- Home
- Men's Clothing
- Men's Jackets
- Men's Rain Jackets
- Stoic Vaporshell Jacket - Men's
Stoic Vaporshell Jacket - Men's
Available Colors / Styles
Never question whether or not to pack a rainshell again\227Stoic\222s Vaporshell Jacket protects like an atmosphere when you wear it, but weighs as much as an apparition when you have it in your pack. This lightweight, waterproof, extremely packable rainshell puts all your past rain gear to shame.
- Lightweight VaporShell shuns rain, and vents body heat like none other
- 3-D Ergonomic fit moves with you, not against you
- Extremely compressible—plays nice with other gear in your pack
- Stoic Vaporshell fabric’s air permeability and vapor permeability is so shocking you’ll swear its magic
Bottom Line: Lighter than a vapor.
Talk shop with all the gear freaks out there: ask 'em questions, upload/browse photos, and give your 2¢.
Outside Buyer's Guide - Spring 2012
By: ben wheeler
May 14, 2012
Here's what Outside had to say about the Stoic Vaporshell Jacket:
"BEST FOR: Minimalists pinching pennies. THE TEST: The Vaporshell is made with Stoic's proprietary polyurethane membrane, which testers found to be every bit as breathable as all the name-brand stuff. On a soaking weekend in the Cascades, the pit-zip-equipped Vaporshell never got damp inside, and rain still beaded off the exterior after two straight days of downpours. THE VERDICT: While it's not as full-featured as top-of-the-line jackets, it's tough to beat the Vaporshell's combo of performance and price."
7 Comments Last Comment: June 14, 2011 by: dan3392901
By: SKOL
June 2, 2011
Thanks for the update James.
Just got back from Wales with mine. Agreed as to all you said, but I still think the Alpha SV is in a different class -- for the only reason that it just feels more solid, and it is certainly more windproof. It's questionable whether one needs the windproofing in a shell, particularly if you already have a windproof softshell or fleece to throw underneath. However, when I was in Wales last week, we had some pretty high winds on the ridges (50 to 70 mph), and I definitely felt the wind through this jacket, which I would not have in my Alpha SV. Nevertheless, the breathability far surpasses the Alpha SV, or any other jacket I have worn. For that reason, as well as its water protection, for backcountry trips I will likely just throw this shell in the pack and wear a softshell while skiing.
By: Chad Poindexter
May 5, 2011
I wonder how well the breathability rating will be once the jacket wet's out.
By: James Jenden
May 4, 2011
I'm 5'8, with a 20" center back. I got a size medium.
By: MOSHE KRAMER
May 4, 2011
How tall are you, and what size did you get?
By: dan3392901
June 14, 2011
I am glad people are digging this jacket as it is a legitimate rain jacket for an excellent price. However, this thing is not even close to an arcteryx SV in terms of face fabric quality. The abrasion resistance on an arcteryx SV garment is insanely high, and though I don't own this jacket, several friends have it and I can already see some light abrasion occurring on high wear points. Kudos to Backcountry for making a good, breathable, affordable shell, but the $600 Arcteryx SV is definitely way more durable.
By: Chad Poindexter
May 30, 2011
Thanks for the update. Sounds like a great jacket...and would be even better if it had hand pockets...
By: James Jenden
May 9, 2011
I'll get back to you on that one, Stick. I'm getting into Kathmandu tomorrow and it's supposed to be absolutely pouring. Most jackets' breathability go down the toilet once they wet out, and I doubt this will be an exception.
In-house Demo: Stoic VaporShell
By: ben wheeler
May 10, 2011
The Stoic design team demonstrates the wicked breathability of the VaporShell, alongside a few competing jackets. These bubbler tests show air being pushed through the fabric (air permeable) while still remaining completely waterproof.
Tired smile
By: James Jenden
May 27, 2011
First (albeit tentative) Review
By:
Angus Bohanon
May 3, 2011
Ok, first out-of-box impressions. It's very light, very thin fabric, kind of slippery and seems pretty durable. The fit is clearly intended to allow for layering underneath, it's a little baggy compared to the other Stoic Ms I have. It beads water like a brand-new raincoat should (see photo). Other stuff:
The sleeves are really long. I'm 5'9" and medium Stoic gear has always fit me well, even though my wingspan is about 6'2". These sleeves might even be too long, but mobility is good.
