La Sportiva Boulder X Approach Shoe
June 24, 2010
Ah, the age old debate: what exactly IS an approach shoe? To what are we approaching while wearing this shoe? Traditionally, the answer is “the crag” but that still doesn’t explain the difference between a snazzy, official “approach” shoe and a regular old hiking shoe. This grizzled old gear tester doesn’t even know. When I go to the crag I wear hiking shoes. I suppose that approaching a rock route would be a reasonable inference; after all you need rock shoes to climb a rock route and it is SO not fun to hike in rock shoes. I know, because I have tried. What can I say, I hate carrying stuff. If I were to approach anything bigger, say, an alpine route, I sure wouldn’t want to bring along an extra pair of shoes just to approach the route, because then I’d have to carry them UP the route, unless of course I just discard them.
No chance of that with these babies; they are just tooo sweet to cast aside. Their value as an “approach” shoe is going to be dictated by the wearer; if you want to use them to approach something you go right ahead, they’re made for that. They have a climbing-boot look to them though they don’t have the beefiness of tread that climbing boots offer; most likely to up their “sticky” factor. They are nicely stiff which is a cool feature if you’re approaching anything steep. They’ve got enough padding for long hikes and enough stiffness/support for carrying loads. The sticky soles cling to steep inclines which I guess is a good warmup since you’re allegedly approaching a crag where you’ll don even stickier shoes. The fit is nice thanks to a longer-than-usual row of eyelets; you can really dial in the fit from arch to toe. The rubber sole extends up along the toe piece to keep your tootsies dry if you’re gauche enough to step in the mud in these high-class hoofers.
As usual with La Sportiva offerings, the Boulder X excels (ironically) on the downhills; the Impact Brake System footbed nicely cushioning your footsteps. I thought the steep-walled heel piece would be tricky and lead to ankle rolling, but so far so good. La Sportiva makes a really stable shoe and these are no exception. I’m sure the sticky rubber excels on red rock-type terrain, but we don’t have any of that here so I’ll just take La Sportiva’s word for that. In Alaska, we have razor sharp unstable choss piles for crags; that’s about the same thing as red rock, right? Shh, let me maintain my delusion that rock climbing in Alaska is a reasonable pasttime.
Though I love the looks of the Boulder X too much to abuse them as much as I could, I can recommend them as a light hiker. I’d even like to see a mid or high version of these for more burly, er, approaches. Fair warning; they do require a bit of a break in period so don’t go hitting the PCT on your first weekend in the Boulder X. Give it a few wearings and you’ll be happy as a well-shod clam. Quite a visual, that.
Other approach shoes I’ve tried tend to be on the heavy-on-style, low-on-function side, but the Boulder X covers all your bases. For once the women get a better-looking version than the men; the grey/sage looking nicely understated which my readers know I like. I do looove grey. Ooh, I even got some great grey bike shorts this week so I can wear a grey shell, grey bike shorts, and these lovely grey approach shoes. What? I can rock that look, just watch. But seriously, this is a great looking shoe with oodles of function, if you’re into that type of thing.
REI Sahara Convertible Pants
May 29, 2010
A good pair of convertible pants is really invaluable. They suit a variety of temperature ranges, vegetation situations, and packing limitations, not to mention tanning opportunities. Doesn’t it suck when you find unexpected sunshine but are wearing long pants? Personally I like to get a little vitamin D on my lower extremities every now and again, so I am always looking for good convertible pants. However, I always end up with a pair of plain old REI Sahara pants. If that sounds strangely worded – believe me, I meant it that way. I always end up with these pants, but I don’t think they are the best that convertible pants can be.
