String underwear as base layer - why not?

Quoted message said:

Given that string underwear worked reasonably well even with cotton,
how come we're not seeing it using high tech fabrics? The point of a
base layer, as I understand it, is to let moisture get away from the
skin as quickly as possible while still providing as insulating layer
- wouldn't holes help here?

It's holes that give you that in existing fabrics. A more open weave
will be more breathable, but over a certain point it will work less well
as insulation. The real insulation in most outdoor gear (vacuum flasks
an obvious exception!) comes from still air: the insulation material is
just a means to keep air still. The bigger the holes, the less good it
will be at trapping air and stopping it moving about.

A US firm called Wiggy's makes fishnet underwear (see
http://www.wiggys.com/moreinfo.cfm?Product_ID=35) but folk on the whole
have been unconvinced of its merits. Since I find I don't get
uncomfortably sweaty in standard base layers /if I'm not wearing too
much over the top of them/ being told they're making me cold doesn't
really wash...

Quoted message said:

Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

It's not a "rule", it's ludicrous hyperbole. I've topped out one hell
of a lot of hills, including in full winter conditions, in a cotton
T-shirt and/or cotton undies, and I've seen a great many folk do the
same (well, I'm assuming about the undies, I don't inspect them! ;-)),
and by and large those concerned are resolutely alive. These days I'll
wear a "proper" base layer in preference as I find them comfier, but I'm
quite sure if I wander out for a day in the hills in a cotton T and/or
briefs I don't need to make a booking in advance with the undertaker.
Cotton could /potentially/ make a fatal difference if you're hypothermic
and wet through and have no spare clothes you can/will change into
(people go a bit gaga when they're getting that cold), but that's a
pretty damn big "if", and not a more significant factor than any number
of other things you might do "just in case".

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Given that string underwear worked reasonably well even with cotton,
how come we're not seeing it using high tech fabrics? The point of a
base layer, as I understand it, is to let moisture get away from the
skin as quickly as possible while still providing as insulating layer
- wouldn't holes help here?

No. What the base layers do is get the moisture of the skin and spread
out. Getting it off the wearer's skin reduces the feeling of damp and
spreading it out helps it to evaporate. The fibres don't actually absorb
water but their weave encourages water to wick in between the fibres
thus sucking it away from the skin.

Spreading it out helps it to evaporate faster than if it had remained on
the skin but it also evaporates from the fibres rather than the skin
surface so the cooling caused by evaporation does not happen directly on
the skin.

--

Dominic Sexton

Quoted message said:

Given that string underwear worked reasonably well even with cotton,
how come we're not seeing it using high tech fabrics? The point of a
base layer, as I understand it, is to let moisture get away from the
skin as quickly as possible while still providing as insulating layer
- wouldn't holes help here?

Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

Since getting into walking and running, my denim jeans and cotton t-
shirts have been ousted. Next to the skin, top half, it has to be
some wicking man-made material, Nike Dry-fit, Ron Hill, New Balance,
etc.

David
--
Last Hill; Win Hill
http://www.fenrunfellwalk.co.uk

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

It's not a "rule", it's ludicrous hyperbole. I've topped out one hell
of a lot of hills, including in full winter conditions, in a cotton
T-shirt and/or cotton undies,

The problem is if the cotton undies get wet. I've recently come back
from the Cairngorms and I wore Ron Hills with cotton underpants. The Ron
Hills got soaked and whilst my legs still felt warm, by bottom felt
cold. I walked the Ron Hills dry, but my underpants still remained damp
and clammy for long after.

Jim Ford

Jim Ford said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

Quoted message said:

It's not a "rule", it's ludicrous hyperbole. I've topped out one hell
of a lot of hills, including in full winter conditions, in a cotton
T-shirt and/or cotton undies,

The problem is if the cotton undies get wet. I've recently come back
from the Cairngorms and I wore Ron Hills with cotton underpants. The Ron
Hills got soaked and whilst my legs still felt warm, by bottom felt
cold. I walked the Ron Hills dry, but my underpants still remained damp
and clammy for long after.

Jim Ford

M&S sell the best value for money 'wicking' underware for blokes,
IMHO. £6 or currently 50% off second pair, therefore two pairs for
£9. They perform as well as £20 Helly Hansens.....!

