Apr 5, 2009 at 8:55 pm #1235334
I'm soooo embarassed that I'm even posting this, but has anyone found a pair of underwear that won't let everyone on the trail know what color underwear you have on under your Thorofare pants? I just got my new pants in the mail today and was surprised at how close to sheer these pants are. I'm thinking that something flesh colored would work, but I've never seen any flesh colored underwear, ever. Granted, mine came in at 3.7 ounces, but I mean come on–ultralighters need to have some modesty! My girlfriend already threatened to never hike with me if I wear them on the trail. Help.Apr 5, 2009 at 8:58 pm #1491560
If you're SUL (Super Ultralight) then you should be wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants anyway.Apr 5, 2009 at 9:17 pm #1491566
Just revert back to a loin cloth made from leaves found on the trail? Guess that rules out desert camping…Apr 5, 2009 at 9:21 pm #1491569
Ben 2 WorldParticipant
@ben2worldLocale: So Cal
Thorofare pants and leaving little to the imagination — you mean like your avatar? :)
OK, to be a bit more helpful… Wintersilk sells UL silk long johns in white. That should work. But if you MUST wear "skin color" — all you need to do is wash the silk with a bit of Chlorox. The bleach will remove the white color and turn the silk long johns into flesh color — presumably the raw color of silk.Apr 5, 2009 at 9:29 pm #1491570
@cbertLocale: N. California
finally gonna stop wearing your lucky red lace underwear?Apr 5, 2009 at 9:31 pm #1491572
Oh, come on, just wear a thong! And hope you don't run into cold weather.Apr 5, 2009 at 9:48 pm #1491576
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
Get the darker color ones.
I usually don't wear underwear, but it doesn't matter because I don't hike where there are other people in the area :)
However, I think you are going to be disappointed in the pants, and the shirt too. They breath poorly, especially the shirt. So, I have gone back to my Mountain Hardware Canyon pants with Rail Riders Adventure shirt.Apr 6, 2009 at 7:19 am #1491609
@mn-backpackerLocale: Land of 12,000 Loons
I usually don't wear underwear
Nick, that was totally over sharing – we didn't need to know.
Regarding the breathability, that's exactly what I've heard, which is why I sadly removed them from my wish list. For now I use REI Sahara zip-offs, but I'm eyeing a pair of Rail Riders Eco Mesh pants.Apr 6, 2009 at 9:40 am #1491651
I've used the Rail Riders Eco Mesh pants on all my thru-hikes and I really like them, but I just wish they had a bit shorter inseam without effecting overall length–think again about leaving little to the imagination. Mine weigh in at 7.5 oz and I'll probably just go back to using those and return the thorofare pants. It seems they may be better in theory than practice.
And as far as my avatar leaving little to the imagination–like my dog always says, "if you've got it, flaunt it".Apr 6, 2009 at 11:51 am #1491693
@dubendorfLocale: CO, UT, MA, ME, NH, VT
Many of the railrider pants now have a two choices of inseam length- might help with your issue! I have a pair of the 30" inseam weatherpants and like them, though the velcro cuff took some time to get used to.
JamesApr 6, 2009 at 12:48 pm #1491720
@retropumpLocale: The Antipodes of La Coruna
I think it's immoral for BPL to sell them in anything other than dark colours., although adding a second chest pocket to my flesh coloured top has made it 'decent enough' for a gal to wear it without a bra.Apr 6, 2009 at 1:13 pm #1491734
Not trying to hi-jack the thread,but I love your avatar. I can not tell the breed because of the size of the pic. I have a Springer/Brittany that loves to flaunt it like that too. Spittin image of the belly too.
Sorry for the thread drift folks.Apr 6, 2009 at 2:18 pm #1491752
Ah, my favorite topic. 1/2 black lab + 1/2 Australian shepherd = a sweetie with endless energy.Apr 6, 2009 at 3:09 pm #1491766
Zack,my favorite topic too. I love my dogs! Thanks for the info,my spaniel has the same belly…funny how that happens.Apr 12, 2009 at 9:07 am #1493419
@hibisk55Locale: The Back of Beyond
I wore my Thorofare pants for the first time yesterday. I had not thought about the transparency. My wife greeted me post hike and asked if I was trying to exhibit my Patogonia boxers. A quick glance in the mirror revealed every detail.
I agree with the assessment of poor breathability, but I love the water repellancy. I hiked 8 hours in a wind blown drizzle and stayed dry. Water would bead on the surface and run off.
Maybe they are a little too shear.Apr 13, 2009 at 8:56 pm #1493810
The sheerness isn't really noticeable with the dark brown color, so I think it's the best color choice for the pants.Apr 13, 2009 at 9:06 pm #1493812
@ngatelLocale: Southern California
So where do these Thorofare clothes fit into our gear?
They are not very breathable. They are not good as windpants. They are not rain gear. They don't insulate. They are not 'modest'.Apr 13, 2009 at 10:17 pm #1493826
@tarasbulbaLocale: Rocky Mountains
When these first came out I purchased some to give 'em a try and in subsequent threads some of these same issues came up. Now breathability may vary depending upon your local, but I found them to be adequate for the tropical PNW, certainly much better than a Goretex or Event garment but less than a cotten T. This assessment is based on the absence of perspiration running down my torso while hiking up a long stretch; however, it was definitely humid feeling inside the Thorofares, but the exterior of the fabric was dry. To me that pretty much confirms that the fabric is breathable. In short, pretty much what you'ld get with a windshirt, but with the added convenience of being able to unbutton all the way down, something my Golite Wisp can't do (to bad the pants don't have a vent). And as others commented on the thread, the fabric seemed pretty much the same as what you'ld see in a windshirt. So, if it looks like a windshirt, and works like a windshirt, it must be a wind shirt (and pants). Just as a windshirt is not raingear, doesn't insulate and isn't modest (both my Wisp and Houdini can be seen through), yet are functional pieces of one's kit, so too are the Thorofares. As for the latter, I don't wear thongs or briefs, but rather, boxers, the real ones that go half way to my knees. I have running shorts that are less than half that length with slits up the side, so no problem.
What seems to be missing from this discussion is a look at the origination of the Thorofares. They take their name from a region in Yellowstone that's notorious for extraordinary mosquitoe hatches. So if any of you need lightweight bug protection, these offer sterling performance in that regard. No kidding, they march around all over the fabric trying to punch through like Republicans drilling for oil, and they just CAN'T. And no permitherins required.
Anyways, to return to the topic, if the beige pants seem too transpaarent, well, exchange them for the brown onesApr 14, 2009 at 2:22 am #1493837
My perception is that the Thorofare range have been marketed as regular everyday trekking wear for hot weather.
They compete with hundreds of other manufacturers that make light, insect-proof and breathable garments well suited to hot/buggy weather activity.
They are not marketed as a waterproof so surely a comparison with event or goretex is comparing 'apples with bananas'.
I agree with the previous post. Hot weather wear that doesn't breathe adequately, is too hot and sweaty? …. but heck it's light! (so is a plastic bag)
Whatever the marketing spin I get the whiff of the Emperor's new clothes and doubts about the fitness of the range for its intended purpose.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.