Seams are not welded. I can say that the water beads off them just as well. Presumably they won't last as long though.
The hood is huge, which would be awesome in the rain, where I have not yet taken it. I did stand in the shower with it (on cold) and didn't get any notable condensation, and I rode my bike six or seven miles in 50-degree weather and didn't get swampy. These are not strenuous tests, I'll grant you, but it handled them just fine.
The length is shorter than my current jacket (the backcountry.com Stoic 2.0 shell), but still past my pants pockets.
I don't especially like the lack of pockets, I'll be honest. I don't know why they're left out (maybe a feature of the material like Ben Wheeler was talking about), but it's annoying.
Packs down to about the size of a Nalgene when carefully folded and rolled. Very portable.
Also don't judge the color by my photo, the lighting's weird. That's the navy, but the photo on this page is true to color. Go by that.
Bottom line (with the caveat that I haven't field tested it): Seems like a good jacket. It's relatively cheap and from what I can tell, does the job well. Not mind-blowing, though, hence the 4-star "pretty good."
First Ascent Igniter layered underneath.
By: James Jenden
May 27, 2011
Plenty of room to layer a 100g primaloft insulated jacket underneath, and still move comfortably. Perfect sizing and fit.
waterproof, comfortable, odd fit, no front pocets
By:
Dan Kirkpatrick
May 5, 2011
I got it in yesterdady, It was pouring out so I ripped open the package and ran outside. Of course, the limitation of the jacet was not tested but preliminary opinions were this:
The jacket seems to be a little off sized for me, usually XLs fit me great, it was extremely tight in the shoulders, not the chest, which is odd (picture). I called BC and they said XXL will be available in mid may.
Also, I don't think the non front pockets will do it for me, but it might be something to get used to. Even though I know slightly opened front pockets in rain can soak your pockets and core dependant on the liner. I just know I won't be using this jacket just for hiking.
Other than that, the jacket out of the package seemed like a stiff hardshell. When put on, its actually really comfortable, the material moves quite well with your body.
Also, the hood has those foam cord holds, I have a bombshell and skeptical about them then, bu afer using it for a season, I'm a believer, they don't hold th strings at absolute, but only if you get snagged on something it pulls out, lowering the chancs of ripping
Im returning it for a XXL, and the arm length worries me a bit, the length is perfect now...
Basically I'm giving this jacket 4 stars instead of 5, (subjectively) for an odd fit and lack of pockets. Heading to maine at the end of the month to do some real testing so see how the jacket works in real life. Still n awesome looking jacket, seems to be bar none waterproofing, high neck, huge hood, and nifty new velco for the wrists.
Updated: Just got the XXL in. Threw it on and it fits great. Not as tight in the shoulders as before. and the size difference btw a XL and a XXL is surprisingly not that much different in the arms and the back which I was happy about. Still have to try out it on the trails. Until then, the 4 stars will remain until I'm comfortable with the lack of hand pockets.
cheers
1 Comment Last Comment: May 5, 2011 by: Chad Poindexter
By: Chad Poindexter
May 5, 2011
GoLite has been using little foam cord locks on their jackets and I absolutely hate them. I ended up replacing the ones on my GoLite jacket with actual cord locks, and added no weight whatsoever.
17 Comments Last Comment: June 21, 2011 by: Scott Jackson
By: Scott Jackson
June 21, 2011
I'm just curious as to whether you have even used this jacket? After reading your post (the 16 comments caught my interest) it looks like you haven't even purchased or tried this jacket, or at least you don't mention anything about using it, which says something about the credibility of the post. I guess it's fine that you unveil all the science behind the jacket material in your review, but what about real world performance? When I read a review, I want to know if the product is comfortable, if it kept you dry on your last backpacking trip, if it fits well, etc. The method that was used to produce the waterproof rating is the last thing that concerns me. I want to know about the product's function, not your conversations with backcountry brand directors. All that aside, the review appears to have taken hours to produce. That time could have been spent outdoors having a good time (while testing the jacket), after which, if you weren't pleased, Backcountry would have taken it back without any questions. Just a thought. I appreciate that you took the time to post all of that info, I just don't think it's the info that people are looking for when they're considering buying a new jacket.
