Unlike a lot of dives where the entrance is a restriction and once in, the flow drops some, this was opposite. The opening was the large and it tended to funnel down as you went deeper. At the lowest portion we could get to, the flow was incredibly strong.) So, there was a high level of work involved to get to the ‘pop corn’ room (where gravel is being tumbled like popcorn.) This caused a higher level of perspiration than normal to be generated. This can be a killer, especially during the surface interval. I can report that this base layer was comfortable the whole time, in the suit on the dive and after on the surface interval and then on the next dive. I stayed warm the whole time (during the dive, I generated a lot of heat, but at safety stops and surface interval I was very comfortable.)

I’ll report on the insulation performance when I get back into some colder water and a more normal activity dive.

Background -
I was fortunate enough to be able to visit an UA booth at an industry trade show in support of my company's products. I wandered by the UA booth and there wasn’t a crowd around, so I stopped to ask a few questions. I had seen the new base 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 at a store and wasn’t sure what the difference was to the cold gear, so I was curious about the differences and explained my interest in dry suit diving insulation applications. They were very helpful, gave me a catalog (which was way more informative than the web site at explaining things), and then, to my surprise, they gave me a base 2.0 shirt. I ask if he was sure and he said, “Try it out, if it’s too much, you can go to 1.0, if it’s not enough, go up to 3.0, etc.” And, if that wasn’t enough, he gave me a card that I figured was his business card. He told me it was an on-line discount card. (It was a large discount for a few pieces.) When I looked at the catalog, the new Base 1.5 and 2.5 stood out. After using the 2.0 on a dive, I knew the 2.5 was the best bet, so I ordered the set.

b1gcountry
February 1st, 2011, 09:59 PM
FYI, Cabela's sells their own brand that is made from the same materials as the base 3.0 stuff. I thunk they call it ECWS or something.

Tom

the material is polartec powerdry...

scububa
February 1st, 2011, 10:51 PM
I've worn (and have) some Cabela's polypro. IMO, there's no comparison.

FWIW, I have had a bunch of Cabela's house brand products. Very few of them were a very good value. Several failed after short use and some were returned. In all fairness, they did provide refunds, etc. I eventually quit buying anything with their label, even though, for a while, I bought from their catalog as they had a good selection of high quality gear with other labels. I do have one house brand pair of insulated leather boots that had a Gore-Tex approved label that I was happy with.

b1gcountry
February 2nd, 2011, 01:39 PM
I can't speak for Cabela's polypro stuff. This is the stuff I own:
E.C.W.C.S Military (http://www.cabelas.com/product/Clothing/Mens-Hunting-Clothing/Mens-Performance-Underwear/Mens-Polarweight-Bottoms-Performance-Underwear|/pc/104797080/c/104748480/sc/104495580/i/104125680/Cabelas-ECWCS-Military-Polartec174-Power-Dry-Polar-Weight-Bottoms-150-Regular/731115.uts?destination=%2Fcatalog%2Fbrowse%2Fcloth ing-mens-hunting-clothing-mens-performance-underwear-mens-polarweight-bottoms-performance-underwear%2F_%2FN-1101037%2FNs-CATEGORY_SEQ_104125680%3FWTz_l%3DSBC%3BBRprd722805 %3Bcat104495580&WTz_l=SBC;BRprd722805;cat104495580;cat104125680)

It is made out of Polartec Powerdry material, which is a brand name material made by polartec. The Underarmour people and the Cabela's people get the exact same material by the ream, and the only things that are really different is the stitching, elastic, packaging, etc. When I compared the base 3.0 stuff, and the Cabela's stuff side-by-side the material was identical. Next time we dive, I can show it to you, and you can decide yourself...

I've got two sets, and I agree. The stuff is amazing!

