• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Wasatchman

over the hill
Skier
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Posts
2,339
Location
Wasatch and NZ
Starting a new sustainability thread after some thread drift in a separate thread soliciting pant recommendations. Questions came up about recycled synthetic fabric, how it's made, and differences in brand adoption, so I decided to do a little "state of the state" rundown of how brands are adopting, or in some cases, contributing to development sustainable fabric. Note that this is only one facet of driving sustainable gear, but it's an important one. But first, a quick (eh, ish), recap on where recycled fabrics come from and your role in a closed loop supply chain:

Synthetic fabrics like nylon and polyester are made by spinnerets, which are, uh, kind of like a pasta maker or spiralizer. Petroleum-based plastics are pushed in and spit out in long strands, called filaments. Filaments are either kept long (to make slick polyester fabrics) or cut into shorter pieces called staples (for cotton-y feeling material) and then spun together to make yarn.

Recycled polyester (also known as rPET) started production in the mid-1990s. It’s actually much more likely to be recycled plastic like soda bottles than recycled pieces of fabric (but that’s totally possible, too). Originally, production was predominately in polar fleece, over the years, the process has been refined to the point where rPET can be used to create a variety of weights and textures. It looks, feels, and performs just as well as virgin polyester (yes, that’s the technical term. Yet another case where virginity provides no more or no less value). Over the course of the next decade, expect to see polyester adoption from all sorts of brands – active wear, formal wear, luxury brands, and bargain brands. It uses less energy and less water than virgin polyester and will eventually move close to cost parity. (Current upcharges are predominately driven by the fact that demand outpaces production capacity in recycling facilities.

Nylon’s a different story, since the polymer chemistry is more complex. It was considered non-recyclable until the past 5 years, when the technology was “unlocked” with results that met customer expectations. Most of the inputs are already fabric, but a few innovating companies are figuring out how to make it work with nylon fishing nets. The process is expensive. Not only is the chemistry complicated, but nylon melts at low temperatures where contaminates and bacteria aren’t destroyed in the process. Everything that gets recycled has to be meticulously cleaned before going through the process.

If you’re wondering why it matters (besides, you know, our potential extinction), by 2020, Gen Z will account for 40% of consumers. Gen Z responds to brands that take a stand on issues that are relevant to their industry, and 94% believe environmental issues are a corporate responsibility. Growth in consumer products is being largely driven with by products with marketable sustainable features, and recommerce like Patagonia Worn Wear or Poshmark are far outpacing the growth of traditional retail. It’s imperative that outdoor brands are pivoting alongside customer sentiment.

Also, before we get into the brand rankings, it’s important to note that you should recycle your clothes (synthetic or otherwise)! Goodwill recycles unsellable donations. The North Face and Levi’s both have recycling collections in their store (for any brand), and H&M does them one better by giving customers who recycle a 15% off coupon. Some towns accept fabric goods at their transfer stations, and a few even offer curbside pickup (shoutout to Raleigh, NC).

But all of the green fabric initiatives in the world won’t correct for overconsumption. We produce 8 times as many garments per year now than we did in the 70's and buy about 70 pieces per year. Do your research on what you need (or hit me up, I love this shit), wear it to death, donate or re-sell if you don't, and buy used when you can. Read your care labels and take good care of pieces to extend the lifespan of your garments.

Alright, on to the rankings for trashiest synthetics:

1. Patagonia – This is a no-brainer. They literally invented polyester recycling in the 90s in their fleece. And they’re the pioneers in nylon recycling; Patagonia has a subsidiary called Tin Shed Ventures LLC that’s a venture capital fund for sustainable business. Those fishing nets getting turned into consumer-grade nylon? They’re recycled into skateboards and sunglasses by a company called Bureo that’s funded by Tin Shed. Almost their entire synthetic assortment is at least 40% recycled fibers, with the exception of a mesh bike chamois or two, their hose down series, and a few pairs of pants. Other signs they’re extra committed? Here’s an example of their Pluma jacket, a recycled nylon Gore Pro piece for $549. Peer garments like the Arcteryx Beta LT, Marmot Alpinist, and Black Diamond Sharp End range in MSRP from $525 to $625, meaning that they’re likely funding all the complexities of nylon recycling with a margin hit instead of passing along the upcharge to the customer.


