- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
I just received my Exped SynMat UL and decided to do a little review of this produce as compared to other sleeping pads I own or owned over the years. ExPed has come on strong to the scene of the sleeping pad world with new designs of inflatables that compete with thermorest which had cornered the market for more than a decade. Basically, Exped integrates insulation with a blow-up mattress omitting the foam core we are all familiar with in self inflatable mattresses. The advantage is that you get better packability and lighter weight camp pads with equivalent R-values. The disadvantage is that they are not self-inflating like the thermorests we have come to know and love and they take significantly more time to both inflate and deflate than thermarests.
So the candidates that I'm comparing in this review are the following:
Thermarest Ultra-Light pad
-This is an old pad and my first forray in to the inflatable pad market. I purchased this pad back in 1994. At the time it was the smallest and lightest full size thermarest available. I used this pad faithfully for more than a decade. I paid about $90 at the time for it. I came to really love this pad for its outstanding performance relative to its excellent packability. The specks on this pad are: 72 x 20 x 0.75" thick. R value = 2.6. Weight without a stuff sack was 660 g. I used to have to force as much air into this pad as I could to keep me from feeling pebbles underneath. It was great for 2.5 season use but unsuitable for winter camping even when coupled with a foam pad. Last year the pad finally seems to have bit the dust. I've made several repairs to it in the past with success, this time my ability to repair it (its leaking somewhere and I can't see to locate it) has not been successful. The loss of this old friend is what prompted me towards the Exped's.
Thermarest Ridgerest Foam Pad
-I bought this pad mainly to supplement the thicker self-inflatable described below. The Ridgerest has a textured surface of ridges which boosts its thickness and R-performance over the standard blue-foam pads without a big hit on weight. Its specs are 72 x 20 x 0.6" thick. R-vale = 2.8. This pad (not pictured) is bulky as it is more less solid foam. It packs significantly larger volume compared to UL thermarest above. On its own, its not very comfortable to sleep on. I never found foam pads to provide much comfort and considered them more of an insulator function. In the role that I bought it for, to supplement the R-value of a inflating mattress it worked well. The cost was about $25. This solid foam pad is virtually indestructible short of you purposely cutting it apart. As a back-up in winter camping its nice to know you have a pad that can't be destroyed.
REI - 1.75 Inflating Mattress
-My wife bought this pad for the comfort factor and I liked to use it for winter camping. Its a self-inflatable knockoff. The specs are 72 x 20 x 1.75" thick. R-value = 4.2. Weight is 1120 g. This pad packs bulky and is similar in bulk when packed down to the ridgerest above. It is comfortable though, more comfortable to sleep on than both of the above two options. Combined with the ridgerest, the R-value is 7 which made it plenty sufficient for sleeping directly on ice in winter. I liked this set for the comfort and high insulation value but its bulk and weight was a PITA for backpacking trips. The cost of this pad was about $70. The REI mattress has developed a number of leaks in the 3 years since I've had it. The last leak, like the one in my therarest seems to defeat my ability to repair it. A friend of mine (Rick's cousin Scott) had one and he said after 2 years the material of the pad degraded to the point where there were so many small holes it was irreparable. I think mine is heading down the road and a lesson learned about going with a less reputable knock-off self-inflatable.
Exped Downmat 7
-My wife bought me this pad for christmas as I was in need of a winter matt. The specs on this one are 72 x 20 x 2.8" thick. R-Value = 5.9 and weight = 820 g. According to exped, this pad is rated to -25oC, but I've slept in it at -30oC and feel it is fully adequate for deep winter camping. The comfort on this pad is amazing. The insulation is goosedown which re-gains its full loft as the pad is blown up. The model I have has an integrated hand pump. The pump is not that bad, but it takes 3 minutes or so to inflate the pad fully while using the pump. It takes longer to inflate the pad in the winter than the summer. Deflating the pad and packing it up also takes about 4-5 minutes and is considerably longer than what it takes to re-pack a self inflatable. The packability of the Downmat is equivalent to my thermarest UL pad - quite amazing given its more 2.25 x R-value and less than 6oz additional weight hit. I poked a hole in the Exped on my 2nd outing with it. It was really easy to find the hole because a feather was wriggling out of the spot where the hole was. I feel that durability of this bag is probably less than the thermarest and more care needs to be taken clearing thorns and sharps from the ground before using it, or using a very robust ground pad and/or tent. As a winter pad I love it. It is small enough to tote in my backpack. Cost - $180.