By: Brock
June 20, 2011
Great discussion and great work by ckr to keep Backcountry honest about their testing practices and ratings. I must agree with Dan above however as to the reason behind the one-star rating given for the jacket. If you are displeased with the function of the jacket itself, by all means rate it as one-star. However, ratings are meant for individual products, not your experience with the company, service, shipping, etc. Rating a product based on your experience as a customer and not on the product's merit can be misleading to those looking for opinions on functionality, fit, style, etc. There are other channels through which to voice concerns about the company itself, and it appears that you have used them well. Let's just try to keep product ratings about the products.
By: Dan Kirkpatrick
June 14, 2011
CKR, I appreciate your comments and your knowledge of the testing practices used in the industry. As far as BC, I think it stands to their reputation that BC leaves all comments (unless degrading to people) up on their website to show to their customers real reviews from all their customers for everyone to see.
I'm curious however, what your low rating stands for? The misconception that the company is trying to set an industry standard, make a profit, etc. Or because the jacket itself is not up to par even if it stands up to a respectable 28K waterproof rating.
You alone seemed to make the stand and pointed that the company was incorrect in the ratings which I applaud you for, but you had also stated the company contacted you personally and had admitted their mistake and changed their specs
thanks
By: James Jenden
May 26, 2011
You complain about the hydrostatic head test, but mention nothing about the breathability test. How about the industry finally stops using the useless Static MVTR test and mimics the military in their Dynamic MVTR, that would give us nice, useable results. Pity it would shed bad light on Gore, otherwise I think it would be standard by now.
By: Phil Maher
May 25, 2011
ckr- I appreciate your diligence. Seldom do I find a set of test results so unbelievable. The 68k number was so far beyond the realm of any other jacket that it either made the proposition absolutely miraculous, or completely useless when trying to make a comparison. With Bill's inclusion of the new specs of 29k, this jacket can now stand on its own merits as a technical piece, instead of a supposed wonder of modern hydrostatic resistance engineering. I do have to add- there is no way that it was a simple oversight (a "mistake"). BC knows what it is that experienced users are looking for as a baseline for comparison, and had nobody called them on it, I'm sure the specs would still be those that were presented initially. Thanks!
By: ckr4619288
May 20, 2011
Bill Hartlieb reported today on Backpackinglight.com (and soon here as well, I assume) that correct waterproofness values have been obtained for the Vaporshell jacket. Using appropriate tests, the waterproofness (hydrostatic head) was found to be about 29,000 mmH20.
This is very respectable number, and, as I said on BPL, I am very impressed with both Backcountry's (Bill's) conscientious response and with the performance of the Vaporshell material. This jacket can now be fairly compared to others on the market, and I'm pleased to see that it performs so well.
By: ckr4619288
May 17, 2011
I guess we'll know when the new numbers are posted.
By: SKOL
May 17, 2011
Colin,
I do not have trouble keeping up. I am aware of what you posted; I just don't think that what are you posting is accurate.
Shawn
By: ckr4619288
May 17, 2011
Shawn, you seem to be having a little trouble keeping up. The person I originally consulted who had information about Backcountry's testing said the burst test was used, and Bill conceded this. Bill said in his emails that the burst test was used, and he predicted that the new numbers would be very different from the old numbers. Would that be the case if the two tests were the same? I described all of this in my first post.
There is no way to know (and it isn't important anyway) whether it was an accident or not. I made a fuss about this because I wanted correct information to be available to customers, and I wanted Backcountry to have an incentive to be conscientious about the specs they report for their products. Bill has been very attentive to these concerns and I think Backcountry's response has been admirable. Now we should soon see accurate numbers for this jacket. This seems to me like a good outcome.
By: SKOL
May 17, 2011
Again, the point is, I'm not sure that the Mullen "burst" test was used here (as opposed to a hydrostatic test -- see below from their website). Does anyone know the answer?
Setting Standards Since 1887
Since its invention in 1887, the Mullen Burst Tester has been the industry benchmark for measuring the burst strength of paper, paperboard, non-wovens and textiles. What started as an innovative contribution to the paper industry eventually served to define the "standard grades" in commerce. The Mullen Burst Tester is cited in many of the TAPPI and ASTM standards - and when it comes to quality control, our tester is an integral part of any well-equipped lab.
For pulp and paper products, the Mullen Burst Tester is relied upon to measure the material's physical strength and fiber bond. And for textiles, our burst testing equipment measures the fabric's strength along with the immediate or eventual effects of dyes, chemicals, and processes. It also demonstrates the results of wear, age, and environment, and evaluates the comparative strength of alternative fibers. We've also extended our testing capabilities to include:
Ceramics
Composite webs
Foils
Plastics
A variety of other substrates
Mullen also offers a Hydrostatic Tester that measures the resistance of material to water-for the evaluation of geotextiles and other such products as raincoats, umbrellas, and ski & swim attire. Our Deflectometer Tester gauges the distension and grain cracking of soft leather material for shoe uppers, garments, gloves, and upholstery.
By: SKOL
May 17, 2011
To be honest, I don't know much about either of the Mullen tests, although it seems that the hydrostatic test can be used to show the water pressure at which a fabric will show water leakage at certain psi, not just a "burst.". I recall seeing at least one website that reported such results. This is an important difference. In the end, I'm sure bc will post what they did.
In the end 68000 v. 20000 does not matter to me, but the integrity of a company like backcountry does.
By: ckr4619288
May 16, 2011
As I wrote on the other site where I posted my concerns, I think there is a consensus that results of the Mullen burst test cannot be called "waterproofness". Let's not waste our time debating that. It seems to me that the mistake was probably not an accident, but I don't find that facet of the debate particularly interesting, and I don't see a way to settle that anyway.
To be honest, I'm not too interested in cultivating a debate at all. I'm pleased that Bill Hartlieb has been attentive to these concerns and I look forward to seeing real waterproofness numbers for this jacket.
By: ckr4619288
May 16, 2011
Shawn, I appreciate your feedback. Despite the tone of my posts, I have no personal need to vilify Backcountry.com.
I don't understand your most recent post, though. You mentioned in an earlier post that you don't think that the difference between hydrostatic head values of 68,000 and 20,000 are meaningful in practice because 20,000 is enough for a rain jacket.
Is the burst pressure meaningful in practice?
I don't understand your concern. The mullen test measures burst pressure, whether it uses water or oil or air. This gives an indication of the tensile strength of the fabric, but I don't understand how that says anything about waterproofness. It doesn't measure leakage; it just ruptures the fabric. It is just true, regardless of your opinions or mine, that the Mullen test is not accepted by the apparel industry for measuring waterproofness. It isn't used that way because it measures burst pressure.
By: SKOL
May 15, 2011
Interesting.
I find it hard to believe that backcountry would purposely try to fool anyone. The only type of person who would understand the difference between a 68000 value and a 10-20,000 (predicted) value on the hydrostatic head test would be exactly the type of person who would find these numbers suspicious and check into the testing/rationale behind them (see all of the initial posts).
That said, I would like to see the actual results of the hydrostatic head test when performed, although it would really just be an academic rating. If a shell can withstand a shower's pressure and not leak, it's difficult for me to understand why you would need the type of "waterproofness" to withstand the conditions engineered in a laboratory setting (i.e., over 20,000 mm).
By: SKOL
May 16, 2011
I am not an engineer, but from a simple google search anyone can discover that there are mullen testers that perform an air burst, and mullen testers that performs a hydrostatic test -- both of which can be listed as ASTM D751, Procedure A (what BC says was used here in the above posts).
http://www.mullentesters.com/testers.html#modela
Do you know which machine was used here? I would want to be pretty sure about something like that before I posted (on more than one site) that a company was committing fraud.
Perhaps an engineer can chime in.
By: ckr4619288
May 16, 2011
I dont know if backcountry meant to fool its customers, but since some have argued that they didnt, I should make a couple of points before dropping that issue.
First, they know the difference between the tests. Ben wheeler and Mr. Hartlieb know the difference, and a real hydrostatic head test is used for all of their products except this one.