2. Norrona – If you thought Patagonia was the only major player in eco-friendly outdoor gear, you’re missing this leader in the industry from Sweden. They’ve been in the recycled fabric game for over a decade, and the thing I like most about them is their transparency. 71% of their polyester was recycled in 2018, and their goal is to be at 100% by 2020. Recycled yardage was used for 6% of their nylon in 2016, and by 2018, it had been increased to 64%. And they walk the walk as employees, even sharing the percentage of employees who commute in sustainable ways and what percentage of their office waste went to landfill.


3. The North Face – TNF has recycled material as one of their top priorities for production improvements, and they’re doing it in a strategic way: targeting high volume styles first and focusing on their polyester pieces first. Their recycled assortment is up to over 500 items, and they accept recycled clothing and footwear in all of their stores.


4. Marmot – Marmot was a surprise to me. They’re lower price point and owned by Newell Brands, who have made a lot of money over the years pumping plastic out to consumers in a plethora of forms. But they’ve built a solid selection of recycled material goods, currently around 10-15% of their total item count. They made their first foray into recycled nylon with their strong-selling Precip rainwear line, and their website has a nice filter for recycled materials, so you can target your search with more sustainable construction and expand from there if needed.


5. Mountain Hardwear – MHW’s dabbled in recycled materials, with about 33 items across both genders/5% of selection (approximately, a few items aren’t rendering as such in search, but have the details on their item page). Their strategy seems rather disjointed. Last year, they launched the Exposure/2 touting their use of recycled nylon in their Gore Pro pieced. Their pledge to support environmentally responsible fabric production is still up on the collection’s landing page, which is a little awkward since this year’s model is back to virgin nylon (and no, they don’t pass any of the savings along to you). They went sustainable with the Compressor line, which is mysteriously missing for women this season, even though it shares construction with the Patagonia Nanopuff, one of the bestselling jackets in the market. Their Lamina Eco AF line is also… interesting. A – if less than 10% of your goods are made with recycled materials, you don’t get the right to call anything you do “eco AF.” B – why not put a strategy in place to get to 50% recycled materials instead of eco-hacking 2 pieces to the point they’re unsellable (there are no reviews anywhere on the web for either temperature rating).


6. Rab Equipment – Rab falls surprisingly low on the list, given that they’re an EU brand, which tends to be further ahead on sustainable movements, and they’re working in higher price points where there should be room for R&D. A search for recycled materials on their site only yields 10 items, all of which are jackets, where performance has been known and trusted for years. Adoption of recycled goods is part of their broader goal to reduce their carbon footprint by 25%. I have high hopes for improvement and admire their willingness to publicly disclose their goals and put hard data behind it. So yeah, it’s a little strange that food composting and encouraging bike commuting are on their list of things to start doing, I see potential with Rab.


7. Columbia – Columbia has a few apparel recycling initiatives. Like North Face, their ReThreads program accepts clothes and footwear for recycling, and they launched their OutDry Extreme Eco line in Spring 2017. The problem is that no progress has been made since the launch – their total sustainable selection is only 9 pieces. Like the MHW Lamina Eco line, they use dye-less fabric, so eco items look sad and drab, and is out of touch with customer preferences, where there’s more support for closed loop dye processes and all-natural dyes. I wouldn’t be surprised if there are slow sales on the Eco, and if those have slowed adoption in the rest of Columbia’s line. They’re still pretty vocal about their use of recycled fabrics (it’s #1 on their list of accomplishments in the green space , but with such a small, stagnant assortment, it feels performative and like greenwashing. Why don’t they get more credit for ReThreads? The majority of clothes recycling ends up in things like insulation for houses. “Downcycling” is better than not being recycled at all, but that only delays how quickly materials end up in landfills. Upcycling, like fabric recycling, closes the loop on material use and is quickly becoming the industry standard. At the opening price point where Columbia predominately plays, the vast majority of their assortment is polyester, which means it’s all low hanging fruit for recycled fabric adoption. What are they waiting for?


8. Arc’teryx – The only thing worse than being unengaged in the move to closed loop fabric production is actively fighting against it. Arc’teryx has spoken out in the past against the use of recycled fabrics, stating that they don’t perform as well and that they consume more resources than virgin fabric (the latter built on the notion that recycled fabrics are wholly coming from used garments in another country and being shipped back and forth, not that they’re coming from plastic waste that spans the globe). Both of these statements are largely false. Not only does this mean that all Arc’teryx products have an unnecessarily high carbon footprint, they’re also eroding customer trust in brands that are doing the work to find greener solutions for outdoor use. It does make sense that they’re somewhat late to adoption considering their line does heavily skew into nylon since it’s stronger than polyester and can help shave ounces for weight-conscious athletes, but their stance that they can’t be bothered to even test fabrications on the market because everything is built for “extreme alpine conditions” rings hollow. Start with this probably-not-technical-nor-wildly-critical-on-adventure trucker hat. Or your probably-never-going-to-the-mountains dress. Combing the site revealed at least one item that has any sort of recycled components, but it’s impossible to find the full collection through browse or search, and same if you’re looking through a search engine. Do they realize that it’s something to be proud of and showcase? Note that Arc’teryx is engaged in several other sustainable initiatives; closed loop fabric production is not an overall indicator of sustainability. But from this facet, they’re far behind.


9. Outdoor Research – OR comes to the table with literally nothing. Even product made with Primaloft Eco has been sold through and replaced with virgin polyester. Even Walmart started sourcing recycled fibers in 2016 – where are these guys? Their entire corporate values page is 172 words long (3.5 Tweets if you’re under 35). 0% of it is fact based (like either explaining the initiatives being pursued or stats, numbers, and the like). There’s nothing on Diversity & Inclusion, no information about how they guarantee acceptable labor standards in their factories, and no information about reducing their energy footprint in their offices, distribution network, and store. Something tells me the page hasn’t been updated since 2008 and their strategies haven’t either.

So just seeing this thread for the first time today. Your rankings emphasize synthetic/recycled materials. But where do companies that focus on natural fibers such as merino wool fit in (e.g. icebreaker/smartwool)? Could an argument be made that when it is possible (especially for base layer/mid layer) skip synthetic altogether and buy natural fiber like merino? Even recycled synthetics have issues such as microfiber contamination when washing, etc.relative to natural fibers.
 

dovski

Waxing my skis and praying for snow
Skier
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Posts
2,909
Location
Seattle
So just seeing this thread for the first time today. Your rankings emphasize synthetic/recycled materials. But where do companies that focus on natural fibers such as merino wool fit in (e.g. icebreaker/smartwool)? Could an argument be made that when it is possible (especially for base layer/mid layer) skip synthetic altogether and buy natural fiber like merino? Even recycled synthetics have issues such as microfiber contamination when washing, etc.relative to natural fibers.
I think as long as it is not that New Zealand wool it is all good … just kidding Wasatchman.

Analisa please tell me that Smartwool is on good sustainability list otherwise I am pretty much going to be skiing naked this year and trust me when I say this that is not an outcome that is good for any of us :roflmao:
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,727
Location
Mid-Atlantic
The Norrona Loften Super Lightweight Down Jacket is the most comfortable, well fitting down jacket I've owned, works great as a mid-layer under a shell too. When REI had a killer deal on the Lyngen Down850 Hood Jacket I had to place an order. It too is very comfortable and although a little roomier then the loften super lightweight down jacket, still fits well. The jacket is made of lightweight, down proof recycled polyester 29g/m2 and has RDS 2.0 850 FP down fill. 150 grams of Down so I expect it to be warm. The baffle stitching is spaced further apart per stitch then the loften super lightweight jackets tighter stictching, actually more like what Ive seen in lower cost down jackets and I don't know how durable it will end up being but will report back if any issues arise.

Btw, I returned the Arcteryx Cerium LT Down Hoody "as new" immediately after trying the Norrona lyngen down850 hood jacket. Arcteryx redesigned the the Cerium LT with some good updates but screwed up the neckline of both the Cerium LT hoody and even worse with Cerium LT jacket. Both created neck pain at the back of my neck/spine, the hoody was unwearable under a shell, the jacket version flat out unwearable.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Analisa

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
@Wasatchman @dovski - for sure. The initial list was the product of a wayyy off topic thread that started with a solicitation for pants recommendations and turned to how polyester was recycled & whether there were compromises with performance. It’s far from a comprehensive snapshot of an item’s, much less an entire brand’s environmental footprint. Layer on ethical production vs. sustainable, it gets even less representative of how brands stack up.