David
--
Last Hill; Win Hill
http://www.fenrunfellwalk.co.uk

In message <[email hidden]>

Jim Ford said:

Peter Clinch wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

It's not a "rule", it's ludicrous hyperbole. I've topped out one hell
of a lot of hills, including in full winter conditions, in a cotton
T-shirt and/or cotton undies,

Quoted message said:

The problem is if the cotton undies get wet. I've recently come back
from the Cairngorms and I wore Ron Hills with cotton underpants. The Ron
Hills got soaked and whilst my legs still felt warm, by bottom felt
cold. I walked the Ron Hills dry, but my underpants still remained damp
and clammy for long after.

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale. Sure, it's
unpleasant if it gets wet, and suffers problems that other materials
don't, but I don't see the point in buying lots of extra clothing just
to go walking in. The biggest problem I have with it is a sweaty back.
If it's wet then I usually stay indoors, but have waterproofs. If the
weather is so awful that getting wet and cold in cotton is really
going to cause you trouble (and you're otherwise reasonably equipped),
then I have to wonder why you bothered going out in the first place.

--
Simon Challands

"Simon Challands" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale. Sure, it's
unpleasant if it gets wet,

I seem to remember that when I was in the Light Division back in the
eighties, all our combat clothing was cotton-based. And we had to stay out
in all weathers for days on end without the luxury of Goretex or bivvybags!

Jim Ford said:

Peter Clinch said:

Quoted message said:

Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

Quoted message said:

The problem is if the cotton undies get wet. I've recently come back
from the Cairngorms and I wore Ron Hills with cotton underpants. The Ron
Hills got soaked and whilst my legs still felt warm, by bottom felt
cold. I walked the Ron Hills dry, but my underpants still remained damp
and clammy for long after.

Indeed the case, and why wicking undies count as probably my fave
piece of "proper" gear, but we need to draw a pretty clear
distinction between having a clammy bottom and being dead...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Simon Challands said:

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale. Sure, it's
unpleasant if it gets wet, and suffers problems that other materials
don't, but I don't see the point in buying lots of extra clothing just
to go walking in. The biggest problem I have with it is a sweaty back.
If it's wet then I usually stay indoors, but have waterproofs. If the
weather is so awful that getting wet and cold in cotton is really
going to cause you trouble (and you're otherwise reasonably equipped),
then I have to wonder why you bothered going out in the first place.

If you're out some days backpacking, damp underwear is not only
unpleasant to wear but if you change into spare dry the damp pair gets
pretty unpleasant in your pack after a few days! I'll check out
214Fells's suggestion regarding M&S stuff.

Jim Ford

Peter Clinch said:

Jim Ford said:

Peter Clinch said:

> Btw - are cotton string vests an exception to the "cotton kills" rule?

Quoted message said:

The problem is if the cotton undies get wet. I've recently come back
from the Cairngorms and I wore Ron Hills with cotton underpants. The
Ron Hills got soaked and whilst my legs still felt warm, by bottom
felt cold. I walked the Ron Hills dry, but my underpants still
remained damp and clammy for long after.

Indeed the case, and why wicking undies count as probably my fave piece
of "proper" gear, but we need to draw a pretty clear distinction between
having a clammy bottom and being dead...

I had to grit my teeth for a few mornings when putting on cold wet
pants, Ron Hills, socks and boots! It's also a bit nasty when your Ron
Hills are so waterlogged that their weight drags them down from your waist!

Jim Ford

Jim Ford said:

I had to grit my teeth for a few mornings when putting on cold wet
pants, Ron Hills, socks and boots! It's also a bit nasty when your Ron
Hills are so waterlogged that their weight drags them down from your waist!

I'm no great fan of over-trousers, but when it's /that/ wet they're far
better than letting your trousers get soaked through. On our Norwegian
trip easlier this year there were a couple of days at the end where we
knew we'd get wet through without full rain gear so I spent the whole
walking day in O-Ts, and it wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting.
That was ME Drilite Plus ones, which are pretty light.

No need to put on cold, wet socks... baste them a little in leftover hot
water from the morning brew and they'll at least be warm, wet socks!

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Dominic Sexton said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Given that string underwear worked reasonably well even with cotton,
how come we're not seeing it using high tech fabrics? The point of a
base layer, as I understand it, is to let moisture get away from the
skin as quickly as possible while still providing as insulating layer
- wouldn't holes help here?

