Winter trousers

Mark Manning said:

I've never had any problem with my Viento zip-offs leaking, but I
wear a jacket (again the Paramo Viento one) which covers the pockets. I
do find that cotton hankies in the trouser pockets get wet, but that's the
only problem... so far!

Following up my own post, but never mind. Just come back from a
weekend in Ribblehead, including some serious rain on the Sunday. Contents
of both pockets of my Paramo Viento trousers got pretty seriously wet (I
had to move them to my rucksack). The zips on the leggings were leaking,
too; but I didn't find this a serious problem.

Mark
--
Mark Manning [email hidden]

Adrian Godwin said:

It would be useful to know, though, if the Vientos are substantially
less waterproof than the Cascadas, as it appears. As far as I can tell
from the Paramo website, they're basically very similar except for the
extra leg zips (which are protected by a waterproof flap).

A waterproof flap is only waterproof from one direction though, and
while it may well prevent rain from being blown directly onto the zip it
can only be partially successful keeping out rain that's dripping down
the garment.

The raincoats I use have the main zips protected by a zip with a double
stormflap with rain gutters. There's still some water gets through them
in seriously nasty wind driven rain, so a single flap can hardly be
expected to be completely watertight.

If you want to see what a proper waterproof zip is like look at the ones
on a diver's or paddler's dry-suit. They're an altogether different
proposition to the things you get on walking jackets and trousers.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Peter Clinch said:

Adrian Godwin said:

It would be useful to know, though, if the Vientos are substantially
less waterproof than the Cascadas, as it appears. As far as I can tell
from the Paramo website, they're basically very similar except for the
extra leg zips (which are protected by a waterproof flap).

..

If you want to see what a proper waterproof zip is like look at the ones
on a diver's or paddler's dry-suit. They're an altogether different
proposition to the things you get on walking jackets and trousers.

Yes, I used the term 'waterproof' as a shorthand : what I could have
said more accurately was 'there's a flap made of the same water
repellent material as the rest of the trousers that prevents water
shed from a coat from guttering directly onto the zipoff zip'. But
that's a bit longwinded. I realise that it's far from actually
waterproof (and I wouldn't expect it to be, when the whole
garment isn't intended to keep water out to that degree).

Clearly, the additional zip is going to make the Vientos less
able to keep out water than the Cascadas. That's a compromise
that can be traded against the convenience of the zipoff legs,
as can the slight reduction in comfort. But it's hard to choose
the compromise unless you can work out just how much effect
the zip has - if they're essentially the same trousers as the
Cacadas but leak in a few minutes (Berties's experience) or
a few hours (my experience) instead of taking all day (a
couple of Cascada-owner's experience) then that's useful to know.

As a side issue, on one occasion where my Vientos got thoroughly wet,
I was also wearing long goretex gaiters, outside the trousers. This is
where I normally wear gaiters (mostly to keep wet grass away from
socks and trousers). In this case, the water eventually soaked the
internal layer of fabric in the trousers and the gaiters ensured
that as it ran out of the bottom it was encouraged to run into
my socks.

If I'd worn the gaiters inside the trousers (not, to me, an obvious
choice) then the layers would have been arranged like roof shingles
and the water in the trousers would have stayed out of my boots.
Is that a better way to wear them ? It seems more reasonable
with seperate overtrousers (gaiters over normal trousers but
under waterproofs) than with the Paramos.

-adrian

Mark Manning said:

Following up my own post, but never mind. Just come back from a
weekend in Ribblehead, including some serious rain on the Sunday. Contents
of both pockets of my Paramo Viento trousers got pretty seriously wet (I
had to move them to my rucksack). The zips on the leggings were leaking,
too; but I didn't find this a serious problem.

Sounds similar to my experience. Did you notice whether the rain
running off your coat was a factor, or is the coat long enough
to cover them ? At least one factor in getting the pockets wet
is putting the cotton handkerchief back in after using it, but
that might only account for one side.

Have those people with Cascadas had the same problem (the zip-off part
shouldn't affect the pockets) or are the pockets better protected ?

-adrian

Adrian Godwin said:

If I'd worn the gaiters inside the trousers (not, to me, an obvious
choice) then the layers would have been arranged like roof shingles
and the water in the trousers would have stayed out of my boots.
Is that a better way to wear them ?

Generally, yes, though to some extent it will depend on the cut of the
bottom of the trousers, but anything that keeps itself enough out the
way is probably well off over the tops.

Quoted message said:

It seems more reasonable
with seperate overtrousers (gaiters over normal trousers but
under waterproofs) than with the Paramos.

