Are ski pant legs stupid, or is it just me?

[segacs]

I have the TNF Freedom Pants too, and have never had any issues with wind coming in around the cuffs. And I ski in minus-25 temps at Tremblant, so believe me, I'd notice!

Sounds like a defective pair, maybe. Or a hole in the pant somewhere.

 

[segacs]

I usually have to shorten my ski pants as I'm not short enough for the petite size. I get the tailor to shorten the outer pant, shorten zippers and reattach any tabs/snaps. One time they even moved the cuff protector that used to be on some pants to protect pants from ski edges.

I'm 5'1" and have to shorten *everything*, but I can't be bothered to shorten ski pants 'cause it would cost a fortune and I worry that a regular tailor not used to technical fabrics would ruin them. I own the TNF Freedom Pant in short length, and they bunch up a bit at the bottom but once they're over the ski boots they're not that bad. Sometimes I have to be careful to avoid getting them caught in the bindings, is all.

 

[NewEnglandSkier]

The only quibble I have with my North Face pants is the gaiter is pretty loose (it does not fit tightly around my boot). It still stays put due to the length and I don't get any air flow up the leg, but all my other pants have gaiters that fit tightly. I guess obviously it doesn't bother me too much or I would have done something about it.

 

[lisamamot]

My daughter who is 5'7"+ and has incredibly long legs wears TNF LRBC (LRBC = low rise boot cut) in a Small Regular but really will need the Small Long any day now, ok, maybe 3 weeks ago, but she'll survive. That said, she loves her pants, is warm, and does not mention the airflow issue you are having. I bought her pants at the end of last season so they are quite new though...perhaps a design change? They are not at home base here, but I will check them when they are in arm's reach!

 

[MaineSkiLady]

Here’s the deal with TNF Freedom pants: they changed it a LOT when they went to all LRBC/low rise, boot cut several years ago. I made the mistake of getting the LRBC version, as I needed a smaller size (original style I had became too big) - and, wow - not the same pants at ALL other than the basic cargo pocket design. I also noted a too-loose gaiter and too-wide openings from knee down. And the LR was....well, it didn’t work out. Sold ‘em. Originals (higher cut) were NOT like this at all.

So maybe it isn’t really anyone’s perception or imagination after all? Old style vs. new were cut very differently.

I can no longer wear TNF, as I am perennially between sizes, S/M/L doesn’t work for me anymore. Hard to find pants that come in numeric sizes, but - seek and ye shall find : ) I believe Obermeyer, among others (Descente?), still offers numeric sizes.

 

[bounceswoosh]

I just saw a thread about (men's) Patagonia jackets indicating that their sizing is all over the map ... seems to be a universal problem (except with Arcteryx? So far, for me.)

 

[contesstant]

TNF non-low-rise stuff is my favorite fit for me I've never understood low-rise ski pants. If there is a time and place to NOT have your back or crack exposed, I'm thinking while skiing would be that time!

Anyway, it sounds like maybe litterbug just has a pair that is too short. Wait another week and everything will be on sale! Also, it might be worth your time to drive up to the Amersports outlet here in Ogden. They carry Arc'teryx and Salomon. I'm sure there are plenty of options in SLC, too!

 

[bounceswoosh]

TNF non-low-rise stuff is my favorite fit for me I've never understood low-rise ski pants. If there is a time and place to NOT have your back or crack exposed, I'm thinking while skiing would be that time!

I used to find this weird, too, but someone here explained to me that it's necessary for women with short torsos.

 

[MissySki]

I used to find this weird, too, but someone here explained to me that it's necessary for women with short torsos.

I have a short torso, and find the low rise North Face pants to fit really well.. No crack to be seen honest!

Unfortunately I have the same problem with ski pants as jeans. A bunch of brands just don't work because the ratio of waist/hips/thighs/butt/leg length just don't work for my body. For some reason North Face really works for me so I have several pairs ranging from years ago to my newest pair this season. They all work great for me in fit and warmth.

 

[contesstant]

I have a long rise, and low rise and me are not friends in any kind of pants at all. Bring back the granny jeans!

 

[mustski]

When you're short with big boxy hips, a pant with baggy legs and even wider bunched up bottoms is about as unflattering as a garment can be. If I could find something that's not tight but a little slimmer in the upper leg, I might not look quite so potato-ish.

I am short, and my problem is that I have smallish hips but not much difference between waist and hips. I have the same "potato-ish" problem. Like you, I would prefer a little slimmer in the upper leg.

Maybe they think we're still wearing high heel boots???

Actually, if you were to look at my heel lifts ----EEK --- I am!

 

[litterbug]

Here’s the deal with TNF Freedom pants: they changed it a LOT when they went to all LRBC/low rise, boot cut several years ago. I made the mistake of getting the LRBC version, as I needed a smaller size (original style I had became too big) - and, wow - not the same pants at ALL other than the basic cargo pocket design. I also noted a too-loose gaiter and too-wide openings from knee down. And the LR was....well, it didn’t work out. Sold ‘em. Originals (higher cut) were NOT like this at all.

So maybe it isn’t really anyone’s perception or imagination after all? Old style vs. new were cut very differently.

Thanks for the history, MSL! I was surprised at the loose gaiter--it seems to stretch a little around the top of the boot, but once the elastic is past the power strap it's kind of loose around the ankle. You'd think you'd want it to be quite secure to keep the powder out, that being what it's made for.

I can no longer wear TNF, as I am perennially between sizes, S/M/L doesn’t work for me anymore. Hard to find pants that come in numeric sizes, but - seek and ye shall find : ) I believe Obermeyer, among others (Descente?), still offers numeric sizes.

S/M/L doesn't usually work for me either, unless I stumble on a manufacturer that puts my size in the middle of one of them and makes it in a shape I can fit into.

I just saw a thread about (men's) Patagonia jackets indicating that their sizing is all over the map ... seems to be a universal problem (except with Arcteryx? So far, for me.)

I haven't tried Arteryx because I can't afford any of their ski clothes, even on sale. As for Patagonia, the salespeople at the outlet told me outright that Patagonia regularly tweaks sizes and fit from year to year and model to model.

I used to find this weird, too, but someone here explained to me that it's necessary for women with short torsos.

I like the moderately low rise in my Levis, which come in different shapes, one of which actually (used to) fit my butt and hips (need to go back and downsize). Some outdoors clothes made to fit at a natural waist come up way to high, though. The LRBCs are low rise, of course, and come to the top of my hips when I adjust the waist, but they're not cut in a way that prevents a gap from forming when I sit down. Fortunately my ski jackets are all quite long on me, but it's not particularly comfortable.

Anyhow, after trying more pants today, I've decided to put off buying a pair for now because I'm pretty sure some fit differently today than they did a few weeks ago; I'm going to tighten up a little from skiing regularly, and it seems that I'm still losing weight, so something that fits today is going to be too big in a month. It'd be nice if it would level out in time for President's Day sales. Pants length are less of a problem when I fit into mediums, so that's what I'll hope for--fitting into a medium/size 10 or so in most brands by mid-February, then staying there for long enough that it's worth spending some money on clothes.

 

[MaineSkiLady]

I just saw a thread about (men's) Patagonia jackets indicating that their sizing is all over the map ... seems to be a universal problem (except with Arcteryx? So far, for me.)

Arc’teryx sizing? Well, here’s an interesting example - which harkens back to a thread we had around a year ago discussing sizing reality. I bought a used soft-shell Arc’teryx, tried it on without even glancing at sizing. It fit, it looked nice. I can get a light layer under it - not much more.

It’s a size large. I am 5'6 118 and generally a 4-6 in street clothes. Okay, granted - I have broad shoulders, a bit built-up from weight training (but I don’t build up very much at this life stage...).

