UKH

I have a few synthetic belay jackets - ME Fitz Roy and a couple of other similar ones.

I have tended to treat them like down jackets in that I store them uncompressed.

However, I am moving abroad soon and some of my items will need to be shipped via container, so anything that goes in a box may end up compressed (i.e. in its stuff sack) and could stay that way for 2-3 months potentially.

I wouldn't put down jackets or sleeping bags through that, but wondering if I can get away with it for synthetic without damaging them.

Any thoughts/experience of compressing synthetic jackets for an extended but time-limited period of time?

In reply to mcawle:

2 or 3 months counts as an extended time in artificial down world.

In 16 years in the outdoor retail trade, I was only once shown a synthetic fill that allegedly  would recover from extended compression. Real world testing of this , by the MiL , proved this to he a fallacy.

Best just to store it slightly compressed in a cardboard box. It wont take up much more volume anyway overall.

In reply to mcawle:

I was under impression synthetic fills are less resilient to being compressed than down rather than the other way round

In reply to probablylost:

Neither recover completely from being compressed for more than a couple of days  in my experience.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Okay that's good to know - thank you. I'd formed the impression that synthetic was more resilient than down actually so this is interesting.

I'll err on the side of it being boxed then.

In reply to Rick Graham:

I always thought it was repeated compression and lofting that did the damage. Every synthetic sleeping bag I've ever bought has come compressed in its storage bag and I assume they have been like that for months in a warehouse 

In reply to Andypeak:

The better bags come in  ( loosish) storage bags and a smaller bag for backpacking .

Cheaper bags just arrive at shops in one small stuff  sac.

In reply to Rick Graham:

Down ones do but every synthetic one I've bought, including some quite expensive bags came pre stuffed. 

In reply to mcawle:I've always understood synthetic tolerates packing less than down, and it breaks down the fibres. I'd assume, once it's packed and static the damage is down. 

If I was packing a number in a box I'd just put them in and not bother stuffsacking them, and I guess thy might pack more efficiently that way

In reply to wbo2:

Yes you do appear to be correct in that it is the process of compressing that mostly degrades the insulation.

I think you are right that the best approach is to pack them loose and that's what I went with in the end.

In reply to mcawle:

For the sake of posterity, I e-mailed Mountain Equipment about this, specifically asking whether it would be detrimental to the jackets to compress them and then store them compressed for 2-3 months. They responded as follows:

"Although not advisable for long term storage, it would most likely be fine as this is a relatively short period of time.

Make sure that the garments are dry before putting them away, and if they are very dirty it is best to wash them before storage to reduce the chance of mould building up (but again make sure they are dry before being packaged up).

Repeated compressions are worse for synthetic insulations than being compressed and then leaving the jacket in that state. After storing them open them up when you can, but there’s no huge rush to do this."

(Many thanks to John from Mountain Equipment for his speedy replies.)

In a follow up e-mail he also added:

"I also enquired with one of our Senior Garment Technologists, and one of our Product Engineers too, I would emphasise we don't recommend this over a very long period - for 2-3 months providing you take the steps mentioned this should be ok - repeated compressions are more detrimental."

He did also caveat that other brands/types of insulation may differ - this was in the context of the Fitz Roy and Citadel jackets.

So broadly speaking, my interpretation is that the act of compression is more detrimental, rather than subsequently remaining compressed, at least up to a point - but still with something of a time limit.

Very interesting, as I'd always had in my head that synthetic was basically not 'delicate' in this way and wasn't sensitive to compression - clearly I was wrong! Another arrow in the quiver for those arguing for a 50L Scottish Winter day pack perhaps, hah!

In reply to mcawle:

This is great news for someone who regularly leaves their Fitzroy compressed in a bag for a month or so over winter because I’m too lazy to remove it/heat from over-exertion means I rarely have recourse to put it on! 

In reply to mcawle:

I think the 'resistant to compression' idea is that certain synthetics are more tolerant to say, the short term pressure of a rucksack on a shoulder, than resistant to long term packing out/degradation. 

In reply to mcawle:

Interesting... I'd have assumed synthetic would suffer in this scenario.

One thing that could be done is to store them in larger stuff sacks so less compression.  That way they're still smaller than in a box (uncompressed) but with potentially less damage than in an optimised size stuff sack.

There’s quite a lot of detailed information on BPL about how compression reduces loft and warmth over time with synthetic 

In reply to echo34:

What's BPL?

In reply to mcawle:

Just to conclude my initial question - I ended up shipping 3 synthetics all loose in a box by themselves, as I ended up within my quoted shipping volume. So I am sure they will be fine. Thanks to everyone who responded with suggestions, and I hope the thread is useful in future for such queries.

What it does mean for me in practical terms is that I'm less likely to pack a bag basically to the brim and then smash a synthetic jacket in around the edges to squeeze it in - sounds like having 5-10L spare capacity would potentially extend the life of the jacket significantly if it meant not having to crush the jacket each time you pack it in/out.

Thanks all.

In reply to mcawle:

Backpacking Light, it's a forum similar to here but different.

https://backpackinglight.com/forums/forum/gear/

In reply to random_watcher:

Got you, thanks!

In reply to random_watcher:

Ha! Nerds!

:P 

In reply to bouldery bits:

FWIW I recently dug out an old ME synthetic bag that had been in the loft for 5-6 years or so. I thought it was loosely packed in a bin bag but was surprised (worried) to find it was actually in its stuff sack...

I've used it a few times since and it seems fine and warm enough given the original rating. Of course hard to tell if it's lost any loft and I won't be repeating this practice but it's certainly not a disaster. 

I do have a couple of synthetic jackets purchased at roughly the same time as the bag...one has had tons of use (but not stored compressed) and is now very 'thin' feeling... almost down to windproof status.

In reply to JB: That's in line with what I'd expect.  The reduced 'puffiness' is caused by the long fibres being broken, and being repeatedly compressed is what does that.  Storage in a stuff sac is essentially a static situation compared to being squashed daily, even gently, so there will be initial damage, but not much after.

I wonder how much the warm is affected by the loft/puffiness even after compression. I have an old puffy that isn’t as puffy as a new version but still feels warm

In reply to echo34:

Lots of nerdy discussion on BPL, linked above. Expect to read about Mie scattering, etc, and how loft isn't the only factor...