Exped Synmat UL-7
-I bought this pad to serve as much lighter and more packable summer pad for myself and also to provide my wife with pad when the two of us go camping. It seemed like a good idea that we are at least at the same height as one another while camping and given the destruction of my two self-inflatables that would leave me sleeping on the foam pad when together. The specs on this one are 77.5" x 25.6" x 2.8" thick. Weight is 600 g and R-value = 3.1. The Synmat uses a synthetic insulation instead of goose down. This has some advantages in that the synthetic fill is not affected by moisture. One of the reasons you want to use the integrated pump on the downmat instead of your breath is so that the moisture from your breath doesn't interfere with the pads R-value. This isn't a problem with the synmat. I thought I ordered the medium one, but it turns out I ordered the large, wide size. Not really a problem as this larger pad only comes at a 140 g (<4Oz) weight cost over the medium size one. I haven't yet had the chance to sleep on this one. In terms of comfort, I can immediately tell the difference between the Downmat and this one, the downmat seems more solid while the synmat seems more like an inflated air-mattress. I believe the R-value rating on it so it should take me through 3 seasons. Durability seems low on this ultralight pad and like the downmat, I will have to take extra care when using it direct on ground as opposed to inside a tent. Still, I'm super impressed with the high packability of this pad and it is just slightly larger than a 1L nalgene bottle. Inflation time is significantly faster than the Downmat because I use my lungs instead of the pump. It takes about 1-2 minute to inflate and about 30 breaths or so. Deflation/packing time takes longer than the Downmat because this pad is larger and contains more air to remove. Cost $170.
Now for some of the picture comparisons. I have shots of all except the ridgerest foamy which I'm sure many people have seen before.
A shot of all the mattresses inflated (well the self inflatables are as inflated as the air they will retain)...
A shot comparing the size of the Downmat against the Large Synmat...Talk about room to spread out!
Pads on top of one another and aligned at the top end for sizing information.
A close up of the stacked pads. Each of the Expeds has the loft of the two self-inflatables combined.
Now the packed size comparisons. REI-is the clear loser here in terms of bulk and weight.
Packed size of the REI and Downmat next to a 1 L water bottle (The thermarest stuff sack is a tad loose but the dimensions of the actual pad aren't much smaller than that. The downmat is bulker, heavier and has a lower R-value compared to the Downmat. I don't think the REI is any more durability so the Downmat is the clear winner here. Albeit it cost more than double the REI's price.
Packed size of the Downmat next to my original and beloved UL thermarest. The packed volume is almost identical but the downmat is about 7oz heavier. R-value is considerably higher. I feel that the thermarest is more durable and perhaps a better value but really these two pads aren't comparable in their purposes. If I had to chose just one pad to have, the downmat-7 will do it all - good for 4 seasons and is packable enough for backpacking us.
Okay now the comparison of the Synmat UL against the UL thermarest. Packed volume of the Synmat is considerably smaller than the thermarest and approaching the size (slightly larger) than the water bottle. The two pads are very similar in weight (the Synmat being 2 oz lighter) despite the synmats larger inflated dimensions all around. The R-value of the synmat is also better than the thermarest. Time will tell if its durability holds up, but I suspect its less durable overall (the thermarest has proven itself in helish conditions many times). For the penny pinchers out there, the UL thermarest might be the better buy, although you take a hit on its packability - its not that bad.
A close up of the Synmat and water bottle. Okay, I admit it was a bit of a splurge to purchase the Synmat, but the flexibility of having such a small pad combined with my small summer weight down sleeping bag is really going to free up space in my pack. Being able to move to a smaller pack means taking less crap as a whole and thats a good thing. I'm only hoping that the synmat's durability holds up to my camping style and I will be sure to keep a repair kit close at hand during its use. Time will tell, but I'm excited about the options having this piece of kit will give me into the future.
Overall, the ExPeds sacrifice fast setup and packing to gain advantages of high packability and high R-values. There isn't large weight savings per say when comparing pads of similar R-ratings but I sometimes think that packing volume is as, if not more, important than weight. The thermarests are more durable and more cheaper. You can also go to 3/4 length pads to decrease volume while keeping higher R-values in the core areas. So there are plenty of options to optimize your pad arrangement. Of course the ExPed's can be had in short lengths as well if you are into extreme volume savings (the UL Synmat short is only 400 g and supposedly packs to the same size as a 500 mL nalgene).
