6 Responses to “SealSkinz Socks and Gloves”

1. 1 Bruce Arnold  on Feb 9th, 2007 at 9:41 am

   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:

   http://www.ldrlongdistancerider.com/SealSkinzTestResults.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…

   http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pdf/Watertightness0106.pdf

   … 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…

   http://store.ihs.com/specsstore/controller;jsessionid=mhCf4JEqL5k1qzcxjqki6w**.app12?event=DOCUMENT_DETAILS&docId=RIORXBAAAAAAAAAA

   …as follows:

   “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/

2. 2 BiBostin  on Feb 9th, 2007 at 10:53 pm

   Bruce, I have used various products in the past to keep the old tootsies warm and dry in the wet UK winters, like Gore-Tex boots, socks even Tesco plastic bags and they make your feet sweat like crazy. Waste of money as the perspiration soon turns cold and freeze your daisy roots.

   However the SealSkinz Mid Thermal with Merino wool lining are superb and 99.9% water proof and resist wind-chill. I can use my normal shoes as well rather than a pair two sizes bigger.

   My father in law lives in Russia where the temperature often plummets to -35 degrees. The only material they swear by is “Merino” very fine wool compressed to keep out the elements they make boots socks, gloves from it and it last for ever.

   Perhaps the water is finding its way into your socks some other way, or some one in the store has switched the socks with a cheaper pair, I’ve seen this done by junior sales staff in the past to get a bargain.

3. 3 Bruce Arnold  on Feb 9th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

   “99.9% Waterproof”? “Waterproof for 60 seconds”? Equally worthless claims.

   WHAT IS IT WITH YOU PEOPLE?!?

   I did not pay $50/pair for socks and gloves that were “99.9% Waterproof” or “Waterproof for 60 seconds”. I paid $50/pair for socks and gloves advertised and labelled as “100% Waterproof”.

   Forget ISO 811, and forget “99.9%”. Females are either PREGNANT, or they’re not. And socks and gloves are either WATERPROOF, or they’re not.

   You can also forget your BS about getting the wrong products from “junior sales staff”. I ordered ONLINE, two different times, and got the same results from the delivered products both times. READ WHAT I WROTE CAREFULLY, PEOPLE, AND DON’T LET THIS SHILL MISLEAD YOU:

   SEALSKINZ ARE *NOT* WATERPROOF!

4. 4 BiBostin  on Feb 10th, 2007 at 5:41 am

   Bruce, Just like I said SealSkinz are a terrific product and I for one am 100% satisfied. .
   What gives here. I am entitled to my opinion am I not. Why are you shouting at ME just because I don’t agree with your’s.

   I have no idea how you can compare a manufactured sock with the process of conception.!!! Did they let you out for the day!!!
   If youre not happy with the product send them back to the retailer, your resarch with a bowl of water is hardly “nobel” prize winning.

   Merino wool is now recognised as a technical fibre in its own right and is already extensively used in out door garments around the world because it offers superb comfort and performance.

5. 5 Bruce Arnold  on Feb 10th, 2007 at 8:09 am

   “Opinion”? I did not post an “opinion”, and I could care less about yours.

   What I posted were real world factual results: One from a ride in the rain, and one from a simple experiment that revealed far more than the “4.5 psi for 60 seconds” test the SealSkinz Clowns use to support their “100% waterproof” claim. In both cases, the results were the same:

   SEALSKINZ ARE NOT WATERPROOF.

   NO OPINION. JUST FACT.

6. 6 Nick Walker  on Mar 4th, 2007 at 10:01 am

   I purchased 1 pair of sealskinz gloves and 1 pair of sealskinz socks (with merino wool lining) from a mountain biking store for a recent hiking trip to cumbria. My gloves were sodden through within 10-20 mins of heavy rain, my socks were a lot more successful and were only damp on the outside but that was probably due to my fairly waterproof army boots. I am utterly dissapointed with my gloves (i considered that they may be fake), i also found them to be so tight that they restricted blood flow and made my fingers feel very cold. I would not recommend the gloves to anyone, although the socks seemed ok if you want to keep the damp out, and warm with the merino wool lining too. Although I wouldnt rely on them for proper protection.

Leave a Reply