OK Then - Decathlon

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 MrsBuggins 02 Jul 2019

Decided to think about Decathlon instead of Go Outdoors. I need a new pair of pants.

Just wondering if these are too cheap at £25

10
In reply to MrsBuggins:

> Decided to think about Decathlon instead of Go Outdoors. I need a new pair of pants.

> Just wondering if these are too cheap at £25

I think you mean trousers !

4
OP MrsBuggins 02 Jul 2019
In reply to Chive Talkin\':

> I think you mean trousers !


Alright - trousers

 richprideaux 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Is there a link somewhere we're missing?

 GrahamD 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

> Just wondering if these are too cheap at £25

You could always try to negotiate the price up ?

OP MrsBuggins 02 Jul 2019
 johncook 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Is this thread an advert for Decathlon? Hope you are on a good commission!

 Ian W 02 Jul 2019
In reply to johncook:

Well the other one didn't turn out too well for Go Outdoors...........

 Jon Read 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Link doesn't work for me, just redirects to some dodgy bloke mansplaining to his underage girlfriend how to spank a plank. And the pictures back-to-front. Tsk!

cb294 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

No idea about these, but the 49 quid Simond men's mountaineering ones are good value.

CB

 skog 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

How could they be too cheap? I don't understand how paying more would help you!

They look ok to me, but I'd be more inclined to go for a pair with zip-off legs, so they can also be used as shorts, e.g.

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/trousers-modul-trek500-m-whg-id_8493648.html

(Edit - and your link has a leftover 'rry' appended to it, which breaks it and sends you the questionable landing page Jon Read described.)

Post edited at 13:50
 mack 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

They seem decent enough but just the look would put me off. From behind they look like you'd be wearing small shorts over trousers (like a goalkeeper) and from the back wearing long (Bermuda style) shorts. If you don't mind the odd design then go for it.

Edit for typos

Post edited at 15:11
1
 richprideaux 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

In terms of fabric/overall cut they look about the same as the pair I have had for over 4 yrs now. If so then they are a bargain, if not I have no idea.

 Michael Hood 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Cheap, lightweight, zip off trousers? Try the Karrimor ones in Sports Direct. They're not as good as my NF ones but they're only £14 at the moment, so no problem if they don't last that long on gritstone.

 Blue Straggler 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

I'd get the zip-off versions at £35. I think they are the same as what I got last year (although happily mine are monotone). They seem to be not only zip-off but also feels a tougher material, somehow, than the standard ones. I might be wrong on this. They are certainly resilient, I consider them money well spent. 

Someone mentioned Karrimor cheap ones from Sports Direct. I have these and they are really unbreathable, and I do think the Decathlon ones are tougher. 

 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Decathlon are primarily cheap because they avoid paying the middleman - if you employ the designer, directly contract the manufacturing, contract the shipping and own the stores, you only need one profit cut rather than one at each stage.

However some of the very cheap stuff is very much manufactured to a budget and can be of poor quality even if the designs are often good.

 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2019
In reply to skog:

I've never understood zip-offs.  They add a point of failure/chafing, they are commonly more expensive than a separate pair of trousers and pair of shorts.  Just buy a pair of each.

4
 skog 02 Jul 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

Zip-offs are great for days when it starts cold and gets warm, I couldn't be bothered carrying a separate pair of shorts for that!

 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2019
In reply to skog:

Shorts all day and layer up the top half!

 john arran 02 Jul 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

> I've never understood zip-offs.  They add a point of failure/chafing, they are commonly more expensive than a separate pair of trousers and pair of shorts.  Just buy a pair of each.

I find wearing a light pair of shorts to be perfectly comfortable underneath most outdoor trousers anyway and it's much easier just to put trousers on/off over the top of shorts when needed compared to faffing with leg zips.

3
 Michael Hood 02 Jul 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

Karrimor ones, not breathable, not so tough but very lightweight which can be great for summer if you sweat easily. And as I said, cheap.

 Michael Hood 02 Jul 2019
In reply to john arran:

Zip faff depends on the quality.

My cheapo Karrimor ones - a faff

More expensive (but not expensive) NF ones - not a faff

Rohan ones - they probably undo themselves on voice command

GoneFishing111 02 Jul 2019
In reply to mack:

Off topic, but i keep seeing guys the gym wearing shorts over leggings. Which not only looks a bit daft, but i wonder why? Why not one or the other?

