New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cheap Outdoor Wear - Page 2

post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
The waterproof Goretex tuff is nice, but unnecessary for most people - seriously, how many of us actually ski in the rain?
Around here if you aren't willing to ski in the rain you could miss a whole lot of skiing. I actually enjoy skiing in the rain as long as it isn't a torrential downpour. I find it cathartic at times.

Wet snow also tends to be some of our most consistent snow.
post #32 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
When I first started skiing about a decade ago, I bought a pair of off-brand "Sportina" ski pants for about $30. They came apart at the seams after 5 years and about 200 days of use....
So one might argue that the $30 pants are a much better value than my $250 Patagonia pants that I used for 10 years and say 300 uses. The one wild card is were you warm and dry in those Sportinas during those 5 years?

OTOH I just replaced my Patagonia's with a pair of $150 TNF pants (I take a Short Small so yes I paid msrp since there are like 0 other choices out there with suspenders). However, the snow cuffs' waterproofing is rubbing off after only ten uses whereas this never happened to my Patagonias. Will it make a difference? Probably not greatly (and I'm sewing some coated nylon over the abraded areas). Did I get better value out of the TNF pants - the jury's still out on that one?

Not to make this too scientific, but perhaps cheap clothing is generally only a good value if you have low expectations for performance and a high tolerance for cold/wet conditions (and not to be elitist here, but also if you have a limited budget and can't buy what you really want).
Hmm
post #33 of 55
My daughter and I just got some great "system" jackets from Eddie Bauer this year, their 365 series. Midweight shell plus a primaloft liner AND a down sweater, all able to interconnect, worked great in subzero days, have pit zips, etc. All the pieces went down sharply in price right after Christmas and the combined set up was way less than even one piece of Arc'teryx, which I also own and love.
post #34 of 55
ski-ra, the other wild card is 'how good was the fit and finish?'.

IOW, consider adding cheap clothing is also a good deal if you have low expectations of how well the clothes move with you, or if you're built like a tailor's mannequin, easy enough to age 30 but beyond?
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
IOW, consider adding cheap clothing is also a good deal if you have low expectations of how well the clothes move with you, or if you're built like a tailor's mannequin, easy enough to age 30 but beyond?
Yousa..., now I know what my feeble brain was trying to conjure up when I said "...low expectations for performance...."
post #36 of 55
I reckon anyone who takes 34"+ waist or sze 10+ would do noticeably better upscale.
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
To help get this thread back on track (at least for me, even though I'm not the OP)....

To the folks buying the $27 ski pants and other similarly priced garments (I'm not picking on bojowilly, his just happens to be the latest post):
  1. Do you find that they last more than a season or two (and by "season" I mean something on the order of 20 - 30 days skiing, not a couple of runs down Trashdump Mt...sarcasm)?
  2. Do they really keep you warm and/or dry - the Skigear pants are merely "water repellent" which surely can't do a better job than a low-end Spyder pant (again not to pick on bojowilly, but I guess this time I am)?
So far this year, they've performed very well (Believe me, I'm shocked too). I ski more than 40 days (p/t instructor) and they're warm and fit well. I don't get sentimental for clothes so if they wear out at the end of this or next season, I couldn't care less. I don't know about you, but I typically buy clothes when I feel a change is desired and not when they're completely worn out.
post #38 of 55
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is weight. The high end stuff (from patagonia, arc'teryx, etc...) is expensive because it generally gives the same performance (breathability, warmth and waterfproofness) while being much lighter and packable. This is why 'real winter outdoors people' (climbers, backcountry skiers, etc.) use it - they have to fit it in their pack and haul it up the mountain. A cheap water resistant insulated jacket will work and breathe pretty well for most people, but try to stuff that into a backpack with a sleeping bag, food, rope, ice screws, etc...