First, the issue of fit is always a problem with these. This is really only an issue in the women’s version in my opinion. REI changes the women’s version almost every year, redesigning, resizing, recutting, adding things, deleting others…it’s maddening. Go to REI to get these pants and you really don’t know what you’re going to find. This year I tried on a few pairs to find that although REI had kindly tried to address the previous version’s issues with the Too-Tapered-Leg Syndrome (which resulted in the dreaded Mom Pants look), they have really gone too far in the other direction. This year’s women’s Sahara has massively elephantine lower legs. You can’t see it in the picture above, you really have to just put them on. They are seemingly half again the size of the width of the thighs. They look ridiculous. They are so ludicrous that I couldn’t stomach buying them even at the reasonable price of about $40. Not that I liked the previous version all that much, either – I’m not a tapered leg fan and I’ve NEVER thought that REI “got it” when it came to women’s fit because they always have a stupid high waist on the Sahara pants as well as the equally dumb looking tapered legs. Eighties, much? I usually wore them with the button undone and the waist folded down so that the top of the pants wasn’t practically around my rib cage. I had to live with the tapered leg. The legs were never long enough either, and even though I enjoy getting dirty and stinky doing fun outdoors stuff, I am a little vain about my look. High waist and tapered-leg waiting-for-a-flood pants were not what I was going for.
But the thing is that no one else is making good convertible pants for women either. And the others are making said not-good convertible pants at a much higher price point, so whenever I need them, I end up slouching back to REI because I could get a pair that I could tolerate without making my checking account cry. Some women even manage to look good in the Sahara pants – and now that I think about it, it’s usually shorter women. Maybe the shorter leg length isn’t tapered as much because it’s just cut off before it can get too skinny, if you follow me on that. Anyway, I stabbed my old pair of Saharas with an ice tool and punctured them, so it was time for another pair so off I went to the big box store of the outdoor industry to get another pair. This time I thought my luck had run out, because the cut of the lower legs was just intolerable. From the leg zipper on down they looked like an entirely different pair of pants, like someone had zipped XXL size legs onto a S size pair of shorts. Buying a smaller size made it look a little better, but then they were too constricting for climbing and what have you. There I was, without a pair of convertible shorts, out of luck. Just as I was about to leave, I remembered how much I used to like borrowing my boyfriend’s pair of Saharas for climbing – they were too baggy, but that’s fine for climbing. So for the sake of trying, I grabbed a few pairs of the men’s version and hey! They are just like the old design, with a few pocket tweaks. So I ended up buying the men’s version. They are baggy, true, but not ludicrously so, and I have full range of motion, long enough leg, less leg tapering, and no ballooning of the lower legs. They do have too many goofy pocket things but I can live with it.
Technically speaking, the Saharas are pretty all right. They have SPF fabric which I’ve always found weird, but then again I’ve always lived in Alaska where SPF clothing is not really a hot item. The best feature of these pants is the quick-drying fabric; it’s pretty great. You can get dunked in a river or sweat out a few liters and they are dry again in a jiffy. The zippers are kind of hit and miss; they might last, they might not. But if they don’t last, REI will let you exchange them in a usually hassle-free manner. I don’t like the goofy cargo pockets because they just serve to make hips look bigger, especially if you actually USE the pockets to put stuff in. They make everything look like a throwback to 1970’s boy scout camp. Really, who needs these giant cargo pockets? Just take them off and the pants would look a lot better. Maybe they think you’re going to stuff the legs in the pockets when you zip them off? Now that would not be a good look.
I REALLY don’t like the velcro on the pockets because I try to minimize velcro in almost all situations. But I do like that they are reasonably dependable, sturdy, quick drying, and generally tolerable convertible pants. Plus, the price point is really hard to beat. Even though they aren’t perfect, when you catch them on sale they are about $40. Really, don’t buy them for more than that because they will go on sale again soon enough. I don’t recommend this year’s women’s version but you can find a pretty standard fit in the men’s section so if that can work for you, I’d try it. If you buy them baggy enough you don’t even have to cope with the high waist issue.
I’m having a little trouble wrapping this up because I’m not stoked about the fact that no one can get it together to make good convertible pants for women, but I’m OK with buying a men’s version if it works for me. These pants are so cheap it’s hard to go TOO wrong. So there you have it. This is an awfully long article about one pair of convertible pants but sometimes the amount of thoughts I have on a product exceeds the generally accepted guidelines for the amount of time spent on thinking and therefore writing about them. To sum up: REI Sahara Convertible Pants for Women Men: Good Enough.
