Re: [Paddlewise] Is Some Rethinking on Drysuits, Wetsuits In Order?

Hi there Paddlewisers,

I'd like to comment on a couple of things that Ralph just wrote:

At 11:30 AM 11/30/00 -0800, ralph diaz wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have almost a half dozen things I have seen or read lately that makes
>me wonder whether we should be rethinking some of the things we know or
>think we know about drysuits and wetsuits.  Here are the items in
>capsule form:
>

I agree that it is good to examine and re-examine issues such as this from
time to time.  Thanks for bringing it up.

>1.  Sea Kayaker published an article earlier on dry suits in which I
>took issue with some of the author's comments.  One was regarding use of
>a neck ring to relieve some of the pressure of the neck gasket.  In my
>letter which SK published I commented on that (and also the idea of
>leaving the drysuit off the top of your body while paddling in calm
>conditions...but that is a separate issue).  The author replied that
>even with the neck ring on you would only get a few ounces of water into
>the suit if you capsize and roll back up.
>
I think that the important thing to realize here is that it is claimed that
you only get a few ounces of water if you capsize and roll back up.  That's
great if you have a reliable roll that always works.  But what if you go
for a swim?  What if your boat gets blown away?

>2.  Greg Stamer in answering some of my questions regarding the tuliaq,
>nightshirt looking Greenland neoprene garment, referred to something
>that the editor of SK wrote.  In brief, in a capsize he found that the
>tuliaq captured air underneath and that by tucking the open bottom hem
>inbetween his legs he significantly limited the amount of water flushing
>in and out.  In summary, the tuliaq, while open at the bottom and not
>tight fitting, gave a surprising amount of warmth.
>
When I read Greg's recent post it occurred to me that tucking in the open
bottom of a tuliaq might keep you warm if you were just bobbing around
waiting for help to arrive, but what about if you've tried a few self
rescues that didn't work?  I think all that thrashing around would flush in
cold water and it would displace any trapped air.

SNIP
>
>6.  In the neat slide show that my tocayo Ralph Hoehn sent in yesterday
>we have great photos of German kayakers in among ice floes wearing at
>best rain slickers and wool on a paddling expedition in 1935.
>
>

Yeah, but would they have chosen to wear drysuits if they we available and
affordable in 1935?


>So my question is basically is what we feel we know about drysuits and
>wetsuits is all wet and should we be rethinking things.
>
>A.  First wetsuits: a given in neoprene wet suits is that you must have
>them extraordinarily tight or otherwise they won't work.  I have
>discarded several neoprene farmer johns because of either increased
>tightness or growing intolerance for them.  The tuliaq case as presented
>by Greg Stamer would seem to indicate that perhaps we don't have to boa
>constrictor ourselves to death in tight wetsuits and that a real loose
>fit would be survivable.
>
It would be good to get some quantitative data here so when shopping for a
wet suit, one could know how important the fit is.  Of course if this info
gets out, I won't be able to continually tell my wife that a diet for me
would make my wet suit fit too loosely and put me at risk on the water.
Bring out more turkey.

>b.  Regarding drysuits, the wisdom is that they must be fully sealed off
>religiously so.  But if wearing a neck ring compromises water intergrity
>so minimally (the few ounces that were reported to get by the open neck
>gasket), then why have latex gaskets at all?  Wouldn't we be better off
>with say a Darlexx gasket which is like neoprene but doesn't itself
>absorb water that can trickle in?  And if the combo of a dry top and dry
>pants lets in minimal amounts of water, why should we get caught up in
>the discomfort of a full suit?  Can a case now be made for the semi-dry
>suits that were ushered in about a dozen years ago and eventually
>dropped?  These had neoprene gaskets and a non-waterproof zipper that
>closed similarly to a dry bag with overlapping flaps over the zipper.
>
Again, quantitative data is essential.  If we are relying on the insulation
under the dry suit to keep us warm, then we need to know how much that
insulation would be degraded if we go for a swim.  If latex gaskets mean no
water gets in, then that's one data point.  If another material lets in a
"few ounces", well that's probably OK since I'm likely to be a little damp
inside anyway.  (Perhaps the equivilent of a few ounces.)  I think it's
also important which gaskets we're talking about.  If water comes in my
wrist seal, then I'm probably OK if only my sleeves get wet.  Likewise for
my ankles.  If I'm wetting my trunk insulation, then that's more serious.

Perhaps while we are considering a change in gasketing, we should remember
another concern that Ralph recently pointed out, namely that if a
significant amount of water enters your clothing and can't exit quickly, it
makes rescues (self or with help) VERY difficult.


>I am not arguing with any of what has been reported.  I am taking the 6
>points above as givens.  Am just wondering if such facts may want us to
>reconsider the cold-water garments we use, their materials, and how we
>use them.
>
I think it's great that we are looking at this and I'm looking forward to
comments by others on this list.

Bill Leonhardt

***************************************************************************
PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - Any opinions or suggestions expressed
here are solely those of the writer(s). You must assume the entire
responsibility for reliance upon them. All postings copyright the author.
Submissions:     PaddleWise_at_PaddleWise.net
Subscriptions:   PaddleWise-request_at_PaddleWise.net
Website:         http://www.paddlewise.net/
***************************************************************************