tough, bombproof pants. the material isn't as stretchy as I expected, but definitely not comparable to a super-stiff gore=tex pro shell. The fabric feels supple, stretches enough to give in on difficult moves. as for the small fit, these are fit technically, that is to say, very slim. if you are look for a roomy ski pant, look elsewhere or size up. I usually wear a 32 in Patagonia, and a 34 in many other brands, and I think my waist must be 33. My legs are soccer-made (read: thick), and the size 32 of this pant fits very slim, but enough to comfortably have a thick base layer (wool 4 pant) underneath. For warmer, wetter days, the next to skin feel of the fabric is great. nice gaiters. pockets are limited, if you need lots of pockets, other pants are better (this only has one zip pocket on the right hip). Bomb-bay zipper is unusual, I am not sure what this is for. Are you supposed to unzip it from bellybutton to top of butt crack in order to heed nature's call No. 2? If so, that is definitely silly, and I can't imagine using it that way. Anyone else have any insight?

4 out of 5 is my score for these defects: -shell fabric is super-light, supposedly tough, but it snags and tears so easily. Brushing against a wooden pole at my local market caused a snag. An improved shell would help a lot though add weight -lack of wrist velcro. The fact that there is no velcro closure at the wrist allows wind to blow all up in yo junk. -not a good choice for bushwhacking, biking around town
Now the positive: -admittedly, purchase influenced by the fact that it looks cool -very warm, remarkably so considering its super-light weight. this makes it excellent for hiking, climbing, any winter sport where stopping and staying warm is needed. take it with you to school when it is warm in the morning and freezing at night (incorporates a stuff-sack) -excellent under a shell, fits under my Arc'teryx Gamma MX nicely -feels soooo nice when it's on OVERALL: Hard to beat as a lightweight 800-fill down jacket. THough North Face has some convincing competition for this piece. My 2 cents on Patagonia is that their technical pieces can't even be compared to other brands (Arc'teryx, for a few dollars more, is always better for hard-core technical pieces), but they do do certain things well, especially super-light insulation.

Excellent construction, marvelous technical piece for whatever it is that you use it for. Versatile, veritably windproof, great at shedding rain and snow. I've used it for: winter biking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, hiking the Rockies, pretty much anything you throw at it. Stretches like mad, super-comfortable athletic fit (order a size up for layering a down sweater underneath). Looks BOSS. Convenient pocket for stashing gear, food, doobie-making equipment. Lightweight, stashes easily. Very abrasion-resistant (go ahead, fall down that gully). cons: The Fabric. Not very warm, as the fleece interior pills very quickly (mine is only 2 years old and has lost all of its heat retention). Naturally, this is not intended to be an insulating piece, but what insulation it does provide did not last long in my jacket (currently being considered by Arc'teryx as warranty return). In the end, the fleece is surplus and just a weight-adder. A minor gripe: no hood-and-loop closures at the wrist to block wind even better, but at least the tapering is pretty tight. I am considering switching it for something from the Sigma line (SV , AR)?

as far as vests go, this is the only one that has kept me warm. I originally had the Patagonia Down Vest but it did me little good. surprisingly, this vest kept me very warm. very light, packable, handy

an almost perfect jacket. great for hiking, a wonderful mid-layer to go under a shell or parka. the only problem-and this seems to be an Arc'Teryx issue in general-is that for a D-cup the fit is snug and does not permit layering very easily. Going up to a size M is not ideal, as the sleeves end up too big. oh well, too bad arc'teryx doesn't have a Beyond Fleece-type setup for custom jackets. It is a lovely jacket, though.