Wool is great from an environmental standpoint. It's tough to stack the footprint against recycled polyester (there are so many considerations around everything it takes to raise animals, chemical processing with water & energy demands for both, how much goods need to be shipped between milling, production, and retailing, garment lifespan, laundering frequency and care method, waste & microwaste, whether synthetics are washed in a guppy friend bag, are they washed in full loads etc.). Some have done studies, but they're rife with assumptions. I might put my money on wool being greener, but I think that could be influenced by the high pricepoint that slows down consumption & prompts people to take better care of pieces they find less replaceable. And to be clear - that's 100% wool. Tons of stuff on the market is blended with synthetics based on the high costs of wool at auction due to droughts, and the fact that, from a performance standpoint, you get the best of both worlds. But in that case, those garments can't be composted or mechanically recycled. One thing I've learned through all this is that blends make things insanely tricky once a garment's unwearable.

The other important conversation about wool is the flip side of the price point. It's expensive, and beyond weather trends and auction demand, there aren't many mechanisms or economies of scale to make it cheaper. I've seen some icky conversations develop in the outdoor community when ethical shopping is presented as something unattainable for people with lower incomes/tighter budgets, when in reality, carbon footprint basically mirrors income.

(Yeah, that logic basically denigrates the entire thread. It's largely a reflection of my personal stances on the environment where I happily give up meat, weasel out of work trips, live in multi-family housing, thrift the majority of my wardrobe - but hell will freeze over before there's not some sort of hardshell jacket in my closet)
 

dovski

Waxing my skis and praying for snow
Skier
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Posts
2,909
Location
Seattle
@Wasatchman @dovski - for sure. The initial list was the product of a wayyy off topic thread that started with a solicitation for pants recommendations and turned to how polyester was recycled & whether there were compromises with performance. It’s far from a comprehensive snapshot of an item’s, much less an entire brand’s environmental footprint. Layer on ethical production vs. sustainable, it gets even less representative of how brands stack up.

Wool is great from an environmental standpoint. It's tough to stack the footprint against recycled polyester (there are so many considerations around everything it takes to raise animals, chemical processing with water & energy demands for both, how much goods need to be shipped between milling, production, and retailing, garment lifespan, laundering frequency and care method, waste & microwaste, whether synthetics are washed in a guppy friend bag, are they washed in full loads etc.). Some have done studies, but they're rife with assumptions. I might put my money on wool being greener, but I think that could be influenced by the high pricepoint that slows down consumption & prompts people to take better care of pieces they find less replaceable. And to be clear - that's 100% wool. Tons of stuff on the market is blended with synthetics based on the high costs of wool at auction due to droughts, and the fact that, from a performance standpoint, you get the best of both worlds. But in that case, those garments can't be composted or mechanically recycled. One thing I've learned through all this is that blends make things insanely tricky once a garment's unwearable.

The other important conversation about wool is the flip side of the price point. It's expensive, and beyond weather trends and auction demand, there aren't many mechanisms or economies of scale to make it cheaper. I've seen some icky conversations develop in the outdoor community when ethical shopping is presented as something unattainable for people with lower incomes/tighter budgets, when in reality, carbon footprint basically mirrors income.

(Yeah, that logic basically denigrates the entire thread. It's largely a reflection of my personal stances on the environment where I happily give up meat, weasel out of work trips, live in multi-family housing, thrift the majority of my wardrobe - but hell will freeze over before there's not some sort of hardshell jacket in my closet)
That makes total sense, it is the same with so many different products. I bought an electric car to lessen my environmental impact, but the process of producing and disposing of the batteries not to mention what it takes to generate the energy to charge the car, makes it much harder to determine if and how much greener electric is vs. fuel efficient gas .... and yes I know that mass transit is even better but ....
 

dovski

Waxing my skis and praying for snow
Skier
Joined
Jan 7, 2018
Posts
2,909
Location
Seattle
That makes total sense, it is the same with so many different products. I bought an electric car to lessen my environmental impact, but the process of producing and disposing of the batteries not to mention what it takes to generate the energy to charge the car, makes it much harder to determine if and how much greener electric is vs. fuel efficient gas .... and yes I know that mass transit is even better but ....
PS I am all for weaseling out of work trips, thrift at least part of my wardrobe ... etc. but I grew up in Alberta and naturally raised local beef was my sta
@neonorchid My skepticism for Futurelight hasn't changed.
@Analisa Should I think of it in the same category as vegan veal or faux gras :yahoo:
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,727
Location
Mid-Atlantic
@neonorchid My skepticism for Futurelight hasn't changed.
Yeah, I suppose we will have to wait for reliably sourced numbers on the waterproof rating.

