I got these last year when I switched to these last year from a MH Defiant pant and while they're a bit "roomy" they are great for the resort. The fit doesn't restrict when jibbing and catching air. They're also good for a cold day on the slopes in my usual spot: "Breckenfridge".The zips on these are on the inside of the pants, not the outside, which strangely enough seems to dump heat better and keeps the snow out if you take a tumble.I've got a 30" inseam and these come in a "short" version which is just perfect for ski boots. Still bunchy at the bottom but gives you room when you're jumping.As the review states, these are great resort pants but I don't think I'd want them for a long day where I was doing a lot of hiking or walking. I've got the Arcteryx Beta AR's for that (much thinner with a slimmer fit that also come in "short"). These are good for a day at the resort and are reasonably priced for Patagonia quality.

OK, it's a bit over the top to attribute "love" to a pair of pants. However, there are several factors that have me feeling butterflies when it comes to these trousers:
1. Gusseted Crotch - Doesn't crush the boys and allows excellent "freedom" in varied terrain
2. Triple-Stitching - Makes these bullet-proof
3. Good Looking - Fishing, baling, hiking, socializing over cold beer, these pants fit right in

These pants are expensive, however I have also found that they last a long time. I've had several pairs of Carhartts and while also bullet-proof, they are “constrictive”. Here’s my test: If you’re going to have regular exposure to manure, go with the Carhartts. Their price won’t make you tip-toe around the task at hand. However, if manure is not something you’re regularly slopping around, go with the MKs.

I got it last fall as a replacement for my Mountain Hardwear Hairpin Jacket and couldn't be happier. I have the Large in Red (easier to be seen on the mountain) and I'm 5'11 with 44 inch chest and it fits great with a insulating and base layer underneath. It's a bit long but the cinch at the bottom fixes that in short order.

LOTS of features and I was very happy with this on both cold and warm days because of the venting capabilities. It doesn't feel as "bomber" as my Arc'Teryx Beta AR but seems great for quality so far.

Based on my past experience with Patagonia if it doesn't live up to their hype they'll replace or repair it for free...

This jacket is very lightweight. However, after wearing it in the evening around Breckenridge I discovered that it's not very warm. I've opted for the Mountain Hardwear Sub-Zero. Not really in the same class, I know, but they are almost the same price so I'm sticking with Mountain Hardwear going forward.

Great fit with full-zips for ventilation. Articulation is nice for Tele-skiing and hopping the rails. Mountain Hardwear comes through with another great product!

I'm a 35 waist and the MH Large is just right, however, if you don't have 35 inch legs I'd go with the Defiant Pant in Large-Short.

This jacket is super warm even when wet, and packs down to a very small bundle. I've worn it in Colorado powder above 10K ft. and at sea-level in Seattle during a downpour, and this jacket was awesome.

I've had these bibs for the last two years, and switched to the Defiant Pant this year b/c the bibs are a little restrictive. The strechy fabric in the back is nice but gets HOT on your back after a full day in the backcountry or on the slopes. If you're moutaineering this will work great, but for skiing, I'd go with the pants.

This is simply the best synthetic-fill jacket I've tried. I had another brand last year and it was huge when hiking and my backpack was very uncomfortable while I had the jacket on. Not so with the MH Chugach 3D, it provided exceptional warmth (even while soaking wet!) and wasn't overly binding.

Pants are MUCH lighter than the A5 Cargo Utility Pants. Good for summer, not winter.