Julbo Motion Sunglasses
May 14, 2010
Fair warning, this is a sad story. No, really, it’s tragic. As you all know I am a big fan of Julbo and I love their lenses. I was super stoked to get these awesome frameless pair of sunglasses from Julbo to try out. As I suspected, they are super cool looking and they flatter my face well. They wrap around nicely and have good full coverage for my peripheral vision; important for a delicate, sensitive-eyed flower like me. However, tragically, they didn’t fit my wee little head well. The ear loops were just too big. I know they can be adjusted utilizing a tiny screwdriver and good hand-eye coordination, and I might try that to see if it improves the situation. But in the name of getting them reviewed I just lent them to my Gearguy, who was skeptical of them to say the least. He was full of all sorts of criticism until he returned to the house after a long run, having experienced a change of heart and referring to the Motion as “the perfect running glasses.” So here I am, heartbroken that “the perfect running sunglasses” don’t fit my head. Bah! See? Tragic!
Gearguy reports that he had thought the nose bridge would be uncomfortable, because it’s pretty much pressing in on your face rather than down on the sides of your nose, but he found that he barely knew it was there once he started running. He said they didn’t move at all and he was completely comfortable the whole time. He’s a much faster runner than me so he probably ran about 8-10 miles in the short time he was gone (I can tell because Geardog, who went with him, is a tad bit tired) – a decent long run during which the sunglasses didn’t shift, bounce, or cause any pressure points. Well, hey! Now I’m even more motivated to figure out how to adjust the ear loops. It would be nicer if adjusting them wasn’t such a process.
The ear loops really are the problem here. For running, they are probably fine because runners usually have easy access to their ears. For my first love, mountain biking, they might not work well because it would be hard to get these on and off while wearing a helmet and bandanna, as I typically do. For winter sports they might be a good design because of the non-bulky ear loops that would fit well under a toque (remember, I am in Canada now!), but the lens isn’t dark enough to wear in snowy conditions. I see a lot of potential with this design and I wish it were mine so that I could tinker with it and re-release it.
Sadly, though, I don’t think you can buy these glasses anymore. I have yet to see them on the Julbo site or on any retail sites or in any stores. I don’t know what the deal is but I hope they become available soon, because they are pretty cool and I think they might really take off, given a few tiny design tweaks. I suppose it is my job to go call up Julbo and ask them what the story is, so if I get around to doing that, I’ll update this post for you.
Columbia Silver Ridge T Shirt
May 14, 2010
OK, so how good can a T shirt be? This good! Before my faithful “I don’t like your positive reviews, post more rants” reader can get too upset, I want to point out that this is just one of several shirts that Columbia sent for the spring season and it’s the standout by far, so it’s not like I’m just spewing good stuff about any random old T shirt I end up with. This one is really good. It’s just going to be hard to explain because yes, it’s just a T shirt, but it’s pretty incredible how many variations of cut, design, style, and fabric a plain old T shirt can have. Every few years I have to go stock up on technical T shirts, and when I find one that I find tolerable I just buy a bunch in each color. Using this bulk-purchase method, I rarely have to go shopping; however my look is not too varied, so new T shirts are a novelty. Dare I say, even a luxury sometimes?
All that reading just to find out I don’t shop for T shirts much, I know, I know. My point is that although I have a full compliment of T shirts, the Silver Ridge is a standout. I will cop to saving it for social occasions because it’s too nice to wear in anything rough-and-tumble (seeing as how I have so many others to stain up as I please, you understand). To sum up: it’s flattering, soft, comfortable, and very quick to dry should you be so gauche as to actually sweat in this lovely thing. At least I know where to go when I need to do my next T shirt supply run…so look, it’s a $30 T shirt, sure. But I would actually buy another, so that might speak for itself.
