Was browsing sleeping mats and saw this:
https://www.mountainequipment.co.uk/helium-3-8-warmzone-womens-mat
What actually makes this a 'women's' mat rather than simply a genderless mat?? The product page doesn't say...
Different sizing, slightly different shape and as a rule of thumb, they tend to be slightly warmer.
FWIW I have a "women's" sleeping mat - a thermarest neoair - for two of the above reasons. To expand on the above example:
Non-gendered: https://www.thermarest.com/mattresses/fast-light/neoair-xlite
Womens: https://www.thermarest.com/mattresses/fast-light/womens-neoair-xlite
Women's is shorter (168cm vs 183cm) and warmer (R-Value 3.9 vs 3.2). The idea being that generally, women are shorter and feel the cold more easily.
> Was browsing sleeping mats and saw this:
> What actually makes this a 'women's' mat rather than simply a genderless mat?? The product page doesn't say...
Probably the price.
What utter utter nonsense.
> What actually makes this a 'women's' mat rather than simply a genderless mat?
Presumably it's just a marketing ploy to get more of the female market.
Yes... same thing with clothes...
And why bother with different sizes, one size for all should be enough.
(Size, Cut and other specs... like often more insulation near the bum.... on female sleeping pads, that is).
> Yes... same thing with clothes...
No, women are a different shape to men.
> And why bother with different sizes, one size for all should be enough.
No, people come in different sizes.
On the other hand, I think it is impossible to think of a reason to have female specific mats (apart from, as I said, cynical marketing). Obviously women are generally shorter than men, so they just select the appropriate length (and people who feel the cold more select a thicker mat).
> No, women are a different shape to men.
> No, people come in different sizes.
> On the other hand, I think it is impossible to think of a reason to have female specific mats (apart from, as I said, cynical marketing). Obviously women are generally shorter than men, so they just select the appropriate length (and people who feel the cold more select a thicker mat).
You answer the question then ignore the obvious.
If you were to get a woman and a man to lay on a bed of soft material the imprint they would leave both in depth and shape would be very different. Eg. More pressure at shoulders for men and more pressure around the bum for women. A well engineered mat should accommodate this.
If these mats have been designed well then they should be more comfortable and worth any difference in price. As it is they have the same rrp.
> Different sizing, slightly different shape and as a rule of thumb, they tend to be slightly warmer.
> FWIW I have a "women's" sleeping mat - a thermarest neoair - for two of the above reasons. To expand on the above example:
> Non-gendered: https://www.thermarest.com/mattresses/fast-light/neoair-xlite
> Women's is shorter (168cm vs 183cm) and warmer (R-Value 3.9 vs 3.2). The idea being that generally, women are shorter and feel the cold more easily.
Yet, women on average have a thicker layer of subcutaneous fat and its more concentrated in hips & thighs, so should tolerate the cold (this seems to be advantageous in cold water swimming)
There are short mats out there without assigning a gender. My Synmat is 163cm so shorter than this mat.
> If you were to get a woman and a man to lay on a bed of soft material the imprint they would leave both in depth and shape would be very different. Eg. More pressure at shoulders for men and more pressure around the bum for women. A well engineered mat should accommodate this.
Actually I think women generally have bigger, less bony, squishier bums than men, so pressure will be less.
Anyway I think I can confidently bet that this gendered mat takes nothing of the sort into account.
I assume it's because women feel the cold more and are a little shorter.
So get a short mat with good insulation, i.e. the kind of thing many men & women already buy (to keep the weight down while back packing & because its cold in winter - this mat's R rating is below what I would look for in a winter mat).
...
> Anyway I think I can confidently bet that this gendered mat takes nothing of the sort into account.
So cynical.
Why would they bother to make it and sell it for the same price if the mats are identical? Considering the extra manufacturing costs required to make different items and the fact that they already make a small regular and large version of the standard mat they could just let women choose the short mat if that suits them.
> So cynical
Well, given that then blurb doesn't claim anything at all special about the mat, I think it's very safe bet indeed.
> Why would they bother to make it and sell it for the same price if the mats are identical?Considering the extra manufacturing costs required to make different items and the fact that they already make a small regular and large version of the standard mat they could just let women choose the short mat if that suits them.
It seems to just be an extra length and thickness when they already do a range anyway, so. effectively they are just sticking a gendered label on a standard mat as far as I can see. As I said, presumably to corner more of the women's market, which they reckon is worth the trouble.
> Yet, women on average have a thicker layer of subcutaneous fat and its more concentrated in hips & thighs, so should tolerate the cold (this seems to be advantageous in cold water swimming)
But yet its widely accepted that women feel the cold more, so go figure. I'm too lazy to look up a proper reference for this in all honesty.
