Wonderful incident you are importer and we are manufacturer, why should not cooperate with each other.

We have the pleasure to inform you that we are engaged in the manufacture-cum-exporter for a complete line of Leather goods having special production of SKI GLOVES, MOTOR CYCLE GLOVES, WINTER GLOVES, CYCLING GLOVES, MOTOR CROSS GLOVES, LEATHER JACKETS/TEXTILES GARMENTS, SAFETY NET WEST JACKETS (adult & Kids), NECK BRASSES and SHIN GUARDS etc since 1985.

We guarantee that you will appreciate the quality, workmanship, durability of our products if try us once. We will welcome your enquiry of the items of your choice.Enabling to submit our samples for your kind consideration.

Should you desire, we will send our current catalogue 2008 for your study and select out the items of your choice.

Always at your disposal and looking forward to the pleasure of receiving your kind reply, With kind personal regards from undersigned,

Best regards

Muhammad

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.

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/

Motorcycle boots tend to be sold as ‘waterproof’. This works for sweat getting out as well as rain getting in. Despite all the criticism of official lab tests and kitchen simulations, maybe there is a simpler reason for your wet feet.

And by the way, Bruce, that 4.5psi you tried to pass off as ” not much pressure at all” is nearly one third of the atmospheric pressure you quoted for a comparison. It’s a common mistake to under-estimate how much pressure that is - atmospheric pressure is actually about 33 feet head of water - so the Sealskinz test is actually putting about 10 feet head onto the sealskinz test object. The atmospheric pressure works on both sides so it balances out. (You’ll need very tall boots full of water to apply that much pressure while on ‘active service’ on your motorbike).

Finally - in the engineering world it’s commonly done to apply an excessive pressure for a short time in order to monitor quality - otherwise testing takes far too long. We do this on big pressure vessels which go bang if you get things wrong, so I guess the principle shouldn’t excite comment when applied to socks. On your terms, Lay-Zee-Boy would have to run a two-month test using robotic couch potatoes on every recliner they sell . That would certainly push the price up……think about it.

I bought a pair anyway. If they’re sh*t, I’ll send them back. Big dealio!

Hope you find another vent for your anguish at finding the gloves less than satisfactory…

And one of my biggest issues is that SEALSKINZ PRODUCTS ARE NOT WATERPROOF in real-world situations.