I have three 3D Organizer Cubes in Steel Dyneema/Clear, Steel Dyneema, and Black Parapack, and I wanted to show you all how they look:
As you likely know, the Clear cube is TSA-compliant as a 311 bag, and to my mind, it sort of exists in its own category since, well, it's clear. I will say that in terms of capacity, the opaque cubes seem to have more give, and can thus fit more stuff. I also tend to worry less about stowing sharp and/or pointy items in the opaque cubes, which, I will concede, is purely psychological. Make of it what you will.
When comparing Dyneema and Parapack, I'd say that both fabrics possess relatively similar flexibility and are, at least in this product, close to the same weight. Now, there has been some talk elsewhere on the forum about Parapack's fur-shedding abilities, and I wanted to test this out for myself. Disclaimer: one corgi was vastly irritated—but unharmed—in this experiment.
Research Question: Is 200D Dyneema or 420D Parapack more fur resistant, and thus more desirable for pet-owning Tom Bihn customers?
Hypothesis: 200D Dyneema will outperform 420D Parapack in terms of resistance to collecting fur, but fur will be removed from both fabrics with equal ease.
Lit review: Come on. It's Friday.
Subject and Methods:
The corgi (hereafter, "subject") is full-grown, with a double coat that is highly prone to constant, invasive, relentless shedding. As subject slept unaware, I approached him and rubbed the Parapack cube and Dyneema cube back and forth on his side for a total of eight (8) passes. Subject awoke and appeared upset, but was mollified with an apology and returned to sleep. Both cubes were placed on desk for visual examination and picture-taking before being dusted off.
Results: The Parapack cube attracted substantially more fur than the Dyneema cube, even though the Dyneema cube was rubbed over the subject's haunch, which sheds more aggressively than the subject's fairy saddle (C.f. ¶ 2 of this page to see what the hell I'm talking about). The shed fur also stood out more prominently on the Parapack cube than the Dyneema cube.
Both cubes were dusted free of fur quite easily, with the Dyneema cube requiring three strokes of the hand to remove fur and the Parapack cube requiring about eight.
Discussion, Limitations, and Recommendations: Experiment results support my hypothesis that it appears that 420D Parapack is not the pet-hair-resistant panacea that some may have hoped it was. However, this study did have some limitations: first, I did it in three seconds in my living room; second, I conducted only one test and did not expose the fabrics to a variety of pet-hair situations; third, I used two accessory items instead of larger bags, which would be more likely to encounter pet hair on a regular basis. Comparative longitudinal studies on 400D Dyneema and Parapack are needed to determine how larger bags respond to weather, abrasion, and vigorous daily use, including prolonged exposure to pet hair.
Despite these limitations, this study does allow for the following recommendations: current Dyneema owners should not feel compelled to "upgrade" to Parapack for accessory items, despite its delightful, shimmery, and eye-pleasing appearance. At the same time, if a customer is considering a new accessory item, s/he may wish to consider Parapack for its novelty, its similar weight and performance to Dyneema, its ease of coordination with Dyneema accessories (c.f. Picture #1 as evidence), and because, really, one can never have too many accessories.
In sum, while some have questioned the long-term viability of Dyneema given the introduction of Parapack to the Tom Bihn lineup, 200D Dyneema's fur-resisting ability and its usefulness as an interior fabric make it unlikely that it will be jettisoned from the ranks anytime soon.
This study was made possible through the generosity of Darcy, who sent me the Parapack cube to test (thanks, Darcy!), and by the letter "P," without which the phrase "passive voice" would be sorely incomplete.