> There are short mats out there without assigning a gender. My Synmat is 163cm so shorter than this mat.
That there may be, but does it really matter? Is there anyone who's masculinity is so fragile they couldn't by a mat branded as "female" if it was most appropriate to them? (not saying this is you to clarify, rather an open question).
I have a short mat and a long mat so I'm good for all trips.
This isn't very pc in today's world of gender equality. It wasn't that long ago that everything made for women was available in pink or everything had to have a pink version for girls. Plus there is the fact that anything women's specific costs twice the price of the men's version. This isn't case for everything before everyone jumps on my back, but you do see it a lot.
> FWIW I have a "women's" sleeping mat - a thermarest neoair - for two of the above reasons. To expand on the above example:
I did exactly the same - at 5’3” there’s no point having the longer mat.
> Presumably it's just a marketing ploy to get more of the female market.
Given 'unisex' stuff is essentially cut and sized for men, I've totally got no problem with items being sized and branded specifically towards women.
+1, it works for me too as a small thin chap who feels the cold and has size 6 feet.
Thank god for women’s gear
> Different sizing, slightly different shape and as a rule of thumb, they tend to be slightly warmer.> FWIW I have a "women's" sleeping mat - a thermarest neoair - for two of the above reasons. > Women's is shorter (168cm vs 183cm) and warmer (R-Value 3.9 vs 3.2). The idea being that generally, women are shorter and feel the cold more easily. <
Interesting, two mats, same thickness but substantially different insulation values (about 20%). Women's same weight and width but shorter...so what provides that much extra insulation?
Seeing as I don't require quite full length (as I use an off mat pile of pack, rope, clothes etc as a pillow) even though I'm 5'10" I'd go for that if I was buying again.
Well if it's the same width and weight but shorter then the same quantity of insulation is used on a smaller area making the insulation per m^2 higher.
If it was a shorter mens backpacking one they would use less insulation and make it lighter.
I think one factor that people are missing is that thin women do feel the cold far more than women with a bit of built in insulation and of course outdoor types are often fit active and thin.
Having been both thin and fat I can anecdotally evidence that the difference in feeling the cold is a lot, far more than I would have guessed.
I also find at work it is always the older girls and particularly those who are very slim who complain all he time when my classroom is colder.
But surely in a neoair the insulation is air and the thickness (ie amount of air) is the same in both models. I was wondering how the extra weight per unit depth achieved the significant increase in insulation: presumably must be different air pocket design as its unlikely just thicker materials could make that much insulation difference in a lightweight inflatable.
I think there is some foam in it as well. Maybe it is thicker?
The packed size might be very slightly larger per unit mat area in the women's so its possibly foam, though not implied in the specs. Incidentally their much higher R value Xtherm model is again the same thickness (though heavier) so again better baffles possibly.
With all these mats I'd appreciate a bit more width even with a slight weight/pack size penalty.
I'm willing to sacrifice width for pack size. Less bothered about weight.
Although these days I'm getting old and don't camp as often. Van with nice bed calls.
> Given 'unisex' stuff is essentially cut and sized for men, I've totally got no problem with items being sized and branded specifically towards women.
Nor, of course, do I where it makes sense to do so, but I am genuinely astonished at the naivety in this thread which sees this mat as anything other than cynical marketing bollocks.
I think your adopted "grumpy old cynic" persona might be putting the blinkers on you. Of course companies wants to sell as much stuff as they can but actually branding products "women's" seems to generally achieve the opposite effect.
As to naivety, wasn't it you who thought that telling someone not to be a pussy wasn't sexist and just referred to a timid cat?!
> I think your adopted "grumpy old cynic" persona might be putting the blinkers on you. Of course companies wants to sell as much stuff as they can but actually branding products "women's" seems to generally achieve the opposite effect.
Ok, if that's the case, it's cynical but naive marketing.
> As to naivety, wasn't it you who thought that telling someone not to be a pussy wasn't sexist and just referred to a timid cat?!
Indeed, and I'd still defend my position on that; I feel a bit sad at the loss of innocence that reads anything sexual or sexist into the expression.
> Nor, of course, do I where it makes sense to do so, but I am genuinely astonished at the naivety in this thread which sees this mat as anything other than cynical marketing bollocks.
Kit being developed with women in mind, instead of expecting them to make do with stuff made for men? Outrageous. No wonder your middle aged male mind is exploding. Given how much outrage you go through life with, have you ever considered moving to Tunbridge Wells?
