UKH

In this 'What's Available' announcement we look at seven different pairs of cragging pants, from jeans (yes jeans!) through to cotton trousers, through to more technical trousers. Whatever you are looking for, hopefully there are some ideas and products here that are of interest. Happy climbing.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/news.php?id=5495

As normal what a load of rubbish. The most important piece of information is fit and yet again ukc delivers nothing on length and fit - well done on a useless article. Less padding and more substance please!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Wear ronhills erryday, everyone at the crag envyin' my style.

In reply to UKC Gear:
For an article about trousers, that was complete pants.

In reply to UKC Gear: What about E9?

In reply to rickeden:

they probably didn't pay ukc to be advertised in an "article"

In reply to UKC Gear: Pant? Pant? Dogs pant!

In reply to UKC Gear:

Thanks - I thought that was quite useful actually. I was looking for some ideas and some new stuff there to have a look at.

In reply to rickeden:

Or E10?

In reply to UKC Gear: Why are UKC gear articles always like this??? Look at some other reviews online and see what they do!

If i look at a gear article i don't want a list of items available and what they're made of i want to know if they are any good! I can find out what is available by going on any outdoor website or to a shop!

The whole point of a gear article should be to do what us consumers don't have time or money to do which is try all the options and give some expert tried and tested opinion of what is best! who cares what % lycra they contain! Which are the best?!

In reply to Ian Bentley: I agree. UKC - send me a pair of each in a medium and I would be happy to carry out a comprehensive review.

In reply to Ian Bentley: I think the problem is presenting it as gear review/article when it is in fact an advertorial. I have no problem with advertorials but just keep them separate from the min gear section so we know what is advert and we know what is editorial and impartial comment.

In reply to GridNorth:

Ian and Grid,

These are not gear reviews.

It says at the bottom of the Product News.

Gear News and Outdoor Industry News at UKC and UKH presents climbing, walking and mountaineering equipment and stories that will be of interest to UKClimbing.com's readers. They are not gear reviews and are provided by companies that advertise with UKClimbing Limited. Please feel free to comment about the stories and products on the associated thread.

All the best,

Mick

In reply to gcandlin:

Gear Reviews (editorial) on the right.

Gear/Product News and OInews on the left.

http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/

In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH: Thanks for clarifying.

But then I guess my point is why aren't they? Yes it's useful to know whats out there and what's new but without knowing if it's any good then what's the point?

And my other comments still stand with Gear reviews. There seems to be odd reviews of individual items but far more rare is one comparing all the options i.e. what is the best bouldering mat / entry level rock shoe / summer trouser e.t.c. available. The video one about belay devices wasn't bad but there never seems to be an "in our opinion the best is..." or star ratings for the items. As i say i would value the expert advice of the staf at ukc in choosing gear. Are UKC too worried about upsetting sponsors?

In reply to UKC Gear:

I would be more likely to buy a pair of one of these pants if the article said something about sizes. Especially leg lengths. I find most climbing trousers are about 4 inches too long, which as you might imagine is not optimal for freedom of movement.

In reply to UKC Gear:

You missed off the ten quid Primani Climbing Combat Pant:

I used to wear a pair of £8 combats from Tesco. But they stopped doing them (I'll be checking soon to see if they've restarted), so I now use a pair of £10 combats I got from Primark. They are all the trouser you could need. They're comfortable enough, they don't wear out too quick, they've got knee pockets you can keep your fags in for easy access when wearing a harness, and above all they're not £70 quid - so when you mash them up in some Ramshaw offwidth you'll not be that bothered.

In reply to Michael Ryan - UKC and UKH: Apologies , you are of course quite correct. I got caught up in the moment

In reply to sticks:

What's Available articles appear once every two months on UKC and UKH. They are compilation articles of items submitted by manufacturers/distributors to UKC/UKH and we choose a genre of product relevant to the season we are publishing in. The text is direct from the manufacturers/distributors and these items are in no way intended as reviews. Since the manufacturers submit different specifications it isn't always possible to have directly comparable data between items. What they do offer is a quick reference to similar items many of which have appeared on UKC/UKH.

Alan

In reply to Ian Bentley:

We do comparison reviews as well; here is the selection from the last 12 months.

