EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › CW-X Insulator Pro tights
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CW-X Insulator Pro tights

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
With all the buzz about compression tights, and at this price, figured worth a review. Pros are the version specifically for downhill skiing.

IMO, work pretty much as advertised; small but systematic effect on muscle fatigue skiing ice/hardpack. Not so noticeable in soft snow (less vibration?). Much warmer than typical spandex runner’s tights.

But: A woman must have designed these. First, no fly. Second, very low cut and useless drawstring, so for typical males, these tend to be held up by thighs, not hips. Which makes the first problem easier but by 1 pm, makes me feel like one of those teens with pants belted down around his crotch. Worth the $? If you carve a lot of hard surfaces or rec race, yes, but close call if you factor in the stupid design. For softer snow, no.
post #2 of 18
I now only wear the the Stabilyx tights as my base layer. I used to issues of only being able to ski a couple of consecutive until I had to resort to wearing a neoprene knee brace (wrecked knees). Now I don't. Yeah they suffer the same ailments as every other lycra based tight/biking short but they are no worse.

How about the X-bionic gear - $160 for a top?????
post #3 of 18
bought a pair of these from steepandcheap... love them on the legs, legs don't feel as sore the next day. Got to agree on the fit. My backside felt like it was hanging out all day. Kept thinking snow was going down the crack... nope just a nice air space not covered by anything under the jacket...

I did notice the crotch area piled quickly under my gore-tex xcr pants, but cosmetics are not so important.
post #4 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
But: A woman must have designed these. First, no fly. Second, very low cut and useless drawstring, so for typical males, these tend to be held up by thighs, not hips. Which makes the first problem easier but by 1 pm, makes me feel like one of those teens with pants belted down around his crotch. Worth the $?
Time for base-layer suspenders?


SRSLY, a bib = $$$
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
tch. Worth the $? If you carve a lot of hard surfaces or rec race, yes, but close call if you factor in the stupid design. For softer snow, no.

----so the reverse camber / rockered set is outa luck eh??

what if I like hard surfaces in the am and soft in the PM???

When you ski like I do -- you change your shorts often enough as it is without having to add something else to the schedule

All I had to see was the price to make up my mind! Although if I had seen them on S & C I might have given them a try---not now!
post #6 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
But: A woman must have designed these. First, no fly. Second, very low cut and useless drawstring, so for typical males, these tend to be held up by thighs, not hips. Which makes the first problem easier but by 1 pm, makes me feel like one of those teens with pants belted down around his crotch. Worth the $? If you carve a lot of hard surfaces or rec race, yes, but close call if you factor in the stupid design. For softer snow, no.
There may be more to this design than you think. I agree it would suck if they were falling down on you but my Skins are not low cut and squeeze the bahjeesus out of my bladder. My yellow snow production is up since buying them.
post #7 of 18
I skied these all last year and they do seem to fight fatigue on the legs.. Had a slight problem with slippage otherwise pretty good product...

There's a new line out that was developed in Vail called Opedix and these are suppose to be Way Better than the CWX.. I'm going to buy a pair right now.. Pretty pricey however $190..
post #8 of 18
Still trying to sort out why cyclists can have bibs but skiers can't?
post #9 of 18
I wear bibs cycling and ski pants with built in suspenders (Spyder something or other), they work great.

D
post #10 of 18
I just bought a pair of Pro (non-insulated) tights. I've worn them for a couple of runs and love them for that. This tomorrow will be the first try for skiing in them. I haven't had a problem with them slipping but then I have female hips. Definitely female hips.
post #11 of 18
I got the Pro insulator tights on sale and they are great. I did not have the problems with the fit described above. They fit tight through the thighs and waist and I'm 5'9" with a 32-33 waist. They do help with muscle fatigue. As a weekend skier, they do help with sore muscles. It's noticeable but not dramatic. They are plenty warm.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwoof2 View Post
I wear bibs cycling and ski pants with built in suspenders (Spyder something or other), they work great.

D
'Zackly.

So why make ski tights in waist-grip or thigh-cling when you can make them as bibs?
post #13 of 18
I'm the minority in cyclists who hate bibs. They're fine sitting on the trainer, but mountain biking they just pull and feel really awkward when using body English. I'd imagine skiing would be similar for a tight base layer - loose outer layers move enough to not be an issue.
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmblur View Post
I'm the minority in cyclists who hate bibs. They're fine sitting on the trainer, but mountain biking they just pull and feel really awkward when using body English.
Interesting. What, exactly do you think is happening?

While I have no doubt that you feel what you say you do, I am not convinced it is inherent to a bib design.

For example, G-R wrestlers tend to use a lot of body English too, and have no problem with the suspender part of the singlet.
post #15 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
'Zackly.

So why make ski tights in waist-grip or thigh-cling when you can make them as bibs?
CW-X tights are supposed to be very tight in the thighs and in some models up through the buttock area. They are compression tights and are supposed to support various leg muscles and reduce muscle fatigue.
post #16 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinnydog View Post
CW-X tights are supposed to be very tight in the thighs and in some models up through the buttock area. They are compression tights and are supposed to support various leg muscles and reduce muscle fatigue.
Cw-x cycling bib:

post #17 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
Interesting. What, exactly do you think is happening?

While I have no doubt that you feel what you say you do, I am not convinced it is inherent to a bib design.

For example, G-R wrestlers tend to use a lot of body English too, and have no problem with the suspender part of the singlet.
I'm just not a fan of feeling them pull on my shoulders. I think a large part of it may be having the camelbak straps hitting in the same place on the shoulders, too.

I'm pretty sure it's a personal preference thing- I bet if I had a bit more gut than I do now I'd be hating me some shorts!
post #18 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1SDSKIER View Post
I skied these all last year and they do seem to fight fatigue on the legs.. Had a slight problem with slippage otherwise pretty good product...

There's a new line out that was developed in Vail called Opedix and these are suppose to be Way Better than the CWX.. I'm going to buy a pair right now.. Pretty pricey however $190..
yeah, the opedix ski tights are rather pricey, but i have liked how i feel when i use them. i mentioned in another thread that while i don't have horrible knees i like the stability that they give my knees. sometimes i don't feel totally solid and (for a lack of a better term) stable (then again, i am still a new skiier, so that could be part of it) and the ski tights totally help.

let us know what you think of them!

-chris
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › CW-X Insulator Pro tights