So the candidates that I'm comparing in this review are the following:
Thermarest Ultra-Light pad
-This is an old pad and my first forray in to the inflatable pad market. I purchased this pad back in 1994. At the time it was the smallest and lightest full size thermarest available. I used this pad faithfully for more than a decade. I paid about $90 at the time for it. I came to really love this pad for its outstanding performance relative to its excellent packability. The specks on this pad are: 72 x 20 x 0.75" thick. R value = 2.6. Weight without a stuff sack was 660 g. I used to have to force as much air into this pad as I could to keep me from feeling pebbles underneath. It was great for 2.5 season use but unsuitable for winter camping even when coupled with a foam pad. Last year the pad finally seems to have bit the dust. I've made several repairs to it in the past with success, this time my ability to repair it (its leaking somewhere and I can't see to locate it) has not been successful. The loss of this old friend is what prompted me towards the Exped's.
Thermarest Ridgerest Foam Pad
-I bought this pad mainly to supplement the thicker self-inflatable described below. The Ridgerest has a textured surface of ridges which boosts its thickness and R-performance over the standard blue-foam pads without a big hit on weight. Its specs are 72 x 20 x 0.6" thick. R-vale = 2.8. This pad (not pictured) is bulky as it is more less solid foam. It packs significantly larger volume compared to UL thermarest above. On its own, its not very comfortable to sleep on. I never found foam pads to provide much comfort and considered them more of an insulator function. In the role that I bought it for, to supplement the R-value of a inflating mattress it worked well. The cost was about $25. This solid foam pad is virtually indestructible short of you purposely cutting it apart. As a back-up in winter camping its nice to know you have a pad that can't be destroyed.
REI - 1.75 Inflating Mattress
-My wife bought this pad for the comfort factor and I liked to use it for winter camping. Its a self-inflatable knockoff. The specs are 72 x 20 x 1.75" thick. R-value = 4.2. Weight is 1120 g. This pad packs bulky and is similar in bulk when packed down to the ridgerest above. It is comfortable though, more comfortable to sleep on than both of the above two options. Combined with the ridgerest, the R-value is 7 which made it plenty sufficient for sleeping directly on ice in winter. I liked this set for the comfort and high insulation value but its bulk and weight was a PITA for backpacking trips. The cost of this pad was about $70. The REI mattress has developed a number of leaks in the 3 years since I've had it. The last leak, like the one in my therarest seems to defeat my ability to repair it. A friend of mine (Rick's cousin Scott) had one and he said after 2 years the material of the pad degraded to the point where there were so many small holes it was irreparable. I think mine is heading down the road and a lesson learned about going with a less reputable knock-off self-inflatable.
Exped Downmat 7
-My wife bought me this pad for christmas as I was in need of a winter matt. The specs on this one are 72 x 20 x 2.8" thick. R-Value = 5.9 and weight = 820 g. According to exped, this pad is rated to -25oC, but I've slept in it at -30oC and feel it is fully adequate for deep winter camping. The comfort on this pad is amazing. The insulation is goosedown which re-gains its full loft as the pad is blown up. The model I have has an integrated hand pump. The pump is not that bad, but it takes 3 minutes or so to inflate the pad fully while using the pump. It takes longer to inflate the pad in the winter than the summer. Deflating the pad and packing it up also takes about 4-5 minutes and is considerably longer than what it takes to re-pack a self inflatable. The packability of the Downmat is equivalent to my thermarest UL pad - quite amazing given its more 2.25 x R-value and less than 6oz additional weight hit. I poked a hole in the Exped on my 2nd outing with it. It was really easy to find the hole because a feather was wriggling out of the spot where the hole was. I feel that durability of this bag is probably less than the thermarest and more care needs to be taken clearing thorns and sharps from the ground before using it, or using a very robust ground pad and/or tent. As a winter pad I love it. It is small enough to tote in my backpack. Cost - $180.