May well be worth hunting out ankle gaiters as they'll not be doing much
above that.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

I use Cascada trousers, with an Alta jacket. This is the shorter jacket, but
I've not noticed any problems with water running into pockets. I cannot see
how the zip-off zip should be any less waterproof than the side zips, but
then again I cannot see the point of Vientos. Why have zip off trousers that
are mainly designed for winter use? Surely no-one would wear them on a hot
summers day, would they? Perhaps that's why they are being sold so cheaply.

"Adrian Godwin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mark Manning said:

Following up my own post, but never mind. Just come back from a
weekend in Ribblehead, including some serious rain on the Sunday.
Contents
of both pockets of my Paramo Viento trousers got pretty seriously wet (I
had to move them to my rucksack). The zips on the leggings were leaking,
too; but I didn't find this a serious problem.

Sounds similar to my experience. Did you notice whether the rain
running off your coat was a factor, or is the coat long enough
to cover them ? At least one factor in getting the pockets wet
is putting the cotton handkerchief back in after using it, but
that might only account for one side.

Have those people with Cascadas had the same problem (the zip-off part
shouldn't affect the pockets) or are the pockets better protected ?

-adrian

Adrian Godwin said:

Gordon said:

So now we're back to Paramo Cascada. They don't leak, unless you sit
in a puddle.

It would be useful to know, though, if the Vientos are substantially
less waterproof than the Cascadas, as it appears. As far as I can tell
from the Paramo website, they're basically very similar except for the
extra leg zips (which are protected by a waterproof flap).

As I type this message I have the trousers on my lap, looking at the
flap. There is cotton stitching around the top of the zip flap which
goes all the way through to the fabric surrounding the zip. Water may
soak either through the cotton to the inside, or onto the zip surround
fabric and through. I think the former is more likely as I never seem
to have a problem with the side leg zip leaking - and that's
unflapped.

Adrian Godwin said:

Clearly, the additional zip is going to make the Vientos less
able to keep out water than the Cascadas. That's a compromise
that can be traded against the convenience of the zipoff legs,
as can the slight reduction in comfort. But it's hard to choose
the compromise unless you can work out just how much effect
the zip has - if they're essentially the same trousers as the
Cacadas but leak in a few minutes (Berties's experience) or
a few hours (my experience) instead of taking all day (a
couple of Cascada-owner's experience) then that's useful to know.

Ten minutes was pulled out of the air. They leak in rain but not
immediately. 10 minutes, 30 minutes, 2 hours... It may depend of how
heavy the rain is. First time I noticed was between Crinkle Crags and
Bow Fell - so I'd got to there from Three Shires' Stone before I
noticed the leak.

Quoted message said:

As a side issue, on one occasion where my Vientos got thoroughly wet,
I was also wearing long goretex gaiters, outside the trousers. This is
where I normally wear gaiters (mostly to keep wet grass away from
socks and trousers). In this case, the water eventually soaked the
internal layer of fabric in the trousers and the gaiters ensured
that as it ran out of the bottom it was encouraged to run into
my socks.

If I'd worn the gaiters inside the trousers (not, to me, an obvious
choice) then the layers would have been arranged like roof shingles
and the water in the trousers would have stayed out of my boots.
Is that a better way to wear them ? It seems more reasonable
with seperate overtrousers (gaiters over normal trousers but
under waterproofs) than with the Paramos.

I was once advised to wear gaiters under waterproof trousers in rain
and over waterproof trousers in snow. The former is to keep your
socks dry, the latter to prevent spearing the trousers when wearing
crampons. (I still have a pair of cheap overtrousers held together at
the ankle with gaffer tape.)

Gordon Burns said:

I use Cascada trousers, with an Alta jacket. This is the shorter jacket, but
I've not noticed any problems with water running into pockets. I cannot see
how the zip-off zip should be any less waterproof than the side zips, but
then again I cannot see the point of Vientos. Why have zip off trousers that
are mainly designed for winter use? Surely no-one would wear them on a hot
summers day, would they? Perhaps that's why they are being sold so cheaply.

This nicely leads to my favourite story - I've had many a drink on
this story.

On 19 February 2004 I sold a car - I'd had it 10 years and it was only
my second car, having had me first for about 5 years. Yes... that
puts me at about 35.

I filled in the registration documents incorrectly, drove up to
Ballachulish in my new car, and posted the new owners portion of the
registration document to DVLA, believing I was doing posting the
correct portion.

On 22 February my old car was photographed driving over Tower Bridge
in the Congestion Zone.

