Depending on where the baseline is, 1.8 degrees could be huge! But more importantly, heat dissapation is a non-linear function. The warmer you are relative to your environment, the more energy is lost. While Shackleton's kit forms a lower baseline, it probably makes sense to imagine how some imaginary perfect vacuum insulated sleeping bag would perform.
Normal core body temperature is around 37C.
Hypothermia starts around 35C, only 2C less.
If they're actually measuring body temperature (using that swallowed pill they mention?) then 1.8C is a huge difference.
This whole article does feel like they started with a conclusion and they were going to report that conclusion regardless of what they measured or experienced. Content that claims to debunk things is hot right now.
Traditionally, yes.
In practice, modern people are a bit colder than that. The 37C value is old enough that it's out of date, but the reasons why aren't well understood.
Warmth of clothing isn't actually what people care about. What people care about, and what the article does not mention, is warmth per unit weight.
> the gear of the past is capable, but it has a narrower operating window. If you stop moving in Mallory’s kit at 8,000 meters, you will freeze quickly. Modern gear buys you a safety margin if you become static.
In modern terms, this means that stopping to take a photo — whether Ansel or selfie — would carry a material risk of harm in the classic gear that is addressed by modern gear. The example of a selfie is perhaps too easily dismissed unconsidered, but the cognitive load is real for casual hikers, and is a benefit to modern gear that deserves the mention it gets. If I had to choose between a cap that has perfect heat management and a cap that weighs 10g less but requires me to constantly take it off and put it on every five minutes to allow evaporation, I would choose the heavier and lower annoyance cap. Each person’s preferences and skills apply; if one seeks to minmax weight/thermal then that’s a negligible price to pay to improve — but only some truly do strive for the limit of lowest mass without regards to complexity.
There was an enviro-scifi book from the eighties that noted that a few people will pursue ‘one piece of apparel serves all functions’ skinsuit to the exclusion of all other concerns (such as natural fabrics or apparel design), at which point we would plausibly expect to see at one extreme the folks who make a discount-ultralight vented bodysuit out of FedEx envelopes. I am taking for granted that someone has tried this, because of course someone has tried this! And that starts to verge on why, in a different enviro-scifi book of that same relative era, the stillsuit existed: the lightest way to have convenient purified water in an absurd climates. Even the stillsuit as we see it described prioritizes convenience, the sip tube, over a more efficient system that doesn’t expend calories on pumping water up. That’s purely because human beings have a cognitive annoyance limit; and we do variably prioritize convenience when assessing the weight-complexity tradeoff.
Add up the numbers in the bar graph and you'll see that the old gear sums to two kilograms heavier than the modern gear.
Anyway, you can try it yourself, wear a 2kg wax cotton jacket versus a 500gm technical jacket and see how you feel after a day's hiking.
Two kilograms extra is gigantic.
If you have a friend who hikes or backpacks, ask them to take you along for your first time and try it out for yourself.
Carrying your lunch on a 10-foot pole, keeping it off the ground at all times, versus slipping it into a fanny pack - or eating it and carrying it in your very center of mass.
I noticed while ultralight hiking (full kit without food, fuel, and water under 9 lbs, for multi-day excursions) that how close your backpack was to your back mattered. Unfortunately, if it was tight to your back it overheated you, so a standoff of an inch or so was essential. I considered dividing it front and back, so each was about half as "thick" (far from my body), but there isn't a lot you can carry in front of you without seriously impeding movement.
Anyway: force times distance equals work.
Considering that someone carrying 2 extra kilos will also be generating more body heat etc, the focus on heat over the rest of the article is in question.
2 big new innovations that matter are Gore-tex and Nylon fabrics that are very durable and wind resistance for their weight.
Neither one of these dudes is wearing cotton base layers, midlayers, socks, etc. It's too slow to evaporate moisture which can cause blisters on feet and rapid drop of body temperature drop in cool/cold weather.
The challenges of technical gear are:
1. managing active body temperature by radiating heat effectively
2. managing passive body temperature by retaining heat effectively
3. managing internally generated moisture by allowing evaporation
4. managing externally generated moisture by preventing absorption
5. minimising weight
6. maximising toughness
This article talks about point 1 as though it's the entire story, but maintaining a comfortable active body temperature is by far the easiest point. You can do it with a tshirt under most circumstances. Wools do have an advantage with regard to point 3, which is why a lot of technical gear is now made of merino wool. The entire selling point of goretex is that it provides a reasonable degree of 3 whilst giving an excellent degree of 4, which is simply not possible with antique gear.