Mountain Hard Shells - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=5244
Mid-layer Fleeces - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=5306
Top ice axes - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4473
Lightweight sport ropes - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=5093
Locking Gate Karabiners - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4854
Helmets - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4905
Lightweight Alpine Boots - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4885
Summer Trousers =http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4735
New belay devices - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4734
Lightweight harnesses - http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4476

We aim for 6 a year but seem to end up doing a few more. We have Trail Running Shoes, Kids Harnesses, All-day Rock Shoes, Headtorches and Mid-weight all-round crampons lined up for the rest of 2013.

All these reviews take a huge amount of effort, we need to get product sent out to us months before the review is published, and they are a lot of work to put together.

The What's Available articles are completely different. We never see these products, we just compile the articles from information sent to us. They don't take much time but are extremely popular amongst the advertisers who get a second exposure for their product news items that they had previously uploaded.

We do single-item reviews much more frequently. These are incredibly important for the site and highly-valued by the manufacturers/distributors. We are one of the few climbing media who do such in-depth single-item reviews and this is acknowledged in the trade. I agree that as a consumer it would be more useful to have everything directly comparable, but we simply don't have the resources for that.

With regard to expressing our opinions: we try to be constructive in our reviews and we always involved the manufacturers/distributors. We aren't afraid to offer opinions though and you can read plenty of constructive criticism in the reviews. We have so far steered clear of doing a 'best buy' award, or something like that, but we have discussed it and it may well be worth introducing in the future. What we will never do is gear rants like you sometimes find on blogs; these are seldom helpful to anyone.

Alan

In reply to Alan James - Rockfax: thanks for taking the time to reply Alan and for addressing my comments and glad you take them seriously.I look forward to more reviews in the future!

And you're right that gear rants would not be welcome.

As GridNorth says if you ever need help reviewing we're more than happy to receive van loads of free gear :P

In reply to UKC Gear:

£75? £85? £100? You've got to be bloody joking right?

Anyone that's prepared to pay money like that for some trousers has got problems.

In reply to Calder:

Damn right. They also missed off the £2.99 trackie bottoms from the charity shop. £100 my arse.

In reply to UKC Gear:

And what on earth are "technical trousers"?

This is a joke.

In reply to simes303:

You can get them new in Sports Direct for that (on the sale rails)!

In reply to Martin1978:

I'd rather give my money to a charity shop.

In reply to simes303:

I would say the opposite. Anyone who pays money like that for trousers does NOT have problems In all seriousness though you do get what you pay for up to a point at least. For just cragging any old thing will do but for mountain routes cotton is not a good idea and something with a bit of water resistance and windproofing could be invaluable. I had a pair of Mammut sofshells that cost over £100 buit they lasted me for well over 10 years. That to me is better value for money than a pair of £30 pants that may only last a season.

In reply to GridNorth:
>I had a pair of Mammut sofshells that cost over £100 buit they lasted me for well over 10 years. That to me is better value for money than a pair of £30 pants that may only last a season.

In that case you have more money than sense. The world has gone mad.

In reply to simes303: you have an interesting point here. But do you apply it to all areas and save a fortune. 2nd hand but economical car, self serviced. iPhone or old school Nokia. Have kids? Some people spend money and enjoy it some people save money and enjoy it but as with every opinion we all have we are usually a bit hiypocritical in some way or another.
Many of us now have Eco bulbs but live in massive houses with lots of them.
Personally I think these things are great if you just want a bit of info on a few brands. Fit is only really discovered when you try things on. No one needs to click on the article especially if you are already sorted for trousers. Happy cragging with the sun today.

In reply to gaz parry:

I did note with a slight degree of amusement above someone praising the cheap trousers in part for having a good pocket to put his fags in! Maybe it is "MADNESS!!!!" to spend 80 quid on some troos, but much less so than spending thousands a year on something that is making you ill, and probably going to kill you.

More generally, having written reviews for UKC now for years, I suspect that lots of people don't realise how much work it takes both the staff of UKC to coordinate and edit them, and then the "volunteer" reviewers like me to use the gear enough to form a proper impression and then write something readable about it. I originally thought, it will just be super-fun: getting and trying new gear and often that's still the case even if I don't get paid to do it. But I find myself now doing things just to test the gear because I want to write a good review, time I would have spent otherwise. With the ME snowline this winter, I slept out 4 times when it was colder than -20 simply to test the bag - skiing into the local woods late in the evening and bivvying out. That was on top of the nights out on weekend ice climbing trips where I could integrate the 'testing' into what I would have been doing anyway.

In reply to TobyA:

Also it bears remembering that if you aren't happy with the depth and quality of UKC's content then their moneyback guarantee is still on offer - send an SAE to the usual address and get your subscription fee refunded in full...

Having said that, as marketing bumpf goes this seems pretty ineffective - based on this thread, they might want to spend more time convincing people that these kecks are actually eight times better for a saturday afternoon at Stanage than a pair of ten pound trackies and less time waffling about "urban life".

In reply to Ramblin dave:





I thought the bit about the TNF jeans sort of did that, but I know what you mean. I suspect that the brands, like us, know that a pair of trackie bottoms (or in my case currently, a very old pair of loose fitting cords) actually make perfectly good summer crag trousers, and the people who buy these sorts of trousers will buy them because they like the look of them as much as anything else. But there's nowt wrong with that if you have the money spare, people should spend that on whatever brings them pleasure.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Two things:

1. I'm not going to climb in my pants
2. Where else in the world do you get trousers size XL - 38 long please

In reply to TobyA:

Maybe, but its just a bit sad when what brings people pleasure is the result of being duped by shallow marketing bollocks.

But there is hope. Just a bit back that hilarious "Mountain Hardwear athletes go on holiday to Morocco to enrich their lifestyle choices" marketing piece presumably got pulled because enough of us took the piss.

In reply to Robert Durran: It's not ALL marketing bollocks though is it? There is no doubt at all in my mind that my Mammut soft shell pants performed far better and lasted much longer than a pair of cheap cotton jeans would have. They were more comfortable through a wider range of temperatures and dried quickly after resisting quite heavy showers. Sometimes you do get what you pay for. I may be accused of having more money than sense but anyone who goes into the mountains in cheap cotton has no sense at all.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I presume from your oft stated attitudes on these sorts of things, your life is something between the Spartan warrior ideal (your purist climbing) and the ascetic philosopher living in a cave wearing rags in order to just meditate on only intellectual questions. I'm sure you would never consume anything simply because it brings you some debased and lowly pleasure! Bread and circus for the plebs etc.

In reply to TobyA:

Spot on. I have a very fine cave in a remote area of Wadi Rum (surrounded by lots of virgin rock) in mind for when I finally can't take the bollocks any longer.

In reply to GridNorth:

No, not all bollocks. I've no objection to paying good money for functionality that could make the difference between life and death. But often it just seems to be an image being marketed.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Just had a quick look through them again, out of those there the Marmot ones are the only non-cotton ones, so I think aren't really in the same 'cragging'/lifestyle category as the others. I've actually seen them in a local shop and they look excellent; I think they would be very good all round mountain trousers. They look rather like the Haglöfs "rugged" range of troos, but there is nothing wrong with that as the "ruggeds" are rather amazingly hard wearing mountain trousers too.

In reply to gaz parry:

But really? Is it possible to "enjoy" trousers? I just "wear" them. I haven't really got a problem with people spending their hard earned money on things they want, but this review just made me laugh. All the clothing I've ever used in the mountains has either been dirt cheap or home made and I've been ok. Me and my brother had 11 weeks in Chamonix for £300 and that included the coach fare,(ok it was 15 years ago but still well cheap).
And (just my opinion obviously) none of those trousers even look nice.

I've never had a car, new or second hand. I've done a massive amount of hitching though and met some lovely people.

I wish I could afford a massive house. Mine only has 5 (eco) bulbs in total! I suppose my way of thinking about the value of things comes from never having had much money and having to make it stretch as far as possible. Even so, £100 for some trousers??? No.

Also no, I didn't go climbing today unfortunately. I went fishing and got sunburnt. Doh.
Cheers, Si.

In reply to simes303:

I completely agree! Can't remember the last time wearing cheap trousers hindered my climbing performance! The people obsessed with buying expensive climbing clothes don't usually seem to care about the actual climbing as much anyway...

In reply to GridNorth:

But wasn't the point of this article that these were "summer cragging" pants?

In reply to UKC Gear: What I haven't heard anyone mention is who's losing out when you pay very cheap money for clothing, it's not you, it's not the retailer, its not the manufacturer, so that only leaves on person the seamstress who makes the garment in Bangladesh for between $25-75 a month. Not saying that the expensive clothing is any better for the worker making it but its worth considering that our constant search for the cheapest clothing we can get means somebody else pays the price.

In reply to gcandlin:

No, the issue is the companies, not the consumer. It's not us 'demanding' cheaper clothes, it's the companies making their profit margin larger.

In reply to JayPee630: Do you not think that the companies are responding to consumers? Companies selling trousers at £8.99 are only making a profit if they sell in very large quantities, if they are selling in large quantities its because there is a demand from the consumer for the product.

