>>258813I'm not sure we're having the same discussion here. Are we?
My original point from
>>258381>spending more money = better sleeping bag (in general)To paraphrase, better sleeping bags cost more money.
Your reply to this:
>>258511>you can't go wrong unless you buy a bad sleeping bag on purposelol wut
My reply:
>>258607>You'd be surprisedAnd follow-up:
>>258795>Emphasizing here that it's not purely a spectrum of more money = lighter/more compressible. There are also manufacturers in the lower tiers who don't do things right... in other words, it's possible to buy a "shit" sleeping bag on accident.Your reply:
>>258813>hurrdurr retardsm'kay
>EN13537Not all manufacturers, American manufacturers at least, provide this information. Or at least, I think that it has not traditionally been provided until possibly recently because I have never seen these sorts of ratings for American sleeping bags. Yes, Americans are stuck with the manufacturers' arbitrary ratings established God knows not how for most of their sleeping bag purchases.
>reviewsTo be honest, I am pretty wary of sleeping bag reviews. Everybody's body is different, both in terms of filling up the empty air space inside the bag, in terms of how warm or cold they sleep, and unintentionally in terms of how good of a sleeping pad they use for their tests.
I'm definitely envious of Europeans if you guys have some sort of uniform data related to a sleeping bag's warmth to look at before buying. However, coming back to my point, there are still other factors that can cause a sleeping bag to fail, like insufficiently-filled down baffles, or a badly-designed zipper that leaks cold air.
