Patagonia Guide Pant vs Super Guide Pant

**gorgeskier** · 09-22-2006, 04:43 PM

i am going to get new pants and I was wondering if people had some experience with these two models (plus the Light Guide). I will be using them exclusively for ski touring. Currently I use bib XCR goretex shell pants with long underware underneath but I want something that can breath. My plan is to get something that will be good till about -12 to -15C and colder than that I will just wear my hardshell bibs.

What are the pros & cons of each? How do they fit? Are they kinda contoured and a little bit like a strechy pant? I was going to pick up the ready mix pant but they are discontinued.

I typically am pretty warm so i was looking for something that breathes well...

thanks.

**hutash** · 09-22-2006, 07:31 PM

Superguides are heavier and bulkier if you have to pack them, and they have suspenders. A little burlier pant. Simple guides have an elastic waist, not a buttton and fly, and are a much lighter pant. Guides ar my fav., I just bought a new pair. Articulated knee and seat, but not real form fitting. (definately not 70's stretch ski pants.) Four way stretch fabric is nice. I have not used the new fabric yet, but my old guide pants breath well. I use them mostly spring skiing with or without silk wieght capilene. Great traveling pants, comfortable for long plane rides et cetera. None are waterproof if that is a big consideration. Overall for touring I would leave toward the guides.

FYI www.patagonia.com had some guide pants on sale for $90. Last years model, a little different fabric, two cargo pockets, but otherwise the same as this year. If you order online watch the sizing. I wear a 34 in refular pants, and the are snug. With the guides I ended up in 32's (I haven't worn that size since high school)

**gorgeskier** · 09-23-2006, 12:07 AM

hmmm - the weight on their website says they are the same (Super vs Guides) but the Super do say they have heavier material. I take a size 33 normally so that means that I would be a medium?? I would think that it would be a large??

**hutash** · 09-23-2006, 08:42 AM

Forgot to mention that, the website weights are wrong. Weights from the fall catalog. (I live in Ventura, and was just out at GPIW)

Super guides 26oz
guides 18oz
simple guides13oz

**Hugh Jass** · 09-23-2006, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by gorgeskier

hmmm - the weight on their website says they are the same (Super vs Guides) but the Super do say they have heavier material. I take a size 33 normally so that means that I would be a medium?? I would think that it would be a large??

I have some used Guides for sale here that I think will fit you.

PM me to haggle.

**gorgeskier** · 09-23-2006, 08:21 PM

So can anyone with first hand experience tell me if the Super's breathe as well as the guide's? I expect they won't but if it is minimal difference I'll go with the Super's but if it is quite a bit I'll go with the Guide's

I'm 6' 195 with a 33 waist and my legs a bit larger than avg - does that mean it should go with a 32 or a 34?

**Meadow Skipper** · 09-23-2006, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by gorgeskier

So can anyone with first hand experience tell me if the Super's breathe as well as the guide's? I expect they won't but if it is minimal difference I'll go with the Super's but if it is quite a bit I'll go with the Guide's

First hand experience: no, the Super Guides don't breathe as well as the guides, but they breathe really well - well enough for spring bc skiing/skinning in the southern Rockies. The Guides breathe a little too well for a blowing winter storm IMO.

Originally Posted by gorgeskier

I'm 6' 195 with a 33 waist and my legs a bit larger than avg - does that mean it should go with a 32 or a 34?

Can't help you there, but if it were me I'd get the 34s - it's easy to get them taken in.

**hutash** · 09-23-2006, 08:36 PM

Go 34s, I am 5' 10" 170, but 15lbs overweight and the 32s a just snug in my waist, but I don't have very big thighs or butt, so the 32s fit me better.

**sfotex** · 09-23-2006, 08:39 PM

I'm 5' 11" 155lbs and wear last year's guide pants in a 32, in fact I just got them a month ago off the fall sale online. The 32's fit me really well but if I was a little huskier I would have to go with a 34.

**verbier61** · 09-25-2006, 02:48 AM

I did the verb-zermatt haute route with the patagucci guide and they worked remarkably well.

**gorgeskier** · 12-24-2006, 04:27 PM

We'll I've had my Super guides out for a few days now. They work very well. Fairly warm but breathe very well.

My only complaint would be that they could be a little looser and that they are hard to get over the top of my boots.

**fool** · 12-25-2006, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by gorgeskier

My only complaint would be that they could be a little looser and that they are hard to get over the top of my boots.

Agreed: I have difficulty getting them over my boots and I can't even zip them after they are on (Scarpa T1's). And if I were buying them again, I would size up if I was between two sizes.

**Tony** · 12-25-2006, 07:07 PM

For touring and alpine climbing, the guides are the best choice. I did the Cham-Zermatt on mine and they performed great.

If you are also going to use them for winter climbing, the Superguide or the Mixmaster pantas are a better choice.

**JoeStrummer** · 02-07-2010, 11:19 PM

Bumping an old thread since my Superguides are finally crapping the bed. I don't like any of the newer Patagonia alternatives. Anyone once own the Superguides and now like something else? If so, what?

**Meadow Skipper** · 02-07-2010, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by JoeStrummer

Bumping an old thread since my Superguides are finally crapping the bed. I don't like any of the newer Patagonia alternatives. Anyone once own the Superguides and now like something else? If so, what?

These might suit you:
http://www.ibexwear.com/shop/product...mens-six-pants

They're just a bit heavier and warmer than the Superguides. I've got an older model that have been really tough. Generally I wear them during the winter and the Patagonias during the spring.

Edited to add: For me the fit is better on the ibex - close in the right places and loose in the right places.

**hutash** · 02-08-2010, 11:11 AM

Patagguci has a sale starting Thursday. Don't know what will be offered, but you may want to wait a few days before making a purchase.

**hway2** · 02-08-2010, 11:50 AM

dont forget the "backcountry guide pant" which is purpose built for ski touring. it has reinforced knees and butt with removable suspenders, gaiter and side pocket.

**I've seen black diamonds!** · 02-08-2010, 01:00 PM

EDIT: I have the Alpine Guides, not the Lightweight Guides.

I have the "Alpine Guide" pants. They are the cheapest and best piece of outerwear I own. I use them when the temp is around freezing or higher. I bought a size up because any constriction sucks on a bootpack.

**Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer** · 02-08-2010, 06:55 PM

I 100% rock the Backcountry Guide Pants when touring here in the Sierra. Both winter and in the spring. They are Schoeller and I find that they breath incredibly well. Have waterproof knees and butt.

They are heavier than the regular guide pants, and much heavier than the simple guides - but I find they are still lighter than most other soft-shells on the market. They come with internal gaiters (which I like) and suspenders (which I removed).

I only use them for ski-touring (no inbounds, and no other activities - have lighter softshells for climbing for example).

EDIT: I generally rock a 34 waist in regular pants, but got a 36 in the Guides because they run slim in the legs.

**enginerd** · 02-08-2010, 07:35 PM

I like the cloudveil inertia guide pant. They are very light at 1lb and simple. No gaiters or leg zippers, just a pant leg sized appropriately for ski boots. They stretch well but dont have lycra or spandex like schoeller so they actually dry faster. They also look normal enough for casual or travel wear (wider leg opening helps here).

My only complaint is that my cargo pocket isn't big enough but the new version of the pant has fixed this.

**XXX-er** · 02-08-2010, 08:48 PM

I tried to get the guide pant but couldnt find my size,I got a pair of the arcteryx fury and I really like them for touring ,riding lifts at the hill or sitting in the bar

Hugh Conway · 02-08-2010, 09:21 PM

The Arc'teryx Gamma SK pant is probably the best replacement for the Super Guide.

**Steven S. Dallas** · 02-08-2010, 09:31 PM

Before you buy, be advised that the Super Guide is significantly more super.

**lynchdogger** · 02-09-2010, 10:07 AM

I've been a Patagonia wearer for close to 20 years - because the performance, fit, quality and warranty. Lately, I've been unhappy with some of the fit and quality of their product. Have pair of original guide pants size large regular length and they are way to baggy and too long. I'm 6'1" and 195lbs. Seems like what was once a large and always fit now varies year to year from one piece of clothing to another. It can't be me because height and weight have been unchanged except +/- 5 lbs. in the last 20 years. I've also had a major run on their smaller zippers failing - bad luck? Won't stop buying the product but will certainly check fit. As always though Patagonia has either warrantied or fixed everything without a hassle! I did not like the fit of either guide, super-guide, or backcountry guide so replaced my old wore out pants with a pair made by First Ascent. Like em and they fit me much better. Do have a pair of powder bowl bants and like em except gaitor is too short and slightly too baggy in leg cuff - too easy to catch with crampons. My 2 cents cuz that's all there is!