Modern technical gear is genuinely incredible stuff, it's possible to pack something that will keep you warm and dry down to 8°C in a space less than a large cup of coffee and a weight less than a glossy magazine.
Not to mention that from a scientific perspective, experimenting on a single pair of twins adds essentially zero statistical power to the results. This is theatre.
> The data proves that the gear of the past is capable, but it has a narrower operating window. If you stop moving in Mallory’s kit at 8,000 meters, you will freeze quickly. Modern gear buys you a safety margin if you become static.
Traditional materials still have a place though. Material science has not beaten down feathers or wool yet, for the most part.
While dry, or intermittently wettened (so it can still shed water). Numerous independent tests show that it doesn't breathe at all, once the surface is fully wet. Also, Gore-Tex is no longer best-in-class amongst rain-shedding breathable fabrics; it simply has name recognition.
To be fair, few things do breathe once their surface wets... but wool's surface is so convoluted by the twisty, hydrophobic threads that it rarely gets fully wet on the surface.
It's a way to shed water: Wearing waterproof, non-breathable layers often is worse than not, because the moisture your body releases and that gets trapped soaks you from the inside as surely and rapidly as the rain. (Maybe it's a bit warmer.)
For example … skeletal and muscular compensation. Nerve damage. Damage to lymph system due to surgeries.
More surprisingly, the footwear of yore was apparently lighter
1) 1.8⁰C on body is very big difference, it is like difference between person who is slightly warm and one who barely can move because of cold. It is huge.
2) Tone like «we are victims of marketing, we can use simple equipment instead of high-tech one» is in same article as «Custom boots for Mallory were been developed for many month». Yep, very simple equipment, of course.
I wonder if those are pills they've developed themselves, or if it's an existing product available to consumer?
> They needed to live and test their limits. They started by rowing the Atlantic to raise funds for Spinal Research, a UK-based charity they’ve worked with for years.
Going to guess the sample size for identical twins who never needed to work is even lower.
By comparison my RIE UL2 is 100x, no 1000x better in every single way. Same for my 15 degree duck down mummy.
Are sweaters better now than then?? I don't know, maybe. But seriously, get out of here with the general notion that 19** is within a hundred miles of good modern backpacking gear.
About boots, unless you are in snow, boots are scam. Period full stop with whatever expansive definition you want to use. Comfy $30 sneakers from Big 5 are great. I do have some trail running shoes I use personally that cost me about $100. I'm sure they had great options 100 years ago.
Big 5 seems to be a western US sporting goods chain. I wonder if there's an equivalent in other parts of the country?
Your scouting experience was in no way, shape, nor form like Mallory's expeditions. He knew a few things 12-year-old you didn't. And these guys have tested their theories; you have not.
But not double-blinding. If I were the twin in the retro gear, I'd subconsciously be trying harder to try to make a point.
https://www.quora.com/While-at-the-sea-what-did-Vikings-do-f...
1.8 degrees C is a huge temperature change in biology. Human bodies keep thermal equilibrium in a margin smaller then that.
For my use cases (backpacking/bikepacking), it's all about the weight. But, I tend not to camp when it drops below 40*F (I do, but I have a travel trailer for that).
(The highest recorded paraglider flight was 10,054m – unintentional, got sucked into a cumulonimbus cloud updraft - also lost consciousness).
Must be pricey.
And yes, when you can't mass produce clothing it goes up in price massively. Most mass produced clothing costs slightly more than the fabric, but even a very fast couturier will spend hours on a single piece. On top of that, it's one of those industries where price sensitivity inverts at the upper end.
What does that mean?
It happens when something is supply constrained and a costly signal. Universities are the classic example, Harvard would never lower its prices to be more appealing than Yale.
This would sound more convincing if Princeton hadn't already done that exact thing.
> Must be pricey
The Turner Twins website has sections on their – fairly significant – PR/Media work and Brand Partnerships.
...
Taking it at face value, this is more theatre than science for a few reasons:
- twins don't magically mean two identical bodies
- food intake has a much greater effect from thermogenesis than most laymen realize; I don't see that the two men consumed the same diet at the same meal times each day, nor does the article mention what they ate at all?