Soon after my return to London I received a demand from TfL for a £40
congestion charge fine. I wrote back saying that I was no longer the
registered keeper. They wrote back saying that I was, and that I now
owed £80. I wrote back saying I wasn't. They wrote back saying that
I was and that I had 28 days to present final representations, pay up,
or appeal. I made final representations and appealed. TfL wrote back
saying that as my case was subject to appeal they could not accept my
final representations.

The case went to appeal and I lost. While the adjudicator accepted
that I had sold the car I was still the registered keeper and
therefore liable for the congestion charge.

After the appeal was lost DVLA contacted me (at last) and said that
they ammended their records to show that I disposed of the vehicle on
19 February 2004. Hooray!

I asked for a review of my appeal on the grounds of new information
which could not reasonably have been forseen before the appeal. The
review was heard in January 2005 - and refused. Despite the fact that
DVLA had ammended their records to show that I had disposed of the
vehicle on 19 February 2005 I was still the registered keeper on 22
February - I must now pay TfL £120.

Judicial review was the only route open to me. £20,000 legal costs
for a £120 fine - no way. I'd pay the fine.

But - TfL gave me 28 days for final representations and suspended that
28 days after just 10 while the appeal was going through. I still had
18 days for final representations now the appeal process was
exhausted.

In my submission to TfL, alongside the photo of my car driving over
Tower Bridge, timed at 14:52 on 22/2/04 was a photo of me, standing on
top of Am Bodach, with Ben Nevis in the background, timed at 15:14 on
22/2/04.

I also submitted a weather report for Glencoe for that day explaining
my unusual dress. Zipped off Viento trousers, crampons and ice axe.

TfL wrote back saying that they were no longer going to pursue the
case.

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:37:29 +0000, Bertie Wiggins

cycling_remove_bertie@yahoo_dot_co_dot_uk said:

Gordon Burns said:

I use Cascada trousers, with an Alta jacket. This is the shorter jacket, but
I've not noticed any problems with water running into pockets. I cannot see
how the zip-off zip should be any less waterproof than the side zips, but
then again I cannot see the point of Vientos. Why have zip off trousers that
are mainly designed for winter use? Surely no-one would wear them on a hot
summers day, would they? Perhaps that's why they are being sold so cheaply.

This nicely leads to my favourite story - I've had many a drink on
this story.

On 19 February 2004 I sold a car - I'd had it 10 years and it was only
my second car, having had me first for about 5 years. Yes... that
puts me at about 35.

I filled in the registration documents incorrectly, drove up to
Ballachulish in my new car, and posted the new owners portion of the
registration document to DVLA, believing I was doing posting the
correct portion.

On 22 February my old car was photographed driving over Tower Bridge
in the Congestion Zone.

Soon after my return to London I received a demand from TfL for a £40
congestion charge fine. I wrote back saying that I was no longer the
registered keeper. They wrote back saying that I was, and that I now
owed £80. I wrote back saying I wasn't. They wrote back saying that
I was and that I had 28 days to present final representations, pay up,
or appeal. I made final representations and appealed. TfL wrote back
saying that as my case was subject to appeal they could not accept my
final representations.

The case went to appeal and I lost. While the adjudicator accepted
that I had sold the car I was still the registered keeper and
therefore liable for the congestion charge.

After the appeal was lost DVLA contacted me (at last) and said that
they ammended their records to show that I disposed of the vehicle on
19 February 2004. Hooray!

I asked for a review of my appeal on the grounds of new information
which could not reasonably have been forseen before the appeal. The
review was heard in January 2005 - and refused. Despite the fact that
DVLA had ammended their records to show that I had disposed of the
vehicle on 19 February 2005 I was still the registered keeper on 22
February - I must now pay TfL £120.

Judicial review was the only route open to me. £20,000 legal costs
for a £120 fine - no way. I'd pay the fine.

But - TfL gave me 28 days for final representations and suspended that
28 days after just 10 while the appeal was going through. I still had
18 days for final representations now the appeal process was
exhausted.

In my submission to TfL, alongside the photo of my car driving over
Tower Bridge, timed at 14:52 on 22/2/04 was a photo of me, standing on
top of Am Bodach, with Ben Nevis in the background, timed at 15:14 on
22/2/04.

I also submitted a weather report for Glencoe for that day explaining
my unusual dress. Zipped off Viento trousers, crampons and ice axe.

TfL wrote back saying that they were no longer going to pursue the
case.