Second, it may be true that people who are very interested in hydrostatic head values will find very high numbers suspicious and check into the testing. Some people did. And Backcountry.com told them No, I assure you, nothing fishy. These numbers are completely accurate. The representatives at Backcountry.com didnt say Well, the reason the number is so high is that it represents burst pressure, not waterproofness. They knew that people were comparing it to real hydrostatic head numbers for other jackets.
Third, some have argued that using the burst test might be a mistake, but it isnt necessarily deception. I disagree. The burst test is not a waterproofness test. What value does burst pressure have for buyers of a waterproof jacket? What if you put this jacket on a scale and found that it weighs 430,000 milligrams, and then put that number up on this site and called it waterproofness? This is exactly what happened. A test that doesnt measure waterproofness was used instead of a waterproofness test because it gave a bigger number, and then customer service reps assured everyone that it had been triple-checked and was completely correct.
Last, I completely agree with people who have observed that the real-world difference between 68,000 mmH20 and 20,000 mmH20 is not important because 20,000 mmH20 is enough. I think 10,000 mmH20 is probably enough. A hydrostatic head of 68,000 is totally unnecessary. Backcountry should have just made this argument instead of posting a falsified waterproofness number.
By: SKOL
May 15, 2011
One more thing -- Ben Wheeler, a backcountry employee, posted the types of independent testing they used several days ago (including the fact that the Mullen test was used).
Wet Pits
By: Angus Bohanon
May 3, 2011
If you hold your arms up and let the showerhead spray directly on the pit zips, water comes in between the two zipper tabs. Likelihood of anything like that ever happening in real life: practically nil.
2 Comments Last Comment: May 4, 2011 by: SKOL
By: Chad Poindexter
May 5, 2011
Good to know...thanks...
By: SKOL
May 4, 2011
The best part about that picture is the beer in the background. . . . how all product testing should be done. . .
1 Comment Last Comment: November 27, 2011 by: rum4145472
By: rum4145472
November 27, 2011
The official site says it is 20K.
Slightly inconsistent DWR
By: Angus Bohanon
May 3, 2011
After ten minutes in the shower, it appears that the DWR right on the zipper isn't quite as good as the stuff next to it.
2 Comments Last Comment: August 1, 2011 by: Tobias Funke
By: Dean Whitehead
September 6, 2011
I agree as well, at least with the women's version... I haven't noticed it with the men's, but the GF's it almost seems like the DWR coating was missed completely in a bunch of areas...
By: Tobias Funke
August 1, 2011
Experienced this, too... also, the DWR on the shoulders is already wearing off after two trips in the rain. Nowhere else on the jacket, just the shoulders. Gonna take it back in person (one of the benefits of living in SLC) and see what they say.
3 Comments Last Comment: July 14, 2011 by: Dan Kirkpatrick
By: Dan Kirkpatrick
July 14, 2011
and it has great breathability....
By: Sam Matthews
July 5, 2011
Yeah, mine does too...
By: SKOL
July 5, 2011
Mitch,
Are you sure you have the vapor shell? Mine does have pit zips.
Shawn
2 Comments Last Comment: May 26, 2011 by: James Jenden
By: Chad Poindexter
May 16, 2011
Sounds great, but according to the listed specs, this thing should breathe much better than even a $500 gortex coat.
By: James Jenden
May 26, 2011
Have you used it a lot? I found it breathes significantly better than Gore Tex...
Zelcro cuff
By: Dan Scotina
May 10, 2011
Great rain jacket
By:
Michael Sorensen
May 11, 2011
I really like this material! for everything this jacket offers at the price level say compared to labels like GT or EV this is a steal. I'm about 6'1 175lbs I got a L and the fit is great, I have broad shoulders which fill out the top of the jacket leaving little room for any layers besides a shirt. I tried on a light fleece and it was too tight under the arms unless i opened the pit zips
By: SKOL
May 11, 2011
One thing. I actually like the no pockets. I'm using this as a minimalist rain shell, so my plan is to break it out when it rains and take it off when it's not. I typically use my hands when backpacking or climbing, so I wouldn't use the pockets.
Great Jacket
By: Bradley Austin
May 15, 2011
Awesome Jacket! Held up in heavy winds, rain, and blowing sand down at Lake Powell and Moab this last weekend.
