Like many people, I’ve been following the rise of OutDry since I first heard about it over a year ago. Thankfully, I managed to snag a pair of the new Mountain Hardwear Hydra gloves with OutDry and thought I’d put the marketing claims to the test.
The people behind OutDry have been claiming the major advantage to OutDry is that it’s bonded directly to the fabric instead of just being an additional layer added during the construction of the garment. The company claims this results in warmer products that still breathe just as well since a layer of water isn’t trapped in your gloves or boots. This also has the nice side effect of reducing the weight of the product since your clothing isn’t saturated with water.
So to test this claim, I devised a little experiment. I would submerge one of the new OutDry gloves and a glove with Gore-Tex in water (up to the wrist) for 3 minutes. The gloves would then be removed from the water and allowed to drip for 1 minute (to remove as much surface water as possible) and then weighed. If OutDry worked as well as the company claims, we should see a pretty significant difference.
To keep this test as fair as possible, I chose a pair of hard shell Mountain Hardwear gloves that use Gore-Tex for the comparison. I hoped this way any differences in manufacturing between brands would be minimized and the test would be as far as possible.
Dry Weight:
The OutDry glove used for testing came in at 94 grams dry. The Gore-Tex glove weighed 105 grams dry.
Wet Weight:
After submerging in luke-warm water for 3 minutes and then letting drip for 1 minute, I re-weighed both gloves. The OutDry glove weighed 123 grams wet and the Gore-Tex glove weighed 178 grams wet.
To remove any doubt as to how much water remained in the gloves, I then wrung both gloves to get as much water out of them as possible. The OutDry glove came in at 118 grams and the Gore-Tex glove came in at 142 grams.
Results:
Unsurprisingly, the OutDry gloves came out ahead with a total gain of 29 grams of water (31% increase) wet or 24 grams of water wrung out (26% increase in weight). The Gore-Tex gloves on the other hand gained 73 grams of water (70% increase) wet or 37 grams of water wrung out (35% increase in weight).
What does this mean in practice? Theoretically, the OutDry gloves should be a bit warmer than gloves using Gore-Tex. Less water trapped in the gloves means that you have less heat transfer between the face fabric and the inside of your gloves. Thus, gloves using OutDry can be made with less insulation. This results in less bulky gloves that give you much better dexterity.
I look forward to giving the OutDry gloves a try in the real world to see if these results translate into an actual advantage in the field. Stay tuned for a future review of the MHW Hydra gloves.
Your test does make some sense. However, it is important to note that the the Gore-Tex glove, while 100% waterproof because of the Gore-Tex membrane, works in conjunction with a DWR finish. This finish is what is imperative to prevent what is called “Wet out”. “Wet out” occurs when the DWR finish on the Gore-Tex product is masked by a number of different sources i.e. smoke, dirt, or wore down by abrasion and use, and water does not bead up and roll off the garment. This may be the cause of the added weight observed in your test. Therefore, for the test to be valid, it is important that the glove be tested in its intended condition, which means a fresh DWR finish.
Aaron makes a good point about DWR; furthermore, your above mentioned test only actually tests the outter nylon layers of the gloves, not the internal waterproof membrane that truley makes the gloves “waterproof”. A better test would be to get ahold of a bunch of Desecant packages weigh them dry, put the desecant packages inside the glove, soak the gloves like you did for several minutes, then weight the desecant packages after the glove soak, This would let you know the relative humidity/moisture getting through the “waterproof” membrane, it’s a practicle non-laboratory test for waterproofness. You’ll probably find they are pretty similar in terms of actual lay-person “waterproofness”. Compairing OutDry to traditional Gore-Tex gloves is like compairing apples to oranges. You should be compairing OutDry to a Gore-Tex glove with XtraFit technology, a more similar product.
For the record, the Gore-Tex gloves that were tested had been washed with NikWax Tech Wash and Tx.Direct before the test. So, I highly doubt wet out is the reason for the differences between the two. I can certainly wash the OutDry gloves with the same products, but I doubt that’s going to make a difference. The Gore-Tex gloves are also fairly new anyways. I think I’ve worn these gloves skiing 4-5 times since I’ve gotten them; hardly enough to wear the fabric to the point that it will make any difference. If it is, that says more about the fabric used than the product involved. If that’s the case, I’ll take the OutDry gloves mountaineering and repeat the test so they’re equally worn in.