- no control for their own body quirks, they should swap gear every so often
- the focus seems to be on warmth and moisture management, but in a weird way. Was the historical gear twin actually cold on summit day, or are we just assuming warmer=better? Warmth alone is useless. In my circles, good gear performs well at the intersection of performance(warmth per weight for insulation, as high moisture vapor transmission rate with as low cubic feet per minute airflow per weight for windshells, ability to shed external moisture while avoiding internal moisture buildup per weight for outer weather layers, breathability and speed of drying per weight for base layers) crossed with durability and your price point.
>Modern gear allows for a “set and forget” mentality
No the heck it doesn't!!! Every climber, long distance backpacker, and mountaineer reading this article surely got hit with a blast of Gell-Mann Amnesia just like I did. Layering for active and static usage and frequent adjustments to clothing/gear according to changes in body temperature and weather are still very much part of the game!
If you're comparing the pinnacle of gear tech 100 years ago to today, you can't compare to generic off the shelf Patagonia and Arcteryx clothing. A more apt comparison would be a modern ultralight kit with bespoke gear made by cottage companies like Timmermade.
I posit the primary function of modern gear is not that it performs better as a rule, rather it weighs less while performing the same or better. Other commenters have minimized the weight savings of 2kg with modern gear. As someone who regularly backpacks in winter conditions, I must say 2 kilos is a LOT of weight to shrug your shoulders at. It's over two full days of food at 4,000 calories per day. It's more than my snowshoes and spikes weigh combined!
I think this may sound smart and counterfactual to common knowledge as a layman, but to anyone who regularly goes outdoors in extreme conditions, this article and experiment is horseshit.
But this feels so not far from anti-Wayland pro-X11/Xorg grumblers. You'll hook 15% of people by being against the modern world. Theres a niche demanding rejection of modernity, current offering. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47448328
There are some valid areas of investigation. I want deep critique. But mostly it's just noise, is filler, to give people their outlet against reasonability. Mostly it's not serious. It doesn't have to be: these marks want to believe. And alas alas, that 15% of fans you have against modernity: they are hot to go be loudly obnoxious against any and everything new or popular. They will be unreasonably loud for you.
How humanity copes with basically anti-informed vice-signalling is our most outstanding problem of the 21st century, is our noospheric challenge.
Well, whadaya know!
But I bet you didn't know that you can find modern pro hiking shoes that are even heavier than the old ones they recreated!
It’s a great idea and these men are undoubtedly incredible athletes, but I’m not sure “ultimate” and “perfect” are the right words here.
A killjoy would bring up double-blinding or n>1 and I don’t want to sap the fun out of this being about an interesting people-centric piece.
There’s no mention though of a more basic trick: having them alternate clothes every expedition or season! Pfizer it ain’t, but it would still take it up a notch on the scale of interesting/fun to “ultimate/perfect”.
The human body self-regulates, and is pretty sensitive to dramatic temperature swings. So, conditioned on the fact that they both survived the adventure, we should expect their temperature differences to be relatively small. This doesn't mean the clothing is great, it means [their body] + [their clothing] is adequate.
Additionally, I'm not a doctor but 1.8 C is not small compared to normal human variation! Normal body temperature ranges between 36 and 37 C, a "high fever" starts around 39 C [0], and hypothermia is anything below 35 C [1]. The comfortable range of human temperature is 1 deg C, and the "outside of this is concerning" range is only 4 C wide. 1.8 C is quite big from that perspective.
[0] https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/treat...
[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypothermia/s...
I also found it funny how they mentioned that modern clothing keeps you warmer longer once you stop moving, then tried to minimize the significance of that. There's a reason "cotton kills" is a cliche. Modern fabrics, windbreaker shells, and engineered layers don't make a huge difference in warm, dry, active conditions - it's when things go sideways that they can be the difference between comfort and fatal hypothermia.
Ice crystals: https://youtu.be/4yBNmoa4htE
That said, I'm a fat 52-year-old, and I cycle in jeans and a T-shirt, and if I start to feel cold it's a sign I'm not pedalling hard enough and I should get the boot down a bit, burn some calories.
I'm still faster than many-jerseys-guy.
>50F: Summer gear, and not much of it. I run hot, and there's no need to make it worse.
>20F: Add a thick sweatshirt and gloves
>0F: Add wool socks, long pants and a wool underlayer, a windproof outer shell, glasses, a hat, a thicker windproof layer over my gloves, and sometimes a scarf depending on how short I'd cut my beard.
>-20F: Similar, but with some extra layers over my core, and the scarf is mandatory.
>-40: Similar, more layers.
