Similar Products Used: $14 redhead gloves that are twice as niCE and WATERPROOF
a Weekend Warrior
from Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Date Reviewed: May 16, 2007
Strengths: The marketing makes you want to buy.
Weaknesses: They may keep the rain out but your hands sweat and feel wet and cold after a while.
So, I bought some glove liners, which help a bit. However, you hands still feel cold after riding 30 minutes in 10C (50F) temperatures.
I think the glove retains water which makes your hands cold.
NOT recommended for commuter cycling in the rain with temperatures less than 10C (50F).
I am not totally satisfied with the performance of these gloves after using them in a couple of wet rides. You want a glove that will keep your hands dry and warm on those wet and cool rides. You don't want your hands to sweat.
After reading a recent review of these gloves, I want to return them to the store.
Similar Products Used: Plastic bags. Swany winter gloves. Interestingly, these gloves have a membrane that supposes to keep your hands dry from the rain. However, this material (don't know the name) causes your hands to sweat, and then cold.
They don't keep my hands nearly as comfortable in cold temperatures (below freezing) compared to a no-name brand 100% polyester glove with 40 grams of Thinsulate insulation.
Bike Setup: Minelli Glacier - 24 speed rapid fire plus.
Date Reviewed: February 15, 2007
Strengths: Good grip. Simple clean cut look.
Weaknesses: Does not come close to forfilling any of its criteria. When the heavens open, your done for.
Very impressive product advertising. This product is a serious rip off. Your much better off with a plastic bag over your hands or even bare fisted. After only a few minutes of rain, moisture is actually trapped in the glove making things much worse off with the glove on.
Similar Products Used: Gore Switch 2, Grip Grab, Endura Strike
Bike Setup: Koga-Miyata terralineralloy-s
a Cross Country Rider
from Miami Beach, FL, USA
Date Reviewed: February 9, 2007
Weaknesses: Not Waterproof.
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 email@example.com. It was replied to by Sam Matthews of Danalco (firstname.lastname@example.org), 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:
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...
... 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...
"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/
Purchased a pair of the unlined gloves for early season wet wear in the duck blind. Both gloves leaked between the fingers in several places. Finally wrote them and complained and they were nice enough to send me a pair of polar fleece lined gauntlet style gloves. Put them on and placed my hand in the kitchen sink filled with cold water, they also leaked. Just one glove this time so I'm making progress.
a Cross Country Rider
Date Reviewed: January 12, 2004
Weaknesses: Fingers too short compared to just about every pair of gloves i have ever tried. Fingers too tight causing lack of circultion.
I was well dissapointed with these gloves. The fit is terrible, fingers too short and tight whilst at the same time there is loads of room across the palm. I used their sizing chart from their website, printed it off as well (good idea in theory). Dont buy without trying on first, I notice others have said the fingers are too long, maybe we could swap? Friend has a pair of socks by them and they are great.
a Cross Country Rider
from headley, hampshire,uk
Date Reviewed: February 3, 2003
Strengths: None that I could see.
Weaknesses: See below
These gloves didn't fit well, fingers were too long and the whole glove a bit tight. First ride on a damp but not too cold morning, my fingers froze in agony after a couple of miles due to reduced blood circulation. Had to put my old Specialized gloves on instead. Can't comment on whether they are waterproof or breath as I took them back for a refund. A duff product that didn't work for me.
a Cross Country Rider
from SWINDON, ENGLAND
Date Reviewed: May 16, 2001
Weaknesses: material did not breathe
Don't buy them! I was very disapointed with the gloves and too them back to the cycle shop for a refund.Why? Cos they were like wearing a pair of rubber glives under fabric gloves - my hands got really sweaty even on cold days. My advice is buy some horse riding gloves - I bought some Dublin gloves for les than half the cost of Sealskinz, they have padding on the palm and they are waterproof and breathable
Weaknesses: THEY ARE NOT WATERPROOF!!!!!! SIZING IS ODD - fingers are too long and they cut off circulation if using a pair of thermal liners
Rode through a blizzard yeaterday and within a couple of miles my hands were blocks of ice, the thermal liners were soaking wet, had to contend with that for 15 more miles! The gloves are not even remotely waterproof, my Porelle dry clad feet and goretex clad body were fine and toasty but not my hands DO NOT BUY THESE GLOVES THEY ARE NOT WATERPROOF!!!!!
a Weekend Warrior
Date Reviewed: January 12, 2000
Strengths: Warm, Waterproof
Weaknesses: Only two sizes
I've used them in heavy weather and they are abolutely waterproof. They have grip. They give warm hands. They got no pads. There are only two sizes available, so they may not fit perfect everybody's hands but I feel quite comfortable with them.
a Cross-Country Rider
from phoenix, az
Date Reviewed: November 15, 1999
Strengths: good, snug fit
Weaknesses: didn't stop water!
put these to the test this past memorial day at the iron horse road ride from durango to silverton. hail, sleet and rain greeted us from purgatory to molas pass. long story short, fingers were wet and cold in 5 minutes. piss on this product, but the sealskin waterproof socks worked well on the same ride. who knew?
Weaknesses: Uncomfortable, inadequate padding for biking, restrict circulation.
These gloves appear very similar to Porelle Drys socks, having a three layer construction designed to keep wind and wet out. They have rubber knobbles on the palms for grip. Although they were recommended to me by a bike shop, I have not found them suitable for MTB use. Because of the construction, they are not very snug-fitting, so they tend to crease on the palm which is very uncomfortable. Probably because they lack any padded palms, they restrict circulation, giving cold fingers. I haven't used them in real wet yet, maybe that's when the benefit of dry hands will offset the problems? Well, maybe, but I can't recommend them for MTB use - maybe for on the road when your hands and wrists don't take such a pounding. I wouldn't say they are a bad product, but for MTB they are not good.