 Pbob 02 Jul 2019
In reply to skog:

"Only rich men can afford cheap shoes"

 JoshOvki 02 Jul 2019
In reply to GoneFishing111:

Confidence and fit. Not all guys feel confident with tight leggings with all the gubbins on show, and too cold just for shorts would be my bet. Not sure about in the gym mind.

In reply to Neil Williams:

> I've never understood zip-offs.  

Me neither. What's put me off is that in the time it would take to unzip them and get the lower leg tubes off, which may involve removing boots or shoes, I could have taken shoes or boots and trousers off, put shorts and shoes or boots on and have several minutes spare; and as for the reverse, which would require rezipping the lower leg tubes back on, I'd have several more minutes spare if changing back to trousers from shorts.

So no, not for me. 

T.

 skog 02 Jul 2019
In reply to Pursued by a bear:

> > I've never understood zip-offs.  

> Me neither.

The side zip makes it easy to get them over boots, I've never found removing the legs or putting them back on to be anywhere near as much bother as undressing and redressing, there's one less garment to carry, I'm not going to overheat myself wearing shorts plus trousers when I just need trousers, and in several decades of using zip-off trousers I've never had a leg zip fail - but other than that I agree completely...

But, you know, different strokes for different folks and all that. If changing lowerwear suits you better, I'm not going to disagree!

Post edited at 21:14
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2019
In reply to GoneFishing111:

> Off topic, but i keep seeing guys the gym wearing shorts over leggings. Which not only looks a bit daft, but i wonder why? Why not one or the other?


Same as runners.  So you can't see their b******s.

That said, I see no great need to wear leggings when climbing, as you're not exactly going to chafe, which is the only reason to wear them running, so I see your point

(Or if you meant the regular gym, yes, as per runners - I thought you meant a US-named climbing wall )

Post edited at 21:26
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2019
In reply to JoshOvki:

> Confidence and fit. Not all guys feel confident with tight leggings with all the gubbins on show

Even if I don't give a stuff about it myself, I doubt anyone else wants to see it

 jethro kiernan 02 Jul 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

Zip off trousers are also a gateway drug to a pair of Crocs.

 skog 02 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

<maintains eye contact, nudges crocs out of sight with foot>

Uh, why do you say that?

In reply to skog:

I think zip-offs are great for many situations where the climate can change suddenly and when I want to travel very light, which is often, e.g. hiking in mountains, back-country trips, and flying between climatic zones.  (After over half a century of traveling I like to travel *really* light.) The best zip-offs have ankle zips that allow the leggings to be taken off over shoes. I personally can't stand wearing long trousers over shorts.

But zip-offs are obviously a compromise in terms of ruggedness, so I generally do not use them unless I expect dramatic changes in weather conditions or climate. 

1
 Neil Williams 02 Jul 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

Ah.  I don't travel "very light", ever.  Cramming everything into your hand luggage for a trip longer than a weekend is a mug's game; a checked bag is money well spent.  And for hillwalking, the mythical "third of my body weight" is just over 6 stone, so I've got a lot of flexibility there

Actually, it can be money well spent at other times, too.  There is something incredibly civilised (and really quick) about passing through an airport with only a book in your hand and otherwise no hand luggage.

Post edited at 23:11
1
 Blue Straggler 02 Jul 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

>  The best zip-offs have ankle zips that allow the leggings to be taken off over shoes.

The best zip-offs don't need the phrase "taken off over shoes" to exist at all as the side zips on the lower part (the part that you are calling "leggings") will completely open the "tube" into a single "sheet"

 TobyA 03 Jul 2019
In reply to MrsBuggins:

Decathlon pants are ace - the synthetic stretch boxers from their running range are great outdoor pants and only a few quid a pair.

 TobyA 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

I've got two pairs of crocs but no zip off troos, so how does that work? 😉

In reply to Neil Williams:

Gosh, we differ a lot on this! I don't fly hand-luggage-only to save money but to get through airports as fast as possible and to simplify all the rest of my travel. My carry-on bags are not crammed. (I find waiting for checked bags at the airport a mug's game and incredibly uncivilised and really slow!).

For hillwalking, I probably carry about 5 to 10 % of my body weight depending mainly on the amount of fluid that needs to be carried. Only on long back-country trips do I take up to a third or more of my body weight; that is if my load includes camping gear and climbing gear.