Pearl Izumi Symphony Short
May 7, 2010
It seems fairly obvious to me that women’s bike shorts should have chamois that are smooth. Maybe not the entire chamois, but certainly in particularly sensitive areas. This is not obvious to bike shorts designers though, and what could be a very nice pair of bike shorts is fatally flawed by the textured chamois used in the Symphony short. Pearl Izumi claims their “Elite” chamois as used in this short “reduces friction points” but I am here to tell you that no, no it does not. I’m kind of tired today so not inclined to mince words, if you haven’t noticed.
Aside from that, it’s a pretty well padded chamois which I appreciate. If it had a nice smooth chamois cover for those key friction areas, I would be much happier with these. If you can live with a textured chamois, these shorts are decent. I like the waistband for the most part since it’s low in front, wide, and smooth, without some pointless tie cord. It’s clearly designed for roadie use though, since the back of the waistband is super high and I don’t need that. Really – who DOES need that? I know that roadies lean forward but really do they lean THAT much forward? How high up do their butt cracks go? Inquiring minds, and all that. I can also tell these are intended for roadie use because they are REALLY tight. They are so tight that they dig into my non-flabby waist and give the illusion of flab which is really not my favorite thing. I don’t see why they need to be that tight, but again, maybe it’s a roadie thing. I just needed a pair of padded shorts for MTB so maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree with these, but they seem heavy on pointless features, like the leg pocket. What is it for? Some roadie thing? What could go in that pocket that is valuable enough to need to keep on your leg but not so valuable that you would risk losing it by sticking it in a kind of loose pocket? To me, the pocket just makes the shorts look goofy without giving me any function in return.
The other pointless feature I do not like is the HUGE logo. Oh, wait, the huge logos, plural (which you can’t really see in the photo above, so don’t be fooled). And the other little patch that says “ultrasensor” as if anyone would care. Not only are huge logos obnoxious to look at, but they render the breathable fabric underneath them completely airtight. When the logo is more than an inch across and in more than one location on a small item of clothing, that’s a significant downside. Little areas of reduced airflow are a big issue when you’re putting out a lot of effort riding your bike and generating a lot of sweat. I guess they just really want everyone to know these are PEARL IZUMI shorts. Perhaps they are reflective or something – but if you’re riding at night you shouldn’t be wearing black and chances are you’re not relying on reflective logos to keep yourself visible in traffic. Me, I am a little embarrassed by two giant white obnoxious logos on plain black shorts – one on the ass and one on the leg and that “ultrasensor” thing below the back waistband. I wonder if an application of high heat would get those off.
The sticky stuff on the insides of the leg openings is pretty good. The shorts don’t ride up and they don’t leave marks on my legs, so a plus for that. I also appreciate the length which is just past my hamstring tie-in. I don’t like shorts that cut off right in the middle of the hammie muscle; it seems really uncomfortable to me. So, yay on the length and the good leg grippy things, and the padding. Boo on the textured chamois and the dumb logos. The fit is individual to the person so even though these were a bit snug for my taste someone else might like that type of fit, so that is neutral.
In general these seem like a pretty decent pair of spandex shorts whose appeal is reduced by a few unnecessary flaws and a ludicrously high price point. Yes, I know bike shorts are expensive and yes, I know that I am cheap about it. For $100 though I don’t want any flaws on my shorts, since I can get a very decent pair of shorts for $60. I wonder if there is something to those logos and if the $100 price on these shorts reflects $20 per logo, or something like that. I don’t get why these are $100 and other equally good (and even better, in some areas) shorts are $60. If anyone knows – the comment button awaits.
EDIT: Since these were shorts I actually spent my own precious money on, I ended up returning them. Every single ride resulted in some seriously chafed girl parts. No one wants that. Back to the store they went.
