Summary: WATERPROOF FOR 60 SECONDS ... WHY NOT TO BUY (OR SELL) SEALSKINZ
Attention All Motorcyclists:
PIL Membranes Ltd. (formerly Porvair International, website: PilMembranes.com) is a UK-based company that claims to specialize "... in the science, development and manufacture of high-performance waterproof breathable membranes for fabrics and leather". They, along with California-based Danalco, Inc. (Danalco.com), claim to be the manufacturers and/or distributors of a line of supposedly "waterproof" gloves and socks sold through Bass Pro Shops (BassPro.com) and other major U.S. sporting goods retailers under the "SealSkinz" brand. On the SealSkinz.com website, they make the following claim:
"SealSkinz are suitable for cycling, walking, climbing, golfing, riding, canoeing, motorcycling, sailing, fell running, orienteering, gardening, fishing, rowing, caving, backpacking, mountaineering ... and 100% waterproof."
I AM WRITING TO INFORM YOU THAT BASED ON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH SEALSKINZ SOCKS AND GLOVES, THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT "100% WATERPROOF" IN A MOTORCYCLING CONTEXT, NOR ARE THEY LIKELY TO BE WATERPROOF IN ANY OTHER.
Based on the assurances of SealSkinz.com, in October 2006 I placed two online orders through BassPro.com for two pairs each of (a) SealSkinz ChillBlocker Waterproof Gloves, and (b) SealSkinz ChillBlocker Waterproof Socks. I placed the second order after road-testing their socks, and being pleased with how well they did in fact "block the chill" under dry conditions. I gambled that they would also in fact be waterproof as claimed. In December 2006, I found out nothing could be further from the truth. In riding through less than 100 miles of hard rain, the SealSkinz "waterproof" socks proved to be nothing more than thick sponges. And just to verify the false nature of their claims, after washing them as instructed I let the lower half of a dry pair sit in a pot of water, weighted by a smaller pot, and in less than an hour they were soaked inside and out!
I Googled the following phrase…
+sealskinz +"not waterproof"
…and discovered I was not alone in my dissatisfaction with SealSkinz. I then conveyed my negative experiences to PIL Membranes in an email addressed to info@sealskinz.com. It was replied to by Sam Matthews of Danalco (sam@danalco.com), whose response included:
"We are the manufacturer of SealSkinz and we make the 100% waterproof claims. We operate an ISO 9001 certified manufacturing facility in California... SealSkinz are manufactured using a patented 3 layer lamination technique that bonds a stretchy waterproof membrane between an inner and outer fabric layer. The same lamination is used in our socks and gloves... Prior to shipping all SealSkinz are 100 % tested for leaks. I have attached some technical test data which supports our claims."
Please review the "technical test data" he attached in this PDF:
There you will see that their "100% Waterproof" claim is based on the fact that a test laboratory found no leakage at 4.5 psi after 60 seconds, which they claim meets the requirements of the International Standards Organization's ISO 811. Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? WELL, IT'S NOT, AND HERE IS WHY:
First of all atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7 psi, so a pressure test at 4.5 psi isn't much pressure at all. Secondly, the test duration is only 60 seconds. That's right, SealSkinz are labeled and sold as "100% Waterproof" because they are proven under laboratory conditions not to leak for SIXTY WHOLE SECONDS. When is the last time you rode your motorcycle for less than sixty seconds?!? And even more revealing is what I discovered in this ISO Bulletin from June 2001...
... where it states "... According to ISO 811, materials with a hydrostatic head of more than 150 cm can be designated, in general, as rainproof. In the advertising field, however, the manufacturers of rain-protection materials outbid each other with hydrostatic heads of 80 m and more. But the materials are stressed with a static water pressure of only 2-3 mm in use. Rain is a dynamic and not a static process... There are numerous applications where raindrops are projected onto a garment at a high velocity, e.g. by motorcycling or strong winds. These are highly dynamic processes and have to be considered differently."
In simpler terms, EVEN THE ISO WARNS THAT ISO 811 IS NOT A SUITABLE STANDARD FOR JUDGING WHETHER GARMENTS ARE WATERPROOF IN REAL WORLD CONDITIONS ... LIKE RIDING A MOTORCYCLE IN THE RAIN.
So why does PilMembranes/Danalco/SealSkinz base their "100% Waterproof" claim on an inappropriate standard and test procedure? Probably because they know their products have no chance of holding up to more suitable testing standards like the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists' (AATCC's) "Water Resistance: Rain Test" Standard AATCC-35, the scope of which is defined here...
