Author Topic: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag  (Read 6700 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mucknort

Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« on: February 11, 2010, 12:21:24 pm »
5 month tour. June to November (last 2 months on west coast). Husband and wife.
Need to update bags for this tour. Mummy is warmer, Rectangular when zipped together allows snuggling and room.
Advice?

Offline MIBIKER

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2010, 03:39:52 pm »
  I have a mummy bag with a full length zipper.  On warm nights  I unzip it all the way and just  lay it on top of me.  For you get two mummy bags unzip and put it on top of the sleeping pad then lay the other over the top.  I sleep colder in a rectangle bag. 

Offline staehpj1

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #2 on: February 11, 2010, 04:46:47 pm »
The weight difference would be quite a bit.  Enough that I personally wouldn't even consider a rectangular bag.  You know better what you are willing to carry though.

Offline johnsondasw

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #3 on: February 11, 2010, 11:17:51 pm »
I agree with Staehpj. Touring with minimal weight makes such a difference, and the new lightweight bags also stuff into much smaller bundle. 
May the wind be at your back!

Offline mucknort

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #4 on: February 12, 2010, 11:37:42 am »
Well, I wasn't talking about a flannel Walmart rectangular bag that weighs 8 pounds. The rectangular bag I'm considering is down and weighs 2# 8 oz., about the same as most mummy bags of a similar rating. 2 of them can be zipped together or one can be unzipped all the way and used like a big down blanket.

Offline paddleboy17

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #5 on: February 12, 2010, 12:06:01 pm »
5 month tour. June to November (last 2 months on west coast). Husband and wife.
Need to update bags for this tour. Mummy is warmer, Rectangular when zipped together allows snuggling and room.
Advice?

Everyone's travel kit differs, depending upon what you are willing to carry.

I think it comes down to how cold will it git at night.  If it it is going to get cold, I don't think you have a choice but to go with mummy bags.  Bicycle touring does allow for a few more comforts than back packing.

If temps are not an issue, then go for whatever meets your snuggling needs.  Get the big air mattress with the couple kit to make one big pad.
Danno

Offline John Nelson

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #6 on: February 12, 2010, 12:45:31 pm »
Well, I wasn't talking about a flannel Walmart rectangular bag that weighs 8 pounds. The rectangular bag I'm considering is down and weighs 2# 8 oz., about the same as most mummy bags of a similar rating. 2 of them can be zipped together or one can be unzipped all the way and used like a big down blanket.
If it is really true that a rectangular bag and a mummy bag of the same rating weigh the same, then it seems like it doesn't matter. I sense that you're leaning towards the rectangular bags. Go for it and analyze no more.

Offline Tourista829

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #7 on: February 12, 2010, 01:30:31 pm »
Mucknort,

This is not an advertisement, so please forgive me, if there are some who think so. If I may make a suggestion, you should go to www.bigagnes.com. They have two bags that may fit the bill. They are not the lightest, and I tried to post pictures, with no success. They make great stuff. I like that they both have hoods and sleeves that hold separate sleeping pads. I hope this helps:)

Big Agnes Doublewide synthetic or King Solomon down bags for couples

Doublewide Series bags are for couples. The Dream Island synthetic 15� is perfect for car camping and is designed to be used with our new Hinman 50" x 78" pad or two 25" x 78" pads coupled together.

Double Wide Specs (Big and roomy)
210T shell
C/P lining
210T bottom 4lb 8oz
9lb 5oz
XXL-12" x 23"
12" x 14"
50" x 78" / rectangular
$189.95
sizefabricfill wtbag wtstuff sack sizecomp. sizepad size/shapeprice


The lighter, more packable King Solomon down 15� uses two 20" x 72" pads and is light enough for backpacking.
King Solomon (Is a very wise bag indeed)
300T shell
300T lining
210T bottom 2lb 4oz
5lb 3oz
XL-10" x 21"
10" x 10"
2-20" x 72" / rectangular
$329.95
sizefabricfill wtbag wtstuff sack sizecomp. sizepad size/shapeprice

Offline Tourista829

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #8 on: February 12, 2010, 01:41:52 pm »
Oops, I forgot to mention the obvious, you are going to need a good size tent with a decent footprint. Which means even more weight. Maybe you might want to consider a trailer. :o

Offline mucknort

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #9 on: February 12, 2010, 02:26:56 pm »
If it is really true that a rectangular bag and a mummy bag of the same rating weigh the same, then it seems like it doesn't matter. I sense that you're leaning towards the rectangular bags. Go for it and analyze no more.
I think it comes down to how cold will it git at night.
I am leaning toward the down rectangular bag, but as paddleboy says, I don't know how much colder the open rec. bag is vs mummy (which I've always used in the past).