Post edited at 01:43
 jethro kiernan 03 Jul 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Not all crack addicts like a bit of weed either

 Michael Hood 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Zip off trousers are also a gateway drug to a pair of Crocs.

I'm not sure you've got that the right way round. Can't remember which I got first

 Blue Straggler 03 Jul 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

The last two times that I’ve checked baggage in, I’ve got through the airport quicker than those with hand-baggage only.

 Blue Straggler 03 Jul 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

How is waiting for checked bags “a mug’s game”, exactly?

I grant that it is uncivilised if you are one of the idiots who stands close to the carousel with a tense territorial stance before it’s even running, but I am not one of those idiots. 

2
 JoshOvki 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

Very good point

In reply to Blue Straggler:

> The last two times that I’ve checked baggage in, I’ve got through the airport quicker than those with hand-baggage only.

How is that possible?

 Blue Straggler 03 Jul 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> How is that possible?

Cheap short-haul flights full of passengers with huge hand baggage. They are all faffing around around wrestling it out of the overhead lockers, often their own luggage being many rows away from their seat. Meanwhile I, with just a tablet and earphones, saunter off, through passport control before getting stuck behind all the others, and (here is where it is the luck of the draw) the hold baggage has been offloaded really quickly (which DOES happen with fast turnaround low cost airlines). It's not guaranteed, I've been lucky, but even with a wait, it does feel a bit "nicer" this way. 

I actually timed this at Rome Fiumicino a year ago. 9 minutes from wheels touching down, to picking up my bag from the carousel. 

Sure, sometimes you do end up waiting 45 minutes for your baggage but it's reasonably rare that I haven't built slack into a journey so I never feel a great need to rush through the airport, as perfunctory as it might be. 

Usually on my short haul flights I AM hand baggage only, with a reasonably sized wheelie case thing, and I have to waddle around with everyone else. I recently paid the £7 supplement to put my legitimate hand baggage into the hold on a flight from Milan to Luton, and though it might not have saved me time at arrivals, it made for a more pleasant time in Milan not having drag the bag around, and made for a more pleasant experience boarding and departing the aircraft. 

 ianstevens 03 Jul 2019
In reply to skog:

> How could they be too cheap? I don't understand how paying more would help you!

The same way anything can be too cheap. Made to a poor design, using shite materials by underpaid children in the far east/sub-continent. 

 ianstevens 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Zip off trousers are also a gateway drug to a pair of Crocs.

Except that crocs actually have practical application, whereas zip-offs are a PITA

 Chris Craggs Global Crag Moderator 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> The last two times that I’ve checked baggage in, I’ve got through the airport quicker than those with hand-baggage only.


Really? How do you manage that?

We often travel hand luggage only, we get off the plane and walk out of the airport to car/taxi/hotel etc.

Chris

 Michael Hood 03 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

In the same vein as the "nobody's forcing you to clip the bolts, just climb past them" argument...

Nobody's forcing you to unzip the legs off, just leave them on

 jethro kiernan 03 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

There are less humiliating ways of birth control than Crocs 😀

ron hills, Crocs and a pair of slightly off white sports socks  😀

Post edited at 09:33
 Neil Williams 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> How is waiting for checked bags “a mug’s game”, exactly?

Being in a hurry is a mug's game.  Build slack into your travel, and your stresses disappear.

If you don't need the slack, use it for something pleasant like a sit-down meal, or just sitting somewhere with a book and a drink for an hour.

This even works when commuting.  Get up half an hour early, then if the train's a bit late you aren't worrying about being late for work.

Post edited at 09:36
 Blue Straggler 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Neil Williams:

Exactly, but I didn’t want to stoop to directly John Stainforth a mug as he did you

 ianstevens 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Michael Hood:

But then you could own regular trousers? 

 ianstevens 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> There are less humiliating ways of birth control than Crocs 😀

> ron hills, Crocs and a pair of slightly off white sports socks  😀

oooh, now that's a fine combo. IMO I don't really get the hate for crocs - yes they look shit, but are quite practical in some cases. Camping and watersports being prime examples - but never with socks!

 Michael Hood 03 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

Definitely never socks with Crocs.

They're quite good as summer approach shoes especially if there's some boggy ground to go over.

