Hi all, any reviews on these? Non zip off version. I am thinking about these as an option for my JMT thru hike.

Thanks
Kris

I got a pair of non-zips bought last Oct and so far used for a couple overnights and some snowshoe dayhikes. They are made of relatively medium- light fabric with a soft feel but looks like solid stitching. Just the right size pockets IMO.

A little more comfortable than my old Mountain Hardware pants. In fog and light sprinkles while backpacking at Pt Reyes, north of San Francisco, never felt damp - seemed to excel in that environment. Used in Albuquerque's Sandias for snowshoeing in sunny conditions and felt fine even with just boxer briefs. Think they may be a little wind repellent but no way to know for sure.

Edited by hknewman on 02/01/2011 22:04:52 MST.

I've got a lot of use on a pair of these pants. They were my 'go-to' pants for the last 2.5 years for hiking, biking, fishing etc.

Overall, I am happy with them. The fabric has proved to be quite durable, enough so that I opted for lighter weight pants for my next pair because I didn't think this much durability was really necessary. My new hiking pants are Patagonia Sol Patrol pants (~7oz rather than ~10oz).

These pants only received damage on two occasions:
1) A high speed mtn bike crash resulted in a small hole on one knee
2) A large (ie. pea sized) ember landed on my lap from a campfire and sorta half melted a small hole.

I still use these pants, but they are now my 'grubby' pants because they are showing their age. Most importantly, the stitching around the rear pocket is starting to come out.

The only two aspects of the design that I don't like are:

1) The integrated waist/belt system isn't so great. You've got a waist button, an elastic waist and a built in belt. This system is unnecessarily heavy, and the belt tends to slowly slip so you need to re-tighten it every hour or so while hiking. This is the worst attribute of these pants.

2) I don't like rear 'butt' pockets on hiking pants. I don't need them and they tend to see a lot of wear and it means you're sitting on a zipper everytime you sit down.

Overall, they are good durable pants at a reasonable weight, with a not so great waist system. It would probably be better to chop off the waist elastic and integrated belt and just use your own belt.

deleted

Edited by rOg_w on 05/28/2012 14:44:55 MDT.

What kind on length are on either the Gi or the Rock Guide pants? I'm 6'3", so I need a longer pant, and I can't find anything to tell me. Thanks.

+1 for the rock guides.

I prefer their slightly slimmer fit and the dwr finish of the rock guides. I'll be getting a pair of the zip-off rock guides soon.

I think the inseam length of both pants is around 32"-33".

Been thinking about trying the Rock Guides for awhile and this thread caused me to pull the trigger. My pair arrived today while remnants of the winter storm had some cold breezes whipping down from the nearby mountain. These are just a tad more closer fitting than the Gii. Much more stretch but no more wind-resistant than the Gii - maybe less, bringing a long pant baselayer just in case. The Rock Guides seem more "technical" closeup, so it's almost a cross between pants and tights, exactly what I wanted for my planned "weekend (or weekday) warrior" ultralight hikes this summer; contrast this to the Gii, which seem more pant-like closeup (probably due to stretch). Color is a little lighter than I thought for concealing stains (got the gray). Trying them snowshoeing or backpacking this weekend and get some long-term impressions.

Edited by hknewman on 02/04/2011 14:57:57 MST.

deleted

Edited by rOg_w on 05/28/2012 14:45:42 MDT.