So - I ask you - where does this leave many others, if a shapeless string bean like myself can comfortably wear a LARGE in Arc’teryx jackets? (Medium would just be too binding - plus too-short in sleeve length.)

 

[bounceswoosh]

Arc’teryx sizing? Well, here’s an interesting example - which harkens back to a thread we had around a year ago discussing sizing reality. I bought a used soft-shell Arc’teryx, tried it on without even glancing at sizing. It fit, it looked nice. I can get a light layer under it - not much more.

It’s a size large. I am 5'6 118 and generally a 4-6 in street clothes. Okay, granted - I have broad shoulders, a bit built-up from weight training (but I don’t build up very much at this life stage...).

So - I ask you - where does this leave many others, if a shapeless string bean like myself can comfortably wear a LARGE in Arc’teryx jackets? (Medium would just be too binding - plus too-short in sleeve length.)

Good question. Funny. Arcteryx is one of the few jackets brands where a women's XL is roomy enough for me. They have had a consistent fit.

 

[pinto]

The thing about arcteryx is that they have four or five fits, ranging from really quite tight to much more baggy. It depends on the use for the garment, and whether or not you are going to layer much. I have everything from a small to a large in their tops. But overall, especially their older gear, they run pretty small. With long arms for climbing.

 

[bounceswoosh]

The thing about arcteryx is that they have four or five fits, ranging from really quite tight to much more baggy. It depends on the use for the garment, and whether or not you are going to layer much. I have everything from a small to a large in their tops. But overall, especially their older gear, they run pretty small. With long arms for climbing.

Good point. The "relaxed" fit is what works for me. Maybe it turns the jacket into an XXL? (But I have room for lots of layers, so not exactly.)

 

[Kimmyt]

Yeah, I think a lot of their softshells are pretty slim fitting because they are meant to be worn as insulating layers, or as jackets for sports where you don't want a lot of extra room (like climbing). Which, also is why alot of the pockets for those types of softshells are high up on the chest, because they accomodate a climbing harness.

 

[pinto]

Good point. The "relaxed" fit is what works for me. Maybe it turns the jacket into an XXL? (But I have room for lots of layers, so not exactly.)

I am always a medium in arc'teryx shells, with plenty of room for layering; I am often a large in other brands, and they are really too big, but the mediums don't quite fit right because they aren't contoured like an arc'teryx is, so I have to size up to accommodate arm length or whatever. Shoulders, too, which is bizarre because I have really narrow shoulders. Arc'teryx uses a ton of panels and gussets and stuff in its shells, which makes it $$$ but also much better fitting.

I have a couple of fleece (Covert) tops in medium, and they are really pretty small, but work ok as a midlayer as long as I have hardly anything under them. I bought a large Covert last year in fact; it works a lot better as a jacket on its own rather than a layer.

 

[ZealouslyB]

Yes, I believe I ordered a size up on my FlyLows

 

[silly4snow]

Pants length are less of a problem when I fit into mediums, so that's what I'll hope for--fitting into a medium/size 10 or so in most brands by mid-February, then staying there for long enough that it's worth spending some money on clothes.

I'm about a size 10 right now and had a hard time finding ski pants. I also wanted to buy a medium instead of large, since larges are longer and baggier in the legs.

I ended up buying the Marmot slopestar pant, they seemed to be more generous in the waist. North Face LRBC seemed waaay tight in the waist compared to other brands. North Face thermoball pants fit in the medium, but seemed baggy, same with Mountain Hardwear pants.

I could squeeze into a medium now, and even though they are insulated, they are not bulky. They have kept me warm without wearing anything under them (since they are snug!), even in a snowstorm today. They do not make short lengths, I am about 5'6" and think the length would be okay if you were a couple inches shorter. REI carries them in-store so I tried them on there, but online stores carry them in more fun colors than REI.