"This test method is applicable to any textile fabric, which may or may not have been given a water-resistant or water-repellent finish. It measures the resistance to the penetration of water by impact, and thus can be used to predict the probable rain penetration resistance of fabrics. It is especially suitable for measuring the penetration resistance of garment fabrics. With the instrument, tests may be made at different intensities ... of water impact to give a complete overall picture of the penetration resistance of a single fabric or a combination of fabrics."
***
I have shared the above with you in the hopes that you may benefit from my experience and research, and not fall victim to the misleading advertising and packaging claims about SealSkinz products. In short, my experience and research suggest:
1. SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS ARE NOT WATERPROOF IN REAL WORLD CONTEXTS SUCH AS RIDING A MOTORCYCLE IN THE RAIN.
2. IF YOU HAVE PURCHASED SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS, YOU SHOULD RETURN THEM FOR A REFUND IMMEDIATELY.
3. IF YOU HAVE NOT PURCHASED SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS, YOU SHOULD DO SO AND IMMEDIATELY RETURN THEM FOR A REFUND. IF WE DRIVE UP THEIR RETURN RATES SUFFICIENTLY, IT WILL FORCE RETAILERS TO STOP STOCKING SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS.
Thank you for your time. I would greatly appreciate it if you would forward this email to every motorcyclist you know.
Bruce Arnold
Bruce@LdrLongDistanceRider.com
http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/
Strengths: None.
Weaknesses: Not Waterproof.
Similar Products Used: None.
Would you like to Comment? Join RoadbikeReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Summary: WATERPROOF FOR 60 SECONDS ... WHY NOT TO BUY (OR SELL) SEALSKINZ
Attention All Motorcyclists:
PIL Membranes Ltd. (formerly Porvair International, website: PilMembranes.com) is a UK-based company that claims to specialize "... in the science, development and manufacture of high-performance waterproof breathable membranes for fabrics and leather". They, along with California-based Danalco, Inc. (Danalco.com), claim to be the manufacturers and/or distributors of a line of supposedly "waterproof" gloves and socks sold through Bass Pro Shops (BassPro.com) and other major U.S. sporting goods retailers under the "SealSkinz" brand. On the SealSkinz.com website, they make the following claim:
"SealSkinz are suitable for cycling, walking, climbing, golfing, riding, canoeing, motorcycling, sailing, fell running, orienteering, gardening, fishing, rowing, caving, backpacking, mountaineering ... and 100% waterproof."
I AM WRITING TO INFORM YOU THAT BASED ON MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE WITH SEALSKINZ SOCKS AND GLOVES, THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT "100% WATERPROOF" IN A MOTORCYCLING CONTEXT, NOR ARE THEY LIKELY TO BE WATERPROOF IN ANY OTHER.
Based on the assurances of SealSkinz.com, in October 2006 I placed two online orders through BassPro.com for two pairs each of (a) SealSkinz ChillBlocker Waterproof Gloves, and (b) SealSkinz ChillBlocker Waterproof Socks. I placed the second order after road-testing their socks, and being pleased with how well they did in fact "block the chill" under dry conditions. I gambled that they would also in fact be waterproof as claimed. In December 2006, I found out nothing could be further from the truth. In riding through less than 100 miles of hard rain, the SealSkinz "waterproof" socks proved to be nothing more than thick sponges. And just to verify the false nature of their claims, after washing them as instructed I let the lower half of a dry pair sit in a pot of water, weighted by a smaller pot, and in less than an hour they were soaked inside and out!
I Googled the following phrase…
+sealskinz +"not waterproof"
…and discovered I was not alone in my dissatisfaction with SealSkinz. I then conveyed my negative experiences to PIL Membranes in an email addressed to info@sealskinz.com. It was replied to by Sam Matthews of Danalco (sam@danalco.com), whose response included:
"We are the manufacturer of SealSkinz and we make the 100% waterproof claims. We operate an ISO 9001 certified manufacturing facility in California... SealSkinz are manufactured using a patented 3 layer lamination technique that bonds a stretchy waterproof membrane between an inner and outer fabric layer. The same lamination is used in our socks and gloves... Prior to shipping all SealSkinz are 100 % tested for leaks. I have attached some technical test data which supports our claims."
Please review the "technical test data" he attached in this PDF:
There you will see that their "100% Waterproof" claim is based on the fact that a test laboratory found no leakage at 4.5 psi after 60 seconds, which they claim meets the requirements of the International Standards Organization's ISO 811. Sounds pretty impressive, doesn't it? WELL, IT'S NOT, AND HERE IS WHY:
First of all atmospheric pressure at sea level is about 14.7 psi, so a pressure test at 4.5 psi isn't much pressure at all. Secondly, the test duration is only 60 seconds. That's right, SealSkinz are labeled and sold as "100% Waterproof" because they are proven under laboratory conditions not to leak for SIXTY WHOLE SECONDS. When is the last time you rode your motorcycle for less than sixty seconds?!? And even more revealing is what I discovered in this ISO Bulletin from June 2001...