As for using a desiccant, the test isn’t meant to capture water that gets inside the glove. Both gloves were waterproof and no water got inside. The test was supposed to test how much water can get trapped between the waterproof liner and the shell fabric. Since Gore-Tex is a bootie in shoes or a glove inside the glove, water can get trapped outside the Gore-Tex bootie, but still inside the boot or glove. So, weighing desiccant bags wouldn’t have really tested what I was trying to do.
Really the only difference here that I couldn’t control for was in the face fabrics used. I’d love to get two identical pairs of gloves with the only difference being OutDry/Gore-Tex, but there are none available as far as I can tell. To try and minimize the water retention of the fabrics themselves, I wrung both gloves out to see how much water would remain. This is about as close as I can come to compensating for that as theoretically the trapped moisture between the layers will still remain.
From what I understand XtraFit doesn’t change the fact that Gore-Tex is still using a liner in the gloves. I’m more than willing to run the test again with XtraFit gloves, but I don’t have any available at the moment. In any case, the vast majority of the Gore-Tex gloves on the market still don’t use XtraFit, so I’m probably more accurate by using a regular Gore-Tex glove anyways.
I don’t mean to knock it too much, but your test still doesn’t do what it was intended to do, ie: compairing the difference between a waterproof glove with waterproof membrane attached directly to shell fabric, vs. traditional waterproof glove with more or less independent waterproof membrane.
2-brand new gloves would show nearly exactly the same results in your test as the DWR is what is truely at test here, not the waterproof membrane. It appears the test shows that your used Gore-Tex glove takes on more water then a brand new glove. I’m not saying anything about Gore-Tex, just that your test doesn’t really test “Gore-Tex” vs “OutDry”, There’s MANY different brands of DWR and even if both gloves were brand new, it still just shows that one glove may have a better DWR or at least a better application of DWR.
Another variable you coudln’t control is the difference in the gloves outter fabrics, Even if both brands had no DWR at all, the most minor difference in the outter fabrics will be more at test here then the actual glove construction. Every brand (Mountain Hardwear, Burton, ect…) uses literally Hundreds of different fabrics and no two brands use the same fabrics. For example a leather like glove may not take on as much water as a nylon type glove (I have no idea if thats a true statement or not?), furthermore 1-brands nylon may have lots of different hydrophobic properties as the next brands nylon? again, not testing “OutDry” vs. “Gore-Tex” at all, but instead just testing the actual outter shell fabrics that have nothing to do with OutDry or Gore-Tex.
OutDry and traditional Gore-Tex gloves are in a completely different ballpark, It’s like testing the gas millage of a brand new Prius vs. a used Ford Truck. It’s not exactly apples to apples, they were never meant to compete.
Gore-Tex with XtraFit technology does in fact use a Gore-Tex membrane, however the membrane is actually adhered to a high loft liner and have a special tape on particular pressure points on the fingers and palms so that when you are gripping something all the components stay together vs slidining around. They are better in slightly warmer conditions, or high energy sports when dexterity is essential, such as ice climbing. XtraFit’s biggest benefit over traditional Gore-Tex gloves is the super bionic-man like grip they offer, and the dexterity in finger movement. All XtraFit gloves are not going to be super insulated for super cold weather, but that would defeat the purpose that they were designed for, ie. grip and dexterity.
The Gore-Tex gloves are pretty much brand new. Four to five days of use does not make gloves worn out. There really shouldn’t be any major wear in the DWR of the Gore-Tex glove with that little use. If it does, that’s a bigger story than any difference between the Gore-Tex and OutDry. As I said before, the gloves were freshly washed and had TX Direct applied. So, there should be literally zero difference between the coatings.
Both gloves have nylon shells. It’s not like I’m using a soft shell Gore-Tex glove and a hard shell OutDry glove and then am amazed that there’s a difference. For all intents and purposes, they should absorb water at roughly the same rate since they’re made out of the same material. Nylon is nylon after all. I assume the weave of the face fabric may make a bit of difference, but not nearly as dramatic as I saw. Furthermore, I went out of my way to make sure the brands of the gloves were exactly the same. This way no one can claim there are manufacturing differences between the gloves. Mountain Hardwear makes some pretty high quality gear and I’ve used their products for years with few complaints. Since they’re both from the same brand, one would pretty easily conclude that the nylon between them was of the same quality. Thus, minimizing the differences that may exist in face fabrics.