SheBeest Shindigger Cycling Knicker
May 3, 2010
I really like these pants, let’s get that out of the way. They are super comfortable, very soft and stretchy, nicely cut and flattering, and very cute. I really appreciate a bike short/knicker that isn’t made of shiny spandex and cut so tight that the marks on your skin last for days. I don’t see how that is necessary, but of course I’m a recreational MTB’er no matter how badass I think I am, so maybe there are some super secret reasons that pros and wanna-look-like pros need to have their pants that tight. I know that if you’re a road biker you are supposed to wear a matching set of brightly colored shorts and jersey and if you’re a mountain biker you’re supposed to wear a combination of super trendy baggy shorts and a MTB-specific riding shirt or a wool jersey with a beer logo on it, or something. The MTB look is a little hard to pin down, but there is a look, and you recognize it when you see it. Me, I like to look a little more low key. Matte earth tone colors, minimal logos, kind of an under-the-radar look. I try not to create expectations based on just what I’m wearing. So I really appreciated these tights, which are matte black and look just a wee bit too cutesy cute to be “serious” bike pants, but believe me when I say they suit a serious biker just fine, or at least one without the need to look “pro”. I like that they don’t have a grippy inner liner below the knee or at the waist like many bike shorts. They evidently don’t need it because they don’t ride up anyway. They feel soft and comfortable and not binding. No sausage-casing look here!
However, they do have a downside about which I am going to have to be brutally, completely up front. As in, TMI up front. The chamois on the Shindigger is a bit grabby. If you indulge in Brazilian type grooming, you won’t notice a thing. If you are a little more heavy on the natural foliage, you may find that the chamois just might end up GIVING you a Brazilian. That’s a bit of an exaggeration, but the construction of the chamois just seems to grab those short hairs somehow. It seemed to be more of a problem when walking around then when actually riding a bike and it wasn’t bad enough to deter me from wearing the knickers again, but it’s something to be aware of if only for the sake of solidarity (you’re not alone)!
The chamois padding is on the light side; not quite enough for MTB-oriented me to be happy enduring the three hour road ride I used as a testing session, but my usual MTB haunts keep me up and off the saddle enough that I don’t think I’d have an issue out on the dirt trails. If you have tougher seat bones than me, you won’t have a problem. I can only endure about 2 hours of steady saddle time before I’m just plain done no matter what shorts I’m wearing, so I acknowledge that my booty is on the delicate side. I’ll save the Shindiggers for the trail though; for riding around town the padding is just not robust enough.
Minor chamois issues notwithstanding, the Shindigger is a great knicker option; comfortable, relaxed, and just different enough to stand out without wearing shiny neon spandex, all for a great price. Bike shorts tend to be overpriced in my opinion, so anything under the $80 mark will get special attention from me. These are priced well under that mark and they’re good knickers to boot. I’d like to see this matte look catch on with other manufacturers because I’m really over the “shiny” thing and I think a lot of other women are as well.
Fox Diva Bike Shorts
April 29, 2010
I just got an email from a reader who felt that we had posted too many positive reviews lately. She said she missed my rants and was starting to wonder if I wasn’t getting paid to post postive reviews. Very flattering, but I don’t get paid for reviews, really I don’t. It’s not as if I can’t be bought; it’s just that no one has tried yet. I had just turned over a new, less prickly leaf, thinking that my gear experiences had mellowed me enough that I wasn’t taking the downside of each piece of gear personally. I was trying to focus on the positive and not be such a nitpicker. Turns out – people don’t like that! My public likes my hate-ons. Who woulda thunk?
So I cast about for some complete crap gear that I could write about. Luckily I had just gone bike shorts shopping so boy, do I have some commentary that will blister your computer screen. My wrath shall fall on the Fox Diva short, which after a day of bike short shopping stands out in my mind in large part due to its stupid name. My Gearguy even pointed it out in the shop and snickered, knowing that I would fly into an entertaining(for him) rage in the middle of the store about how manufacturers can’t figure out how to name women’s items anything but DIVA. I’ve already posted about this here and here. But it hasn’t gotten through to the industry so here we go again.