Anyway, I currently have a late model Gore Pro shell so no hurry to replace, maybe to augment the jacket quiver. However I am interested in learning the performance differences between NeoShell and Futurelight when such spec's materialize because I have a new unused pair of neoshel ski pants (for warm weather, BC and maybe XC), and all season to return them if Futurelight outperforms NeoShell.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Analisa

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
@dovski - It’s mainly just hype at the moment. In reality, every piece of gear has trade offs. Pretty much all the shell fabrications on the market are great (for certain people/activities/climates). There's always a trade off. There's not enough to really peg down the right customer for it. Reporting has largely been covered by general outdoor writers or, uh, a few outlets known for spraying whatever hype is in the PR kit.

Frustratingly, the numbers that they do publish are all over the board (I've seen breathe rated from 30k-60k in one piece, rated at 75k - to put that in perspective, the range between best and worst in class for breathe is ~8k-30k). CFM is being reported as a breathability metric, when it's actually airflow transfer instead of moisture transfer. Likewise, there's no legal standard for CFM & windproofing claims, but the general industry standard is that 0 CFM is 1 CFM or less is considered windproof, so it's weird to me that NF's touting 100% windproof on all of their product pages, but articles are touting 1.5 CFM, which is starting to approach softshell levels of airflow. I get skeptical when the marketing starts to contradict itself (also why are all the garments heavier and thicker than their GTX version after they've been raving about how light they are?)

It's probably on par with Polartec Neoshell or OR Ascentshell, both also electrospun PU membranes, which would make the 30k somewhat reasonable. Likewise, this caters to the customer prioritizing breathe and willing to sacrifice durability, windproofing, and waterproofing. As someone who runs cold, doesn't sweat much, and lives in a mild/wet climate, it's probably not the material for me.

That being said, kudos for a brand to walk completely away from GTX. It's pretty ballsy since Gore still builds a ton of trust with customers and most shoppers don't know some of the benefits of other membranes to pick a personalized match. I'm surprised they raised MSRPs given how much Gore costs & their demands for when you license their products. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. They've definitely stolen a page from the millennial-centric marketing approach of insta-spam from the Salomon Shift launch & Mindbender announcement. I think this use case is really different and I'm super curious to see if it still works.
 

pete

not peace but 2 Beers!
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 14, 2015
Posts
2,555
Location
Iowa
sorry for being a downer but the WSJ has report today the due to fabric/textile mixed fibers, the recycling of used clothing into new clothing is only at ~ 1%, in the US landfilling of textile are up ~68% by weight in 2015 from 2000, we buy 60% more garments in 2014 than 2000 and we (US) wear our clothing around 1/4 the world average. Overall 73% hits landfills or incinerated.

What a bummer ...

Happy news is 2nd hand is up and growing and folks like JC Penney and Macy's will offer second hand purchasing avenue through Thredup Inc.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Analisa

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,727
Location
Mid-Atlantic
Yeah, I suppose we will have to wait for reliably sourced numbers on the waterproof rating.

Anyway, I currently have a late model Gore Pro shell so no hurry to replace, maybe to augment the jacket quiver. However I am interested in learning the performance differences between NeoShell and Futurelight when such spec's materialize because I have a new unused pair of neoshel ski pants (for warm weather, BC and maybe XC), and all season to return them if Futurelight outperforms NeoShell.

Frustratingly, the numbers that they do publish are all over the board (I've seen breathe rated from 30k-60k in one piece, rated at 75k - to put that in perspective, the range between best and worst in class for breathe is ~8k-30k). CFM is being reported as a breathability metric, when it's actually airflow transfer instead of moisture transfer. Likewise, there's no legal standard for CFM & windproofing claims, but the general industry standard is that 0 CFM is 1 CFM or less is considered windproof, so it's weird to me that NF's touting 100% windproof on all of their product pages, but articles are touting 1.5 CFM, which is starting to approach softshell levels of airflow. I get skeptical when the marketing starts to contradict itself (also why are all the garments heavier and thicker than their GTX version after they've been raving about how light they are?)