I do agree that Gore-Tex vs OutDry appears to be in completely different ballparks. Like I said though, traditional Gore-Tex is everywhere in gloves and boots. I haven’t seen anything with XtraFit in it yet. On the other hand, I’ve had a pair of Kamik boots with OutDry in them for a year now. However, I don’t think that XtraFit is going to make a gigantic difference in the amount of water that a glove retains. It appears that it’s still the same glove liner as in the past, just with a bit of added tech added to it for added dexterity. In other words, it seems like it’s the same move as between XCR and ProShell. If I ever get a pair of XtraFit gloves from Gore, I’d be more than willing to give them a try.
Where I do disagree is that Gore-Tex and OutDry weren’t meant to compete. They’re both breathable waterproof fabrics used in footwear and gloves. Their products compete directly in the marketplace. Right now, traditional Gore-Tex gloves seem to have the majority of the market share. This appears to be changing with the introduction of OutDry.
I am going to be taking the MHW Hydras out skiing this weekend to test them out though. So, I can rerun the test once they’re ‘used’ by a day on the slopes. Again, I doubt I’ll see much of a difference. Both pairs gloves are in the same basic condition.
Ultimately though, this tests both gloves in a pretty extreme condition. Snow gloves aren’t exactly made to be dunked underwater for 3 minutes and come out dry. All I wanted to do was verify OutDry’s marketing, and it looks like they were being 100% truthful. This says nothing about breathability or comfort while wearing them (which will come in a later article), just that they retain less moisture than Gore-Tex gloves. There is physically no space for the water to be retained in a glove using OutDry other than on the face fabric, so it’s not entirely surprising that the Gore-Tex gloves came out behind. For gloves, this isn’t a gigantic difference just due to how little fabric is involved. For boots however, the difference could be pretty significant. Unfortunately, I don’t have pairs of OutDry and Gore-Tex boots from the same manufacturer and same materials to test.
Branden,
Yeah, the overall test is interesting, assuming the gloves have a good DWR neither should take on water between the nylon layer and the membrane regardless of what kind of glove it is (xtrafit, old gore-tex, OutDry, ect…) But, without an effective DWR you can absolutely get some water between membrane and nylon outer. Does the OutDry glove take on less water? maybe. Theoretically yes, less water as you can’t physically hold much water between membrane and nylon. while you could hold lots of water (theoretically) between nylon and Gore-Tex membrane in either new or old construction. While you might get water between the nylon and gore tex membrane, the membrane isn’t going to allow it to get through to your hands. You might experience “wet out” by not being able to transfer moisture off your hands, but nothing is getting through… I would argue that the Gore-Tex membrane in either the old technology or the new Xtrafit is going to last infinitely longer then the OutDry membrane as the OutDry is a polyurethane membrane while Gore-Tex is an ePTFE membrane, and it’s going to be “more waterproof” and “more breathable” and it’s “Guaranteed to keep you dry” if you ever did have issues… The polyurethane membrane cracks at temperatures below -20F making it effectively useless. The polyurethane membrane is also very chemically reactive so if you ever get any kind of chemicals on it (gas, DEET, ect..) it will actually dissolve the membrane! ePTFE is one of the least reactive materials known to man and thats why it’s used in so many medical applications.
I’ve got some gloves with the new ExtraFit technology and they are awesome, by far my favorite gloves now, if/when you get a chance, check em out for sure!
Jake,
If you don’t mind me asking, what exactly is your relationship with WL Gore and their products? You seem to have quite a bit of their marketing copy memorized and seem to have quite a thing for their products. I’ve also been getting quite a few referrers from a specific Gore sponsored website that has a thread under a section about “negative information about a Gore product”.
Again, for the record. I have nothing against Gore-Tex or really any of the multitude of breathable fabrics out there. I have quite a few jackets, boots, and (obviously) gloves with some version of Gore-Tex in them.
I would argue this test is about as close as one can get to testing the claims of OutDry marketing. They appear to have lived up to that marketing.
Very interesting post and subsequent discussion. It seems that with OutDry, the DWR treatment is less critical because the breathable/waterproof membrane is bonded directly to the outer fabric. And all DWR’s deteriorate over time.
Also, if the Gore-Tex glove does allow a layer of water to collect between the ePTFE membrane liner and the outer fabric, wouldn’t that eliminate any real breathability?