Exped Synmat UL-7
-I bought this pad to serve as much lighter and more packable summer pad for myself and also to provide my wife with pad when the two of us go camping. It seemed like a good idea that we are at least at the same height as one another while camping and given the destruction of my two self-inflatables that would leave me sleeping on the foam pad when together. The specs on this one are 77.5" x 25.6" x 2.8" thick. Weight is 600 g and R-value = 3.1. The Synmat uses a synthetic insulation instead of goose down. This has some advantages in that the synthetic fill is not affected by moisture. One of the reasons you want to use the integrated pump on the downmat instead of your breath is so that the moisture from your breath doesn't interfere with the pads R-value. This isn't a problem with the synmat. I thought I ordered the medium one, but it turns out I ordered the large, wide size. Not really a problem as this larger pad only comes at a 140 g (<4Oz) weight cost over the medium size one. I haven't yet had the chance to sleep on this one. In terms of comfort, I can immediately tell the difference between the Downmat and this one, the downmat seems more solid while the synmat seems more like an inflated air-mattress. I believe the R-value rating on it so it should take me through 3 seasons. Durability seems low on this ultralight pad and like the downmat, I will have to take extra care when using it direct on ground as opposed to inside a tent. Still, I'm super impressed with the high packability of this pad and it is just slightly larger than a 1L nalgene bottle. Inflation time is significantly faster than the Downmat because I use my lungs instead of the pump. It takes about 1-2 minute to inflate and about 30 breaths or so. Deflation/packing time takes longer than the Downmat because this pad is larger and contains more air to remove. Cost $170.
Now for some of the picture comparisons. I have shots of all except the ridgerest foamy which I'm sure many people have seen before.
A shot of all the mattresses inflated (well the self inflatables are as inflated as the air they will retain)...
A shot comparing the size of the Downmat against the Large Synmat...Talk about room to spread out!
Pads on top of one another and aligned at the top end for sizing information.
A close up of the stacked pads. Each of the Expeds has the loft of the two self-inflatables combined.
Now the packed size comparisons. REI-is the clear loser here in terms of bulk and weight.
Packed size of the REI and Downmat next to a 1 L water bottle (The thermarest stuff sack is a tad loose but the dimensions of the actual pad aren't much smaller than that. The downmat is bulker, heavier and has a lower R-value compared to the Downmat. I don't think the REI is any more durability so the Downmat is the clear winner here. Albeit it cost more than double the REI's price.
Packed size of the Downmat next to my original and beloved UL thermarest. The packed volume is almost identical but the downmat is about 7oz heavier. R-value is considerably higher. I feel that the thermarest is more durable and perhaps a better value but really these two pads aren't comparable in their purposes. If I had to chose just one pad to have, the downmat-7 will do it all - good for 4 seasons and is packable enough for backpacking us.
Okay now the comparison of the Synmat UL against the UL thermarest. Packed volume of the Synmat is considerably smaller than the thermarest and approaching the size (slightly larger) than the water bottle. The two pads are very similar in weight (the Synmat being 2 oz lighter) despite the synmats larger inflated dimensions all around. The R-value of the synmat is also better than the thermarest. Time will tell if its durability holds up, but I suspect its less durable overall (the thermarest has proven itself in helish conditions many times). For the penny pinchers out there, the UL thermarest might be the better buy, although you take a hit on its packability - its not that bad.
A close up of the Synmat and water bottle. Okay, I admit it was a bit of a splurge to purchase the Synmat, but the flexibility of having such a small pad combined with my small summer weight down sleeping bag is really going to free up space in my pack. Being able to move to a smaller pack means taking less crap as a whole and thats a good thing. I'm only hoping that the synmat's durability holds up to my camping style and I will be sure to keep a repair kit close at hand during its use. Time will tell, but I'm excited about the options having this piece of kit will give me into the future.
Overall, the ExPeds sacrifice fast setup and packing to gain advantages of high packability and high R-values. There isn't large weight savings per say when comparing pads of similar R-ratings but I sometimes think that packing volume is as, if not more, important than weight. The thermarests are more durable and more cheaper. You can also go to 3/4 length pads to decrease volume while keeping higher R-values in the core areas. So there are plenty of options to optimize your pad arrangement. Of course the ExPed's can be had in short lengths as well if you are into extreme volume savings (the UL Synmat short is only 400 g and supposedly packs to the same size as a 500 mL nalgene).
Last edited:
