I broadly agree with Jon's rant, but it's not just a question of fitting as many people as possible. Manufacturers would like us to buy a new item of clothing for every activity - one jacket for climbing, one for walking, one for camp, one for wet weather, one for cold, and so on. I, on the other hand, want one jacket that does everything. Generally speaking a looser fit that allows me to get fleeces and such underneath is more use than a tighter fit that doesn't.
When I think of the way waterproofs and fleeces were cut in the 1980s and early 90's I think we've moved a long way forward.
Ummm. For some time now I've found that clothing manufacturers have been tweeking the fit of garments to the extent that they Don't fit me properly anymore. Example.I have an old Montane Chonos smock it fits like a glove, size 40.I purchased in a sale an Extreme smock which I had to go upto a large size 42-44 to get it over my arse.I'm the same size I was 5 years ago. The new smock is huge in the shoulders the neck is tight the arms are too long and those new elasticated cuffs totally eliminate the ability to vent your arms. My old LA Flash size small, fits like a dream, newer LA stuff comes up tight around the butt/shoulders with shorter arms.This all means going up a size, hence baggy clothing. One reason I've gone over to made to measure. Whats going on?
Not all mountaineers are stick insects! Just cause I'm heavier than you why cant I get the latest technical gear in a size that actually fits rather than looking like it was sprayed on! While I'm at it whats going on with sizes? Why is a North Face XL like a maque yet a montane XL virtualy a childs size. Why cant there be a standard? I understand what Jon is saying but why cant he buy a small to fit him and me a Large or XL of the same item. surley a wider range of standard sizes suites everyone.
Indeed, most of my base layers look sprayed on. And as much as possible I try to minimise bulk as I go up the layers, my mid layers are 100wt or powerstretch fleece. The difficulty I have is long arms and back, most mediums are great on the torso, if a little short, but always horrendously short on the arms. So I've often had to go for a large. Anyone who has the same problem look at Haglofs mid layers, kimmlite/omm's cosmique pull on and mammuts aconcagua pull on, they're all spot on for me. Another good tip is to buy your merino base layer a size smaller, they stretch to fit easily. Shells though, do you buy it a little looser so you can get your down jacket under it? Or have several for all eventualities ? (yes.)
I think the point is being missed btw, it's not the size as much as the rubbish cut of the gear. Think back to boxy waterproofs and squares of fleece with arms.
Yip the fit of gear has changed, even my old technical Flash JKT which was once up there in the jackets to have ratings appears to have been superseded by garments made for people with short arms and no arse.I'm no stick, just average with long arms.
Not all athletes are slim or skinny. There's a guy in our cycling club in his mid 50's. He's very fit, completely outpowers me on the flat, (I'm 12 years younger and about 4 stone lighter) and he can do a 25 mile time trial in just on an hour (that's fast) yet he looks like he eats lots of pies.
I'm afraid i am going to have to rant about the editors rant! I am 6 ft 2 17 and a half stones and have broad shoulders and a 46/48 inch chest. Oh and i have also been hiking/mountaineering since I joined the Scouts aged 12. So according to your rant I should be 'slimmer than the rest of the population'. Sorry to disappoint you jon. Are you saying that any one who 'happens to be carrying a bit of extra weight' should take to the hills in something that looks like a wet suit. I can probably vouch for most people on this sight that if you are not stick thin you do not really want your outdoor kit hugging your figure. Base layers are a different story! I agree with you that base layers need to be close fitting or their entire existence would be undermined. However on this occasion I think you are seriously mistaken to have a rant about anyone you seem to describe as a 'generous pie-eater'. Why should anyone who does not have a low BFI have to put up with kit that is stuck to your body like glue and make you feel uncomfortable. Rant over!
Totaly agree with Adam Dawson. Off the peg kit is getting worse, rather than better, sizing and cut are all to cock. My dearest Mrs has terrible trouble finding anything to fit her size 12, 4 foot 11 frame. long arms, tight hips, long legs, finding clothing for her is a real pain.
I'm also no fan of "figure hugging" kit, and it's not because I'm particularly lardy (6 ft and 11 1/2 stone) - it's practical. I buy a lot of my clothing just a bit roomy so that I can be versatile how I use it. Backpacking at the weekend I used a Rab Photon, a down pullover, a Paramo Velez and a Fuera windproof, and at various time through the trip I layered them in just about every combination possible - not possible if everything is close fitting and sculpted!
My JYC has a nightmare too, womens outdoor kit is all designed for 5'11" teenage boys apparently. The big advantage of a slimmer fit is that your tops never ride up, they stay firmly tucked in or below your hip belt.
Although I'm fairly slim, I can't stand skinny clothing. I've got used to figure-hugging base layers, but if trousers are in any way tight around the middle then I pass on to a different pair.
I had to swap my Velez for a larger size because, although the small was fine with a base layer underneath, it was uncomfortable with a mid-layer too. In common with some others above, I need things to be baggy enough to accommodate some layers for when the weather is cold.
As for women's specific clothing, I can't see a problem with that. We're not the same shape as blokes, in a variety of interesting places.
What drives me mad is tops cut too short, so that they ride up as soon as I move my arms. Grrr....
I'm certainly not saying that everyone should be stick thin. Anyone who has met me will know that I'm actually a medium sort of build. I'm not saying that all outdoor clothing should be close cut either and clearly there needs to be a variety of cuts out there to suit different body shapes.
What I would like to see is manufacturers using stuff like stretch fabrics to improve fit across a range of body types. There are intesting takes on this - Rab has two cuts, the 'Extreme' which is a slim, technical cut aimed at climbers and 'Active' which is baggier and aimed at hill walkers. Obviously there are thin hillwalkers and fat climbers and you can't please all the people all the time.
Anyway, the point of ranting is that you can be unreasonable and I think it's clear that all outdoor kit should be designed so that it fits me like a glove :-)
Joking aside though, some of it is just a question of finding the brand or brands that match your body shape and the comments on technical performance are broadly right.
Oh, and on the women's-specific clothing front, I don't object to it at all. My gripe is that most of it, again, seems to be designed to fit like a sack ;-)
you answered your own rant jon. buy stuff that fits you properly, just like a boot (so to speak). it must fit someone perfectly, even if it is only plump americans or frenchy types.
if good fit makes it work better, then perhaps a nice cheaper brand that does fit properly and by dint of this will outperform an expensive more technical garment.
if all manufacturers made things the same size then you have no choice of size.
i tend to use ian's method of making me more clothes sized.
I'm 6'3" and 12 1/2 stone and I find that if I wear figure hugging clothing it just makes me look skinnier!
If you do wear figure hugging clothing and you're lean, you're going to look skinnier, but if you're portly, you're going to look plumper! Therefore this type of clothing only really flatters people of a muscular 'medium' build.
I've had problems with some manufacturers who'se clothing is a bit tight in my size. I have a rab gilet that has the wetsuit-waistcoat fit, not good. The rest of my gear is spacious, including the Montane (which someone said above he found tight).
'Spose it's down to buying gear online and being too lazy to return them when they don't fit. I wish i was cheeky enough to go down to Betws and try the gear on and then order online..
'The big advantage of a slimmer fit is that your tops never ride up, they stay firmly tucked in or below your hip belt.'
Not if your top barely reaches the trousers!
Its a choice between 'sack' or 'crop top' with most garments I try on. A cold midriff is worse than a baggy top. 'Active cut' means shrunken.
I think Montane is huge. I can fit small in most mens clothing but I drown in theirs.
It is so annoying that fit is rarely right. I tried on a really nice Mountain Hardwear jacket. The fit was great-lovely long arms, not too short or long (unusual as I'm tall), perfect round the body. However, I couldn't buy it as the hood was absolute pants. In contrast I tried on a Berghaus jacket of similar price and it's hood was not dire but the jacket felt like it was halfway up my back it was so short.
Finding something that fits, performs, and isn't too expensive is impossible. However the outdoors market it way behind the high street clothing.
Agree on the flexibility thing. I use a baggy cut North cape windpro fleece for fieldwork, but it is probably one of my best buys. Not stylish but I can always squeeze some extra layers under if cold and don't need to worry about waterproofs being damaged as it keeps light drizzle and cold wind off whilst being increadibly robust.
I'd buy icebreaker again, not just because of the nice wool, but because the fit is fantastic.
