tim h.

tim h.

    New Feature

    Browse Your Followers or See Who You're Following

  • #30247of 20606

Tim's Passions

Camping

Tim's Bio

tim h.

tim h. wrote a review of on November 10, 2011

5 5

Love these, and the Overhangs, and wanted to compare them for people who have questions about the differences.

The first place you notice is in the weight. In size M, Overhangs are 13.1oz, Thrives are 5.5 oz. You also save some additional weight because the Thrives have small cinch straps built into the sides, so you don't need a belt. Overhangs require a belt, adding a little more weight to the 13.1 baseweight.

Much thinner fabric on the Thrives... Thrives are narrower cut in the legs, go down a little longer, and have only the two front pockets, which is their biggest downfall. Having just one more pocket somewhere -- either in back or as a cargo pocket -- would make these the perfect shorts. As it is, especially with the clingy cut, it looks weird trying to shove cell phone, wallet, keys into just two pockets when you're out on the town.

Overhangs are better for casual/daily wear or for activities -- like climbing or scrambling -- where you're going to be really rough on your shorts. Thrives are better for hiking, active sports and hot weather conditions.

Both have a place in your closet. I've got two pairs of each and have gotten rid of most of my other shorts.

(1)

 

0 Comments

tim h.

tim h. wrote an answer about on November 10, 2011

I agree -- very different shorts. The first place you notice is in the weight. In size M, Overhangs are 13.1oz, Thrives are 5.5 oz. Much thinner fabric on the Thrives... Thrives are narrower cut in the legs, go down a little longer, and have only the two front pockets, which is their biggest downfall. Having just one more pocket somewhere -- either in back or as a cargo pocket -- would make these the perfect shorts. As it is, especially with the clingy cut, it looks weird trying to shove cell phone, wallet, keys into just two pockets when you're out on the town.

Overhangs are better for casual/daily wear or for activities -- like climbing or scrambling -- where you're going to be really rough on your shorts. Thrives are better for hiking, active sports and hot weather conditions.

Both have a place in your closet.

(2)

 

tim h.

tim h. wrote a review of on September 26, 2011

3 5

In a size US10/UK12, this fits my wife, who usually is a size small (4 or 6) in US jackets (backcountry.com, patagonia, stoic, helly hansen, etc), so keep that in mind when ordering -- sizes are way off. I was glad for the advice here to order two sizes up.

On my scale, the jacket weighs 5.5oz (if you add the stuff sack, it goes up another 0.4 oz), way over the advertised specs -- especially because this jacket is the same size as the reference jacket. The difference between 4.0 and 5.5 is huge from a percentage perspective -- the jacket is almost 40% over spec; when you are looking for the lightest possible option, this is a tremendous disappointment.

If we had paid anywhere close to full price, I would have been very disappointed and sent it back. Many of other manufacturers make similar jackets that weigh the same or less.

Hasn't been used in the rain yet, so I'm not sure how it will hold up. On the upside, the colors and fit are better in person than I expected -- looks nice on and the red is a much more pleasant red than the pictures would indicate.

(0)

 

0 Comments

tim h.

tim h. wrote a question about on March 29, 2011

Just want to clarify the weight on this tent. I think BackCountry has it listed incorrectly. From the manufacturer's press release, "Big Agnes’ Copper Spur UL4 tent was one of only 13 innovative products that have been honored with a 2011 Backpacker Editors’ Choice Award. The new Copper Spur UL4 tent is a free standing, three-season, ultralight backpacking tent featuring double doors and vestibules and weighs in at only 5 lbs 10 oz."