<-40: I know my limits. I've nearly gotten in serious trouble before when it's too cold out and I didn't plan for extra wind and a cold pocket near the river or having to walk because of a poorly maintained road or whatever. My gear wasn't especially high-tech, and I just called work and emailed my professors to let them know I wasn't going to make it.
Wind would have me reaching for wind breaking and insulation at higher temperatures.
It wasn't a 10-minute process by any means though. I'd pull out my phone in the wee hours of morning, see that it was X temperature on the homescreen, and plan accordingly. If he's just selecting between a few jerseys that should be even easier, right?
A light jacket is all good when you are pumping out the calories, but take a fall and you are now sitting on the ground unable to move. At -40 you may have only minutes before life-altering cold injuries (lost toes). Add to that the darkness and snowbanks and you might not be found for hours... IF anyone is actually looking for you. Cellphone screen get tricky in serious cold. A person walking to work, which was still not advisable, would at least be wearing clothing warm enough to stand still in the cold.
The radio used to have public service announcements calling for people to keep blankets in their car. Not in the trunk. Within reach of the driver. Get into a wreck, trapped without heat, and that fleece blanket under your seat might save your life.
I wish I'd swapped out the really nice saddle for a more entry-level one though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wearable thermometer patches attached to each man’s head, chest, hands, feet, and legs recorded body temperature at five-minute intervals, nonstop, for the entire 10 days of the expedition.
That being said, if a 2-degree dip in temp would kill you, you are already praying for Ernest Shackleton's leadership.
The photographs and text within quotes are probably the only human things in there. We might go to the source of the data (the brothers instagram) for better conclusions, but for me this well is poisoned by slop.
There is no difference in the amount of energy 1 degree Celsius delta and 1 degree Kelvin delta represents.
The only (and I really mean only) difference is how zero energy is defined. It is not possible to have negative energy, and that zero Celsius represents the freezing point of water is an artifact of convenience, not of absolute definition.
Ratios are undefined because the Celsius scale has no absolute zero while the Kelvin scale has.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_measurement
I think there was some insight here that went off on a bad tangent leading to a math word-problem mistake, confusing these two:
1. A difference... between [X] and [Y], which is a delta of 1.8°C
2. A difference... between [0°K] and a reading of [1.8°C], which is a delta 274.95°K.
So what if Celsius and Kelvin have different 0 points - they are still valid scales and you can talk about differences between 2 measurements.
According to your logic it would be impossible to state that two Fahrenheit measurements differ by some number of degrees F - why, I have no idea.
If you believe otherwise, please provide some citations to your beliefs so we can understand what you are trying to say.
To support your argument, take the following example:
Lets take some water at 273.15 Kelvin and add 1 Kelvin of energy to it. The water is now at 274.15 Kelvin. The difference is of 1 Kelvin.
If we had the same amount of water at 0 degrees Celsius and added 1 Celsius of energy, the water would now be at 1 Celcius.
Converting these values leave us with 273.15 Kelvin and 274.15 Kelvin respectively.
You can repeat this experiment (ignoring latent heat) for any value of Kelvin or Celsius, therefore Kevlin and Celsius are interchangeable in reference to temperature comparasion.
But I think it's sufficient to just say that Kelvin and Celsius have the same scale magnitude and just a constant offset.
Most people do not understand temperature on the Kelvin scale. As such, you should not use it to communicate in a general setting such as this.
See, a degree is not an absolute unit of measure like a Celsius or a Kelvin, it's a relative difference between two absolute units of measure. When discussing the difference between two separate temperature readings measured in Celsius, degrees Celsius is entirely appropriate.
Think of it like time: there is a difference between meeting at 2:00 and meeting two hours from now.
Categorically and factually incorrect.
A 1.8 degree C different would be 1.8 kelvin. The two degrees have different zero points but one degree Celsius and one degree Kelvin are identical in magnitude.
"An absolute difference of 1.8C, or 274.8K, measured between A and B"
or
"A relative difference of 1.8C, or 1.8K, is added/subtracted to A/B in order to reach B/A"
I don't think the context-free variant with K will improve understanding and decrease confusability in this discussion context, but I appreciate the pointer about it in general. I'll take a lot more care around it in a future thread about space apparel!
A relative difference[2], usually given in percent change, has problems with a unit that has an offset zero like Celcius, but that isn't what anybody is using here. It's more than simple subtraction; you have to divide by the reference value.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_difference#Applicatio... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_difference