Whether the definition is technically or legally correct, I would agree with the original poster that it's marketed as being waterproof. I would say they're trying *really* hard to convince you they're waterproof while not *technically* saying it.

1. The sentence "Keep them comfortable and happy with these warm, weatherproof, synthetic leather gloves." is pretty much designed to make the casual, non-experienced reader think it's waterproof. Seriously, if I told you I thought the glove was waterproof and you read that, don't you think that 50% of the time you might scan over "weatherproof" and think it was "waterproof"? I don't think it's a coincidence that the 2 words "just happen" to be so similar in appearance.

2. The next sentence is "Made with AmFIB®-Block, 35% polyurethane, 20% polyester, 28% nylon and 17% Airprene®, for good water and wind protection." I'm sure they chose the AmFIB word to sound like it's designed to deal with water. "good water...protection" again implies that it's waterproof.

The whole marketing speal is designed to heavily imply that it's waterproof, so I would say it definitely counts.

I was thinking about trying some touring for the first time and was just about to buy that tent for $24. Was wondering myself if it would keep the water out at that price. Was it waterproof when it was new? Did you try coating it with anything?

This isn't totally correct. Believe it or not, the DWRs primary role on a Goretex garment is to aid in the breathability by preventing the outer face fabric from becoming saturated with water. Once saturated, this outer fabric would no longer allow the water vapor created by your sweat to pass through, thus causing increased condensation, which makes it feel as though your jacket is no longer waterproof.

The rub of Goretex though, is that even with the DWR working full-on, it's still a flawed material as far as breathability is concerned. In order to avoid contaminating the stretched PTFE layer (Teflon) with oils/dirt/etc, which allows for water transfer and shortens lifespan, Gore added a thin (or not so thin with older Goretex) layer of PU (polyurethane) to the PTFE layer, thus negating the whole beauty of a stretched PTFE layer.

Enter eVent (and a couple other companies), which figured out a way to eliminate the need for the PU layer, thus providing much better breathability with only a small decrease in waterproofness. This said, all rain jackets, regardless of the waterproofing agent (except silicon impregnated nylon), will need to remain treated with DWR to stay breathable, although not to remain waterproof.

Whoa, sorry for the lecture there.

Do not worry, this topic is not to bash on anything, but just simply list what really works, and what not, or sort of work.

I'm a happy MEC customer, i own quite a lot of MEC products.

I'm just in the quest to find the perfect rain gear for biking.

Re: Shoe Covers.
Those would have worked, if they were higher up.
Say if they make the same shoe covers but have the neck higher to say about half way down the knee, that will be perfect, and should prevent any water from coming in. Once you combine it with the splash pants from MEC which i also own.

The Splash pants works perfectly by the way, better than the other "waterproof" pants i've tried.
https://www.mec.ca/Products/product_d...=1244063025664


so... back to the shoe covers, in design, the shoe covers will look more like a full size Boot than a Bootie as it's currently.

Not sure if you can convey the design idea to the manufacture, but it'll be great if some one created something like that, it'll be the perfect shoe cover

ohhh! that exactly has happened to me with another product, it was a winter jacket, it is really waterproof.... except for the cuffs....

some times you really wonder what are the designers thinking when they design a waterproof garment, and then thrown in this "fashion" statement thing that ruins everything, because it soaks up water like there's no tomorrow....

Yeah, LOL.

I imagine a Dilbert-eque moment:
Dilbert: Yes, after 2 years of testing and redesign, we've finally perfect the rain jacket! Totally waterproof, beat by no one in breathability, we've got zippers and vents for venting - we're finally done!
Boss: We'll just add those stretchy cuffs I've always liked and ship it!
Dilbert: But those won't be waterproof!
Boss: Aaaah, as long as it's mostly waterproof that's good enough! We're shipping it!

more years ago than I care to remember I was helping out with a charity rummage sale. As I was sorting through donations for display I came across one of the best finds I've ever had. A brand new pair of GoreTex mitten "shells". Those of us helping were allowed to purchase items for whatever the woman in charge gave as a price. Most of the other volunteers were elderly women who were more interested in small china dishes and bits of fabric and they said, "Oh just take them." I think I ended up giving them a dollar for them.

