In the last few years I have had 4 waterproof jackets, all Gore Tex, all failed.
First one was MTB specific 2 layer Gore Tex (brand may have been Endura), which cost £170. After a few months it was obvious my forearms were getting wet. Initial thought was that it must be sweat, but the rest of me was reasonably dry. The manufacturers took it back and confirmed delamination and replaced it - so far so good :)
The replacement did the same thing after about a year. Gore-Tex themselves sent me a full refund (I said I was giving up on the brand). So I bought one of the (then) new Karrimor Paclite jackets.
After a year the same happened (I should have sent it back, but was too fed up one day I just went out to buy a new one).
I bought a Berghaus Pac Lite (not bike specific, but good for walking too) - latest version of Pac Lite, cost £140. I have now found the same problem! Wet forearms!
Off the bike it seems okay, but I guess 18 to 20mph into drizzle is just too much for it (which is pathetic, given that I also sail the channel in gore-tex suit and boots that stay dry!).
What is going on? Is it me? Am I unlucky? Are they inherrently flawed? Are they unsuitable for cycling?
I have always bought Gore Tex because they DO honour their lifetime guarantee, but the problem is I feel I could have some brand new expensive waterproofs and go on a major tour or expedition and never know if my gear will work till I'm miles from anywhere, camping overnight, wet and cold.
I have also had leaks in 2 consecutive pairs of Karrimor Gore Tex boots (in one boot each time), so now I always go walking with SealSkinz socks as well - shouldn't be necessary!
I will be sending the latest gear to Gore Tex but I just don't know what to do next. Any thoughts, or similar experiences?
(NB I treat my gear very carefully,clean exactly as per instructions, and all this gear has had only minimal wear).
Wet forearms is quite common when cycling no matter how good the jacket. You usually just put the jacket on top of what you are already wearing so you are more likely to sweat. Your arms are right in the slipstream so the jacket is getting a lot of cooling here. The arms are also the worst ventilated part of the jacket so you get condensation here. I have had small puddles forming at the elbows and not just in Goretex. I have found Goretex to work as well or better than the competition but you must remember that if you were sweating before you put it on then you will sweat more after. It is no good trying a 'taste' test on the water as after evaporation and then condensing it will not be salty. Getting cycling waterproofs right is very difficult due to the type of activity. One minute flogging up a hill at 5-10 mph, the next going down the other side at 30-40 with no physical effort. Very few sports have such extremes in such a short time.
I can answer the hill-walking/boots although there is no real answer/satisfactory explanation. Gore-Tex breathability works on the theory of differential environment between the inside and outside of the material, which is why it won't work properly in humid or claggy conditions. The waterproof ability combined with the breathability works on the theory of a fabric weave that is tight enough to expel droplets of water but open enough to allow the expulsion of vapours. When hill walking it is the constant brushing against grass/snow that saturates the material that eventually results in a breakdown of that theory. The same boots walking around the London streets would probably remain dry. I use nubuck leather boots these days (Gore-Tex lined) and they last much longer.
Thanks guys - useful comments but it still doesn't quite resolve it for me. Firstly, Gore Tex themselves tested the arms of two of these and agreed they leaked; secondly, I was out in the drizzle yesterday on a family ride, nothing strenuous for me (not very fit, but fittest of the group), totally flat ride, never out of breath, yet I was the only wet person (wet arms that is). The others were wearing breathable or non breathable waterproofs in the £60 or less price bracket. Underneath I had a thin Berghaus long sleeved tech base layer.
When I took the jacket off the inside of the sleeves was totally wet, the rest of the jacket was virtually dry.On my back, under the backpack I was wearing was the sweatiest, having just the usual slight moist smear (or like it had been misted, not how to describe it). Thats how I would expect it to be, but not so the sleeves.
As for the boots, this is simply that when I have walked in a shallow stream, or a mossy puddle, I feel the water come in (one boot, and not deep enough to get in above the tongue). This is in the stuff that is "guaranteed to keep you dry whatever the conditions". I have taken to wearing SealSkinz inside them as I'm too frustrated to send them back (and don't like not having boots for 3 weeks), yet I stay dry (though I feel the cold of the leaking water), even though I would obviously sweat more / breathe less with this extra layer.
Are you expecting too much? Only you can answer that!! The reality of the matter is that if you walk in streams and puddles - your boots will leak and your feet will get wet; thats the nature of a breathable waterproof material. If you wear rubber boots, your feet will stay dry. Of course they're no good for walking in.
I presume you're wearing KSBs or a derivative of them, which are only 3-season. Even if you wore Yeti Gaitors over them, they would still leak if you walked in water. I know this doesn't answer/resolve your problem, but it is just the reality of the matter.
I have some excellent Gore-Tex tops for cycling and in the cold of winter I may even wear one of my mountaineering jackets - but, as JF2 says, I also often get damp forearms, not normally at a steady pace though - don't have an answer for that neither!!
I had the same problem with my Pac Lite jacket,water getting in.Quite disapponted when its advertised as being waterproof which it isn't unless its treated with DWR.I wash and proof it if it starts leaking again.I dont use it that often unless the weather is really bad.
I've had much the same experience with both cycling and trekking clothes. I'm now thinking that the garments weren't actually leaking, but there was a big build up of condensation on the inside. Despite this, I remain reasonably dry and comfortable.
"The reality of the matter is that if you walk in streams and puddles - your boots will leak and your feet will get wet; thats the nature of a breathable waterproof material."