No. What the base layers do is get the moisture of the skin and spread
out. Getting it off the wearer's skin reduces the feeling of damp and
spreading it out helps it to evaporate. The fibres don't actually absorb
water but their weave encourages water to wick in between the fibres
thus sucking it away from the skin.

This sounds good, but I'm not at all sure that this is possible in
anything except base layer manufacturer's marketing material. Yes, the
fabrics wick. However when I've worn wicking base layers I can't
remember much "spreading" of moisture. It should easy to test though -
dampen an armpit sized area of a bl and see how much it widens out.

Quoted message said:

Spreading it out helps it to evaporate faster than if it had remained on
the skin but it also evaporates from the fibres rather than the skin
surface so the cooling caused by evaporation does not happen directly on
the skin.

If moisture is evaporating, heat is being used. The only source is the
wearer's body.

Also, if you're sweating, you need to lose heat, surely? The danger
that you want to avoid is that sweat hanging around to provide an
extra thermal burden. Or am I missing something? So a good base layer
is one that lets moisture transit while keeping a layer of air trapped
close to the body. String would seem to do this.

In message <[email hidden]>, Simon Challands
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale.

Same here. I've got some Berghaus base layers, but I don't find them as
comfortable as a cotton tee shirt, and I'm not going to be prised out of
my M&S Y-fronts!

I remember seeing Goretex underpants in Needle Sports in Keswick some
years ago, I bet they chafed.

The best walking trousers IMO (both sadly no longer made) were J-Rats if
you felt in a colourful mood (does anyone remember them?) and the
original Mountain Equipment trousers, windproof and would dry in next to
no time if they got wet. These days I favour Craghoppers trousers -
polyester & cotton I see.

Regards,
--
Neil Pugh

Jim Ford said:

Simon Challands said:

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale. Sure, it's
unpleasant if it gets wet, and suffers problems that other materials
don't, but I don't see the point in buying lots of extra clothing just
to go walking in.

If you're out some days backpacking, damp underwear is not only
unpleasant to wear but if you change into spare dry the damp pair gets
pretty unpleasant in your pack after a few days! I'll check out
214Fells's suggestion regarding M&S stuff.

Most of my T shirts and trolleys are non-cotton. Nearly all of the
latter are from M&S and feature a 90/10 percent polyamide/elastane
(polyester/lycra) mix. However since I bought them the range seems to
have gone over to 100 percent cotton and 50/50 cotton and modal. Modal
is a fibre made of cellulose that is about 50 percent more hygroscopic
than cotton so it will soak up even more water.

Decathlon do some walking trolleys (Forclaz briefs in polyester) that
won't break the bank.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Angletarn Pikes via Beda Fell.
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/May07/martin9.htm

Quoted message said:

This sounds good, but I'm not at all sure that this is possible in
anything except base layer manufacturer's marketing material. Yes, the
fabrics wick. However when I've worn wicking base layers I can't
remember much "spreading" of moisture. It should easy to test though -
dampen an armpit sized area of a bl and see how much it widens out.

As with "waterproof breathable" fabrics, one must be aware that
marketing, while not actually /lying/, is making things sound as rosy as
possible.
Anyone who's worn a Goretex jacket all day in sheeting rain with high
humidity knows that "guaranteed to keep you dry" only means so much, and
not actually that you'll be dry... OTOH, anyone who's ever worn a
completely non-porus PU coated jacket in the same situations knows that
some breathability can make a very useful comfort difference.
And so too the case with base layers. If you're running up a hill you
will almost certainly overcome their ability to spread out the sweat
faster than you make it, but here the case that if you try it in a
cotton T the T will be wetter, clammier and take much, much longer to dry.

Quoted message said:

If moisture is evaporating, heat is being used. The only source is the
wearer's body.

Quoted message said:

Also, if you're sweating, you need to lose heat, surely? The danger
that you want to avoid is that sweat hanging around to provide an
extra thermal burden. Or am I missing something?

No, you're right on the money, though as well as sweat hanging around
anywhere being a Bad Thing thermally, if it's hanging around next to
your skin it's potentially a comfort problem to some degree too.

Quoted message said:

So a good base layer
is one that lets moisture transit while keeping a layer of air trapped
close to the body. String would seem to do this.

The ability of a weave as open as a string vest to trap a layer of air
is considerably lower than a weave full of considerably smaller but
vastly more numerous holes (same reason a foam mat is warmer than an
air-bed), so as soon as you stop sweating you'll get colder quicker.
Unfortunately you can't have your cake /and/ eat it too.