What makes these perfect is that they work great in the summer, too. They're very light weight, roll up into a neat little cigar sized package and with a pair of lightweight "runners" gloves (neoprene) or even just my cycling gloves under them they are great for keeping my hands dry.

In the winter they are my final layer. I layer my hands in winter, using the thin neoprene "runners'" glove under either a thick mitten or heavier duty glove and then the gore-tex shell over everything.

Most "waterproof" fabrics have two downfalls, IMO, first if they are pressed against the skin by wind or simply the deluge of water they tend to lose their capacity to repel water. Second, even the best of them will not dissipate sweat if it's really warm out or you're working really hard and so the internal moisture is your own- not from the outside.

I know it's totally verboten but I often use cotton- winter or summer- as my base layer under my rain gear. I start with a soft absorbent cotton layer closest to the skin- basically an old tee shirt. Then a very thin polypropolene tee shirt, then the rain gear. I bring an extra tee shirt to change into at my destination. For some reason this works for me and is most comfortable. I find polypropolene next to the skin somewhat uncomfortable and actually feels like it makes me sweat. The cotton tee shirt, on my relatively short commute, absorbs the sweat and will be relatively damp but not soaking by the time I get to work.

These layers give just enough space for the rain gear to do the trick.

i do almost the same, except i have the cotton layer on the middle, and the polywhatever (plastic clothing) layer by the skin, in winter time this really helps, yes it is a little bit uncomfy but it keeps me dry and warm.

i actually picked that up from the Winter section of the forum.

unfortunately at 20c + high humidity in rain, it's just too hot and wet to use that technique.

Sorry, I absolutely disagree. It does not say "waterproof" and there's no implication that it is.

I've worked in the outdoor equipment industry for several years and there is a difference between waterproof and weatherproof. No question about it. There is nothing misleading about it and MEC makes NO claim in their description of the product that it is "waterproof".

Waterproof means that the gear is impervious to water. Weatherproof means that it will keep water and wind out for a limited time but does not imply in any way that it will keep all the water out for extended periods of time. They are two different degrees of dealing with the weather and both terms are accurate and not interchangeable (there are two very different definitions in the dictionary). Generally speaking, I'll use weatherproof gear for shoulder seasons and waterproof gear for winter use or when it's raining hard (which in this neighbourhood is about 5 months of the year).

I see people interchanging the two words all the time but it's their ignorance (for lack of a gentler word) that they do so. For instance, I was reading a thread in these forums about shoulder bags and someone mentioned that the Seal Line Urban Shoulder Bag is waterproof -- it also is not, nor does Seal Line say that it is -- although it does do a pretty good job of keeping things dry (I have one and it's an excellent bag).

Definitely, MEC is not being misleading.

Sorry, you can disagree but it's clearly confusing and I believe deliberately. I've been confused. The person who started this thread bought his gloves thinking they were waterproof. Why do you think Pearl Izumi doesn't describe them as "water-resistant"? It's because weatherproof sounds tougher, like they're waterproof. The fact that there's some sort of "technical" industry lingo that "technically" differentiates the 2 doesn't change that. Browsing through their site, Pearl Izumi is pretty bad with this stuff.

And what does "weatherproof" mean, anyways? Waterproof means it's immune to water - water can't get through. So it would follow that weatherproof means no weather can get through them - no water, no wind, no weather. But instead it means...it's less? good against weather than something that's waterproof...riiiiiiiiight. Like I said, if they had wanted to be clear they would have said water-resistant. It's just not as good of a marketing term because people don't get as confused about it and buy something they think is waterproof by mistake.

