Mountain Hardwear Nalu Pack
August 16, 2010
I got to try this pack on a Mountain Hardwear-sponsored hiking trip for a group of us media types. We each got to try a pack from the 2009 line, and since our hike was to take us softies to 10,000 feet, there was a bit of a skirmish for the smaller packs. I lost that battle, but ended up winning in the end because I got to try out the Nalu, which is one of the best-fitting women’s packs I’ve worn. Admittedly I was too much of a sea-level dweller to actually put a lot of weight in the pack for a hike at altitude, but I was impressed with how well the pack fit so I wore it despite it being nearly empty.
The simple hook closure makes fooling with your stuff quick and easy, so sandbaggers might be disappointed with how little time they can waste fiddling with pack closures. As a matter of fact the lack of insane straps all over the damn place makes this pack streamlined and functional, and you don’t feel like a total noob with pack straps flapping everywhere. We’ve all had that experience with a pack, trying to figure out what goes where and how to stash the strap ends somewhere, and why in hell doesn’t this clip fit into this other clip exactly opposite from it, and who needs to strap that much stuff onto their pack anyway? No, the Nalu is designed for things to be carried IN it, not ON it, which is my preference anyway.
My only issue with the pack was that the lumbar pad was made from a non-breathable fabric and therefore led to some serious under-pack sweat issues in that area. The MHW pack designer said that the nonbreathable panel was there for strength and structure in the pack, and that had I bothered to wear proper (technical) clothing fabrics on the hike I may not have had that problem. Still, he agreed to think it over and maybe make some changes to the design in future. If I weren’t from Alaska and dealing with temperatures that day that before I’ve only experienced in the tanning bed or on the beach in Mexico, it probably really wouldn’t have been a problem, and I wouldn’t hesitate to wear the pack again in a climate I’m more used to.
It was able to compress down pretty well, for a gigantic pack carrying only a banana and some water, and I really didn’t have any issues with the fit even with the light load. Despite my begging, I wasn’t able to take the pack home to load it up in an oxygen-rich environment to test it further, but honestly if I needed to carry a big load, I would reach for the Nalu because of how well it fits. It makes a big difference when carrying a load to have it sit on your back properly, and MHW has done an exceptional job engineering this piece to fit a woman’s body.
Columbia Outpost Hybrid Shoe
July 29, 2010
Hey, it is my first video review! And my first time directing a movie. Summer blockbuster, here I come!
If you didn’t get the point from that incredibly informative video, I will sum up: I wasn’t sure about these shoes at the beginning. If you are going to get in the water, surely go for sandals, yes? So I had to kind of make myself try them. Wouldn’t you know it, I really like them. I have worn them in the water (see above), sockless on short hikes, and with thin socks on longer hikes. In all scenarios they have been comfortable, no rubbing and no blisters. I love wearing shoes without socks so I greatly appreciate this. Yes, your feet will get dirty, because these shoes are made of mesh, but if you just walk through the water, they will get clean again. It’s like magic. I like how close they fit at the ankle; it keeps the gravel out and also looks cute.
I have found that on very loose, uneven ground, the highish heel makes it slightly more likely to turn an ankle, so watch your step on that type of ground. On well worn trail or in the water, you’re gold.
Mountain Hardwear Ramesa Short
July 4, 2010
The coming of summer weather means breaking out the summer wardrobe! You know, finding those shorts and capris you’d forgotten about since it has been so long since the temperature made its way above fifty. And speaking of forgotten about, I found these shorts peeking resentfully from last year’s summer pile. How had I overlooked these, I (and surely Mountain Hardwear) wondered? For they are really great shorts. It could perhaps possibly be that I last tried to wear them on a weekend in which I’d traveled from sea level to ten thousand feet in one day and pretty much everything I tried to wear made me feel like a puffy, sloshy water ballon, and perhaps on that particular day they felt or looked a tad bit too tight and I subconsciously squirreled them away so as not to remind myself that they, my regular size, were too small. And then accidentally on purpose forgot about them. Denial, so powerful. Ego, so easily bruised.