People, it is a red neon sign that you are not trying hard enough to develop your women’s market if DIVA is the only name you can come up with. A Diva is, in fact, a horrible person; a demanding, pushy, imperious bitch. Why do you name your gear after such a person? Is this what you think women are? For the record, I do know that the word “diva” has more than one connotation but I’m not buying that gear is named after a “female singer of outstanding talent” and nobody really thinks of a diva as a “goddess” any more. Even if they did, it’s an extremely over-used name. If I wanted to I could wear Diva ski boots and Diva bike shorts, carry Diva ski and hiking poles, hook a Diva wrench kit on my bike, put a Diva bike saddle on it too (it’s spelled Deva in that case but I am NOT FOOLED); wear Diva gloves, ride a Diva snowboard with Diva bindings, click into Diva skis, put on a Diva shirt and Diva socks; the list goes on and on. Stop it, industry! Put some thought into these things or just don’t bother.
So. Anyway. The shorts. Lately I’ve been envious of the cool baggy shorts the freeride girls are all wearing on the MTB trails. My staple spandex seems really quite lame at times and I feel like the odd woman out. I had the idea to go and buy some cool baggy shorts so I would feel more stylin’ on the mountain. This of course necessitated trips to various bike shops, which can be not nearly as fun as it sounds if you are female. I might save that discussion for another time (though I already have it written up but was waffling about posting it for fear of being too negative. Good thing my readers straightened me out – look for that one soon) but needless to say it was a frustrating day. Finally I gave up on the local places and headed to the big conglomorate which to its credit had a rather decent selection of women’s bike gear. I grabbed one of every style of baggy shorts and went to try them on only to find that not a single one fit remotely decently.
Is my body that weird? Is this really that hard? Is there a bike short conspiracy? I really don’t know but there has to be a reason. I tried on 6 pairs of shorts and NONE of them fit, but I’m picking on the Diva because not only does it have a sucky name, but it had by far the WORST fit of all. I’ll just come out and give you the stats; I’m a 5’5” size 6. This means I can buy a 6 or a small and I’m usually OK with the outcome. It also means I have size 4s in the closet that fit fine and size 8s that fit fine. That’s the way sizes are – inconsistent. So I’m OK with a little getting-to-know-you size surprize when trying a new brand. I am also over 35 so when the spandex comes into play I tend to bump things into the medium range just to be safe. Since women’s bike shorts only come in S, M, L it seems to be a no brainer that since I’m trying on baggies (which are supposed to fit loosely) and usually wear a size 6 bike short, the mediums will do. Well. To my horror I found that the medium Diva shorts were skin freaking tight in the hips and ass, as in, not remotely baggy AT ALL. Obscenely, ego-crushingly tight – and too big in the waist. Adding to the non-appeal of this look were the inner liner shorts, which basically fit fine but buttoned to the outer shorts in a spot that was just plain wrong, dragging the outer waistband down and creating a really non-cute fold/bulge thing unless I wanted to just tug the whole ensemble down and bust a sizeable crotch sag. A feeling of dread sunk in as I went back to the rack and grabbed a size L, knowing full well what I would find but needing to verify. Sure enough, the size L was WAY too big, falling-off too big, just ludicrously too big. I did a little web research and found that the women who were able to fit these shorts really liked them even though the comment that they run small was pretty common. I might – MIGHT – be OK with a line running small, but I am not OK with such a HUGE size disparity between the medium and the large. That is just ridiculous.
Really, Fox? REALLY? This is the best you can do for women; falling back on a stupid, hackneyed, overused and rather insulting name while not paying any remote bit of attention to how the item should fit? I mean, I try not to take it personally when an item doesn’t go with my body type; that’s just life. But for a size six person to go from a SKIN TIGHT size medium to completely drowning in size large; that is just not right. That’s just plain lazy on your end. Now, if you were flooding the men’s market with men’s shorts called the D-Bag, that would be just funny. But you’re not. You’re calling men’s shorts the Baseline, the Sergeant, the Ranger, the High Voltage, the Titan, the Altitude – and women get the DIVA. Again.