Another thing is that a non-string base layer is useful as a shirt in
its own right in far more conditions (both physical and social) than a
string one would be. Even a simple cotton T provides a significant
degree of wind-proofing that can be all you need on a nice day with a
breeze, but you'd have to pull something extra on over a string vest and
having 2 layers would then defeat the point of extra breathability you
had in the first place, and you'd be worst off than if you were in just
a normal base layer.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Dominic Sexton said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] writes

Quoted message said:

Given that string underwear worked reasonably well even with cotton,
how come we're not seeing it using high tech fabrics? The point of a
base layer, as I understand it, is to let moisture get away from the
skin as quickly as possible while still providing as insulating layer
- wouldn't holes help here?

No. What the base layers do is get the moisture of the skin and spread
out. Getting it off the wearer's skin reduces the feeling of damp and
spreading it out helps it to evaporate. The fibres don't actually absorb
water but their weave encourages water to wick in between the fibres
thus sucking it away from the skin.

This sounds good, but I'm not at all sure that this is possible in
anything except base layer manufacturer's marketing material. Yes, the
fabrics wick. However when I've worn wicking base layers I can't
remember much "spreading" of moisture.

Once it has wicked in between the fibres it is spread out and has a
larger surface area allowing faster evaporation.

Quoted message said:

It should easy to test though -
dampen an armpit sized area of a bl and see how much it widens out.

I doesn't have to widen out particularly to increase the surface area of
the water. That is the difference between fibres that do not absorb
water and those that do. When cotton fibres become water logged the
water has a much reduced surface area.

I think a better test would be a couple of shallow trays with a thin
layer of water in each. Put a piece of wicking techno base layer in one
tray and a same sized piece of cotton or string vest if you choose in
the other (or even nothing). See which dries out the fastest.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Spreading it out helps it to evaporate faster than if it had remained on
the skin but it also evaporates from the fibres rather than the skin
surface so the cooling caused by evaporation does not happen directly on
the skin.

If moisture is evaporating, heat is being used. The only source is the
wearer's body.

Your body is the warmest thing nearby but that doesn't mean that some of
the heat isn't taken from the surrounding air.

Quoted message said:

Also, if you're sweating, you need to lose heat, surely? The danger
that you want to avoid is that sweat hanging around to provide an
extra thermal burden. Or am I missing something?

The idea with the expensive techno base layers is to try and get rid of
the sweat while you are sweating. You are sweating because you are too
hot so that is the ideal time to move it off the skin and get it
evaporated quickly.

The problem with cotton is that it sucks up the moisture and it does not
allow it to evaporate as quickly. Therefore when you cool down (due to
less exertion / resting / weather change) a good deal of the sweat is
still there slowly evaporating and cooling you when you are not longer
hot.

Quoted message said:

So a good base layer
is one that lets moisture transit while keeping a layer of air trapped
close to the body. String would seem to do this.

The holes let the moisture transit but only by evaporation from the
skin. A wicking layer will speed up the transit from the skin and the
evaporation because of the larger surface area of the moisture.

The weave of many base layer fabrics are similar in concept to the
string vest having lots of small holes for trapping air and to reduce
the chance of the fabric becoming saturated. Some even have a fine
smooth inside and a coarser outside with the holes for trapping /
evaporation.

--

Dominic Sexton

Gordon said:

"Simon Challands" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale. Sure, it's
unpleasant if it gets wet,

I seem to remember that when I was in the Light Division back in the
eighties, all our combat clothing was cotton-based. And we had to stay out
in all weathers for days on end without the luxury of Goretex or bivvybags!

There was a bigish story a few years back about the SAS getting
special gear to hide in culverts. IIRC there was a ho-har about how
much this synthetic gear cost.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Angletarn Pikes via Beda Fell.
http://www.p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk/May07/martin9.htm

In article <[email hidden]>, Phil Cook
<[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Gordon said:

"Simon Challands" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't think I've ever not had some cotton on somewhere when I've
gone on the hills, and am still alive to tell the tale. Sure, it's
unpleasant if it gets wet,

I seem to remember that when I was in the Light Division back in the
eighties, all our combat clothing was cotton-based. And we had to stay out
in all weathers for days on end without the luxury of Goretex or bivvybags!

There was a bigish story a few years back about the SAS getting
special gear to hide in culverts. IIRC there was a ho-har about how
much this synthetic gear cost.