... where it states "... According to ISO 811, materials with a hydrostatic head of more than 150 cm can be designated, in general, as rainproof. In the advertising field, however, the manufacturers of rain-protection materials outbid each other with hydrostatic heads of 80 m and more. But the materials are stressed with a static water pressure of only 2-3 mm in use. Rain is a dynamic and not a static process... There are numerous applications where raindrops are projected onto a garment at a high velocity, e.g. by motorcycling or strong winds. These are highly dynamic processes and have to be considered differently."
In simpler terms, EVEN THE ISO WARNS THAT ISO 811 IS NOT A SUITABLE STANDARD FOR JUDGING WHETHER GARMENTS ARE WATERPROOF IN REAL WORLD CONDITIONS ... LIKE RIDING A MOTORCYCLE IN THE RAIN.
So why does PilMembranes/Danalco/SealSkinz base their "100% Waterproof" claim on an inappropriate standard and test procedure? Probably because they know their products have no chance of holding up to more suitable testing standards like the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists' (AATCC's) "Water Resistance: Rain Test" Standard AATCC-35, the scope of which is defined here...
"This test method is applicable to any textile fabric, which may or may not have been given a water-resistant or water-repellent finish. It measures the resistance to the penetration of water by impact, and thus can be used to predict the probable rain penetration resistance of fabrics. It is especially suitable for measuring the penetration resistance of garment fabrics. With the instrument, tests may be made at different intensities ... of water impact to give a complete overall picture of the penetration resistance of a single fabric or a combination of fabrics."
***
I have shared the above with you in the hopes that you may benefit from my experience and research, and not fall victim to the misleading advertising and packaging claims about SealSkinz products. In short, my experience and research suggest:
1. SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS ARE NOT WATERPROOF IN REAL WORLD CONTEXTS SUCH AS RIDING A MOTORCYCLE IN THE RAIN.
2. IF YOU HAVE PURCHASED SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS, YOU SHOULD RETURN THEM FOR A REFUND IMMEDIATELY.
3. IF YOU HAVE NOT PURCHASED SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS, YOU SHOULD DO SO AND IMMEDIATELY RETURN THEM FOR A REFUND. IF WE DRIVE UP THEIR RETURN RATES SUFFICIENTLY, IT WILL FORCE RETAILERS TO STOP STOCKING SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS.
Thank you for your time. I would greatly appreciate it if you would forward this email to every motorcyclist you know.
Bruce Arnold
Bruce@LdrLongDistanceRider.com
http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/
Strengths: None.
Weaknesses: Not Waterproof.
Similar Products Used: None.
Would you like to Comment? Join RoadbikeReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Summary: The first right glove I had had a pinhole leak at the base of the thumb -- this was only detectable when I held my hands underwater for several seconds. The replacement pair passed the dunk test.
My hands are much more comfortable in these gloves than in a soggy pair of regular gloves. Long-term heavy wetness can make them feel somewhat clammy, though. Again, this is still better than regular gloves
Strengths: Snug fit, good grip. I don't know of any other waterproof-breathable gloves that are lightweight - they all seem to be serious winter gloves. Also, these seem to be the only waterproof gloves that stretch to fit, which improves dexterity.
Weaknesses: Quality control should be better. All gloves they sell should pass the dunk test, since they have a picture of a man doing just that on the box.
Similar Products Used: Lots of other non-waterproof gloves
Would you like to Comment? Join RoadbikeReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Summary: These gloves a not waterproof. They soaked through within 15 minutes while riding in the rain. I bought them direct from Danalco. It took 1 month for them to respond to my email requesting a return authorization.
Strengths: none
Weaknesses: Not waterproof
Would you like to Comment? Join RoadbikeReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
Summary: Waterproof, my heinie! I bike 5 miles each way to work in Portland, OR- I'm a webfoot. When I buy something that says "waterproof" I expect it to be, and this IS NOT. My fingers freeze, the gloves are soaked within 10 minutes of a good rain, and stay wet for UP TO 2 DAYS!!! My Gore-Tex does just fine, but these "waterproof" gloves are anything but.
Strengths: None
Weaknesses: NOT WATERPROOF, don't keep my fingers warm, hard to hold bike grips with large fold of fabric in the palm, are stiff
Would you like to Comment? Join RoadbikeReview for a free account, or Login if you are already a member.
1 of 5
1 of 5
4 of 5
4 of 5