So I can’t tell you how the Fox Diva Shorts feel when you’re riding. I can’t tell you how tough they are or how long they last, or what you can expect when you launder them. I can’t tell you these things because the shorts are just unwearable. Adding insult to other insult AND injury is the fact that Fox clothing isn’t made for women at all, it’s made for “Girls”. They make clothes for “Guys”, “Boys,” and “Girls”. Not women, just girls. That’s all we are…just girls. All of us. From age 9 to age 90. Girls. Men can be either “guys” or “boys” but not us – no, we’re all just girls. I’ve seen this from other companies too and I don’t like it at all. I can’t be the only woman annoyed by this type of marketing. I’m not a girl and I don’t want to wear girls’ clothes! I am a woman and I want to look like one.
Fox does make a damn good front fork but I kind of feel like putting duct tape over that logo right now.
Chaco Paradox Sandal
April 28, 2010
Our readers know that I do not approve of stupid footwear, and by stupid footwear I mean anything ridiculously uncomfortable that does not serve a specific purpose, say, to look great at a party on New Year’s Eve. Such specific purposes do not apply to looking good in an airport while hiking 1/2 mile to the gate, making your legs look longer while hiking up a mountain, or evoking the pirate look for walking on the beach. All of those are honest-to-pete, seen-it-with-my-own-eyes examples, people. Stilettos in the airport. Platform flip flops on the mountain. Thigh high PIRATE BOOTS for walking on a beach trail in the Pacific Northwest. Pirate boots! The leather ones that come up to mid-thigh. With heels! I wish to go on record as saying that NO ONE looks good in this pirate boot trend (Halloween costumes excepted). You don’t look good, pirate-boot wearers. Just stop. It’s a dumb trend and you know it.
In all seriousness, though, there’s no reason that comfortable shoes can’t also look great. For evidence, I present the Chaco Paradox. I was skeptical at first, I admit, of these shoes. Why wear a shoe that is really a sandal? Or a sandal that is really a shoe? Well, I will tell you why – when you want to wear sandals but your feet are really beat up from being stuffed into rock climbing shoes at the crag or into cleats for playing Ultimate but you still want to wear your capris, or when you can’t find your socks and are late for work. Or when you finally get the chance to go kayaking on water that isn’t 33 degree instant death, or when you want to wander around on sharp rocks looking at tide pools without the accompanying trip to the emergency room. I greatly appreciate the Paradox for hiding my beat-up and unpainted toenails, but also for fitting and feeling like an ordinary shoe. I’m not saying I want to take it out running on the trail, but for kicking around at the crag or around town it’s great. Where the Paradox really shines, though, is the water environment. For kayaking, rafting, or even beachcombing, you’d be hard pressed to find anything that sheds water as well, stays put as firmly, and dries as quickly. True to Chaco form, the Paradox doesn’t get all stinky either. It’s a great full coverage sandal that is a bit more streamlined and sophisticated.
Mechanix Gloves
April 17, 2010
I can tell whether I’ve run into one of my soul sisters on the trail when I see a savvy MTB rider wearing Mechanix gloves. The blunt truth is that if you’re into MTB and you haven’t clued into these babies, you are behind the times. Why? Because if you buy Mechanix you get a burlier, longer-lasting glove with the same padding, the same armor, and the same grip with better Velcro and tougher construction for less cash. So if you’re still dropping your paychecks on MTB-specific gloves, get with the program and visit the Mechanix Web site to get yourself the glove that makes other MTBers nod knowingly.
The Velcro on Mechanix is so much better than on bike industry gloves it’s pretty ridiculous. I won’t wash my guy’s regular bike gloves with our technical clothes because the Velcro is so crap that it always comes loose and snarls up our lycra. Needless to say he quickly caved and bought his own Mechanix. One of our more notable arguments involved his callous return to the house bearing new Mechanix gloves for himself and none for me. What kind of monster would do such a thing, I ask you? He’s over my shoulder now, defending himself with some line about going back to the store to look for gloves for me but not being able to find any in my size; a likely story.
I’ve been riding with and washing the same pair of Mechanix for three years now and the Velcro is still stuck fast. There’s no visible wear to the gloves and they are still just as nicely padded as ever. I bought mine so long ago that I don’t even know which version they are, but they are pretty standard with a padded palm and full fingers. No armor on them, but I don’t feel that I need it. If you want armor, they have gloves with armor. If you want pink, they have gloves with pink. If you want flourescent yellow, they have that too. Most importantly though, they have a great, tough, useful glove at a great price.
