🚀 go-pugleaf

Rob Devereux <rdevereux@linacre.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

> "Clyde" <you@figureitout.com> wrote in message
> news:1hgx81i.i6g9r81szmeksN%you@figureitout.com...
> > > Wearing the replica clothing for two days on Everest,
> >
> > Get back to us when he's used it for two months. Note the article never
> > states the altitude, temperature, or weather conditions. If they're
> > overheating on the glacier, it wasn't very high or nasty. And he appears
> > to be comparing it to shoddy "modern" gear if fit and mobility are
> > issues. Modern polyester underwear is far better than polypro (or
> > merino). How did the nailed boots that are "40% lighter" climb on the
> > rock crux at the Second Step? Much ado about nothing.
> 
> Well I think some of the points are quite intersting.  We live in an age
> where the modern is very much seen as an improvement on things that have
> gone and this clearly proves that they arent always the case.  You may be
> right about the lonevity but I have to say that a lot of kit I buy doesnt
> get to longevity if it is uncomfortable, ill-designed or unhelpful

Nah, it just proves that BBC is gullible. It takes more than two days of
testing in mild conditions by one person to really test the performance
of a clothing system. Not even a question of longevity. Having started
out in the era of wool, cotton, leather, and wood climbng kit there's no
doubt modern gear is better if you compare high-end to high-end.