Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
Montbell UL vs UL Tech down pants... significant weight difference..
Display Avatars Sort By:
Kevin Burton
(burtonator) - F

Locale: norcal
Montbell UL vs UL Tech down pants... significant weight difference.. on 01/18/2014 15:31:07 MST Print View

So montbell has TWO pairs of down pants:

The first one just uses regular rip stop nylon but is obviously prone to tearing if you were to sit on them.

The Tec has 40-denier nylon taffeta to reinforce the rear and leg portions.

Which sounds nice... and granted it adds 0.3 fill weight of down. BUT it's 1/2 a lb lighter!!!!

It seems better to just make sure your regular down pants/shell can fit over your down pants.

I was considering getting the non-Tec version for the 1/2 lb weight savings BUT they don't sell them in S or have them available in stock.

They seem to run a it large as even the medium has a bunch of extra room (and I'm a big guy)

Billy Ray
(rosyfinch) - M

Locale: the mountains
Re: Montbell UL vs UL Tech down pants... significant weight difference.. on 01/18/2014 15:38:44 MST Print View

is there a question in there somewhere?


Dan Durston
(dandydan) - F

Down Pants on 01/18/2014 22:19:14 MST Print View

The lighter pants seem like a no brainer to me. They're similarly warm for half the weight, which means they're going to be easier to justify bringing on a lot more trips. Realistically, you'll want to keep down pants under another layer anyways for protection. Even the "tec" ones aren't going to hold up well to much abuse.

Most of the extra weight for the Tec pants looks to be in the zippers (full side zip, crotch zip and zipped side pockets). Some people find the full length side zips to be advantageous, but that's mostly for skiing use where taking off footwear is more of a pain.

Also check out the Western Mountaineering and GooseFeet down pants (a little warmer with 3oz down for 8oz total). Someone else makes nice down pants too but I forget the name.

Edited by dandydan on 01/19/2014 16:55:45 MST.

Ito Jakuchu
(jakuchu) - MLife

Locale: Japan
Re: Down Pants on 01/19/2014 00:31:33 MST Print View

I think it depends on where you would want to take these pants. If you're just hiking in cold weather and could use them in camp and you put them on in your tent or in cold but ok conditions, for sure the lighter ones.

For very cold snow conditions or winter mountaineering where you go light and fast so need to keep moving too, I would want the side zips. It can be hard enough to take some food out or adjust your crampons with your hands turning very cold in a minute. Those temps on a ridge or top of peak and putting off your snow shoes and boots, then putting on your down pants for me would not work.

I have separate rather heavy rain shell pants for the same reason too, with burlier shell material and full side zips so I don't have to undress to put them on. I have some ultra light rain pants from Montbell (used once) but I don't bring them on heavy snow mountain treks. I take the hit of the extra weight in those conditions.

Otherwise, for sure, I'd rather take the non-zip, light one. Good point about being lighter you're more likely to carry them.

edit - those Goosefeet look very nice, with opportunity to tune your fill and shell material. I would look at that, especially if you live in the States.

Edited by jakuchu on 01/19/2014 00:52:56 MST.

Link .
(annapurna) - MLife
Re: Down Pants on 01/19/2014 02:24:27 MST Print View

BORAH GEAR is the other down pant maker to look at.

Kevin Burton
(burtonator) - F

Locale: norcal
Re: Re: Montbell UL vs UL Tech down pants... significant weight difference.. on 01/19/2014 12:48:45 MST Print View

Sorry... I was out the door at the time and was being rushed.

Why the HECK is there a 1/2 lb penalty for 0.3 oz of down ... granted the material is more solid but that's a lot of weight! Seems silly to just not put on pants over it.

Franco Darioli
(Franco) - M

Locale: @Tarptent
Montbell UL vs UL Tech down pants... significant weight difference.. on 01/19/2014 14:35:59 MST Print View

Apart from the reinforced areas and the zippers the heavier ones also have pockets.

The WM Flash are somewhat in between (in features) the two Montbell.
Note that WM also has TWO types, the Flight and the Flash, I would think for the same reason why Montbell has TWO.
Some like a minimalistic low weight no frills solutions other prefer or need something with more features.

Edited by Franco on 01/19/2014 14:39:04 MST.

Dustin Short
(upalachango) - MLife
Re: Montbell UL vs UL Tech down pants... significant weight difference.. on 01/19/2014 20:19:58 MST Print View

Two different pants for different use. The UL pant is just a fleece replacement (even says so in the marketing). The UL Tec is a mountain pant with features necessary/useful for alpine climbing. Namely it has full side zips that allow the pant to be put on without taking off shoes/crampons/skis.

If you don't know why the heavier one exists, then don't buy it. It's not FOR YOU. There are plenty of people who do need the features because their adventures are a bit more technical than the average shoulder season walk along a maintained trail.

Also for the record, the TEC pant is only 5.8oz heavier which is closer to a 1/3 of a lb and not a full half pound heavier.

Bob Moulder
(bobmny10562) - M

Locale: Westchester County, NY
Six ounces VERY well spent on 03/28/2014 13:21:30 MDT Print View


Full side zips on down pants are IMHO absolutely essential for the reasons Dustin mentions, but also because of the heat regulation option they afford. Unless it is super cold - say 15 below zero or colder - the legs are going to heat up very quickly while exercising when covered with a down layer. The side zip ventilation capability makes it easy to tweak the amount of heat retained, and to remove the down pants altogether when needed without removing other gear.

The TEC pants are cut large and are windproof and water resistant with stronger material for the seat, knees, shins and ankles. They are clearly meant to be worn as an outer layer, although I wouldn't want to go bushwhacking with them. The claimed weights are accurate; I put mine (size M) on the digital scales and they weigh 13.6oz.

Edit: and that weight was with the stuff sack in the pocket!!


Edited by bobmny10562 on 03/28/2014 13:28:44 MDT.