Mucknort,
This is not an advertisement, so please forgive me, if there are some who think so. If I may make a suggestion, you should go to www.bigagnes.com. They have two bags that may fit the bill.
Thanks for your time on this Tourista829. I'd already started by looking at those 2 bags. I called Big Agnes and they actually recommended getting 2 of their "classic" style bags that can zip together. Seems those double bags are swell for a weekend or 2, but they suggested that it might be a little too snug after a couple of months. If you have 2 bags that zip together, then you have the option of going separate bags on occasion.

Oops, I forgot to mention the obvious, you are going to need a good size tent with a decent footprint. Which means even more weight. Maybe you might want to consider a trailer. :o
Yep, going with the Nemo Asashi (4p). Yep, we are each pulling trailers instead of panniers for this trip.

The main reason I posted this question is that I was gonna go with 2 Big Agnes Bags that could zip together (and use the Big Agnes Insulated Air Pads). Then I saw this crazy good deal on the Kelty Galactic 35+ bag for only $55 each (reg. price is $150). That's two down bags for $110. Way cheaper than all the other options. I was just worried we'd end up freezing enough nites to make it not worth it. But after further search I guess I can get some fleece or silk liners (watch out, that will probably be my next topic discussion question) to use on warm nights alone or put in the down bags on really cold nights for extra warmth.
In my younger days, I had money for all sorts of gear, but at this point, with all the updating we have to do on gear I have to watch the spending.
Thanks all.

The deal:
http://www.sunnysports.com/Prod/KLTBG35R.html
A review:
http://www.backpackgeartest.org/reviews/Sleep%20Gear/Sleeping%20Bags/Kelty%20Galactic%2035%20F%20Sleeping%20Bag/Test%20Report%20by%20Derek%20Hansen/
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 05:00:58 pm by mucknort »

Offline bogiesan

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2010, 10:01:26 am »
Adding a fleece liner will add flexibility but now you've got the same mass as a couple of synthetic bags but more bulk because fleece does not compress. A silk liner does not add much comfort range; they're designed to protect the bag and occupant from each other.

Ultralighters use a simple insulating pad and an upper layer that is more like a quilt than a conventional sleeping bag. You can save several pounds right there.

If you've got all that experience with different camping environments and transport methods, you know all about the dance you must perform  objectively running weight-to-utility ratings and then adding back the more subjective coefficients of comfort and sanity preservation.

david boise ID
I play go. I use Macintosh. Of course I ride a recumbent

Offline paddleboy17

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2010, 11:56:51 am »
I am leaning toward the down rectangular bag, but as paddleboy says, I don't know how much colder the open rec. bag is vs mummy (which I've always used in the past).

This is not a factoid to overlook. 

You have to heat the airspace in the bag to stay warm.  That is why mummy bags were invented--there is less airspace to heat.  If you airtemps could drift below 55F, then I would say don't even bother with the couple's bag.  You might have an airspace too big to heat.

You could keep the big pad area and use 2 mummy bags.
Danno

Offline biker_james

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #12 on: February 16, 2010, 03:14:13 pm »
We bought the MEC Habanero bags-they are considered a "relaxed mummy bag", I believe. They come in left and right zips, so that they can be zipped together. I can't say that we have actually tried them that way yet, as we are usually happy to have our own space.

Offline velo

Re: Rectangular vs mummy sleeping bag
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2010, 12:44:06 am »
Lots of mummy bags zip together. My partner and I have an REI and a Mountain Hardware that zip together fine. Both have #8 YKK zippers, one is left side zip, the other is right side. No need to look for anything fancy, most companies make a right and left zip model.

You can snuggle and have mummy bags! The weight and bulk of a non-mummy bag would be prohibitive to me for touring.