> Kit being developed with women in mind, instead of expecting them to make do with stuff made for men? Outrageous.
Oh dear......
Ok, I'll spell it out one more time.
Firstly, I'm all for kit being developed with women in mind when that kit will be different from and more functional for women than similar kit developed with men in mind.
Mats already come in a variety of sizes, weights and thicknesses/warmth. People just select a mat of a size, weight and thickness/warmth which suits them and their purpose. There is absolutely nothing about this mat which makes it specifically suitable for women (read the blurb - absolutely nothing). Indeed, it is almost impossible to see how you could even make a women (or men) specific mat except at great complexity and expense. They have quite clearly simply stuck a "women's" label on a mat as a marketing ploy. I just hope women don't fall for this cynical ploy and feel their choice of mat is restricted.
> Given how much outrage you go through life with, have you ever considered moving to Tunbridge Wells?
No, I'd rather relocate to hell.
> You answer the question then ignore the obvious.
> If you were to get a woman and a man to lay on a bed of soft material the imprint they would leave both in depth and shape would be very different. Eg. More pressure at shoulders for men and more pressure around the bum for women. A well engineered mat should accommodate this.
I dont think it breaks down so simply at all. I've definitely got to a stage in life where I could do with a mat with more padding at hip level in order to get a good nights sleep whilst camping.
> Kit being developed with women in mind, instead of expecting them to make do with stuff made for men?
Apart from perhaps length, is there any evidence that the female mat is any different to a male one?
If the only difference is indeed length, why not just sell the mat by length?
Would be ideal for me as I'm a short male.
There is a claim in the specs of 20% increase in R value for the women's mat although the thickness remains the same.
> There is a claim in the specs of 20% increase in R value for the women's mat although the thickness remains the same.
The NeoAir mats also have layers of reflective foil in them.I think the women's version has an extra layer through the torso area, hence the increase in warmth. There isn't any detail of this on their website unfortunately. The XTherm achieves the additional warmth in the same way.
On the foam mats they achieve this through essentially having more foam - the holes cut out of the foam to reduce weight and pack size are different in the men's and women's models.
Isn't R value the the resistance to loss of conducted heat? Wouldn't the reflective extra reflecting layer cut loss of radiated heat (which I believe is comparatively minor from the human body)?
> There is a claim in the specs of 20% increase in R value for the women's mat although the thickness remains the same.
Seems a bit strange that they could make a warmer mat with the same thickness and not make that technology available for all mats.
Here's the standard and female mats in question:
Standard Version: https://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/helium-3-8-warmzone-mat
Female Version: https://www.mountain-equipment.co.uk/helium-3-8-warmzone-womens-mat
The only stated difference is weight.
Physically, the Standard one looks longer than the Female one, which might explain the weight difference.
Sorry. I think I've wandered from the OP which was about the Helium mat. I was thinking of the Thermarest Neoair (claims a 20% higher R value for female mats although they are are same thickness as men's).
> Sorry. I think I've wandered from the OP which was about the Helium mat. I was thinking of the Thermarest Neoair (claims a 20% higher R value for female mats although they are are same thickness as men's).
Fair enough.
Why not just state the R Value and Dimensions/Weight and let people decide which one to buy?
> Wouldn't the reflective extra reflecting layer cut loss of radiated heat (which I believe is comparatively minor from the human body)?
You're right that's it's cutting the loss of radiated heat, I'm not sure on the standard. If you lie on an XTherm in a t-shirt you can feel the heat radiated back to you, so I would guess it's not minor. Alternatively try sleeping on an inflatable mattress with no foam it reflective layers when it's closer to zero, you'll be able to feel the convective heat loss.
I remember being told on a first aid talk for climbers that foil bags had no advantage over polybags for keeping one warm as little heat was lost through radiation. However just googled and found quotes of 60% loss through radiation. Mind you I'd rather sleep on a Karrimat than a couple of layers of reflecting film!
Anyway seems more complex than I thought, though pretty sure that R values are for conducted heat.
Edit; probably its simply that with cold air, water, frozen ground, wind etc the heat loss by convection, and conduction becomes much more important and overrides the loss through radiation. Doh.
Blimey. 2019 and not having a non-binary mat. Some people.
Simple answer: Because women tend to be shorter and have fatter arses.
Just file it in the same bin as water bottles becoming 'rehydration systems'
Fools and their money don't part themselves, you know
The second BMC Members Open Forum webinar took place on 20 March. Recently-appointed BMC CEO Paul Ratcliffe, President Andy Syme and Chair Roger Murray shared updates on staff changes, new and ongoing initiatives, insurance policy changes and the current...