1 Comment Last Comment: May 11, 2011 by: Ken Strayer
By: Ken Strayer
May 11, 2011
Continued Notes: I would definetly upsize if you plan to layer much under this. I have enough room for my hiking shirt and my patagonia nano puff. Anything more would be too tight to be effective.
Wet? Naw......
By:
Tobias Funke
August 1, 2011
Bought this jacket right before a backpacking/camping/hiking/fishing trip to Alaska. Glad that I did. This thing stood up to everything Canada's left hand could throw at it. It took a full-on rainstorm and kept me dry for hours.
Sizing:
The jacket does have an athletic cut, so size appropriately. I'm 6'0", 175 and a large fits me snugly. If you're anything more than slender, size up. The length seemed a little longer than normal, but I grew to like it instantly.
Material:
Mine came fully seamtaped. The fabric does have a DWR finish, which wore a little bit on the shoulders where my pack rubbed on it, but I have since had it in an all out downpour and it still kept my shirt that I had underneath dry. The zippers are waterproof with good pullstrings/tabs. I had a camera in the chest pocket that stayed dry despite torrents of rain/wind. Also, the velcro around the cuffs doesn't seem to snag on twigs or branches, nor does it pick up dirt like other velcro.
Cons:
1. I thought that the DWR wearing off after one use was a bit fast, but it was a heavy pack.
2. The adjustment tabs for the hood ride right on my cheeks (someone else's review said the same thing). I ended up pulling them off and putting them beneath, where the end of the cord is (sits right beneath my collarbone).
All in all a great jacket. Watch SAC for it!
By: SKOL
August 24, 2011
Best backcountry handle ever . . . Tobias Funke.
1 Comment Last Comment: May 12, 2011 by: bill hartlieb
By: bill hartlieb
May 12, 2011
the vaporshell jacket does not stretch, so needs to fit slightly larger than the other stoic pieces like welder, and bombshell. both of the these styles have some mechanical stretch, and so can be more athletic fit.
2 Comments Last Comment: May 20, 2011 by: Dustin Short
By: Dustin Short
May 20, 2011
I love BC.com, from your customer service, to prices/sales, to the actual stoic brand. It's refreshing to see not just a customer service dressed marketing shill but a director/designer respond to this query. It shows that Backcountry.com does care about accountability. Regardless of if this was a simple mistake or a ploy from marketing, you have given the relevant information as asked for and seems that you will be updating the specs on the website accordingly. Honestly that is the biggest failing of BC.com, your product specs are often incorrect on the website, however the staff does update them as soon as they are made aware of the issue.
I commend the effort to address the issues of the community and keep up the good work out there in Utah.
By: SKOL
May 20, 2011
Thanks for posting this Bill. I already bought mine and am very satisfied with it, but it's good to know.
Awesome, but hand pockets would put it over the top.
By:
Jeff
August 27, 2011
I thought I'd be able to handle no hand pockets, but realized I just can't. In a torrential downpour, chilly night, or any gloveless conditions, I was just annoyed and uncomfortable. I've worn this in heavy rain for hours and stayed dry, though a couple of drops got into the chest pocket (don't keep a cell phone there). I've been comfortable in weather from 80F to 30F, rain and shine. Great jacket if you can handle no pockets.
*after looking at the pic I uploaded, I noticed I was using my pants pockets for my hands. This was necessary in 30F thunderstorm at 11,000 feet.
Change me.
Superb jacket for all conditions
Well I just got it today, and while I will update this review in a month after taking this jacket to the Himalayas, I thought I'd share my first thoughts more...
Its All Right
Well, I have worn the shit outa this jacket over the past 10 days or so while moving all of my stuff from my house to storage.... so here goes:
more...
- Material:
- Vaporshell, 100% polyester ripstop
- Fabric Waterproof Rating:
- 28,000 mm H2O
- Fabric Breathability Rating:
- 46,000 g/m˛
- Hood:
- yes, full-time
- Fit:
- 3-D Ergonomic
- Pockets:
- 1 chest
- Seams:
- fully taped
- Weight:
- 14 oz
- Recommended Use:
- Ski touring, backpacking, hiking, climbing
- Manufacturer Warranty:
- lifetime

Community Rating