If Tesco for examples said we are going to source all our products ethically and pay a better wage for the worker but the price went up to £15 but Asda kept their £8.99 trouser (very similar product lets say), where do you think the consumer will go? I would say most would get the cheaper option

In reply to TobyA:


What - you mean it takes actual effort to do a good job? Wow.

More seriously: the staff of UKC are getting paid for this; and I assume the 'volunteers' are also getting paid in kind in some way (or otherwise consider themselves to be accruing some advantage.) It is just a job.

However, my main point in posting here is to attempt to defend the English language. It is 'trousers', not 'trouser'; 'pants', not 'pant'; 'breeches', not 'breech'; etc. Let's not allow the commercial interests to tell us how to speak.

So: don't buy the over-priced crap that's being advertised by the manufacturers here; and don't buy their take on the English language, either.

In reply to Rob Parsons: how do you know its overpriced

In reply to gcandlin:


Fair point; I don't.

Let me neutralize what I wrote, in that case, and then get out of your way:

"... blah blah blah ...

"So, in protest: don't buy the clothing that's being advertised by the manufacturers here; and don't buy their take on the English language, either."

In reply to Rob Parsons:

Amen!

In reply to gcandlin:

I think capitalism creates markets, not consumers.

Well mocked chaps - it is indeed marketing bollox, and I'd challenge any of the salesbeings from these types of companies to define what is a technical pair of pants. It's one of the most overused words in the outdoor clothing industry, and usually means jackshit.

I'd also challenge them to say what makes their £100 badged product 10 times as good as the £10 supermarket or GoOutdoors sales rail bargain.

Meanwhile - vintage Ron Hills rule. As do my Scarpa rock boots.

In reply to Rob Parsons: my point was actually that unless people paid to use UKC there isn't enough money to do the type of reviews that people were asking for above.

"Pants" appeals to the more childish side of my sense of humour, but considering I use words like kayak, anorak, pundit, sauna, zeitgeist, abseil, igloo etc. some quite regularly, I guess I won't be joining you on the E(L)DL! Probably if you check the dictionary, we'll find like fall/autumn that trousers is actually some Victorian linguistic frippery and that our stout yeomen predecessors called them pants.

I don't see them freaky Clockwork Orange style Moon "Cypher" Pants in there! Still can't figure out what those weird vertical pocket flaps were all about!

In reply to AUSSIE:

Weird pocket flaps, absence of a fly, stupid drawstring waist - and yet they're completely indestructible. I think I've gone through about six or eight pairs of rock shoes in the lifetime of my 3/4 length Cyphers, and they're still going strong. If there's a nuclear war I'm going to use them as a shelter, since they seem to be impervious to pretty much everything else.

In reply to Mungo Shuntobox:
Maybe to a certain extent, but generally seems to suggest more specialist fabrics, and/or more specific thought going into the design, rather than just stitching two tubes together


Doesn't necessarily mean ten times as good - just that more has probably gone into making them, somehow, at various stages along the line, in terms of design, materials, construction etc. Often it's worth looking at things the other way and wondering why the bargain clothing isn't £100 (or whatever) - as was mentioned above, somebody has to pay at some stage. If it's us, then we pay at the tills, if it's the person making the goods they may well pay in time, effort, low wages and crappy conditions.

Obviously no-one needs swanky trousers to climb, and it's certainly reasonable to discourage the notion that one absolutely has to have them, but if they fit well and feel good and one has the money to spare then why not get them, and help support the climbing shops and manufacturers.
And the economy as a whole, of course. Indulgent trousers = more teachers and nurses, in the long run

In reply to UKC Gear:

'technical' trousers are patterned, detailed and constructed differently from regular, say, walking trousers.
knees are articulated, crotches are made to not rip open, seams are joined differently, pockets have different profiles, waists have different profiles and seams often go in different places to avoid abrasion.

fabrics are then often different too, often using several different fabrics in the one garment for durability, stretch and construction reasons (not all fabrics can be joined in the same way). things like the inside of pockets etc often will be mesh instead of outer fabrics.

details then can be different; reinforced seams, tacked stress points, shock cords in the cuffs, concealed zips etc.

it all adds up. maybe not 10 times the cost of homestore trackies - but you can guarantee less than a tenth are produced and they take 10 times longer to churn out per pair. basic things like high stitch counts add time and that means money.

im not justifying the companies - they are milking a market that is obsessed with brands and logos just as much as hip hop stars - but there is reason behind some of it.