EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › BURLY Ski Pants w/o the Bagginess
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BURLY Ski Pants w/o the Bagginess - Page 4

post #91 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mfa81 View Post

Really think both look good, really don't think the Arc looks baggy or even too long, but that's just me and by the pictures I might get the wrong impression. But again it's $150 more, and for something you don't think it's perfect it's hard to take! redface.gif

Yeah the Arcteryx aren't baggy at all; in fact they are the least baggy looking/fitting pants I tried without feeling constrained (the Snowtastics only look a bit baggier because they pooch out a bit where the top of the side zip ends at the hip, and the design is not shaped/contoured -it's just a "stovepipe").  OTOH they are nearly 2" longer than the Snowtastics (and 3" longer than my current ski pants): the picture is deceiving because I pulled the pants as far down over my boots as possible just before the picture was taken (whereas I let the Snowtastics hang naturally before that picture was taken).  I would've tried to live with them if it wasn't also for the stupid bib pockets (or vice versa)...picky, picky.  Either way, thanks for the original tip on the Snowtastics because they may be the one's I end up keeping.

post #92 of 95

Definitely burly and not baggy....

 

Mammut Norwand - While hard to believe these pants seemingly match or outdo the Arcteryx Theta SV's in nearly every way especially since (for me) they have pockets in the "right" place.  The material is a very unique, stretchy GT Pro that looks like it's woven with a ripstop pattern.  The kevlar-based scuff guard patches are huge and also cover 1" of the hems.  Suspenders yes and without a constraining bib (though the back is high-enough to keep things in place), and the adjustable/elastacized waist provides "give" for sucking up them moguls.  The side zips start at the thigh and go up and around the butt to provide a drop seat with easier thigh venting. Lastly the brightly colored zippers and velcro do-dads add a cool-looking touch vs. most other "drab" black ski pants. 

 

Negatives - very pricey at $490 (though thank you Black Friday for a 25% off deal), no full side zips which isn't a deal breaker for me but would have been nice (especially since there are also 8" zippers at the bottom of each leg that could have easily been connected to the upper zips - odd!), the snow gaiters aren't ripstop like those on the Arcteryx, the short inseam's size are a long 31" (as long as the Arcteryx's but the very trim fit and high crotch makes them fit much shorter), and they are right at the edge of being too tight-fitting vs. the Arcteryx's (thank god for the stretchy material used).

 

I'm giving up on the MH Snowtastics (they just aren't in the same class) and the Taiga Avalanche's (they "might" be available at the end of the year - huh?) so these are the keepers....  

 

Certainly not baggy....

1000

 

Yeah they do seem a bit tighter in the butt than I'd like but the fit doesn't feel constraining....

1000


Edited by ski-ra - 12/4/12 at 8:58pm
post #93 of 95

Which size do you have for SABRE pants? What is your high and inseam?

 

I am 182cm, 79kg and my inseam is around 77-79cm. Should I take regular or tall version in size M.

 

Thanks!

post #94 of 95

Which size do you have for SABRE pants? What is your high and inseam?

 

I am 182cm, 79kg and my inseam is around 77-79cm. Should I take regular or tall version in size M.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

But put the same pant (in a small) on a smaller/shorter person (me - 5'5", 130lbs, 30" waist, 28" inseam) and they begin to fit a bit silly, even though, as rushbikes noted, the stiff fabric does help mask how baggy they really are.  I also have about 6" of the pant bottoms folded up on the inside-bottom of the pants when normally a regular inseam pant would only be about 2" too long on me!

 

1000

 

Great pants, very baggy indeed.

post #95 of 95

Which size do you have for SABRE pants? What is your high and inseam?

 

I am 182cm, 79kg and my inseam is around 77-79cm. Should I take regular or tall version in size M.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

Thanks for the great pics and analysis.  I've gotten just as obsessed here too, though I thought this thread was about pants without the bagginess?  I tried on the small-size Sabre's the other day at REI and, other than having a reasonable waist size, the hip/leg fit allowed room for two of me in them (they look fine on you) - I wish I had brought my camera.  This make sense since Arcteryx calls the fit of these "Relaxed" (which is their baggiest cut vs. the "Expedition" cut of the popular Stinger Bibs, and the even trimmer "Athletic" cut of most of their other pants).  Also, I originally was going to get a pair of the Free Thinkers (I agree with your assessment of these pant's insane level of burliness and features for the cost), though fortunately they no longer make 'em in a short inseam cause I would have ended up with a pair of pants for both my wife and I to get cozy in...rolleyes.gif

 

 

Which size do you have for SABRE pants? What is your high and inseam?

 

I am 182cm, 79kg and my inseam is around 77-79cm. Should I take regular or tall version in size M.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post

 

But put the same pant (in a small) on a smaller/shorter person (me - 5'5", 130lbs, 30" waist, 28" inseam) and they begin to fit a bit silly, even though, as rushbikes noted, the stiff fabric does help mask how baggy they really are.  I also have about 6" of the pant bottoms folded up on the inside-bottom of the pants when normally a regular inseam pant would only be about 2" too long on me!

 

1000

 

Great pants, very baggy indeed.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › BURLY Ski Pants w/o the Bagginess