Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Posted

another good one is that according to published weights like in MEC catalog or Gear Guide, Rage and Quark weigh the same . NO WAY. Quark is like 100g lighter when you hold it in your hand.

Posted

why is it so hard for you to believe gear companies lie to you. ditto their reps. never trust a snake oil salesman even if he's selling sleeping bags, or packs, or puffy jackets, or revolutionary new rubber technology from the Far East

Posted

Rages are sooooo suck. SUck suck suck. Also heavy and poorly balanced. The Quark is a precision implement. The Rage is a clumsy fruit.gif club.

Posted
Sphinx said:

Golite is the only one who gives reasonably accuarate weights.

 

I've found OR to be quite accurate with their weights. I weighed my bivy (at home on my digital scale) and it actually weighed less than advertised. My Mountainsmith Wisp bag also weighs within 1 oz of the advertised weight. Mountain Hardwear is really bad with their weights. But perhaps this is a topic for another thread, sorry.

Posted

Checked out the weight for the Fusion in the BP Gear Guide. Also listed there at 2#4oz. Obviously someone weighed a sample and never checked again. So much for thorough. rolleyes.gif

Posted
Dru said:

Rages are sooooo suck. SUck suck suck. Also heavy and poorly balanced. The Quark is a precision implement. The Rage is a clumsy fruit.gif club.

 

Have you ever stopped to think for 30 seconds that different tools feel better/worse for different people? I'd trust the opinion of somebody who actually climbs with these tools over somebody who just sprays about them. rolleyes.gif

Posted

A good name for a new gear company:

 

"Snake Oil Mountain Equipment"

 

Think about it, it can make bad gear and lie about with a straight face. shocked.gif The Rep could say: "come on, buy "S.O.M.E."

 

OK..that sucked. frown.gif

 

wave.gif

Posted
JoshK said:

Dru said:

Rages are sooooo suck. SUck suck suck. Also heavy and poorly balanced. The Quark is a precision implement. The Rage is a clumsy fruit.gif club.

 

Have you ever stopped to think for 30 seconds that different tools feel better/worse for different people? I'd trust the opinion of somebody who actually climbs with these tools over somebody who just sprays about them. rolleyes.gif

 

I wouldn't trust anyone who actually climbs with Rages because they are so suck, it shows their judgement must be seriously off about everything. boxing_smiley.gifthe_finger.gif

Posted
Dru said:

JoshK said:

Dru said:

Rages are sooooo suck. SUck suck suck. Also heavy and poorly balanced. The Quark is a precision implement. The Rage is a clumsy fruit.gif club.

 

Have you ever stopped to think for 30 seconds that different tools feel better/worse for different people? I'd trust the opinion of somebody who actually climbs with these tools over somebody who just sprays about them. rolleyes.gif

 

I wouldn't trust anyone who actually climbs with Rages because they are so suck, it shows their judgement must be seriously off about everything. boxing_smiley.gifthe_finger.gif

 

boxing_smiley.gifhahaha.gif

Posted
allison said:

Checked out the weight for the Fusion in the BP Gear Guide. Also listed there at 2#4oz. Obviously someone weighed a sample and never checked again. So much for thorough. rolleyes.gif

Hmm. So the gear guide people are supposed to take a random sample of sleeping bags purchased throughout the season (in case they change suppliers, or assemblers, or...) And provide you with Min, Mean and Max? I truly doubt you'll see outdoor gear with weight specs better than +-5%. Which for your 2lb 4oz bag would be +-1.8oz.

Posted

No, what I am saying is that the # used in the GG is the same as the one used in other places. A number was generated, probably before the last design iteration, and then was never corrected. A 10% variation I could live with, which would be 4 ounces. I think in this case they probably just didn't weigh the right bag. Sloppy? rolleyes.gif

 

This is just a guess, but the point here is if Marmot can't be trusted to do something as simple as weigh the right bag, why put any credence in their so-called down testing program? confused.gif

Posted

Allison has a valid point. Just as much to the point is the fact that marmot's "900" bags are awesome bags with great quality shells and down fill. Are they any better than readily available 800 fill down bags simply because of the "900" fill down? No, I sincerely doubt it. But that doesn't change the fact that last year's versions of the same bags (marketed as 800 fill) kicked ass also.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...