alip140550

alip140550

    New Feature

    Browse Your Followers or See Who You're Following

  • No Ranking
alip140550

alip140550 wrote a review of on January 14, 2013

4 5

Familiarity: I've used it several times

I'm a 5'10, size 8-10, 145lbs, medium-to-trim frame, women's pants reviewer. I bought the Women's Large Svalbard softshell because the Mediums were too tight in the leg for bending and stepping up. The waist at EITHER an M or L is so huge I can barely keep them up with a belt. Yes, they have adjustable velcro belt straps on the sides, which would be more helpful if there wasn't literally a foot of extra space to take up between my waist and the pant. I have normal, strong but thin, skier-sized legs, and all the waists of the technical brand pants are huge on me. Many other women in my age group (30's) are frustrated with the same thing, so designers, ***PLEASE STOP MAKING PANTS WITH WAISTS THAT COME STRAIGHT UP FROM THE WIDEST PART OF THE SEAT!!! (Outdoor Research, you are doing a better job than most, this year.) *** Another slight annoyance is that there are gaiter hooks at the bottom of the pants legs, so when I pull up the leg to adjust something, the hooks catch on my boot buckles and I have to de-glove to untangle them. I'd prefer those be removable. Zipped pockets are adequately roomy and pretty well-placed. Pants material is burly and I get lots of compliments on color (blue) from friends. Length is awesome - and I normally feel like everything is short. My overall impression is that these are really high-quality pants, good for most touring and inbounds, Rockies cold or Seattle cold; however, I can't wear these without a burly belt and pleats down the top half of my leg from the giant waist. For those of you around my size, also try these in M or try Outdoor Research's pants in size M - they seem to be making their women's legs a little bit roomier for the waist size this season than other manufacturers.

(0)

 

0 Comments