I am sure you are right Phil, it certainly seems that way, I just can't get my head around the idea that these and similar products are advertised as "guaranteed to keep you dry" It makes me question my understanding of the language, in particular what the words "waterproof" and "dry" really mean.
Advertising is designed to sell and is promoted only to advantage the seller: not the buyer. The seller can refute their rhetoric of advertising if they can quote/prove their advertisements in 'some situations' - Is it stretching the truth? Generally - yes!!
Unfortunately, that's life!! I don't condone it - we have to do our homework first; that's what forums like this are for! the best advertisement is (almost) word of mouth. I've been fortunate to test some clothing/equipment and the difference between brands/prices is often huge!! There are a few exceptions to the adage "you get what you pay for" but, generally, that is the case. It's also the case that you don't have to buy the best to get the most for a certain purpose. Conversely, some people think that if you buy a certain product at a budget price - it can perform at the same level as the best equipment.
Hope that wasn't a rant!!! But i've got used to many different qualities of clothing/gear compared to many different perceptions!!
There are two seperate issues, of course. Wet inside due to limits of breathability, and wet inside due to water penetration (leaks). The former is more contentious, but I believe my issues still stand with the latter.
Gore Tex use terms like "Guaranteed to keep you dry" and "totally waterproof", "particularly suited to cycling", and say that waterproofing is not dependent on the uppers (with boots). Their online videos show the boot test - boots doing 400km worth of treading in puddles; the shower test, hours of monsoon style rain; specifications like waterproof: (minimum 28 metres ISO 811) Breathability: Extremely breathable (4 RET) Windproof: 100%
The gear is used by the military and emergency services, and in extreme conditions (I use some Gore Tex sailing boots (and they work faultlessly) and some Musto breathables (non-Gore-Tex) also faultless in use cross channel in force 6 winds with spray coming over the bow into the cockpit all night long. Getting wet in winter at sea can become an issue of safety not just comfort, and we expect our gear to keep us dry).
As far as proofing is concerned, I gather the gear needs treating sometimes to maintain the water repelency of the outer fabric, so water beads up. Without this the fabric "wets out" and breathability is impaired, however it is quite clear from Gore Tex that regardless of this,it is inherrently waterproof and will not leak.
Usually if a manufacturer makes claims that cannot be substantiated in the real world, they are considered to be mis-selling their products. They cannot hide behind laboratory tests if they don't work in practice. Consumers and advertising regulators have forced many companies to alter their claims when they don't stack up.
So either I (or we) have duds, and Gore Tex should work better, or Gore Tex is as poor as we have found, and does not meet the claims upon which they sell it, yet they continue to sell well, and we just accept it - ho hum.
Well, I can't just accept this situation, so I will wait to see what Gore's comments are in response to my letter. I can't rest until I know if its
1) something I'm doing that causes the problem (I'll accept this as most likely) 2) something wrong with the particular items we have had a bad experience of 3) something inherrently wrong with the Gore product and or a mismatch between performance and the claims they make.
If I have to conclude after my investigation that it is legal and correct for items to be sold as "waterproof" and in practice this means "you will get wet", I will eat my SealSkinz! (couldn't manage a whole jacket).
Wet cyclists of the world unite!
Now, thats what I call ranting! :)
edit: I should add, that maybe despite appearances, I am not out to diss Gore-Tex, unless or until I find it deserves it. I am just trying to find out where the problem lies, and (maybe unlike many) I do think it is a problem.
Yep - that was a good rant!! And your probably right that it doesn't perform to the letter and that the majority don't see it the same way as you, that it is a problem. I am possibly too submissive in accepting these faults, thinking that the extremes I subject the material to are over and above the main stream.
I retreat my gear every year, which helps, but it is never 100% waterproof and the UK climate is much worse than the colder climes for having to cope with the wet weather. As the precipitation freezes it is easier to deal with!!
Good luck with your cause and keep us informed - it may benfit others!!
Any possibility that your wet arms were a result of your long-sleeved wicking baselayer wicking water up from outside the jacket (either directly or through contact with wet gloves)?
That is a plausible explanation, but jacket cuffs were below sleeves, and gloves were very short, so no contact, and this has happened with other clothing “configurations” including short sleeves, so I don't believe so in this case.
I'm going to sweat anyway, it rains, both make me wet so why bother. I'll just towel off and change into nice dry clothing when I get back home/car/work.
Yesterday riding home from London to Sidcup I got absolutely soaked - the windproof jacket does a good job of making sure I don't get too cold but it'll let all but the shortest of showers through.
I guess I must sound like a wimp, but all this getting wet is okay for day rides, not so good when on a week long tour with limited spare clothing and no drying facilities in the tent! And its not so good to be wet when having to stop for a puncture or other bike repair high up in the Penines in October. It can become a safety issue rather than just comfort or convenience.
True, but I am sweaty bugger of the highest order, so not much point in wearing waterproof gear...I make do with windproof and get on with it....however, if I wasn''t such a sweaty git, I probably would wear something more watertight
Several people have referred to wet forearms, could this just be leakage at the cuff? It's not really possible to make a perfect seal against your arm, so a certain amount of water will seep in. This is just a thought, but it might be one part of the answer.
I agree that if a manufacurer claims their goods are 'totally waterproof' and they prove not to be , then some sort of action should be taken. In 1971 I broke a Zeus crank that had been advertised as unbreakable. I returned it to Zeus via Ron Kitching, they replaced the whole chainset and undertook to withdraw the claim from their adverts and, subsequently, did so.
Sadly, as I understand it, 'Guaranteed to keep you dry' only means they have to give you a refund or replacement if it doesn't.
" & _