It's probably on par with Polartec Neoshell or OR Ascentshell, both also electrospun PU membranes, which would make the 30k somewhat reasonable. Likewise, this caters to the customer prioritizing breathe and willing to sacrifice durability, windproofing, and waterproofing. As someone who runs cold, doesn't sweat much, and lives in a mild/wet climate, it's probably not the material for me.

That being said, kudos for a brand to walk completely away from GTX. It's pretty ballsy since Gore still builds a ton of trust with customers and most shoppers don't know some of the benefits of other membranes to pick a personalized match. I'm surprised they raised MSRPs given how much Gore costs & their demands for when you license their products. It'll be interesting to see how it shakes out. They've definitely stolen a page from the millennial-centric marketing approach of insta-spam from the Salomon Shift launch & Mindbender announcement. I think this use case is really different and I'm super curious to see if it still works.[/USER]
While some of those numbers appear to be fantasy, is it possible the varring numbers are due to different versions (weight denier etc), of Futurelight fabrics? For example:
Womens Brigandine Futurelight jacket with pit-zips "75D x 75D 156 g/m² FUTURELIGHT 3L, 100% recycled polyester.
Womens Purist futurelight jacket 70D x 70D 146 g/m² FUTURELIGHT, 93% recycled nylon, 7% elastane.
Mens Summit L5 futurelight pant 20D x 30D 81 g/m² FUTURELIGHT, 100% polyester, and so on.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Analisa

Analisa

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Posts
982
@neonorchid Yep, Futurelight is going to work a lot like the Gore portfolio where there are membranes of different thicknesses across, say, Flight & Summit. To me, it seems like a major gaffe not to differentiate, but then again, I bet most customers see the enormous GORETEX posterboard tagged on every garment and buy largely based on that.

As you mentioned, it's also the fabric content. In that sense, the biggest surprise to me is that they built an entire marketing campaign around product that doesn't exist. Reviewers got a proto of the Summit L5 Pant that weighed 9.1 oz. The ones on site for customers weigh over 15 oz. For context, their pants are a small haircut off of an Arcteryx Beta AR peer set pant (to note, which also have full zips, which more than covers the discrepancy). A 9oz pant is at parity weight wise with their hot weather hiking pants.

If you're product is really revolutionary, why send fake samples to build hype for them?
 

Lauren

AKA elemmac
SkiTalk Tester
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Posts
2,609
Location
The Granite State
As you mentioned, it's also the fabric content. In that sense, the biggest surprise to me is that they built an entire marketing campaign around product that doesn't exist. Reviewers got a proto of the Summit L5 Pant that weighed 9.1 oz. The ones on site for customers weigh over 15 oz.

Could this have been a typo on their website that they’ve since corrected? It looks like their currently touting them to be 300g, or 10 some-odd oz for the men’s pant, and the women’s to be a bit lighter (average weight).
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,727
Location
Mid-Atlantic
Could this have been a typo on their website that they’ve since corrected? It looks like their currently touting them to be 300g, or 10 some-odd oz for the men’s pant, and the women’s to be a bit lighter (average weight).
It's not like we haven't seen this sort of thing before but actually the womens summit L5 pant spec an adv 280g 9.87oz, 300g 10.58oz for the mens, and who cares if the fit doesn't work and or the performance isn't all that. For now, TNF inseam options are a big plus for me.
Anyway, back to inaccurate specs. Just finished reading the Wildcreek La Sportiva Skorpius CR touring boot preview/review. They came up with 1185g/size 27 vs., La Sportiva's claimed 1000g/size 27. Not an insignificant difference for the type of product, all of which means little to me if the boot doesn't fit my foot.
 

Wasatchman

over the hill
Skier
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Posts
2,339
Location
Wasatch and NZ
How long do people's hardshells last? Reason I ask is that I've got one that is 20 year's old that still works really well.

Sure, it needs a new DWR application on it every now and then but it is still going strong.
 

neonorchid

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
6,727
Location
Mid-Atlantic
How long do people's hardshells last? Reason I ask is that I've got one that is 20 year's old that still works really well.

Sure, it needs a new DWR application on it every now and then but it is still going strong.
...did you check the expiration date on the øøø tags? All kidding aside isn't that the point of this sustainability thing, use it or find someone who can?
 
Last edited:
Top