rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390

    New Feature

    Browse Your Followers or See Who You're Following

  • #2623of 20025

Rian's Bio

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote a review of on December 11, 2013

3 5

Familiarity: I returned this product before using it
Fit: Runs small

I don't really want to give a star review, because it doesn't seem fair, I just want to comment on the fit. I liked the jacket from my short time with it, but the fit is a problem, I wish I could have kept it.

I bought one and it was too tight in the chest, and that is not normally I problem I encounter. I disagree with a reviewer below that this fits larger than Arc'teryx down pieces, at least the Thorium.
At least in the chest, mine was smaller than Arc'teryx's down pieces (Thorium), significantly smaller. I am 6'1", 220 lbs and the XL fit well everywhere except the chest seemed about 3 inches too small, it was binding, whereas the Arc'teryx piece fit fine. This isn't a problem I usually have. I like the length, the waist size, the arm length, the wrist size, the shoulder fit, but the chest was way too tight.

Edit: Comparing the sizing charts of Mammut and Arc'teryx, I see that, for a given size, Arc'teryx has the same waist but a bigger chest. For a any size, Arc'teryx has the chest being 7" bigger than the waist, whereas Mammut has the chest being only 4.5" bigger than the waist. Apparently the Swiss are small chested people.

Their size charts seem to be pretty similar to Arc'teryx's, except that the chest circumferences are about 3 inches smaller.

(1)

 

0 Comments

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on January 9, 2013

It would be a bit light for Chicago winters. When it is 10 degrees out and 20 mph winds, i would definitely be wanting more the Atom SV. The Kappa Hoody would be pretty ideal for Chicago winters. The windstopper shell will protect you from any kind of wind and frozen precipitaion that is thrown at you, and throw on a sweater when it is really cold and you'll be doing well.
I have both and am from Chicago.

(0)

 

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on January 9, 2013

The Venta and the Gamma should be off your list, they aren't warm enough.
The Kappa Hoody is probably what you are looking for, it has 40% thicker insulation than the Atom SV and its outer shell is wind proof and sturdier.
But the Atom SV is pretty warm and wind resistant, and since it is so lightweight and the outer shell is so light, it is very, very comfortable, and because of that it is more apt to become someone's favorite, go-to jacket.

(2)

 

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on December 1, 2012

You're going to need something more wind proof. You probably should bring some sort of hard shell, for example an Alpha SL stowed in your pack for when it gets cold and windy. Or any alpha, beta, or theta.
If you don't sweat a great deal, a Windstopper soft shell might serve you well from top to bottom, with varying layers underneath.

(0)

 

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on November 29, 2012

XL would probably fit you well. But this wouldn't be the best choice for a piece to layer under a shell. It is only lightly insulated and has a soft shell to it, which adds no value as a mid layer, yet a lot of money. It probably is similar to a Delta LT as far as insulative properties , maybe a bit more, but less than a Delta AR, but much more expensive because of its shell properties. I do recommend either of those as a mid-layer, and maybe both to have flexible options.
This can be used as a mid layer, but the purpose is more to use this as the outer layer most of the time, while putting a hard shell over it when you need more protection from precipitation and/or wind.

(0)

 

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on December 30, 2010

Polartec's website says that
Powershield O2 blocks 96% of wind (that's the Hercules and his son, Hyllus) and
Powershield blocks 98% of wind (this jacket)

Neither are waterproof. Powershield Pro is a third textile, which might be waterproof, but, at this point in time, Arc'teryx is not usimg. I'm sure they will soon, though.

(0)

 

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote a review of on December 8, 2010

2 5

Firstly, they are not at all windproof, as stated here.
They aren't supposed to be; they are a lightly insulated glove with a hardface to be somewhat wind resistant and to have some moisture shedding ability in temperatures from maybe 35 to 45 degrees F. , or to be used as a liner in a shell. But they are way overpriced for that purpose and the features they have.

My biggest complaint about them is the stitching/seams in the palm is/are uncomfortable when riding a bike and, I am sure, for many other activities. There's just too much of it, and the seams are too big.

I also think they should be windproof, or nearly so. I have many Arc'teryx jackets, and I really appreciate the ones that aren't completely windproof (e.g. the Gammas and theEpsilons ), because when you are working hard in colder environs, having some controlled amount of the wind blowing through your shell really helps in getting rid of the sweat. But I disagree with making that choice for your hands; your hands are small with a high surface area and are much more susceptible to the cooling effects of wind than your torso, and I find that having WindStopper in gloves is a good idea.

I don't understand all the great reviews for these gloves. They are not very warm, yet many of the reviews say they are - maybe if you are from the south they seem warm to you. They are not very wind resistant, and they are way overpriced. I think people either people are just enamored with their new Arc'teryx product (which is certainly apt to happen), they are reviewing the wrong glove (it can get confusing - I had to look up which ones I bought), or maybe they're just from places where they think 45 degrees F is frigid.

(0)

 

0 Comments

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on November 2, 2010

I second what Jamey has said. I use these to ski deep snow in the trees around Tahoe, and they are tremendously good. I can literally make two turns in the space that I could make one turn on traditional skis, which makes choosing lines almost a thing of the past - I just go, and and when I need to turn, I just twist my hips and I turn. It greatly opens up your choices when in the trees because you can turn so quickly and so adroitly.

(0)

 

rian.mulli1928390

rian.mulli1928390 wrote an answer about on January 25, 2010

The 190's are 3 mm wider than the 182's, i.e. 114 mm underfoot. I had a pair of each at home and used calipers to measure them. Strangely, the 190's had the dimensions misprinted on them as 131/111/121, i.e. the dimensions of the 182's(all sizes have the dimensions printed on them ). But, again, I used digital calipers to measure them and compare the 182's to the 190's, and the 190s were 3 mm wider.

(1)