In reply to Post #303
True
True
In reply to Post #301
I'd say most mobile anglers give a **** Chuffy.
I don't want to be pushing kilos and kilos of kit round with me. Lighter = quicker = more effective imo. As HOOKpul mentioned, you can buy a bag as warm for half the price. It's the weight, or lack of it, I spent the extra on.
I'd say most mobile anglers give a **** Chuffy.
I don't want to be pushing kilos and kilos of kit round with me. Lighter = quicker = more effective imo. As HOOKpul mentioned, you can buy a bag as warm for half the price. It's the weight, or lack of it, I spent the extra on.
In reply to Post #305
All right, deep breaths, I was kidding
All right, deep breaths, I was kidding
In reply to Post #306
I got mine second hand hardly used cuz the guy said he was too cold in it????
Can't understand why Snugpak don't sell it direct, Fortis have just piled a £100 on the price.
Can't understand why Snugpak don't sell it direct, Fortis have just piled a £100 on the price.
In reply to Post #308
Whilst I agree the Fortis name adds money to the products, it has not added £100 to the Techlite.
If you look at the Snugpak range of bags, they do a couple where its a "dual bag" system giving a 3 and 5 season options. They are both over £300. The Techlite in Olive is a reasonably priced bag for what you get.
However, the idea that a DPM version should cost more than an olive one is ludicrous! When the British Army dropped it as a camo, the market was flooded with very cheap material. Snugpak could not give DPM jackets away at the time. They were left with a huge stockpile of "useless" DPM pertex that sat on the shelves gathering dust.
Along come Fortis.....rest is history....a new outlet for unsellable material.
Whilst I agree the Fortis name adds money to the products, it has not added £100 to the Techlite.
If you look at the Snugpak range of bags, they do a couple where its a "dual bag" system giving a 3 and 5 season options. They are both over £300. The Techlite in Olive is a reasonably priced bag for what you get.
However, the idea that a DPM version should cost more than an olive one is ludicrous! When the British Army dropped it as a camo, the market was flooded with very cheap material. Snugpak could not give DPM jackets away at the time. They were left with a huge stockpile of "useless" DPM pertex that sat on the shelves gathering dust.
Along come Fortis.....rest is history....a new outlet for unsellable material.
In reply to Post #309
Yes but the dual bags produced by Snugpak are for specific markets whether it be mountaineering or Arctic Warfare, i myself have the special forces double bag and its not unusual for me to fish December, January and February with the bag undone as its to hot!
i think the mummy style keeps the heat in better without the empty space around hips, legs and feet. if you can cope with the mummy style, IMHO, it is miles better.
Yes but the dual bags produced by Snugpak are for specific markets whether it be mountaineering or Arctic Warfare, i myself have the special forces double bag and its not unusual for me to fish December, January and February with the bag undone as its to hot!
i think the mummy style keeps the heat in better without the empty space around hips, legs and feet. if you can cope with the mummy style, IMHO, it is miles better.
In reply to Post #310
The Techlite is for a specific market too - carp fishing!
I agree mummy bags are warmer mate but not as practical for angling imo.
The Techlite is for a specific market too - carp fishing!
I agree mummy bags are warmer mate but not as practical for angling imo.
In reply to Post #311
Why not? What's the difference?
Hood top and bottom to hook on the bed.
I like the look of the ones that had the zip down the top centre instead of the side's.
Why not? What's the difference?
Hood top and bottom to hook on the bed.
I like the look of the ones that had the zip down the top centre instead of the side's.
In reply to Post #312
The difference is how difficult it is to get out of the things in a hurry. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one on here that used to use mummy bags back in the day. I have not forgotten the panic when you're trapped inside, rolling around with the zip done up to the top in the middle of winter and the bloody alarm's screaming. Absolute nightmare.
Makes me think back to Micky Gray's chapter on Ellis in Tel's second book where he's trying to burst out of one like the hulk. Classic. I can so relate to that.
The difference is how difficult it is to get out of the things in a hurry. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one on here that used to use mummy bags back in the day. I have not forgotten the panic when you're trapped inside, rolling around with the zip done up to the top in the middle of winter and the bloody alarm's screaming. Absolute nightmare.