There is another issue with synthetic clothing for the military. Some of
it melts very easily which can be a severe disadvantage when there are
explosions in the wearer's vicinity :-(

--

Dominic Sexton

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What the base layers do is get the moisture of the skin and spread
out. Getting it off the wearer's skin reduces the feeling of damp and
spreading it out helps it to evaporate. The fibres don't actually absorb
water but their weave encourages water to wick in between the fibres
thus sucking it away from the skin.

Quoted message said:

This sounds good, but I'm not at all sure that this is possible in
anything except base layer manufacturer's marketing material. Yes, the
fabrics wick. However when I've worn wicking base layers I can't
remember much "spreading" of moisture.

Once it has wicked in between the fibres it is spread out and has a
larger surface area allowing faster evaporation.

So you're claiming that the surface area for water transport is 3D
with a synthetic BL rather than 2D? I'd really have to see some proof
of this being true in practical circumstances before I believe it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It should easy to test though -
dampen an armpit sized area of a bl and see how much it widens out.

I doesn't have to widen out particularly to increase the surface area of
the water. That is the difference between fibres that do not absorb
water and those that do. When cotton fibres become water logged the
water has a much reduced surface area.

I think a better test would be a couple of shallow trays with a thin
layer of water in each. Put a piece of wicking techno base layer in one
tray and a same sized piece of cotton or string vest if you choose in
the other (or even nothing). See which dries out the fastest.

Actually, this would be an appalling bad test of real world
capability, because it fails to take account of the most important
factor - how well does a fabric do in not becoming saturated with
sweat in the first place?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Spreading it out helps it to evaporate faster than if it had remained on
the skin but it also evaporates from the fibres rather than the skin
surface so the cooling caused by evaporation does not happen directly on
the skin.

Quoted message said:

If moisture is evaporating, heat is being used. The only source is the
wearer's body.

Your body is the warmest thing nearby but that doesn't mean that some of
the heat isn't taken from the surrounding air.

Yes, but that isn't evaporation in the sense you specified.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Also, if you're sweating, you need to lose heat, surely? The danger
that you want to avoid is that sweat hanging around to provide an
extra thermal burden. Or am I missing something?

The idea with the expensive techno base layers is to try and get rid of
the sweat while you are sweating. You are sweating because you are too
hot so that is the ideal time to move it off the skin and get it
evaporated quickly.

That is the idea with a string vest too - it's what the holes are for.
The difference is that the synthetic BL relies on wicking a trapped
layer of moisture, while a string mesh simply allows the moisture to
exit while it is vaporous.

Quoted message said:

The problem with cotton is that it sucks up the moisture and it does not
allow it to evaporate as quickly.

Yes: that's what the strings in a string vest are there to compensate
for.

Quoted message said:

Therefore when you cool down (due to
less exertion / resting / weather change) a good deal of the sweat is
still there slowly evaporating and cooling you when you are not longer
hot.

Quoted message said:

So a good base layer
is one that lets moisture transit while keeping a layer of air trapped
close to the body. String would seem to do this.

The holes let the moisture transit but only by evaporation from the
skin.

Well, something seems to have happened to

Quoted message said:

Your body is the warmest thing nearby but that doesn't mean that some of
the heat isn't taken from the surrounding air.

- and your claim that BL's work other than by evaporation. Why doesn't
this work for string vests too?

Quoted message said:

A wicking layer will speed up the transit from the skin and the
evaporation because of the larger surface area of the moisture.

The weave of many base layer fabrics are similar in concept to the
string vest having lots of small holes for trapping air and to reduce
the chance of the fabric becoming saturated. Some even have a fine
smooth inside and a coarser outside with the holes for trapping /
evaporation.

"Similar in concept" doesn't equal "as effective as".Thinking how
cotton string vests have performed for me, I can't help wondering how
a modern version designed for sports use would work.

In fact, I think the whole model of cooling and warmth is very
different to what you are assuming. In fact, your model of "the BL
prevents chill from stopping evaporation on the skin" has to be wrong
- if it was correct, there would be no evaporative cooling and wearers
would collapse of dehydration or overheating. The way a BL has to work
is allow evaporative cooling to work while the user is sweating, but
to replace the wet air as quickly as possible with dry air. Now,
synthetic materials used in modern BLs may have micropores to allow
this - but that doesn't mean that they are as effective as the large
holes in a string vest. They may be, or they may not.