Luckily Denial decided to take a day off and Ego went to play with someone else’s wardrobe decisions, and I gave the shorts another try. And lo and behold, I had been missing out on a whole year of wearing great shorts, all because Ego and Denial had come to visit for a day. Houseguests, I tell you. Anyway, I do quite like these shorts. They are low rise, slim/trim fit style, with kind of interesting half-moon pockets. The waist, booty, and hips all fit my athlete’s build nicely, and the thighs are even cut well enough to allow room for my biker/skier quads while still keeping a slim profile. The 9″ length is quite nice; a little lower than mid thigh; just enough to cover what I want to cover while avoiding that bermuda look. At first I was wary of the slender fit because I tend to choose baggier pants, but I have grown to love the look of the Ramesa short. The waist and rise is my favorite part; low enough for comfort but not so low as to display anything ending in “crack” or “line” and beginning in “butt” or “bikini.” Mountain Hardwear calls this design a “conical” waist, so, er, okay then. I like a “conical” waist evidently. The back waistband is even a special, low profile design to allow for wearing a pack without getting chafed. They think of everything, those people. As I mentioned, these are pretty true to size, so order your regular size (size up if you are in between) and you’ll be good to go.
Columbia Ravenous Trail Running Shoe
June 30, 2010
My gear has an interesting life. I love hate to brag but I travel to some pretty unique places. Nothing worthy of a reality show or anything, but definitely places that most people never get to go to at all. Lots of such places, lots and lots. Most of those types of places are not exactly known for their amenities or easy ways to restock with supplies. As a result I have learned the knack of the packing balance; the fine art of bringing exactly the things I need to survive and those few extra things that will make survival fun. So on a recent trip to the wonderfully remote Aleutian Islands, I considered my packing balance carefully. I like to pack light (because, remember, I hate to carry things) but I also don’t like to suffer, so I had to pack my food, cooking gear, clothing, sleeping bag, decent work attire (like, normal work, not gear testing work) and research materials into one medium size duffel bag. I chose well, as far as duffels went, so I didn’t worry much about my gear getting wet as it sat on the open deck of the 100-foot crabbing vessel that was making its way through 15-foot seas to take me to my destination. I told you, things get interesting when I travel. However, seeing my tiny duffel teetering on top of an overflowing crab tote, swinging wildly in the wind while being hoisted over the water to the deck brought a flash of alarm and one thought: “My shoes!”
You see, my essential luxury item for this trip was running shoes. Running shoes are a tried and true way to get a workout in the bush (that’s what Alaskans call remote communities). I knew I wouldn’t be able to run out of the main village because of the very real and very substantial threat from grizzly bears, but even running circles around town is better than nothing. So I packed my latest true love, my Columbia Ravenous trail running shoes.
The Ravenous(es? Hm. Grammar conundrum) made the cut out of my impressive collection of trail running shoes in large part because they are my lightest pair. If I have to schlep bags I may as well make my life as easy as possible. I had a few running days on the Ravenous before this trip, but I wanted more time before writing a review so that I could get to know them better. The Ravenous shoes also came along because they are, quite simply, exquisite running shoes.
I’m a neutral runner with high arches, strong quads, and a penchant for running fast when she shouldn’t and therefore need a lot of padding. I put in a lot of miles, all of them off road, so I need good tough soles. However, I’m a delicate running flower with high, sensitive arches and touchy shins thanks to a healthy dose of pain-ignoring back in my team sports days. This is a balance that most shoes cannot strike, hence my joyful hysteria when I find good ones. The Ravenous hits the mark squarely and surely; appealing to a broad spectrum of runners while addressing the very specific (some might say fussy) needs of a small number of runners who just like it the way they like it.
I admit, I had my doubts about the Ravenous. It was so lightweight and flexible that I didn’t take it seriously as a trail running shoe. Until I ran in it. My first few runs in the Ravenous were in the Pacific Northwest of the US and the lower mainland of British Columbia, with loamy, smooth(ish), winding forest trails under my feet. I immediately knew the shoes were something special; they conformed to the trail yet kept my heel anchored in place. Ninety minutes into my first Ravenous run, my shins weren’t complaining, which is rare. On those first, early runs, I found that the Ravenous’s one weakness is twisty trails; the shoe is just too flexible to give a ton of support in those conditions. The heel cup helps to stabilize as much as possible, but I did experience ball-of-foot slippage during high-speed sharp turns. What can I say, I run on “interesting” trails. Anywhere else, though, you can’t go wrong. The soles are grippy and dependable, the heel cup is just stupendously cuppy, and the light weight minimizes fatigue. They are unbelievably comfortable with zero break-in time. If you encounter water, you will get wet; these are not waterproof in the slightest but they are not supposed to be. The good news is that they will dry fast and stay light.
