or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Under Armour Cold Gear Compression vs Base Layers 2.0 / 3.0
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Under Armour Cold Gear Compression vs Base Layers 2.0 / 3.0

post #1 of 16
Thread Starter 
I was looking on the UA website and saw they have a 3.0 Tight Fit base layer (but not compression) and a regular compression UA cold gear layer. Two questions...

1. Whats the difference between these?
2. Does compression really help your skiing performance?

Thanks...I did search and found some answers but was wanting more input.
post #2 of 16
First off I'm not familar with the 3.0 Tight Fit product you posted. I do have a UA Cold Gear comprfession top, and it is an excellent product that will deliver a level of warmth I hadn't experienced with other base layers. The compression fit takes a little bit of an adjustment to. I have yet to see any store carrying the Cold Gear compression tops discount the product below $49.99. I get alot of utility out of this product on cold bitter days.
post #3 of 16
Compression gear is bling for football players who want to "display" their muscles. Doesn't help you ski any better or keep you warmer.
Compression should be avoided for the following reasons:

1. In order to achieve compression, the fabric must add lycra or some other elastic material. Lycra absorbs moisture, polyester does not. The retained moisture (swaet) will make you feel cooler (like cotton).

2. Tight compression can reduce circulation, actually making you feel colder, although I am sure it will not be as tight on you as that overweight nose tackle.
post #4 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by fudman22 View Post
Compression gear is bling for football players who want to "display" their muscles. Doesn't help you ski any better or keep you warmer.
Compression should be avoided for the following reasons:

1. In order to achieve compression, the fabric must add lycra or some other elastic material. Lycra absorbs moisture, polyester does not. The retained moisture (swaet) will make you feel cooler (like cotton).

2. Tight compression can reduce circulation, actually making you feel colder, although I am sure it will not be as tight on you as that overweight nose tackle.
Fudman, I am sorry to be the one to say this but you are completely wrong in what you said. UA has no lycra, look at a tag. 66% Nylour™ / 19% PolyArmour™ / 15% Elastene. This material does the complete opposite of cotton in that it takes moisture away from the body thus keeping you warmer after sweating. You should do some research before you try to "help" somebody.

For the OP, 2.0 and 3.0 are just different weights for base layers. 3.0 is a heavyweight base and 2.0 is a midweight base. It depends on where you are planning on being when you use either one of these but I know for a fact that would be very happy with either choice.
post #5 of 16
Thread Starter 
thanks for the comments everyone,

Im still confused tho what to get. I tried the compression UA cold gear and it was fine but a little restricting. I could definetely tell that this was a very warm material becuase less than one to two minutes on and I was starting to burn up.

Anyone else have any opinions on cold gear compression vs the Base 2.0/3.0 stuff?

thanks again everybody.
post #6 of 16
My favorite. I enjoy the compression. If it fits right - not constricting - supportive. Great warmth and wick. A little pricey but holds up well.

Note - UA apres is a fashion DON'T. Tip: Stick a golf or T shirt in the bag to wear over it in the bar. Just give 'em a little taste of the gun show.
post #7 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by bgraves28 View Post
Fudman, I am sorry to be the one to say this but you are completely wrong in what you said. UA has no lycra, look at a tag. 66% Nylour™ / 19% PolyArmour™ / 15% Elastene. This material does the complete opposite of cotton in that it takes moisture away from the body thus keeping you warmer after sweating. You should do some research before you try to "help" somebody.
Hook, line and sinker, if I've ever seen one, LOL.

All those trademarked names are just Under Armour marketing-speak for common materials, i.e. Oakley's "Unobtainium" (at least that one was tongue-in-cheek). You should know that Under Armour does not make any fabric (much less fibers and/or raw materials), and their second-party manufacturers (i.e. outsourced) buy their materials from UA pre-approved third-party suppliers.

(Source: UA 2006 Annual Report http://investor.underarmour.com/comm...nualReport.pdf)

Prior to Under Armour's recent bent (as little as two seasons ago) in creative terminology, their items were marked with actual materials. My UA Cold Gear Ski Shirt is specified as 64% nylon/22% polyester/14% elastane. My UA underwear is specified as 91% polyester/9% elastine(sic).

Guess what elastene/elastane/elastine (and presumably, elastone/elastune/elastyne) is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandex

I bought into UA hype about two years ago. Compression is a unique feeling, and it's definitely an ego trip in the mirror if you have the body for it. It feels warms in the store, but like fudman22 said, nylon and elastane are hydrophilic, and does not dry nearly as well as a predominantly polyester (hydrophobic) fabric, especially one that is structured for capillary wicking. Once UA gets soaked with sweat, it dries better than cotton (obviously), but worse than polyester technical baselayers such as Patagonia's Capilene.

The good thing about the high-stretch, compression-fit baselayer is that it makes it easier to get in-and-out of technically-fit (read: almost-as-tight) midlayers. In addition, you lose the normal bagginess in the waist area (this is assuming you don't have a gut) that is required to get a less-stretchy baselayer over the width of one's shoulders.

The thing that eventually turned me off from UA is the compression feature. It's actually good in thinner fabrics and for the legs (and support of... um... valuables), but the thicker compression fabrics (such as on the UA Ski Shirt) restricts my breathing at high altitudes. You feel yourself exerting energy and fighting against the elastic shirt when your breaths deepen.
post #8 of 16
Thanx, DtEW for the clarification. DtEW is absolutely correct that those tradenames (Capilene, H2No, etc.) are codewords for standard commercially available materials. No garment vendor manufactures their own materials.

