UKH

Rob Greenwood justifies his recent trip to Font with a thorough look at SNAP's latest pad, the curiously named 'Guts'.

Read more

In reply to UKC Gear:

Have you tested it much on damp, sloped, grassy landings? If so, does it stay put when you land on it? It looks like the wipe clean outer could make it more prone to sliding down the hill.

In reply to SDM:

Good question...

As a bit of a backstory I'll give a long/rambling answer, which may/may not be relevant.

Back when we were doing the Midsize Bouldering Mat Group Test a few years ago I remember using the Ocun Dominator on a day out at the Roaches. It was a cold day, with a hard frost in the shade, but where the sun had hit this had turned into wet mud. At the time we were trying Hard Arete/Tetris, which has an awkward/slopey landing. I remember someone taking a fall onto the Dominator and accelerating from 0-60 in around 0.5 seconds, careering down the slope towards the bushes below - it was terrifying to watch and potentially quite dangerous!

That said, the Dominator has a PVC bottom, which is quite different (and a lot smoother) than the base of the Guts, which is made from recycled polyester + TPU coating (and has a generally more grippy feel). The other thing working in the Guts favour is that the way you land on it, and the way the pad reacts, means that you tend not to slip around too much, further increasing its stability.

That said, clearly all pads slip on slopey ground, but I guess what I'm saying is that the Guts is as good as any, possibly better, and certainly no way near as bad as anything with a PVC base.

Hope that answers the question.

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

you are both clearly unfamiliar with the advanced techniques of securing pads with nests of warthogs, bulldogs, terriers and talons.

up your game ladies and gents  

In reply to yodadave:

Did these make it into my Bouldering ‘Essentials’ article? If not I should hang my head in shame...

In reply to yodadave:

Or your bag/shoes works just as well. Strange concern really, I've never used a pad in my entire life that doesn't effectively transport you down a grassy slope as 1 million mph

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

I'll accept a footnote credit in the revised article

more seriously, i have used the Organic straps and metal buckles to good effect anchoring to trees etc and dog leashes as threads in order to create anchors for pads on steep ground.

I've also regularly topped an offensive boulder below a problem with an upside down hinged pad as they rest over things well, so the warning to not use this pad upside down is a good one.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I guess it's pointless to argue that £360 is completely outrageous?

Can't think of a single other piece of climbing gear that has tripled in price in 10 years, for minor improvements

In reply to trouserburp:

Think this is about the same size as a BD Mondo, which I think cost a little bit more than £110 10 years ago!

In reply to Arms Cliff:

Ok, Mondo was about £225 (can't find a UK price but 250 Euros) but I never saw one and most mats released then were £130 or below

So only a 60% increase in price if size is all that matters (which is mostly just air)

In reply to trouserburp:

The Mondo is currently £300 which is almost bang on £225 plus 10 years compound inflation.  
 

However, the Mondo isn’t very good other than being big, the foam is nothing like the best. My knees think a Snap (I’ve only used a Wrap but sounds like the Guts is similar) is well worth the extra £60.

In reply to trouserburp:

Inflation (of money, not the pad). 

In reply to UKC Gear:

I’ve been a long-standing fan of Snap pads for a long time. Well made, nice designs, work well. I’ve had 3 Wraps which is, from what I can see, the original burrito version of this new pad. If the foam and cells have been significantly upgraded then ignore this post.

so, the upside. The wrap is very best pad I’ve ever had for landing on your back from sit starts and roofs. Really soft landing which never bottoms out. Huge landing zone, and again, the very best landing from highballs, never bottomed out from some monsters! Great carry system, well made.

neutral. Size/weight. If you want this landing zone size and performance then 8 to 10 kilos is par for the course

downside. Experience with wraps and a petit wrap. The mat goes soggy(soft) far quicker than a closed/open cell standard mat. This happened to all my mats, and at the time Wraps were about £240. I pretty well boulder exclusively and get out a lot, but still found performance Degraded after only a years use a bit disappointing. At this stage, the outside of the mat is still in great condition. I looked into replacing cells back in the day, but I think it worked out not to be worth it. Maybe this has changed.

This led to a change to my wife and I getting a pair of Moon Saturns. Great landing zone, great from height, and if you turn the upper pad upside down with the open cell foam uppermost, then a really good landing from low roofs. This costs more than the new Snap mat though. However, experience is that the Moon mats retain their foam integrity really well.

if someone has any intel that the longevity of the cell system has been improved, then I would definitely be up for one.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I had a similar experience with the wrap softening pretty quickly.  I then bought an Organic Big Pad and a mate got the Saturn.  Both have been great but my mate’s Staturn is softening a little (but not much).  The Organic is easier to fold, store and load into a car.

In reply to afx22:

My son has the big organic mat which seems to be a really high quality mat and lasting very well.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I've been using the Organic Big Pad as my main mat since I reviewed it back in December 2015. It's received a LOT of use and whilst the outer is still in good condition, the foam itself has definitely taken something of a battering and is probably in need of replacement (i.e. I really wouldn't want to fall on it from height anymore). For what it's worth, this isn't necessarily a criticism, just an observation on the effects of timescale and hard use.

This probably highlights one of the major drawbacks of any review though: time. We've umm'd and ahh'd about doing some sort of long term test/round-up or products we've been using for a while, but for one reason and the next haven't. I would certainly be interested to know of the Guts (I still can't believe they called it that...) will perform in the long term, and whilst I can believe it goes soft - mostly because it's soft to start with (as stated within the review) - what I would most want to know is whether its unique properties whilst falling from height still remain effective.

As a side note to all of the above we've been mooting the idea of a Big Bouldering Mat Group Test for next year. Most of the strong players have been mentioned here, with the Moon Saturn being another obvious contender. 

I'll keep you posted with how that one goes, but in the meanwhile feel free to fire across any questions.

p.s. I'll see if I can find out whether anything has been changed btw, should really have mentioned that earlier but am currently on holiday in Font - hence my brain isn't in work mode

In reply to trouserburp:

If it's not the same pad you can't say that. 

In reply to Rob Greenwood - UKClimbing:

If what you need for a big pad review is more people power... then I’d be interested in getting involved