Best of all is that they do have a women’s specific version. Of course they do, or else why would I be reviewing it here? The fit might be a tad bit better for long, slenderish feet, but I have normal sized, average feet with (as I mentioned) high arches, and they fit just fine in my regular size. For the first time in years, though, I’ve been able to run long enough for my feet to swell, making me wish I had 1/2 size up. So if you are buying the Ravenous you may want to consider that – it’s such a great shoe that you will want your runs to last forever.
So, all that is why I took them on my trip. And, no lie, I had two of the best runs of my LIFE in these shoes on that trip. I will never forget those runs. True, there were some other factors involved in making those runs so good, but as any runner knows, when you get in that zone you remember every detail. I remember the strange, particular volcanic gravel that made up the roads and how it felt like miles and miles of ball bearings, making things not slippery but easy, feeling like the world was rolling away from under my feet and rising up to meet my steps, and knowing that my next stride will feel the same. And I remember the shoes, the light, marvelous shoes, making me surefooted and strong, propelling me forward and on, under the Arctic sun. Which is really more like Arctic fog, where I was at. Regardless, now, when I head out for a workout, I just think back to those runs and remember that feeling, and try to get it back.
Sugoi RS Short
June 24, 2010
FINALLY some bike shorts I can say only good things about. Except for one thing: these shorts snag on stuff. Stuff like Velcro, brush, sticks, etc. So there, the bad stuff is out of the way. Now I can tell you the good: the RS short is a lighter weight short than your typical spandex offering. It’s also kind of textured, as in, not really smooth and shiny. Which is good! At least from my perspective. I think this is some sort of aerodynamic roadie thing to which I say pffffft. Stop worrying about the texture of your shorts and start worrying about your training. Seriously, the aerodynamics of spandex shorts CANNOT be the deciding factor here. What can I say, I’m not a racer and not a roadie. Maybe I just don’t get that fussy roadie thing where you have to worry about whether your spandex is textured. I like the fabric because it’s nice and light in the heat. I’ve taken these out mountain biking and I really like them for hot weather, especially because the chamois has little ventilation holes that provide a refreshing breeze on the downhills. Now, you have to understand; heat is not typically a significant problem in Alaska so heat-reducing features are all new to me. But I like this one, because there is no chamois in the world that has enough ventilation for the fairer sex, believe me. And the way my boyfriend’s laundry smells, there’s not enough for dudes either, but let them hash that out on a dude blog.
Like most bike shorts, the magic is indeed in the chamois, ventilation holes or no. Sugoi seems to really “get it,” or at least gets the simple fact that women’s chamois should NEVER be textured. Soft and gentle is the only option, and Sugoi chamois are smoother than most. They are pretty nicely padded, too, and I’ve not yet experienced any significant discomfort from the RS chamois. As is typical, I am left feeling as if the, um, frontal central area as well as the seat bone area can never get enough padding, but I pretty much feel that way about ALL bike shorts so this small weakness is not a standout. Others with less sensitive nether regions might not even notice.
A Sugoi strength is the length of their typical bike short, a category in which the RS fits nicely. It’s a lovely length, juuust after the hamstring tie-in, reducing muscular discomfort and self-consciousness-induced discomfort as well. Since I’m a mountain biker, I spend a lot of time out of the saddle, and I don’t like shorts that are so short that the saddle rubs my thighs. The RS does not ride up or cause such unfortunate chafing. The fit is standard; I’m not a fan of insanely tight shorts so I stay with a medium and all is well. The RS is not too snug in the thigh for ladies with big biker quads, and even if you do have bigger legs than most, the well-thought out length will ease your mind since the legs hit at the slimmest part of the thighs.
My pair came in chocolate brown which is unusual for bike shorts but also kind of fun. The short comes in other great colors including of course the standard black, but watch out for the white, because it is, like most things white, see-through especially when wet. Er, good luck with that. Oh, and speaking of wet, when these shorts get sweaty they will regale you with some pretty interesting squeaking when they rub against the seat. If only Alaska was hot; squeaky bike shorts would be a good bear-avoidance method. Don’t let the squeak factor deter you, though, these are good shorts.
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.
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.