Makes me think back to Micky Gray's chapter on Ellis in Tel's second book where he's trying to burst out of one like the hulk. Classic. I can so relate to that.
In reply to Post #314
The same can be said about the £230 snugpak though, when the zip doesn't open as it should. It is the one thing that needs changing about the bag IMHO, and for the bag that cost me that much it should not have this issue, they are definitely not 'crash zips'.
I had an original Trakker Big Snooze, cost me £50 and the zips were brilliant on that, so don't see how they have created this design flaw for a premium product when it is something that clearly does not cost the earth to get right.
The same can be said about the £230 snugpak though, when the zip doesn't open as it should. It is the one thing that needs changing about the bag IMHO, and for the bag that cost me that much it should not have this issue, they are definitely not 'crash zips'.
I had an original Trakker Big Snooze, cost me £50 and the zips were brilliant on that, so don't see how they have created this design flaw for a premium product when it is something that clearly does not cost the earth to get right.
In reply to Post #315
I agree the zips should be better mate but I've not had any issues with them, guess I've been lucky.
I agree the zips should be better mate but I've not had any issues with them, guess I've been lucky.
In reply to Post #310
Mummy bags are far warmer.
I continue to use my issue "arctic" bag which has a central crash zip. Never had an issue with it, but I am used to it I guess.
I have recently purchased a Fox ERS 3 season bag because I thought I would try the "carpy" bags for a change and because I got a very good discount.
With it attached to my R2 bedchair, I cannot "wrap up "in it and I get a large gap down my back, with a draft. Feet are also cold, and when you move around, you find more cold spots.
I do like the "quick exit", and because of that, I will keep the bag, but I will only use it on relatively warm nights.
I have always said on various forums across the years that anglers generally do not know how a sleeping bag works, and they buy the biggest one they can, thinking it will keep them warm.
Mummy bags are warmer because they minimise "unheated" air. A large bag needs more body heat to warm the air, creates cold spots where the upper and lower materials meet and leaves big gaps around the person inside.
I still say that angling bags still have a long way to go before they become efficient.
Mummy bags are far warmer.
I continue to use my issue "arctic" bag which has a central crash zip. Never had an issue with it, but I am used to it I guess.
I have recently purchased a Fox ERS 3 season bag because I thought I would try the "carpy" bags for a change and because I got a very good discount.
With it attached to my R2 bedchair, I cannot "wrap up "in it and I get a large gap down my back, with a draft. Feet are also cold, and when you move around, you find more cold spots.
I do like the "quick exit", and because of that, I will keep the bag, but I will only use it on relatively warm nights.
I have always said on various forums across the years that anglers generally do not know how a sleeping bag works, and they buy the biggest one they can, thinking it will keep them warm.
Mummy bags are warmer because they minimise "unheated" air. A large bag needs more body heat to warm the air, creates cold spots where the upper and lower materials meet and leaves big gaps around the person inside.
I still say that angling bags still have a long way to go before they become efficient.
In reply to Post #317
Good post and you are so right about carp bags. Their design has a long way to go before they are anywere near a mummy bags efficiency.
It's also a shame that many of today's carp fisherman have not been educated into what not to wear in a bag if you are cold. I see so many people out there climbing into their bags in the same clothes they were wearing outside in the cold. Big heavy jackets and loads of layers.
It's the same theory. Less is more and the less clothes you wear inside a bag the more efficient your bag will warm up from your body heat.
Good post and you are so right about carp bags. Their design has a long way to go before they are anywere near a mummy bags efficiency.
It's also a shame that many of today's carp fisherman have not been educated into what not to wear in a bag if you are cold. I see so many people out there climbing into their bags in the same clothes they were wearing outside in the cold. Big heavy jackets and loads of layers.
It's the same theory. Less is more and the less clothes you wear inside a bag the more efficient your bag will warm up from your body heat.
In reply to Post #318
Though i agree too many heavy layers that result in compressing the insulation is not recommended, but the "less is more" theory in a sleeping bag is far from conclusive. Different people will keep warm differently.
Though i agree too many heavy layers that result in compressing the insulation is not recommended, but the "less is more" theory in a sleeping bag is far from conclusive. Different people will keep warm differently.