- 3,866 Posts. Joined 3/2006
- Location: Bay Area and Truckee
- Select All Posts By This User
Sorry to say, but I'm not a huge fan. The legs seem to cut pretty easily for a ski based pant. Also, one of the pocket zippers broke within two weeks. The waterproofing is good on the inside, but the outside material seems to absorb water making them heavy. On the up side they are comfortable and look pretty good. I really like Patagonia, but unfortunately cannot recommend these pants. I would not buy them again. Sorry...
Yea, There is a liner. It's what makes the pant waterproof. I ski in Colorado, mostly Ajax and highlands, and have always worn thermals under them. I don't know if they would be comfortable without them. I would imagine the liner would stick to sweaty skin. Every time i got hot i would just open the ventilation. Did plenty of hiking in them and never overheated.
Agreed. They need a thermal baselayer in the Winter. If memory serves me, isn't there an insulated Powderbowl pant too? That might fit the bill if you don't want a baselayer. But those probably would get uncomfortably hot on mild days -- or if you are doing any touring/hiking.
I am a big fan of Patagonia and not only own the Powder Bowl Jacket, but I also own the Powder Bowl pants (insulated and no) and it has been absolutely bomber... No tearing/ripping issues at all...! I have an Arcteryx Sidewinder SV and Theta and when I head out I am wearing my Powder Bowl 90% of the time... I own a ton of Patagonia stuff and have never ever had an issue with any of their products... You will not be diappointed...!
Last year was my second season with a pair of non-insulated Powder Bowl pants. I like them quite a bit, although the style is a bit too "snowboardy". I originally bought a medium, but they were way too long and way too baggy so exchanged them for small. They're a bit snug around the middle but as long as I stay in decent shape they're OK. They are pretty much bombproof.
I have a pair from 2005, which I replaced with another pair last year. The newer ones are much bigger than the older, and they fit better for me. I also tried a pair of Snowshot pants but they were too baggy for me. The Powderbowl pants are waterproof enough for rainy days, and big enough to wear over heavy fleece pants on cold days. I haven't had any problems with either of them.
I like mine, I've used then for about a month or so. I also have the jacket. They are lightly insulated even the non insulated because of the liner since it`s a 2L goretex it needs liner. I bought then on a 50% sale but I wouldn't pay retail on those pants, I believe they are expensive for $300.
I've used them without base layer in the spring but you will need base layer for the colder days, but it's warmer than a shell say the primo pants. They are heavy as other have said, most likely due to the liner and the performance shell goretex is nice to touch and looks like a softshell, not plastic bag feeling at all.
I've pretty bad falls on then and not sign of any tear so far. If you find it for under $200 it might be worth it, but I wouldn't pay more than that. I'm 5'5"/150 32 waist and I use the small.
I love the material, performance, and overall function but they are way too baggy. I bought one pair of the non-insulated version in slim fit, which fit more like "normal" fit. I also bought one pair of the insulated version one size smaller than usual in order to make the thighs fit "normal" but the waist is a bit on the snug side.
I bought a pair last year. I like them, but I think they're overpriced. For one thing, I thought they would be warmer than they turned out to be; If it's only mildly cold, you'll need a thermal. They do keep me dry when it's wet out, though.
I found a pair of insulated Marmot pants on clearance last year for 50 bucks! They're toasty warm and comfortable, so I wear them 80% of the time rather than the Patagonias.
If you really like them, try harder than usual to find them on sale if you can...unless you just need $300 shell pants...