Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:39 pm

RIP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:40 am

JohnClimber wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:15 am Joe's got a bargain here
(shame I've got a similar pair)
https://www.weirdosonbikes.com/product/ ... -trousers/

B, 32cm waist sounds quite slimline... . Old fashioned inches? .

I have just had a look and he has measured them straight across on the flat. They are actually more like 34cm not 32cm. I'm not entirely sure how you measure such things - the 34cm is with the elastic not pulled out so obviously they would stretch to more than that. 34*2=68cm = 26.7inches but they look like they would do up to a 32 inch waist without being too stretched.

Might be challenging measuring an actual waist in a flat state - steamroller? Ah, I suppose one could measure an existing pair of one's own undercrackers to compare, not thinking straight here. Unless the trousers are meant for those Victorian ladies who corseted themselves to within an inch of their lives.

Sorry, cheeky mode off, well it's Monday .

RIP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:34 pm

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:39 pm

RIP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:40 am

JohnClimber wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:15 am Joe's got a bargain here
(shame I've got a similar pair)
https://www.weirdosonbikes.com/product/ ... -trousers/

B, 32cm waist sounds quite slimline... . Old fashioned inches? .

I have just had a look and he has measured them straight across on the flat. They are actually more like 34cm not 32cm. I'm not entirely sure how you measure such things - the 34cm is with the elastic not pulled out so obviously they would stretch to more than that. 34*2=68cm = 26.7inches but they look like they would do up to a 32 inch waist without being too stretched.

Might be challenging measuring an actual waist in a flat state - steamroller? Ah, I suppose one could measure an existing pair of one's own undercrackers to compare, not thinking straight here. Unless the trousers are meant for those Victorian ladies who corseted themselves to within an inch of their lives.

Sorry, cheeky mode off, well it's Monday .

I'm confused. Are you saying that waist measurement is usually a circumference? Isn't that the same as the flat measurement x 2?

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:09 pm

RIP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 1:34 pm

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:39 pm

RIP wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 4:40 am

JohnClimber wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 12:15 am Joe's got a bargain here
(shame I've got a similar pair)
https://www.weirdosonbikes.com/product/ ... -trousers/

B, 32cm waist sounds quite slimline... . Old fashioned inches? .

I have just had a look and he has measured them straight across on the flat. They are actually more like 34cm not 32cm. I'm not entirely sure how you measure such things - the 34cm is with the elastic not pulled out so obviously they would stretch to more than that. 34*2=68cm = 26.7inches but they look like they would do up to a 32 inch waist without being too stretched.

Might be challenging measuring an actual waist in a flat state - steamroller? Ah, I suppose one could measure an existing pair of one's own undercrackers to compare, not thinking straight here. Unless the trousers are meant for those Victorian ladies who corseted themselves to within an inch of their lives.

Sorry, cheeky mode off, well it's Monday .

I'm confused. Are you saying that waist measurement is usually a circumference? Isn't that the same as the flat measurement x 2?

Since the waist is elasticated, they would need to be gently stretched out to find the maximum 'flat' size, 'width' . Which is as you pointed out, half the circumference.
So measure the stretched flat size in inches. Double it, voila the width.

Sorry I can't help you converting it to size x 6,8,10, 12,14 etc that involves female fuzzy logic....
I mean institution.

I wish I hadn't mentioned it now . Actually, no I don't, this is fun .

Shirley all trolleys/shreddies/undercrackers/keks/troos are measured in circumference? I happen to be wearing some 30" waist 31" leg (*) jeans as we speak (30", I know, I'm waist-ing away. HO HO HO!). It says so on the label.

Even if it was measured flat, the circumference would be pi x the diameter surely rather than 2 x diameter? I mean I failed Maths O-level first time round (a joke considering my later educational direction) but I do remember that bit?

(*) which, I believe, bizarrely, is Stu's exact measurements too?

You don't measure clothes by the diameter though. It is the length or the circumference.

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 2:46 pm You don't measure clothes by the diameter though.

That's right - tops are all chest circumference too aren't they - eg. 38" chest. Feet are, eg. "size 9" though just to be confusing . And of course laydeez garments use sizes like feet sizes don't they, just to be awkward - although those are a little outside my area of expertise..... I'll have to ask my mate Tony about them....

Clothes get measured by circumference because it's quite hard to take width of a body and multiply it by Pi and get an accurate figure because not everyone's waist is a perfect circle. But in this case the "width" isn't actually the width of a body just half the circumference (or girth if you are american).

He he, I think every one is correct, we are just misunderstanding how each other are expressing the same thing.

Circumference yes, (but in most cases we are not a perfect circle at the waist well I hope so!).
Width is when a garment is laid flat, (as in length &width as dimensions).
Which is not the diameter.
It is half the 'circumference' OR HALF the waist size. Note most waist sizes now under estimate, to flatter customers
Alternatively compare them to a similar style garment that fits.

They're for skinny-ish buggers that aren't too tall. And are male.
Sorted.

If you take a circle and pull either side of the diameter with a single finger, till its flat, the distance between yours fingers would be more than the diameter. In the case of that item, that would be the 'width' measurement

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:08 pm They're for skinny-ish buggers that aren't too tall. And are male.
Sorted.

That's all we needed to know

RIP wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:30 am

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:08 pm They're for skinny-ish buggers that aren't too tall. And are male.
Sorted.

That's all we needed to know

So they for slender youths, aka boys?

ledburner wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:49 am

RIP wrote: ↑Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:30 am

Borderer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 22, 2021 11:08 pm They're for skinny-ish buggers that aren't too tall. And are male.
Sorted.

That's all we needed to know

So they for slender youths, aka boys?

Not really, no.

Some pretty good prices here: https://www.pactimo.co.uk/collections/on-sale

Seems to be selling fast, couple of items went out of stock as I was looking at them.

SP have Rab Alpine eVent bivvy bags for £135 and Survival Zones for £55.

Nice tip, I'm after a 'starter' bivi for my daughter. What's SP though? Google hasn't helped!

Sports pursuit., registration required.
https://www.sportpursuit.com/search?s=Biv%2a

phy7tes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:20 am Nice tip, I'm after a 'starter' bivi for my daughter. What's SP though? Google hasn't helped!

Worth mentioning that whislt the Event material is ace, there is no midge net.

phy7tes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 1:20 am Nice tip, I'm after a 'starter' bivi for my daughter. What's SP though? Google hasn't helped!

She might be better off with something like this. Not as warm as a bivvy bag but no condensation to worry about. Obviously it needs used under a tarp. Full midge protection and the net is well away from your face. £23 posted.

https://www.weirdosonbikes.com/product/ ... tent-268g/

Alternatively these are just a regular bivvy bag - again they need to be under a tarp but offer more protection and warmth. No insect net though. £34 posted.

https://www.weirdosonbikes.com/product/tyvek-bivvy-bag/

If anyone is looking for a reasonable quality car-camping tent or something cheaper to throw up in the garden for the kids, Sports Pursuit have some reductions on Vango which might fit the bill.

Spacemaker sale now on at Alpkit.

Paid full price for a down bag a couple of days ago

directdrive wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:27 pm Paid full price for a down bag a couple of days ago

Always the way! I would have bought a couple over the weekend too had it not been for the analysis paralysis that plagues me!

Skyehigh 700
Pipedream 400
Cloud Nine

Arrgghhh..

Might be worth asking nicely if they'll refund the difference?
Or, order another, return the full price one.

Landslide wrote: ↑Tue Mar 16, 2021 4:43 pm Might be worth asking nicely if they'll refund the difference?

I'm sure I've read about them doing this in the past.