Tom

b1gcountry
February 2nd, 2011, 01:45 PM
For Comparison:
Base 3.0 (http://www.cabelas.com/product/Under-Armour174-ColdGear174-Base8482-30-Legging/751275.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=%2Fcatalog%2Fsearch.cmd%3Fform_state%3D searchForm%26N%3D0%26fsch%3Dtrue%26Ntk%3DAllProduc ts%26Ntt%3Dcold%2Bgear%2B3.0%26x%3D0%26y%3D0%26WTz _l%3DHeader%253BSearch-All%2BProducts&Ntt=cold+gear+3.0&WTz_l=Header%3BSearch-All+Products)

SLIM
February 3rd, 2011, 01:50 PM
From my understanding UA and cabelas is differant. I have a buddy that works for the people that developed UA material and for other compainies the formula is changed.

They do manufacture for several other brands but the material must be differant from UA, how much I dont know but it could be enough to make it less durable.


I have been told about this stuff but not been able to touch it and get a good feel for it, any of you know anything about this? http://wiggys.com/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=35&CFID=709949&CFTOKEN=92725752


SLIM

b1gcountry
February 3rd, 2011, 09:22 PM
I don't know. Maybe it is different. I thought I remembered seeing "Polartec PowerDry" on the Base 3.0 packaging when I looked at it. I couldn't find it on the website though.

Tom

scububa
February 4th, 2011, 10:20 AM
The pic in the link you ref looks a lot like the same material pattern. I am not running down the Cabela's stuff (even though my overall experience with their label is less than stellar).

I even have a UA 2.0 top for comparison. Its fit isn't the same. It bunches and is harder to keep in place under my outer insulation. Probably not as much of a problem with slick nylon insulations, but a pain with 'gripper' heavier fleece. So, the 2.5 fit was beneficial. Also, the real feature that intrigued me was the material 'mapping' between heavier and lesser weights in the 2.5 Basemap. So, I was just trying to point out potential of benefits. I have more 'testing' to do. The mositure managment and fit have impressed me. Don't know if the mapping will have the insulation benefit.

Again, remember the 2.0 top was given to me. And, the 2.5 pieces were bought at a 40% discount, no shipping, no taxes. So, it made it an easy choice to try.

ScubaAl
February 4th, 2011, 10:33 AM
http://thedecostop.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19388&highlight=undergarment

The above is an old thread that was resurrected on TDS one of the posters after it was resurrected works in the industry and add some very useful information. Might even save people some cash.

Al

scububa
February 4th, 2011, 11:14 AM
Ei Yi Yi...I was merely trying to share an evaluation of a specific piece of kit. I described the conditions, the performance I experienced and even how I came about trying it. The intended benefit to the reader is to understand the conditions and application so they might decide if it helps their knowledge base and consideration going forward.

It is not intended to have you buy this gear. It puts no money in my pocket and I am not even sure I would have at full retail. More likely now that I have used it, but I still have conditions and performance unanswered. I know that I would perfer to buy something with more knowledge than less (and generally do). I also know that buying something with confidence it will perform for my circumstances is usually a better value position.

There was nothing in my post to generate an overall 'insulation' debate. Nor a brand X over Y contest. Jeesh, if you think the feature/benefit set is valid and you find those features in another product...that math isn't hard.

As far as the TDS thread about crap and polartec is polartec...a piece of Cherry wood is a piece of Cherry wood (or pick your favorite)...but if you don't think one craftsman can turn out a superior item to another, you haven't bought many. It is my opinion that there are several other attributes for a garment than just the fabric that are important. If you think the 'mapping' is a gimick, so be it, this eval is of less to little use. If you think improved ventillation and minimizing bulk are valuable, so be it, you might find the eval of some use.

b1gcountry
February 5th, 2011, 12:20 AM
I'm sorry, Jim, I wasn't trying to jump on you. There's just so few threads on the board lately, that I'm just excited for the chance to post.
:)

skdvr
February 5th, 2011, 06:35 AM
Jim, your base layer SUCKS!!!

That is all....

Phil

scububa
February 5th, 2011, 11:24 AM
I think the technical term is WICKS (hydrophobic), but...whatever... :-)

I have probably have spent toooo much time on the web lately with all this snow. It seems to have made my skin thin.

Sorry, bro's :2420: