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.

6 comments

3 weeks 1 day 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

KoenM's picture
3 weeks 2 days 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
3 weeks 2 days 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.

 

3 weeks 2 days 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.

3 weeks 2 days 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
3 weeks 5 days 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