Forum Replies Created
- Dec 24, 2018 at 4:03 pm #3569942
Westcomb Crest Hoody is pretty breathable. Use mine for trail running a lot. Breathes better than the Squamish and Incendo from Arc’teryx, which can be both a pro and a con depending on conditions.Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 pm #3569938
And even at 300 euros, if you’re getting almost half a century of use out of these things, that doesn’t seem too bad.Dec 23, 2018 at 1:39 pm #3569851
What’s your desire for a DWR-less fabric? Is it for environmental reasons or do you really find yourself needing to reapply DWR often after just standing around in amusement parks etc? I would think that would be a pretty easy life for most shells. Maybe look for something higher quality that what you’ve been using in the past and it’ll hold up much better. I don’t think you need something w/out DWR.Dec 23, 2018 at 1:32 pm #3569850
Is it mainly the pockets you’re seeking? Could something like a Gamma MX Hoody work with its 4 front pockets?Dec 4, 2018 at 1:04 am #3567280
I’m partial to Arcteryx for Gore-Tex, and most familiar with their Alpha and Beta lines – neither of which would satisfy your mid-thigh length requirement. I think their Zeta line might fit the bill. If they offer a Zeta AR, that would probably match a lot of your requirements.Dec 2, 2018 at 3:24 pm #3566880
I was going to say just that: if durability is what you’re after, you should consider Gore-TexNov 18, 2018 at 2:45 pm #3564702
Gore-Tex by design isn’t a vapor barrier.
You could use plastic bagsFeb 19, 2018 at 3:02 pm #3519230
Inov-8 is my go-to brand as well.
I prefer low profile, lightweight, tight-fitting shoes for trail running, and I’ve found the Inov-8 sticky rubber to be the grippiest available from any running shoe brand for running on rocks wet or dry. They’ve introduced a supposedly even stickier rubber this year too, though I haven’t had any dry (snow free) trails to put it to the test yet. I avoid any of their trail shoes w/out sticky rubber though as I’ve found the performance to be very poor for my typical conditions.Feb 15, 2018 at 9:09 pm #3518622
Reviving an old thread, but wanted to post that I returned my Norvan SL today. The jacket was great, but was let down by the leaky zipper on a couple of occasions.
I just placed an order for Gore’s version of a similar jacket, hoping for better luck with the zipper on that one. I can’t find any specifics about what zipper they use and if it should or shouldn’t perform better than the Arcteryx one. Looking forward to having a pocket to use too.
Earlier in this thread read I had speculated that the zipper was probably adequate for the jackets purpose as a running shell. That may hold true for some, but for me, having my baselayer wicking a bunch of moisture coming in through the zipper on a cold wet day just seemed like a design flaw that I hope they address with a future generation of this jacket.Jan 29, 2018 at 6:34 am #3515362
I use a Super Burn from MLD for 3-day trips.Oct 10, 2017 at 3:35 am #3495801
I use a pair of Inov-8 500ml soft flasks with long straws in a Solomon running vest. I cut the straws and inserted sawyer quick disconnects in-line (female side attached to the flask side and male end attached to the bite valve end).
I installed a sawyer thread-to-barb adapter onto a befree filter. To the barb I attached a short piece of tubing with the male end of a sawyer QD.
When I need to refill, I simply scoop with the BeFree flask, detach the bite valve from the flask in my running pack and connect the befree hose stub. I squeeze water from the befree flask into the running pack flask and then replace the bite valve section when it’s full.
This way I never have to remove a soft flask from my chest pockets and then try to fight to get it stuffed back in. All this can be done on the move without ever stopping.
Drinking from a separate flask than the befree also allows me to mix powders etc.Oct 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm #3494996
I imagine battery life would be a concern for a continuously recording device in the backcountryOct 5, 2017 at 1:29 pm #3494958
Ah…Roger, are you really trying to suggest that a larger sensor isn’t any better than a smaller one? I’m sure you’re not, but it sure sounds that way.Oct 5, 2017 at 12:39 am #3494866
Not sure what hat is going to protect your face from sun reflecting off the snow.Oct 4, 2017 at 11:01 pm #3494840
Ok…but the OP was looking for a baseball cap. I use visors and baseball caps to wick sweat, and keep rain and sun out of my eyes. So they hardly seem useless to me. Mine is on backwards more than half of the time too.
edit to add that my favorite hat is from OR and has a split in the visor so it can be folded up and stuffed in a pocket.Oct 3, 2017 at 3:16 pm #3494567
Can you elaborate on how you use your running hat and zebralight?
I’ve got zebralight flashlights and headlights with clips, and almost always wear a hat or visor while running. Ive clipped the headlight to my wasteband, but never thought about using my hat.Sep 30, 2017 at 2:09 am #3494019
I went with a pair of Komperdell Featherlight Alpine ski poles. I’ve since picked up some BD Z poles that I tend to favor though.Sep 28, 2017 at 5:41 pm #3493726
^Sep 27, 2017 at 7:31 pm #3493604
You’re absolutely right that this isn’t the photography equivalent of the rx100. It’s perhaps better to compare it to what it will really compete against, which are small ruggedized cameras.
In that segment it appears to be smaller than most and will offer, by far, the highest quality images. Those relative feature improvements (and the “new” factor) are pushing the relative cost higher than the Olympus TG4 mentioned earlier, or a GoPro for example. So if you favor small size, low weight, and high image quality in your ruggedized camera, this one probably appeals to you.
But you already said you have no real interest in a waterproof, small form factor camera. Not surprising that it seems overpriced compared to an rx100 given your preferences.
as for battery life for a 15 day trip, I’d recommend investing in an external battery pack and rechargeable devices for trips like that. No point in having 15 day battery capacity in your camera when you’re only using it on an overnighter. Size your external capacity (or # of spare batteries) based on the trip lengthSep 27, 2017 at 10:27 am #3493577
the camera itself is waterproof to 10 meters. That housing you’re looking at is for deeper diving applications, down to something like 30 meters.Sep 25, 2017 at 6:21 pm #3493173
“15 lbs to someone who is 200 lbs is not the same as some who is 150 or 125lbs.”
how about flipping this around a little bit. A well “insulated” individual probably doesn’t need to carry as much insulation for the same conditions, right? 😉
of course that same individual probably needs to carry more food for the same length trip.Sep 25, 2017 at 2:42 pm #3493144
your olympus is quite a bit larger with a much smaller image sensor. Someone else might take the view of: if I start with a TG4, would it be worth $300 extra to shrink it substantially while improving image quality significantly. I leave my rx100 home in favor of a more compact less fragile smart phone a lot, but the rx0 addresses a lot of the shortcomings of the rx100 in that scenario.
Again, though, as you’ve alluded to: there are features you value on the TG4 that might not be present on the rx0. We each have different needs.Sep 24, 2017 at 9:18 am #3492921
Wow very cool. I have the original Rx100 that I take backpacking in a small pelican case and snorkeling in a very bulky waterproof case. This little thing would be great!Sep 22, 2017 at 7:26 pm #3492654
They’re my favorite running shorts. I don’t think the pockets would be useable with a hip belt though.Sep 20, 2017 at 4:46 pm #3492113
I’d definitely be interested in knowing why you think your low base weight makes bears disinterested in your food.
I wouldn’t have even thought the bears would know the difference between a cuben tarp and a heavy tent.