Branden,
I don’t mind you asking at all! I’m a “mountaintech”. The mountaintech project was something started several years ago as a group of private individuals that works with Gore to do product testing, market research, focus research, ect… It’s a pool of outdoor enthusiats that Gore can interact with to get feedback on product development and the like. We get to test out some pretty incredible products and they get feedback on how to make those products better.
Before becoming a mountaintech I owned quite a bit of Gore-Tex stuff as well as several brand proprietary “waterproof/breathable” products like conduit, precipts, hyvent, ect… Those are all polyurethane laminates and while they were pretty good initially they didn’t last long. I’ve got a Marmot precipts jacket that got some DEET on it and you can see a giant blob of missing laminate, it left the nylon intact but dissolved the precipts! Anyways, I was always pretty disapointed with the proprietary stuff, but since become a Mountaintech I’ve had the opportunity to try out a bunch of gore stuff and I’ve been pretty darn impressed! As far as having a relationship with Gore, yeah I test some of their stuff, but they don’t pay me. I’m just trying to pass on some product knowledge that I’ve gained over the past couple years.
I love the concept of your test, and I really apreciate the scientific approach. I didn’t mean to knock the test or knock OutDry, I was just trying to think through what the test was actually testing and how that either supported or rejected the hypothosis, and trying to think of any ways the test could be done differently. I do love gore-tex gear so I guess I’m a little biast and I apologize for that. Like you said, your not particularly for or against either one, you’re just trying to explore OutDry’s marketing claims. I know the “gore” gloves you tested are fairly new, but I still can’t help but think that if they had a proper DWR coating they shouldn’t be letting any water through the nylon. That suprises me more then anything with this test, the fact that any water at all got through the nylon. I freely admit I’ve owned Gore-Tex gloves that have totaly lost their DWR and have experienced what feels like 2-gloves with a slosh of water between the gloves, and my hands get wet… Does that mean the Gore-Tex is shot? I thought it did for a long time till I really thought through the concept of “Wet-Out”… the water vapor inside your glove or coat or boot or whatever needs a humidity gradient in order to move from 1 side of the membrane to the other, if its 100% wet on one side of the membrane vapor isn’t going to go through right?
Anyways, I’m rambling now and getting totally off topic. So yeah, to answer your question I am sort of affilitated with Gore. I don’t get paid or anything, but I do get to test out a bunch of their products. They did recently open up applications again if your interested. the application is at the bottom of the mountaintechs.com webpage.
The marketing claim and test make sence. Even neglecting the question about the DWR. It totally makes sence that given more room, water can go through the nylon and get trapped between the nylon and the membrane. That should make the glove work better all the time, maintain it’s breathability, not get “wet out” ect… I’m interested about the long term use of the gloves, will they stay waterproof, or will the polyurethane crack, disolve, or in some other way become ineffective? I like the concept behind OutDry for sure. just not sure it can perform for the long haul…
[...] the surprisingly controversial Gore-Tex vs Outdry article last week, I figured it was time to test out the new Hydra gloves from Mountain [...]
[...] probably well aware of OutDry. The competitor to Gore-Tex in shoes and gloves that we have been extremely impressed with in our own [...]
well my main concern here is that they are gloves, you know for warming (insulating) your hands, the thing i would be most concerned with even if it was a heavier glove, is when wet which one has better insulating capabilities, so when its wet im dry and warm! argue about how to test that the right way.
Jack: wet gloves more easily transmit heat from your hand to the outside of the shell. Thus, when wet you get less insulation. Gloves that stay dryer then provide more effective insulation. That’s one of the reasons to test which gloves retain less water.
wool doesmt loose its insulating properties when wet, maybe they should use that then, does outdry make a wool glove?
Even wool is less effective at insulating when wet.
Here’s some more information on wool when wet: http://www.dui-online.com/tech_wool.html
There’s also the problem that wool is bulky, less durable, isn’t windproof, and would reduce dexterity in a glove. You can find wool mittens, but they wouldn’t be my first choice for outdoor winter sports.
Just a question,
If Gore says that the DWR needs to be working to stop a wet-out, so that the glove can be breathable, why do we need a membrane at all?
It’s like Gore’s saying “our product only works when the gloves don’t get wet”. If the DWR is working, then you wouldn’t need a mambrane/insert/laminate, because when the DWR’s working, no water is getting into the gloves anyways…
If the glove does wet-out (meaning the DWR failed), then the complete loss of breathability will make the inside of your gloves wet anyways right? I mean, if you think of the times when you could actually get a wet out, you think of one major possibilties; the temperature is hovering around freezing (so you got lots of wet snow). I’m in Montreal and it’s humid here (not like the dry Rockies), but it gets damn cold too. The only time I could have my gloves get wet-out is when it’s around freezing. Believe me, when it’s -15C, you don’t get much wet snow.