I'm surprised to see people say that expensive clothes fits big people better. I'm a thin guy and find that only the more technical brands fit me well. The REI made stuff, for example, always seems like it was cut for some really short guy with a huge beer gut. A more athletic fit works way better while climbing, wearing a harness or a pack and just feels less bulky, in my opinion.
post #39 of 55
Except in all but the most extreme conditions, I think most folks could get away with a whole lot less when skiing from the lifts. I know I can, I recently bought a heavily discounted Spider ski jacket because it seemed awfully ridiculous to be falling down the mountain and wearing holes in my Marmot Gore-tex shell.
post #40 of 55
I found an old North Face Extreme jacket I found in my attic. It's in good shape, but it has old skier colors, jade green with purple patches. Back then, that jacket cost a lot of money, but i wouldn't be caught dead in it now. The point is many things in life are worth the extra cost....good boots, a business suit, a capable attorney. To me, overly expensive ski pants and jackets are mostly over-rated. And that's why I posted the deal on Amazon. But if you think Bogner or Arc'Teryx is worth the bucks, go for it.
post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemSki View Post
I'm surprised to see people say that expensive clothes fits big people better. I'm a thin guy and find that only the more technical brands fit me well. The REI made stuff, for example, always seems like it was cut for some really short guy with a huge beer gut. A more athletic fit works way better while climbing, wearing a harness or a pack and just feels less bulky, in my opinion.
I was not comparing REI fit to patagucci. BOTH of those would be included in the 'quality category' as opposed to, oh, to pick a random example I happen to have in the ski swap bin, a pair of $40 msrp "Senteman" snowboard pants straight from China that are barely tailored at all, not even one gusset at the crotch area, half-inch nylon webbing waists with D-ring cinches for tensioning, and seam stitching completely exposed to the elements.

It is a -lot- easier for an athletic type to wear a garment like that in medium/small than for a pear shaped peep to wear the same -shape- garment in size large.

The 'less bulky' feel -is- what I was talking about. Once the appropriate size is found, both athletic peeps and pear shaped peeps get the benefit.

As I said, my contention was one step beyond that: pear shaped peeps get more benefit than athletic ones simply because sacklike fit for PSPs means tons more flop than sacklike fit for APs.

Outdoor gear is no different in this than business suits; a 40R with a 31" waist will look good in anything and require a minimum of alterations.
post #42 of 55
So, you want ccheap?

I am in the second season of a Cloudveil soft shell jacket that listed for $299, which I picked up at TJMax in Fredonia, NY for $99. It's been an awesomely warm, waterproof jacket. I love it. This fall, at the very same store, I found a pair of Cloudveil Zero G pants that retailed for $200 plus, for $79. My favorite Marmot goretex lined jacket that I've owned for three years now, cost me $99 at SAC.com.

You don't have to spend big bucks for quality garments, nor do you have to settle for lower quality clothing at full price. You just need to be a quality shopper and an educated consumer.

I've always skied with the best equipment and the best quality clothing without ever paying retail price for anything. Never. I'd quit the sport if I had to spend $1000 for skis and another $1000 on garments to ski in. There are deals and angles out there. You just have to find them, and know how to use them and when to pull the trigger.
post #43 of 55
Have had good luck with EMS over the years. Their prices have definitely gone up on their EMS branded products. When their high end stuff is on sale it is a steal.

Many years ago when we were doing a lot of technical caving I picked up a pair of EMS branded full leather upper boots made by Vasque. Paid under $200. If you wanted a Vasque logo on the side they cost over $400. I still wear these boots to this day. Just can't lace them up... stiff as ski boot.
post #44 of 55
I've only skied in my $25 pants from Academy Sports for about 12 days now, but so far they've been great. And they're insulated very well so I don't get very cold, especially with the long underwear I bought from Sierra Trading Post (another cheap purchase, about $7). Now they are pretty bulky and take up a lot of room in my back pack when I carry them to work with me, but that's just a trip through the parking lot, not scaling down a mountain and camping with them or anything, so they work for me quite well. We'll see about the abrasion issue a little later in the season, but I've taken some pretty big falls this season and they've been fine.

Also have a Columbia jacket I bought on clearance from Dick's Sporting goods. I think it was regularly around $100 so it's probably a bottom of the line jacket, but it's been great so far as well.

