Water PROOF vs water RESISTANT jackets

Cold rainy marathon wrote:

After Boston, there was a ton of discussion on the right clothing to wear in cold, rainy conditions. There wasn't necessarily a consensus, but there was a lot of talk about why water resistant jackets are better than water proof jackets because they allow for breath ability.

Since the disaster that was Boston 2018, has anybody tested this out? I still can't wrap my head around why someone would be colder in a jacket that completely repels water than a jacket that just resists it, even accounting for the breathability. Why would I be colder if I'm less wet from the rain due to the waterproof nature?

How would you personally dress for a race like Boston 2018?

The thought is likely that a waterproof jacket completely stops your sweat from dissipating so you end up soaked on the inside with nowhere for it to go.

A water resistant jacket should stop external influx short of full submersion while still allowing sweat to move out.

Because a jacket that completely repels water will also block water that you generate from escaping at all..hence you being soaked from your own sweat. Think about it like you are wearing a trash bag on you....where does the moisture that you generate go? Nowhere.

Now, think about this....you have a layer (your jacket) on that completely blocks any wind or rain from getting in. What happens? You are going to sweat faster and probably more because that jacket blocks any airflow from getting in. It traps the heat and air in.

Now you are sweating more and therefore, colder.

In summary. There is no air getting in to keep you cool or air getting out. There is no water (rain) getting in or (sweat) out. The swamp effect.

What I don’t understand is watches that say that they’re water resistant to 20 meters or 100 meters or whatever. How does the watch know how far you’ve swam?

Doesn't Gortex solve this problem?

Water resistant jackets let the water in and that is bad. Waterproof jackets trap your sweat and air, so you can end up being a hot sweaty mess inside the jacket.

The best solution is a waterproof jacket with air vents you can zip open. I used to have a Mountain Hardware waterproof jacket that did this and it was the best thing ever. I could run in any conditions with that jacket, as it kept the water out and I could adjust the ventilation according to how cold it was outside.

You can tell pretty quickly how legit a water-whatever jacket is based on the zippers. Traditional zippers let water in. Waterproof ones need to usually lie flat and create no real point of entry for the water. Some even include a flap over the zippers to deflect water entry.

You need something like this, but they are hard to come by.

http://i.stpost.com/mountain-hardwear-drystein-ii-dryq-elite-jacket-waterproof-for-men-in-capris-lagoon~p~5489m_02~1500.3.jpg

Are you being serious

gortex? wrote:

Doesn't Gortex solve this problem?

The new Shakedry stuff is, in theory, better. I have only used it once and it seemed to work okay. I was still wet on the inside from the sweat I generated (and yes, the swamp effect still happens).

I have an OutDry jacket by Columbia that I've used for running and it's okay, but not great, as far as breathability. For hiking though, it kept me absolutely 100% dry for multiple hours when at a 20-25 minute per mile pace.

Okay, first the color of that jacket is ugly as hell...

BUT to Shoebacca's point, the "pit zips" do work to help with breathability. Of course, they add weight.

Also, DryQ, much like Gore-Tex, does need to have the DWR layer be re-applied. Some of the newer jackets coming out don't ever need to have the DWR coating re-applied, which is amazing in and of itself. No matter how much you TRY to re-apply the DWR, you never really get it to the factory like conditions.

Ironman Swimmer wrote:

What I don’t understand is watches that say that they’re water resistant to 20 meters or 100 meters or whatever. How does the watch know how far you’ve swam?

GPS is you are serious, pressure increase due to depth if you are a moran.

Waterproof jackets keep you warmer but feels horrible to run in. You will be cooking in your own sweat and likely overheat in all but the most grim conditions.

There isn't a 'right' way to dress for weather like Boston 2018. Nobody was happy that day.

The difference between water proof and water resistant can be as simple as the seams of the jacket being taped or sealed. Sometimes, a jacket cannot be claimed as water proof simply because it lacks taped or sealed seams, although the water treatment on the body of the jacket is the same.

But the reason a waterproof jacket may make you colder is because if it is cold rain and you are working hard, you will generate plenty of moisture inside the jacket and that moisture has no place to go because of the waterproof barrier and internal condesation. There is no way that you keeping yourself dry inside the jacket, even if the jacket keeps rain from entering the inside.

In a situation like the Boston marathon this year, what you need is clothing that allows the moist, cold air to move off your body while still retaining your body heat. My thought is that a base layer like merino wool or similar synthetic, which still insulates while wet, and a wind resistant jacket to block the heat sapping effects from a cold wind is the best combo. Staying dry is simply not going to happen in a constant rain where your body is also creating tons of moisture, so it's best to focus on staying warm.

Old Man Runner wrote:

The new Shakedry stuff is, in theory, better. I have only used it once and it seemed to work okay. I was still wet on the inside from the sweat I generated (and yes, the swamp effect still happens).

I have an OutDry jacket by Columbia that I've used for running and it's okay, but not great, as far as breathability. For hiking though, it kept me absolutely 100% dry for multiple hours when at a 20-25 minute per mile pace.

I have an OutDry jacket, too. It seems to be more breathable than traditional waterproof/breathable membranes, but that isn't saying much. ("Waterproof/breathable" sounds nice, but it's kind of a myth.) I wouldn't wear it for any kind of sustained aerobic effort. Hiking, yeah.

On the other hand, despite more breathability, water resistant jackets usually rely on a DWR finish, which will wet out and become useless after about 20 mins of sustained precip. Not great for a cold, rainy marathon, either.

Mechanical venting (e.g. pit zips) might be better.

Realistically, if I had to run a marathon in 2018 Boston-like conditions, I would probably embrace the reality of getting wet and go with a thin, lightweight, water resistant/wind blocking shell like a Patagonia Houdini layered over a moisture wicking base layer. I think that would probably maximize the advantages of having a jacket (cut the wind, block some rain) while minimizing the obvious disadvantages of a beefier shell (slowly cooking yourself in your own sweat). But those conditions are going to be tough any way you slice it.

Quit being a pu$$y and wear a T-shirt

DW wrote:

Quit being a pu$$y and wear a T-shirt

Quit being a pu$$y and wearing a t-shirt. Pin your bib right to your chest.

What I don't understand is that most of these posts talk about creating a swamp effect, overheating, etc. BUT that's not what happened at Boston: nobody was overheating because of jackets they wore. They were all hypothermic.

If a waterproof jacket doesn't allow heat out, wouldn't that keep you very warm assuming the rain stays out as well? I can't see how you would start sweating and then get cold because no cold air / rain is getting past the jacket.