(0)

 

tim h.

tim h. wrote a review of on September 11, 2009

5 5

These are amazing. Look incredibly cool in the jet/flash (yellow) combination, and are a nice hybrid between boxers and boxer briefs. Not tight fitting, but not baggy. I'm 5'10", 160, with a 30" waist, and the Small fits perfectly. Wear is incredibly comfy, with virtually zero chafing after long days hiking. The only downside is that if you get them wet, they are slow to dry. Jumped in a pond wearing these one night, and even drying in the vestibule, the next morning they were still too damp to want to put back on (medium humidity, temps in the high 50s). So don't go swimming in these unless you've got backup for the next day's hike... but overall, the favorite underwear in the drawer -- for all around aesthetics and functionality, they beat out the Ibex, UnderArmor and ExOfficio pairs that I own.

(0)

 

0 Comments

tim h.

tim h. wrote a review of on September 11, 2009

4 5

Great bag -- incredibly light, and I love the stretchy feel, but after trying it at home I don't think it's worth the cost unless you are a hardcore ultralighter. You can get great synthetic bags (like the MH Lamina 45, or Montbell's own synthetic version of this bag) which are only ~8oz heavier and slightly warmer for less than half the price.

For ultralight packers, the extra $120 for 8oz. might be worth it -- but for the rest of us, I don't think the tradeoff is worth the cost for a bag that can only be used a few months out of the year. I do really love the SuperStretch style, but if I'm going to spend this much money on a bag, I'd go a little pricier and get the UL S.S. #2 or #3 bag -- the #3 is only $50 more, only adds 5 oz, but will keep you warm down to 30-degrees, which makes it suitable for 3.5 season use.

I'm not saying this isn't a great bag -- I just think it's a really narrow market niche for people who will pay this much money to shave a couple of oz. for a bag that's only useful for a few months out of the year. Great bag, but I think there are better values, including most of the rest of the Montbell line.

(0)

 

0 Comments

tim h.

tim h. wrote a review of on September 11, 2009

2 5

I got this, thinking it would be a good idea to have a canister support. This unit has mediocre construction, but the bigger problem is that it doesn't fit all canisters. It has multiple slots, but there is just enough difference in canisters that not everything has a tight fit, and without a tight fit, it seems to defeat the purpose. The other problem is that the wider base can actually make it harder sometimes to find a flat surface, since you need a larger flat area to make it work. Overall, not a great design. It seems to me that a tripod-style support that allows changing the length or angle of the legs would enable many more cooking options. I've given up on manufacturer solutions in favor of do-it-yourself canister supports made from wooden clothespins -- cheap and work better on many more surfaces. You should also bring zip-ties (or velcro) and an extra couple of thin tent-stakes, so you can anchor your canister/stove to the ground for the ultimate in stability.

(0)

 

tim h.

tim h. wrote a review of on September 11, 2009

5 5

So far, I've only used this for a few days of camping, but I've been very impressed. The stove is very stable; the supports extend 2-3mm beyond the edges of the Pinnacle Solist (1.1L) pot that I've been using, and they also fit within the fins of the EtaPower 2.1L, so it works with it, too, for cooking for larger groups.

On the smaller pot, it is dangerous to turn the stove up all the way -- flames go way up the outside of the pot and are very hot -- but water boils very quickly at about 1/2 output. Long valve control makes it easy and safe to go from full blast to controlled simmer. Supports cool very quickly and stove can be put away only a few minutes after use.

As far as fuel use, my experience has been in 60-75 degree weather, and I've used 2.8 oz of fuel across six meals (four requiring 6-8 minutes of simmering) and boiling water for a couple of cups of coffee.

The only gripe I had when I got the stove was that it was stiff and hard to fold/unfold. That went away after the first use -- I guess something about the heat loosened up all the joints, and it now is a breeze to open and to pack. It fits easily with a 220g canister in my GIS Pinnacle Soloist cookset.

(2)

 

0 Comments

tim h.

tim h. wrote an answer about on August 6, 2009

Please, please, please come out with better colors. This is exactly the jacket I would like to get for my girlfriend, who needs a light, breathable, waterproof shell, but she wouldn't be caught dead in either of those colors... how about a muted orange/rust or some pleasant shade of blue? I think sales on these things will skyrocket as soon as some decent colors are released.

(1)