Someone also mentioned SkiGear pants.....be wary of their sizing. I usually wear a medium or maybe a large in ski pants but when I tried those things on last season, I could barely get them over my knees. I wouldn't recommend buying those online without trying them on first.
post #45 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattL View Post
Quote:
The waterproof Goretex tuff is nice, but unnecessary for most people - seriously, how many of us actually ski in the rain?
Around here if you aren't willing to ski in the rain you could miss a whole lot of skiing. I actually enjoy skiing in the rain as long as it isn't a torrential downpour. I find it cathartic at times.
Yep. Me too. But look around next time you're skiing in the rain - it's you, me, and maybe a dozen other die-hards. The folks who buy a new Karbon outfit every season are all in the lodge.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
So one might argue that the $30 pants are a much better value than my $250 Patagonia pants that I used for 10 years and say 300 uses. The one wild card is were you warm and dry in those Sportinas during those 5 years?
Yeah, they worked well enough, but I don't remember skiing in the rain or deep powder in them. Amortized over their lifetime, they were about fifteen cents a day. If you think about it that way, then your buck-a-day Patagonias weren't expensive either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chemSki View Post
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here is weight. The high end stuff is expensive because it generally gives the same performance (breathability, warmth and waterfproofness) while being much lighter and packable. This is why 'real winter outdoors people' (climbers, backcountry skiers, etc.) use it
Agreed. Climbers, backcountry skiers, winter campers, etc. need higher tech gear than day skiers who stay inbounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topmounter View Post
Except in all but the most extreme conditions, I think most folks could get away with a whole lot less when skiing from the lifts.
Yep. Especially those folks who ski only three or four times a year, and only when the weather is nice, and who show up at 11 quit at two,and take an hour lunch break in the middle.
post #46 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
To me most Arc'Teryx garments are designed for mountaineering and ice climbing - the kind of activities that would see abrasion which would shred less "technical" gear. So if you don't need this type of gear it is a bad value, for those that do it is worth it.
I knew there was a part I was missing, I was applying ny circumstances to a product that may not have been designed for them.

Thats a good point.
post #47 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
OTOH I just replaced my Patagonia's with a pair of $150 TNF pants (I take a Short Small so yes I paid msrp since there are like 0 other choices out there with suspenders). However, the snow cuffs' waterproofing is rubbing off after only ten uses whereas this never happened to my Patagonias. Will it make a difference? Probably not greatly (and I'm sewing some coated nylon over the abraded areas). Did I get better value out of the TNF pants - the jury's still out on that one?

My understanding is that you can send any age TNF garment back to them and they will repair almost any defect or damage. It is best to do so in the off season, but they will more than likely fix that issue for you.

I have an old pair my self that has scuff guards coming off that I really should send them and see what happens!
post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by skier_j View Post
I knew there was a part I was missing, I was applying ny circumstances to a product that may not have been designed for them.
Thats a good point.
Another post indicated that stuff like Arc'Teryx is also very lightweight (less weight to haul up the mountain). Clearly it costs more to manufacture something that is both more durable to extreme conditions and lighter in weight, but is this of benefit to a lift-served, in-bounds skier? Doubtful!
post #49 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
is this of benefit to a lift-served, in-bounds skier?
If you want to be seen in clothing that says "expensive", then yes.

For some, spending is it's own reward.
post #50 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt View Post
If you want to be seen in clothing that says "expensive", then yes.

For some, spending is it's own reward.
OTOH just to stir up the pot...from the looks of some of the posts here some of us may be proud to to be seen in clothing that says "cheap" - sort of a reverse status symbol or a sign that the person is frugal!
post #51 of 55
Columbia is a nice brand.
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aroused Guy View Post
Columbia is a nice brand.
Yep it looks that way - just bought one of their Titanium jackets for well under $200. It looks and has the features that I'd expect in a more pricey item (and seemd nicer all around than a similarly priced TNF jacket), but I'll have to see how well it holds up before I become a converted Columbia believer.
post #53 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
.from the looks of some of the posts here some of us may be proud to to be seen in clothing that says "cheap"
Not at all. You won't see any of that cheap shiny silver hardware store duct tape on my clothing. Only theater-grade gaff tape is good enough for my wardrobe.
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by ski-ra View Post
The real question I keep trying to ask (now that I've ) is what are the experiences of those that buy a $25 or $50 ski garment (jacket/pants) and I'm talking new, not from Goodwill etc...?
I bought a pair of $50 side zipped ski pants to use as a cover on the colder days over my downhill suit. I would estimate halfway into the race season, the water repellant broke down and soaked through the material. I also noticed some stitching coming undone and a hole on one of the internal boot gaitors.

Dennis
post #55 of 55

Stopped TJ Maxx for...

...the 15% off everything customer appreciation day on thursday...found a Salomon Advanced Skin....EspStr Jk W...Black/AutoBahn color....I got it for my daughter....not sure but it really looks like it is an high end jacket..sealed zippers...hangtag has all sorts of stuff on it in addition to what I mentioned already including::
women WILL
SoftShell by Salomon
ClimaPro
SmartSkin

COmpare at Price $200
TJ Maxx Price $99.99
TJ Maxx Price on Clearance(looks like 2 markdowns) $49.00
and i got the 15% off...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion