Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

FR: Ibex "Roaster" Boxers - André

Expand Messages
  • André Corterier
    not in the test folder now. links work, though. honest. Ibex Roaster Boxers Field Report by André Corterier Date: 2005-MAY-03 ... Year of manufacture: 2004
    Message 1 of 3 , May 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      not in the test folder now. links work, though. honest.

      Ibex "Roaster" Boxers
      Field Report by André Corterier
      Date: 2005-MAY-03

      ----------

      Year of manufacture: 2004
      Manufacturer: Ibex Outdoor Clothing LLC
      URL: http://www.ibexwear.com/
      MSRP: 39.00 USD originally, now 29.95 USD


      Weight Comparisons - scale accurate to 5 g (0.2 oz)
      listed weight (avg.): 6 oz (170 g)
      measured weight (size L): 155 g (5.5 oz)

      ----------

      Introduction:
      These are dark (nearly black, called "graphite" by the manufacturer)
      boxers of non-scratchy, stretchy "superfine" merino wool. You can
      find a more detailed description in my Initial Report.

      Field Experience:
      I've taken these for a number of long walks, though only one intense
      hike of (barely) more than 16 km (10 mi). Terrain was hilly, though
      the altitude no more than maybe 400 m (1300 ft) above sea level, with
      temperatures not far above freezing. The Roaster Boxers did not roast
      anything, I am pleased to report, but did keep me warm.

      Fit/Comfort:
      They still fit much like I have described them in the Initial Report.
      When I first washed them (cool cycle in a washing machine, dried on a
      line), they fit rather snugly afterwards, which to my mind was an
      improvement - I wondered whether they were meant to do this - had the
      manufacturer calculated some shrinking into the design? But no, after
      wearing them for a half hour or so, they went back to their previous
      shape. While I wouldn't have minded them being that bit tighter, this
      is definitely good news as far as long-term durability is concerned.
      I have found that I do not like wearing them under tight pants. The
      fact that they do not hug my legs tightly means that they can (and
      do, after a while) ride up underneath the outer layer and cause some
      bunching. Under somewhat loser clothing (not baggy, just less snugly
      fitting than a tight pair of jeans) it was fine.

      They have not caused me to wear them when jogging, however. While the
      fit and warmth does not preclude their use in this circumstance, they
      just seem a bit more substantial than is warranted. When jogging, I
      generally need no more than a slip and long jogging pants (if cold)
      or short jogging pants (if warm). Adding these boxers is superfluous
      where I'm concerned. Still, heavy sweating did nothing to them. Even
      after sweating heavily, the boxers seemed to have absorbed little
      moisture, though they did not leave me clammy underneath. I take this
      to indicate that they've had a good througput of moisture. I do note,
      however, that I sweat much less on my lower body than on my upper, so
      the total load of moisture thus generated likely wasn't too high.

      Warmth:
      The boxers feel nicely warm, but not overly so. At least in
      temperatures not too far above freezing (I haven't been able to hike
      in anything warmer yet), they were comfortably warm. This has enabled
      me to wear largish, thin nylon pants (cheap supermarket jogging
      pants) over it for a small dayhike which I might otherwise have
      considered too thin. This would not have worked in very windy
      conditions, but as the entire stretch was through rather dense woods,
      this was not a problem. While my usual hiking pants have a bit more
      substance, they too aren't windproof (or even close to it) and while
      my lower legs could feel the windchill when crossing exposed areas,
      the Roaster Boxers kept the bite off the parts of my body underneath
      it and thus added welcome comfort.

      Durability:
      I hadn't thought that I'd even include "durability" as a heading in
      this report. However, due to circumstances I'd rather not get into
      here, the boxers ended up being washed at 90 C (195 F), which I'm
      sure is at least equal to the "hot cycle" on a US washing machine,
      and thrown into a dryer afterwards to boot. This is a point at which
      I feel the need to stress again that this garment does not look nor
      feel like wool to the uninitiated...
      The effect this had on the boxers in question was ... nil.
      zip. nada. niente. zero.
      Let me say this again: I have been unable to ascertain any
      appreciable amount of wear, shrinking or what have you on these after
      this encounter with the worst modern conveniences can throw at wool
      clothing. While I do not intend to let this happen again to my
      boxers, it still makes me happy. I had originally worried that it
      might be easy to damage these through being less than very careful
      with washing (though I hadn't even imagined the possibility of the
      boxers ending up in a treatment this far removed from the washing
      instructions). I am glad to report that my mind is now entirely at
      ease in this regard.

      Drying:
      When not machine drying (which the tag symbol indicates one
      shouldn't, though I now wonder why it does so), these boxers dry very
      slowly. It has generally taken them roughly twice as long to dry as a
      standard, midweight cotton T-shirt hung on the same line. However,
      it's been easy to put them on straight out of the washing machine.
      They then felt clammy only for a very short time - wool really does
      seem to be warm even when wet. They then dried very quickly on my
      body. I find this excellent.

      ----------

      Personal Biographical Information:
      Name: André Corterier
      Gender: M
      Age: 33
      Height: 1,85 m (6 ft 1 in)
      Weight: 80 kg (175 lb)
      Email: andreDOTcorterierATfreenetDOTde
      Home: Bonn, Germany


      Backpacking Background:
      I began backpacking in my late teens using Europe's "InterRail"-
      System – weight hardly mattered, as we were on trains a lot. I
      recently rediscovered backpacking and have started out slowly –
      single-day 15 mile (24 km) jaunts by myself or even shorter hikes in
      the company of my little daughter. I am getting started on longer
      hikes, as a lightweight packer and hammock-camper. I've begun
      upgrading my old gear and am now shooting for a dry FSO weight
      (everything carried From the Skin Out except food, fuel and water) of
      about 10 kg (22 lb) for three-season camping. Not quite there yet.
    • Fuzzy
      André, Great job. I have very little else to say, except what is below. Upload when ready, and remember to check the Field Report button. Fuzzy IBEX Roaster
      Message 2 of 3 , May 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        André,

        Great job. I have very little else to say, except what is below.
        Upload when ready, and remember to check the Field Report button.

        Fuzzy
        IBEX Roaster Monitor
        ********************
        I take this to indicate that they've had a good througput of moisture.
        [EDIT] throughput

        Warmth:
        The boxers feel nicely warm, but not overly so. At least in
        temperatures not too far above freezing (I haven't been able to hike
        in anything warmer yet), they were comfortably warm. This has enabled
        me to wear largish, thin nylon pants (cheap supermarket jogging
        pants) over it for a small dayhike which I might otherwise have
        considered too thin. This would not have worked in very windy
        conditions, but as the entire stretch was through rather dense woods,
        this was not a problem. While my usual hiking pants have a bit more
        substance, they too aren't windproof (or even close to it) and while
        my lower legs could feel the windchill when crossing exposed areas,
        the Roaster Boxers kept the bite off the parts of my body underneath
        it and thus added welcome comfort.
        [Comment/Edit] You generally refer to the boxers as `them' throughout
        your report, however you use `it' a number of times in this
        paragraph. You should be consistent, and I would use plural (them).
        [Comment] I followed this paragraph well enough, but it seems like it
        might be confusing for some. If you don't wish to change it, I'm
        fine with that decision.

        The effect this had on the boxers in question was ... nil. zip.
        nada. niente. zero.
        [Comment] c'mon, André… with your command of language you only
        managed 5 ways to say it? :-)
      • André Corterier
        ... From an earlier draft: nil. zip. nada. niente. rien. nichevo. nichts. nothing. zero. When I found myself searching my brain for even more ways/languages
        Message 3 of 3 , May 12, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In backpackgeartesters@yahoogroups.com, "Fuzzy" <ckime@n...>
          wrote:
          >
          > The effect this had on the boxers in question was ... nil. zip.
          > nada. niente. zero.
          > [Comment] c'mon, André… with your command of language you only
          > managed 5 ways to say it? :-)

          From an earlier draft:
          "nil.
          zip. nada. niente. rien. nichevo. nichts. nothing. zero."

          When I found myself searching my brain for even more ways/languages
          in which I might say this, I thought it would be overdoing it. Style
          consdiderations made me take out a few I had already put in there
          (what's the point of putting it in in Russian when I don't even know
          how to spell it in Cyrillic, much less know how to make a browser
          show it) - I had meant the five ways to say it to be sufficiently
          emphatic, preferably without becoming boring or show-offy.

          So I'd like this show of restraint to be understood as a particularly
          high command of language, rather than a lack thereof. ;-)

          YT,

          André
          who likes to get the last word in.

          P.S.: Uploaded.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.