Also, if you get the sizing right, you can wear them over a pair of rock shoes to wander along the crag to the next route to save the soles a little. Obviously only any good for comfy rock shoes, especially useful if you're soloing loads of easy short routes and don't want to keep on taking shoes off.

 TobyA 03 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

I mainly use my crocs as slippers around the house, but yeah - camping they are great for, and beaches/rivers and so on in warmer climes. Don't try pushing sharp Ti tent pegs in with them though! Or stamping out campfire embers.

Jethro, I have two pairs of crocs and three children. Go figure!

 Michael Hood 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> There are less humiliating ways of birth control than Crocs 😀

> ron hills, Crocs and a pair of slightly off white sports socks  😀

Once you get to a certain stage in life (i.e. no more kids required), you don't worry so much about looks and tend to go more for whatever's practical and comfortable.

However I do see your point about them being effective birth control

 jethro kiernan 03 Jul 2019
In reply to TobyA:

Ah but did the Crocs apear after the kids ?

 Chris H 03 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

Crocs and watersports ? I admire your honesty...

In reply to TobyA:

> Decathlon pants are ace - the synthetic stretch boxers from their running range are great outdoor pants and only a few quid a pair.

You wear these outdoors? or do you mean as underwear?

https://www.decathlon.co.uk/breathable-boxers-black-id_8489345.html

 skog 03 Jul 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

> The same way anything can be too cheap. Made to a poor design, using shite materials by underpaid children in the far east/sub-continent. 


That isn't "too cheap", it's "badly designed", and "made unethically from crap".

Some cheap things are, some aren't. Some expensive things are, some aren't.

If you're serious about avoiding these things, you need to do a bit more research than just looking at the price!

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I can't make sense of your sentence. To clarify: Neil first implied I was a mug for traveling with hand luggage only.

 ianstevens 03 Jul 2019
In reply to skog:

> That isn't "too cheap", it's "badly designed", and "made unethically from crap".

> Some cheap things are, some aren't. Some expensive things are, some aren't.

> If you're serious about avoiding these things, you need to do a bit more research than just looking at the price!

I do and have done. In my experince they often (but not always) correlate.

 Blue Straggler 03 Jul 2019
In reply to John Stainforth:

> I can't make sense of your sentence.

sorry, I managed to completely omit the word “calling”

> To clarify: Neil first implied I was a mug for traveling with hand luggage only.

Not really as he didn’t directly class you as someone who CRAMS everything into hand baggage, he was referring more generally, to others. That was my inference given that you had stated that you travel VERY light. You on the other hand pretty much stated  that ANYONE not going hand-baggage only, was a mug. 

There is a subtle but significant difference 

 galpinos 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

I'm assuming you don't use Manchester airport then.

 Blue Straggler 03 Jul 2019
In reply to galpinos:

> I'm assuming you don't use Manchester airport then.

Correct. Used once in the last 5 years, my flight was delayed out of there (not Manchester airport's fault). 

Stansted isn't much fun for arrivals with or without hold baggage and I try to avoid it. 
UK (England, really) airports that I use tend to be LGW, LHR, LTN, EMA, BHX and on rare occasions LCY. Hope I got the codes right there!
Destinations include Cork, Dublin, Shannon, Knock, Hannover, Hamburg, Rome, Venice, Pisa. Geneva

 TobyA 03 Jul 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> Ah but did the Crocs apear after the kids ?

Both pairs appeared in the decade between #2 and #3 so actually seem to suggest that rather than having a contraceptive effect it's the opposite! Clearly comfy, airy feet leads to virility even in moderately old age!

 Tom Valentine 03 Jul 2019
In reply to johncook:

Still the only place I know that sells Hi-Vis camo gear. Presumably for people who can't make their minds up.

 TobyA 03 Jul 2019
In reply to Tom Valentine:

> Still the only place I know that sells Hi-Vis camo gear.

Totally a normal thing in any place that has a hunting culture.  It is weird though isn't it. I was told once in Finland that moose don't see the orange, but it stops hunters shooting each other. I know the latter is true, never found out if the former is true though.

In reply to Tom Valentine:

High visibility camo works because the things they are hunting are colour blind, so the camo works to break up outline. But, being high vis, other hunters can see you, so they won't (hopefully), shoot you.

Hi vis camo is not restricted to Decathlon by any means.

 Tom Valentine 04 Jul 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

Apologies for my mocking post, then. Always good to learn new stuff. it seems it might not work too well in bear country, though.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...