So if the only (major) time you even could get a wet-out and need to waterproofness of the actual membrane is when it’s relatively warm. Well, guess what? When it’s warm, you sweat. A lot. Especially if your skiing, mountainering etc. And guess what else? When your gloves wet-out and you need your membrane to keep your hands dry, they lose all ability to let out all that sweat you’re pumping out. That means the membrane’s keeping the wet snow out, but keeping the wet sweat in, so you’re wet anyways. And cold.
So what’s the point?
To re-iterate you have 3 scenarios;
1) your DWR is working, so you don’t need a membrane at all, as the DWR is keeping the water from even penetrating the outer fabric
= no need for membrane
2) your DWR isn’t working, but it’s -15C, so no wet snow to get your gloves wet anyways
= no need for membrane
3) your DWR isn’t working, but it’s warm, so there’s wet snow and slush. Your gloves get soaked but the membrane keeps the water out. However, as the gloves are soaked they don’t breath, and it’s warm, so you’re sweating a lot, and it’s all staying in the glove, so your hands get wet anyways, same as they would without the membrane.
= no need for membrane
A little rambling here, but you gotta see the logic here no?
I’ve got plenty of Gore stuff, and I like it for it’s wind stopping abilities, but to get them to keep your hands dry?
A well made glove with a good DWR is going to perform the exact same way (keep your hands dry when the GTX would keep your hands dry, and get your hands wet when GTX would get your hands wet).
Is this OutDry better?
Only if it’s still breathable when the fabric gets wet-out. I don’t care if it’s mated right on the fabric, because that still means that there is a fabric layer that can get wet, and if that fabric layer gets wet, and it stops the permeability of the outdry material, then it’s in the same boat as GTX (that is to say, keeps your sweat in once you get a wet-out).
Maybe it’s better, maybe not, but I can’t imagine whatever material Outdry is made of can allow my sweat to get out of the gloves if the outside fabric is soaked…
P.S.my argument is not meant to be completely inclusive, you may have a personal story when once it was cold and you still had water from something or it was warm and yet you weren’t sweating, therefore GTX was perfect for that scenario…
Please understand that those might be isolated experiences. The main times it’s cold, there’s no risk of wet snow, when it’s warm, there’s a high risk of sweating a lot.
Any other holes in my logic, or comments, please feel free voice them…
I in no way represent any other alternative companies or alternative solutions, I just think it’s funny how it’s almost impossible to get a straight answer to these debates, and that companies that make products display them as being the be-all and end-all…
Where is Gore Innovation since so many years !? Around 30 years. oh my god !!! I use Outdry products to achieve performance ; not with the guarantee “keep you dry”..Outdry aggregates performance, insulation, water weight, breathability.
And new brands are really in a good position to kill Gore which is today just a name. Bootie / insert technologies did not exist !
Gore’s products have been refined quite a bit in the past 30 years, and Active Shell is supposed to be coming out in 2011. This is supposed to be a bit better than the current Pro Shell. That said, the underlying technology hasn’t changed significantly, but even eVent relies on the same principle that Gore-Tex uses.
2011 ! Interesting ! After performance shell, Paclite shell, soft shell, Pro shell, Now Active shell ! Come on, please go in a store and ask some customers, they understand nothing !!! All technologies at the end are same. Gore is the best brand to invent names but since 30 years to invent something new…No need to speak…
There are fairly significant differences in the various Gore-tex fabrics available depending on the application. From what I’ve heard about Active Shell, it’s a lot like OutDry in that the layers of fabric are actually glued together, but it still uses the same basic membrane. The competition that’s out there claims that there’s 5x the breathability of the current version of Gore-tex and Active Shell can’t match that. So, we’ll see if they keep their place as the fabric to beat.
Hey Branden McIntyre,
I was at ISPO 2011. And definitely, This is the end of Goretex !!! No innovation since so many years put them in a very bad position and I like that ! Polartec claimed 5 times more breathable than Gore fabrics ; Outdry with MHW, Columbia and Scarpa ! I would like to thank you all these brands who innovate a lot and help the final customer to achieve high performances.