Great story :-)

Wet fishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family."
g.w.AT [guessthisbit].com

On Mon, 31 Oct 2005 23:29:41 +0000, Peewiglet <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I also submitted a weather report for Glencoe for that day explaining
my unusual dress. Zipped off Viento trousers, crampons and ice axe.

TfL wrote back saying that they were no longer going to pursue the
case.

Great story :-)

I tried to get the Daily Wail to take up the story - I thought the two
photos: Ben Nevis and Tower Bridge would make an excellent contrast.
They didn't even reply to my email.

Gordon Burns said:

[snip] I cannot see the point of Vientos. Why have zip off trousers that
are mainly designed for winter use? Surely no-one would wear them on a hot
summers day, would they?

The Vientos are actually designed for *summer* wear, hence the zip-offs!
In fact I find them far too hot in summer, but they are very good for the
cooler seasons.

The real advantage I find (as someone who does week-long
backpacking trips) is that they minimise the amount of clothing I need to
take. For example, in an unseasonably cold April in the Lakes, I wore the
Viento kit in both bright sunshine and driving snow! I wore the Vientos
straight over a base layer much of the time. I had an extra fleece,
and of course gloves and hats, but that was all.

If I had used a conventional layering system, I would have needed two
fleeces (as the Viento has the warmth of a micro fleece), a waterproof
jacket and waterproof trousers. All of which takes up valuable pack space.
So I find the kit very useful.

Mark
--
Mark Manning [email hidden]

Gordon Burns said:

[snip] I cannot see the point of Vientos. Why have zip off trousers that
are mainly designed for winter use? Surely no-one would wear them on a hot
summers day, would they?

The Vientos are actually designed for *summer* wear, hence the zip-offs!
In fact I find them far too hot in summer, but they are very good for the
cooler seasons.

The real advantage I find (as someone who does week-long
backpacking trips) is that they minimise the amount of clothing I need to
take. For example, in an unseasonably cold April in the Lakes, I wore the
Viento kit in both bright sunshine and driving snow! I wore the Vientos
straight over a base layer much of the time. I had an extra fleece,
and of course gloves and hats, but that was all.

If I had used a conventional layering system, I would have needed two
fleeces (as the Viento has the warmth of a micro fleece), a waterproof
jacket and waterproof trousers. All of which takes up valuable pack space.
So I find the kit very useful.

Mark
--
Mark Manning [email hidden]

Gordon Burns said:

[snip] I cannot see the point of Vientos. Why have zip off trousers that
are mainly designed for winter use? Surely no-one would wear them on a hot
summers day, would they?

The Vientos are actually designed for *summer* wear, hence the zip-offs!
In fact I find them far too hot in summer, but they are very good for the
cooler seasons.

The real advantage I find (as someone who does week-long
backpacking trips) is that they minimise the amount of clothing I need to
take. For example, in an unseasonably cold April in the Lakes, I wore the
Viento kit in both bright sunshine and driving snow! I wore the Vientos
straight over a base layer much of the time. I had an extra fleece,
and of course gloves and hats, but that was all.

If I had used a conventional layering system, I would have needed two
fleeces (as the Viento has the warmth of a micro fleece), a waterproof
jacket and waterproof trousers. All of which takes up valuable pack space.
So I find the kit very useful.

Mark
--
Mark Manning [email hidden]

Adrian Godwin <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3r9h33-joe.ln1
@smaug.toynbee.org.uk:

Quoted message said:

As a side issue, on one occasion where my Vientos got thoroughly wet,
I was also wearing long goretex gaiters, outside the trousers. This is
where I normally wear gaiters (mostly to keep wet grass away from
socks and trousers). In this case, the water eventually soaked the
internal layer of fabric in the trousers and the gaiters ensured
that as it ran out of the bottom it was encouraged to run into
my socks.

I always wear gaiters on the outside of overtrousers, but pull the trousers
up a bit and fold them down to form a flap over the top of the gaiters.
That way any water is directed outside the gaiters.

John

Adrian Godwin <[email hidden]> wrote in news:3r9h33-joe.ln1
@smaug.toynbee.org.uk:

Quoted message said:

As a side issue, on one occasion where my Vientos got thoroughly wet,
I was also wearing long goretex gaiters, outside the trousers. This is
where I normally wear gaiters (mostly to keep wet grass away from
socks and trousers). In this case, the water eventually soaked the
internal layer of fabric in the trousers and the gaiters ensured
that as it ran out of the bottom it was encouraged to run into
my socks.

I always wear gaiters on the outside of overtrousers, but pull the trousers
up a bit and fold them down to form a flap over the top of the gaiters.
That way any water is directed outside the gaiters.

John