And I looked up the SealLine bag you mentioned. In addition to being made Sealline, a company who used to only make waterproof bags, there's this in the product description "Constructed of a burly, waterproof 600D, urethane-coated polyester". I can just see it now - there's Jim the marketing guy with a straight look on his face going "I have no idea why someone would think this bag is waterproof!" You would have to be willfully ignorant or an idiot to not believe a ton of people are going to be confused.

For an example of a site trying to be helpful and honest despite that manufacturers deliberately misleading claims, you can also look at the www.mec.ca site.

Here's what Pearl Izumi says about their Pittards Elite Thermal Gloves (https://www.pearlizumi.com/product.ph...uct_id=1321951) -
"3-layer stretch laminate materials are water-proof and wind-proof"

And here's what the mecca.ca site says about the same gloves, as someone obviously decided they wanted to be clear rather than sell gloves based on "misleading" claims:
https://www.mec.ca/Products/product_d...45524442627562
"The three-layer stretch-laminated materials are waterproof and windproof, but please note that the glove is not taped and will not be entirely waterproof."

See? THERE'S an honest description.

If they wanted to be honest (and by "they" I mean anyone who makes water resistant and waterproof gear), they would do 2 things:
1. They'd refer to gear that's water resistant as being water-resistant, not "weatherproof" which sound to much like waterproof.
2. Any time they start to make claims about it being water resistant or waterproof, they would also clearly state something like "While this product is made with waterproof materials, it is not completely waterproof and will soak through if left in the rain to long".

It's like I met a girl, told her she was cute, took her out and bought her dinner at a fancy restaurant several time where we always talked about romantic movies and great loves scenes, and then acted shocked - shocked! that she thought I was hitting on her (didn't she know I was married even though I *somehow* never actually said I wasn't?).

P.S. However, I wasn't accusing MEC of lying. I was saying that Pearl Izumi's claims were misleading, I don't think it's an "honest mistake" where they were trying to let you know the gloves were only water-resistant but somehow didn't communicate it, and MEC and every other site that sells those gloves simply copies the wording. I think "lying" would have been to harsh, but "misleading" is very appropriate concerning the wording chosen by the manufacturer.

i do agree about the being confusing part

weatherproof vs waterproof

even the search engines in the site, and/or even google/yahoo returns stuff that are as you mentioned weatherproof as waterproof items.

so that's definitely misleading.

when you are using the website owns search engine to look for waterproof only items, it shouldn't be throwing in weather-proof items and vise versa.

You seem like a pretty bright guy and being the astute reader that you are, you should know that if it doesn't say "waterproof", it isn't.

Seems simple enough to me. I understand the words that are used and I don't see anything misleading about it.

Seal Line's claims of using a waterproof fabric are valid.

If people are confused, perhaps it's because their reading comprehension is lacking. Ok, ok, I'll admit that some people might find it confusing, but the fact remains that Seal Line and MEC are not making any claims that are not true.

btw: Seal Line has not always made only waterproof bags -- and if you look, they don't claim that their drybags are waterproof either -- but they are also made of waterproof fabric. In fact, Seal Line does not make any waterproof bags -- they do claim to be "watertight" -- whatever that means.

At any rate, you've got your opinion, and I've got mine -- no sense bashing this back and forth any more.

Weatherproof and waterproof are not the same thing.

But I can't argue with you on this one -- MEC claims that the Seal Line Urban BackPack is waterproof when in fact it is not. That definitely is misleading. It even states on the Seal Line website that the bag is "watertight" -- whatever that means.

You've uncovered a grand conspiracy between outdoor gear marketing departments, Google, and an evil group of mediums channeling Noah Webster from beyond the grave. They have intentionally made the words "weatherproof" and "waterproof" similar in appearance to promote confusion among customers, make more money, increase global warming, and cause the extinction of an obscure species of monkeys found only in Borneo. Evil people, indeed.

38º on my morning commute Thursday! Not every one is in Hot Lanta