okay now that i'm done shitposting, cool mountain, norway is quite pretty.
>>2474587its from a guy's blog who tested it. the beauty of these things is that they're replicable. you can test it out for yourself, as can i. in a land of cheaply made foreign goods i'd suggest testing out your gear as much as possible before depending on it.
>>2474591its less about discomfort and more about
- when your sock's wet.. that's how ya get blisters, and blisters become bigger problems.
- goes without saying you can't let your socks get wet in mountain conditions. same reason you have to pace yourself to not sweat at times.
on shorter trips you can just hike through it but we're what-if-ing the situations where that's not a choice, either because the distance back home is too great to hike with a blistered up foot or because its cold enough to lose a foot. because yes you're right, most of the times it doesn't matter.
>Most synthetics burn quickly because they don't absorb as much heat and most melt to your skin. If you don't believe me, look into how the military developed the flight suit and how most dangerous workplaces recommend only light cotton or wool undergarments.this is the best objective argument against synthetics and the main reason you'll find me not always wearing synthetics.
a quick sleeve graze of the campfire in your puffy is no big deal, tenacious tape exists.
but say you're hiking near a wildfire? or tasked with putting one out? or you fall into a campfire (seen it happen with people NOT drunk! it can happen!)
puffy jackets aren't too far off from a chest coating of napalm.