You can order them through the Mechanix web site or grab them at one of the big box home improvement stores. The latter comes with the (typical) downside of not having much choice for size; I’ve never seen a size small utility glove at one of those stores. The web site has them, though, so that’s probably the best option for us ladies. If you are in a pinch, the mediums will probably work; mine are size medium and although they are a little big, they are fairly comfortable. I have been meaning to buy new ones in size small but since my old ones are still in such good shape, I don’t see the point. Then again, if I wait for them to wear out I might never get to buy new gloves; an interesting conundrum.
Mechanix has gloves for cold weather; too, and they even have fairly decent arm warmers. One thing they don’t have, though, is gloves with much ventilation (except for their ventilated gloves, which don’t have palm padding), so just get used to sweaty palms and serious wrist tan lines. They don’t have any fingerless gloves and they don’t even really make bike gloves at all. But they do make gloves that are excellent for biking.
Wenger Matterhorn Hiking Shoe
April 10, 2010
I’m not afraid of wearing orange shoes and you shouldn’t be either. It’s a great way to get attention, make sure people remember you, and ensure you have a nice matchy matchy look with your snazzy orange down jacket. The latter actually gave me pause while testing these shoes because I got so many compliments on my cute jacket/shoe combo that I didn’t want to get the shoes dirty and ruin my look. Interestingly enough I had been supposed to be testing the orange jacket too, but I was similarly reluctant to get it dirty. A job is a job, though, so I had to sacrifice my look for the greater good.
I hadn’t done much breaking-in of the Matterhorns before finding myself wearing them while sprinting through the SeaTac airport from the far end of terminal C, out the door, down the street, up the stairs, and all the way back again (yes, through security AGAIN). When the dog has to pee, the dog has to pee, and thankyouverymuch Seattle airport for not providing anything other than a urine-soaked concrete room as a “pet relief area” within the security boundaries. Luckily I had a little extra time to stop by the restroom myself, and was treated to the sight of a TSA officer leaving a bathroom stall and just walking straight out of the door and back to work without washing her hands. Yes, this is one of the people who pats you down and shoves her hands through your belongings. Ew. Air travel, such a treat these days.
Anyhow, the Matterhorns. Despite their intended purpose as a light hiker, I found that they are actually a passable airport running shoe, if you are into that kind of thing. In their natural habitat, though, they are much happier. They are nicely supportive and feature a tough sole providing protection against rough trail surfaces and a stable platform for climbing and descending. I found the fit to be adequate, yet I suspect they would fit a slender foot a bit better. They seemed to have a little extra room in the toe but didn’t seem too big; just a little better suited to a skinnier foot. I wear a regular width, by the way, before you get thinking I am some sort of mutant hobbit. If you don’t have a slender foot, you might need a little extra break in time for these shoes, but in general they fit pretty well. Most importantly, they have a nice snug heel to prevent slippage which is a nice and much appreciated nod to women’s specific fit.
I like the burly sole and the extra thick heel. Descending is my enemy so I like to have lots of shoe on my side for making my way down an incline. While not exactly padded, the Matterhorn is sturdy and reliable, with a nice grippy sole for traction on varying terrain. They even worked well on snow and were water resistant enough to be a reasonable choice for winterish conditions.
Their one downside is the lacing system. Instead of lace holes all the way up, what would be the most upper hole is replaced by those hooks typically found on hiking boots. This adds an extra step to slipping the shoes on and isn’t very stable or reliable. The hooks are also set too high or something, making the laces tend to work their way upward and under the tongue, loosening up the rest of the lace and requiring a stop to retie. This lacing choice is a surprise from the ultraengineered Wenger line, so I’d expect they’ll be seeing the error of their ways soon and replacing the hook with a regular lace hole. Once they do that, the Matterhorns are gold. Well, goldish orange. But they come in black too so if you’re more into stealth than spotlight, you’re all set.
