Author block

Matt Page's picture

Matt is an endurance nut who loves big rides and big events. Former full time racer and 24hr event specialist but now happy riding off-road on gravel bikes or XC mountain bikes and exploring the mountains and hills of Mid Wales.

7 comments

1 year 3 months ago

The Cloudbase is, I think, the same mat as the Robens Vapour 60 which has the following spec:

R-Value: 1.6 (6°C)
Pack size: 27 x 8 cm
Weight: 425 g

1 year 3 months ago

DrG82 wrote:

KoenM wrote:

The problem with the Alpkit Claud Base is that there is no mention of the R-Value (and they don't seem to know either) which is kind of important in colder weather. 

The R values of these inflatable mats aren't usually that good unless there's a filling like the exped down mat or exped syn mat. These are obviously much heavier and pack down larger and cost twice the price. 

The thermarest neo air is a similar products to this alpkit mat in that there's no filling and that gets a r value of 2.2.

 

It's worth being very careful with R-values generally:  there are different Thermarest NeoAir models with different R-values.  There are also different websites that quote different figures.  The current rating system is new enough (2020) that you can assume that some websites may be using older values. 

he ultralightoutdoorgear website gives a useful summary. The quality of Thermarest's website suggests they should be up to speed, but being a US company, it is possible they are still referring to the US scale not the ASTM system.  Until it is more embedded, I personally take the whole system with a pinch of salt, just as you would with "seasons" ratings.  Comparisons that amount to more than a frst-time Youtuber doing an unboxing can be useful to get an idea.

But if you have a mat that doesn't keep the heat in sufficiently (but is otherwise comfortable enough to be worth keeping for summer), a cheap fix is to use radiator backing foil that can be rolled around, say, a tent/poles bag, or folded against the back of a pannier.  A bulkier way is to add a traditional foam roll mat with foil backing - cheap, light as anything, but a bit bulky (probably the reason you went for an air may in the forst place).  R-values add up.  In simple terms, two mats of R-value 2 gives you a total R-value of c.4.

 

KoenM's picture
1 year 3 months ago

mattpage wrote:

But as you said it could be a good guideline so at least add it, and if a brand isn't sure they could always put in the lowest value of the tests they did.
I would be a lot more comfident to buy a mat with an R-value on it than one without it. 

 

KoenM wrote:

 

 

The problem with the Alpkit Claud Base is that there is no mention of the R-Value (and they don't seem to know either) which is kind of important in colder weather. 

 

 

 

While I appreciate the R-Value might be useful as a guideline there are a few issues.
Firstly, the testing process changed recently so for the same mat, some bags will see the number drop which can make comparisons triclky. Also, they are conducted in-house by manufacturers and in lab settings, which doesn't mimic real world outdoor conditions.

 

KoenM's picture
1 year 3 months ago

DrG82 wrote:
Mine has a 4.4 value and yes I feel the difference, I have another mat that is a bit lighter but has no R value quoted and I get a lot less cold (trust me after a cold night in spring i bought the other one).

 

 

KoenM wrote:

 

 

The problem with the Alpkit Claud Base is that there is no mention of the R-Value (and they don't seem to know either) which is kind of important in colder weather. 

 

 

 

The R values of these inflatable mats aren't usually that good unless there's a filling like the exped down mat or exped syn mat. These are obviously much heavier and pack down larger and cost twice the price. 

The thermarest neo air is a similar products to this alpkit mat in that there's no filling and that gets a r value of 2.2.

 

1 year 3 months ago

KoenM wrote:

 

The problem with the Alpkit Claud Base is that there is no mention of the R-Value (and they don't seem to know either) which is kind of important in colder weather. 

 

While I appreciate the R-Value might be useful as a guideline there are a few issues.
Firstly, the testing process changed recently so for the same mat, some bags will see the number drop which can make comparisons triclky. Also, they are conducted in-house by manufacturers and in lab settings, which doesn't mimic real world outdoor conditions.

1 year 3 months ago

KoenM wrote:

 

The problem with the Alpkit Claud Base is that there is no mention of the R-Value (and they don't seem to know either) which is kind of important in colder weather. 

 

The R values of these inflatable mats aren't usually that good unless there's a filling like the exped down mat or exped syn mat. These are obviously much heavier and pack down larger and cost twice the price. 

The thermarest neo air is a similar products to this alpkit mat in that there's no filling and that gets a r value of 2.2.

KoenM's picture
1 year 3 months ago

The problem with the Alpkit Claud Base is that there is no mention of the R-Value (and they don't seem to know either) which is kind of important in colder weather. 

Add comment

Log in or register to post comments