For those that know anything about performance clothing, it is the material that drives the performance of clothes. The rest is primarily design features and in most cases, marketing hype. For the record, I have worked with all the major material vendors (Malden, Milliken, Gore, Nextec, etc.) and many of the major clothing makers (UA, Patagucci, etc.). I know what is marketing hype (Unobtainium is a classic!) and what is the real deal.

There is not a lot of rocket science in clothing, which is why slick marketing and good (not great) performance, can create an industry giant (UA). Make no mistake, UA makes good ****. Just don't use football clothing for skiing applications. Would you wear a football helmet to ski?

For skiing, clothes do two things (actually three). They are designed to keep you dry and warm without affecting your ability to ski (and to look good on the slopes). Compression gear, because of the "Elastene", will not be as dry and warm as straight polyester. And since it is a next to skin layer, it adds nothing to your appearance. Unless compression gear gives you a specific performance advantage, I would avoid it. :
post #9 of 16
Good information exchanged here. I just never had a base layer that was warmer than the UA Cold gear top I have.
post #10 of 16
What about CW-X gear, same marketing hype?

http://www.cw-x.com/ss/products/mens/m_litefit
post #11 of 16
As the industry insiders know, you need to see the CW-X girls at Outdoor Retailer to know that their focus is on using marketing to differentiate their product from the rest of the pack. Their models could work for Victoria's Secret (which gets back to the question, is VS's underwear any better or it just seems to be "better" because of who wears it)!

Again, the materials are what drives performance. Next is fit. Ignore the ads and branding and read the labels. Ultimately, you need to try it as every product works differently for every skier (just like every skier has a different opinion on what are the "best" skis). It helps to have worn just about every material (not brand) out there, but my opinions work only for myself. If you like it, then it works for you. But remember, keep an open mind as some other vendor may do it better (through design) next time than the last one. :
post #12 of 16
Slightly OT, but I have had a Helly Hansen ski shell for going on 6 years now. I don't know what it is about their wind/waterproofing system, but in my experience, it kicks butt on Gore-tex for a lot less $$. Truly, the best performance is not necessarily the big name.

Greg
post #13 of 16
We carry SKINS compression base layer with great success. This product has the highest compression and is quite warm (SKINS SNOW) it is used by several skiers on the World Cup who swear by its performance in muscle stabilizations and lactic acid dispersion with more compression than UA or CW-X. Skins has done very extensive testing and the results are impressive. I have not noticed any issues with them getting wet from perspiration at all. The overall sensation is of feeling stronger and more in balance. The feedback we have gotten has been very positive. Never noticed any breathing restrictions either.
post #14 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by srd View Post
We carry SKINS compression base layer with great success. This product has the highest compression and is quite warm (SKINS SNOW) it is used by several skiers on the World Cup who swear by its performance in muscle stabilizations and lactic acid dispersion with more compression than UA or CW-X. Skins has done very extensive testing and the results are impressive. I have not noticed any issues with them getting wet from perspiration at all. The overall sensation is of feeling stronger and more in balance. The feedback we have gotten has been very positive. Never noticed any breathing restrictions either.
A $110 for a base layer shirt means I need to borrow one before buying. Wow, pricey...

Thanks for the new name though.
post #15 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW View Post
I bought into UA hype about two years ago. Compression is a unique feeling, and it's definitely an ego trip in the mirror if you have the body for it. It feels warms in the store, but like fudman22 said, nylon and elastane are hydrophilic, and does not dry nearly as well as a predominantly polyester (hydrophobic) fabric, especially one that is structured for capillary wicking. Once UA gets soaked with sweat, it dries better than cotton (obviously), but worse than polyester technical baselayers such as Patagonia's Capilene.
Word. I bought one UA base shirt and barely wear it. The shirt gets wet and does not dry any where as fast as it should. I feel wet on the slopes when wearing UA stuff. Feels nice when you put it on but it does not keep you as dry as possible. There are better garments selling for half the price and at the same price you can get Capilene which I have yet to try anything better.
post #16 of 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by srd View Post
We carry SKINS compression base layer with great success. This product has the highest compression and is quite warm (SKINS SNOW) it is used by several skiers on the World Cup who swear by its performance in muscle stabilizations and lactic acid dispersion with more compression than UA or CW-X. Skins has done very extensive testing and the results are impressive. I have not noticed any issues with them getting wet from perspiration at all. The overall sensation is of feeling stronger and more in balance. The feedback we have gotten has been very positive. Never noticed any breathing restrictions either.
Again, what works for some may not work for everyone or you. A downhill racer lives for about 2 1/2 minutes of pure exertion under intense condtitions. Unless you do the same, I would caution you to expect the same performance. Compression of muscles after exertion actually does make a contribution but I have not seen the data and I doubt we exert the same level as World Cup skiers or NFL football players.

Wearing their clothes is analogous to wearing the same skis as Bode. You may look like Bode but you won't necessarily ski like Bode. However, for many, looking like Bode is good enough (either would be good enough for me!). Thus, you should get whatever makes you feel good, whether your skiing or just styling.

A Very Merry Christmas to all!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Under Armour Cold Gear Compression vs Base Layers 2.0 / 3.0