🚀 go-pugleaf

>> > > Wearing the replica clothing for two days on Everest,

In article <1hgz5bw.1eih2ol1uj2egnN%you@figureitout.com>,
Clyde <you@figureitout.com> wrote:
>Rob Devereux <rdevereux@linacre.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>> "Clyde" <you@figureitout.com> wrote in message
>> news:1hgx81i.i6g9r81szmeksN%you@figureitout.com...
>> > 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 interesting.  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

While your points are truem Clyde has the edge.

>Nah, it just proves that BBC is gullible.

Dave Roberts, Rafting with the BBC, where the first line begins:
	"They are dead.  All dead..."


>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 climbing kit there's no
>doubt modern gear is better if you compare high-end to high-end. 


I have to go get my Alaskan laundry.
...

--