Guess I'll have to ask this question about all ski pants, but...... Where does the waist fall? Are they low, mid, or high-rise?
81256
They seem to fall at your natural waist which feels a little high but is still very comfortable. I'd be afraid that a lower rise would make you more prone to get snow someplace you don't want it.
52568
No, they're a lightweight, durable hiking/climbing pant. Tights or long underware under them makes them a good bet for the shoulder seasons.
2153639
I believe they would work well for skiing, they are thicker than standard thermal underwear, without being bulky. I think the activity statement pertains to construction or building trades.
719189
Your knees will touch when your arms are at about 90 degrees. I'm a little taller but, that's how it is for me. Works fine for me as that's all the lower I need to dip anyway. That being said, I do wish they were a few inches taller, just for more clearance from the floor. Good piece of gear though with lots of uses. Totally happy with the bars!
39707
For me, they kinda go at the waist and i can also pull them higher... I bought a medium and its not snug on me so when I run, they kinda slip down even when i pull them high above my waist. But that could be because I bought a size larger than required. They still don't rub or cut into my skin. Hope that answers your question.
109699
The silver ridge had some room in the thighs. They were my favorites in terms of comfort. For style I prefer the saturday stretch convertible pants, but those are tight around the zipper. It's not bad when walking, but gets uncomfortable when sitting.
195848
I've found those fitting higher up on the "waist" are better. I tried several brands before I found one that worked. All of them seem to run small so I'm not surprised to hear you're having troubles with an extra small. Good luck.
197371
These take the place of Long Johns! My husband wears them under his golf shirt...he got the pants and wears them under his slacks. Hope this helps!
56614
If I'm measuring correctly, I coming up with a rise of about 10 inches. For me, the top of the waist come a fraction of an inch below my belly button.
1565196
I bought them specifically as some "cheap" snow pants. We were visiting family in Chicago, and were going to go sledding. we were only out for an hour, and they didn't really keep snow out, especially the pockets, which means your top layer doesn't keep you dry and I would expect you'd eventually get cold. They worked short term, but I wouldn't use them to ski
2172335
I have 3 pairs that I turned into shorts (2 bought early 2013, 1 bought Dec 2013). Neither of the first 2 shrank the year a wore them as pants. The 3rd were turned into shorts just after purchase. I can't comment on the length, but the waist (36) has not gotten tighter. Then again, and this is doubtful, I could have lost an inch along my waist.As a side note, I really wish Amazon carried these. It really looks like they are burning through their left over inventory, and not restocking.
1571433
Ski pants tend to be hard to size right. I would try a Medium first, but they might be long on you.
2053738
Not at all! I love these pants! I just wish they were a little warmer because I would wear them all year long! They are the most comfortable pants I have ever worn (without a sound).
246600
No, no no. However, I've been wearing these pants for years. I put on a BASE LAYER underneath (Icebreaker merino wool to be exact) underneath. Skied all day in this combo and was plenty warm.
1299031
They won't slide down at all. If you are up and down a lot, your pant legs may bunch up a little underneath the pads. I will order another pair soon as these are great knee pads.
1468664
Sorry, got really busy. I just weighed the pants and they came out to 308 grams or 10.86 oz. So both the listed weight and description weight are off. Maybe it's a generic weight for a smaller size?
29542
I just measured mine. The stretch is almost 4 inches in total circumference. Now that is starting out completely slack, and going to complete stretch, so keep that in mind. My 34s are about 33 when slack, and 36 1/2 when stretched. Logically the 30 would have less stretch. As far as the pocket goes, I love them. Both sides are the same depth and they go down to the top of the cargo pocket. Any lower and there would be interference issues. There is a reason that these pants are so well loved. If they offered them in an 11 inch inseam, I'd own a ton of them. At 6'2" the inseam is too short and my wife hates the way they look. I still love them for their comfort and versatility, so I wear them when she's not around. I just measured mine. The stretch is almost 4 inches in total circumference. Now that is starting out completely slack, and going to complete stretch, so keep that in mind. My 34s are about 33 when slack, and 36 1/2 when stretched. Logically the 30 would have less stretch. As far as the pocket goes, I love them. Both sides are the same depth and they go down to the top of the cargo pocket. Any lower and there would be interference issues. There is a reason that these pants are so well loved. If they offered them in an 11 inch inseam, I'd own a ton of them. At 6'2" the... » Read More I just measured mine. The stretch is almost 4 inches in total circumference. Now that is starting out completely slack, and going to complete stretch, so keep that in mind. My 34s are about 33 when slack, and 36 1/2 when stretched. Logically the 30 would have less stretch. As far as the pocket goes, I love them. Both sides are the same depth and they go down to the top of the cargo pocket. Any lower and there would be interference issues. There is a reason that these pants are so well loved. If they offered them in an 11 inch inseam, I'd own a ton of them. At 6'2" the inseam is too short and my wife hates the way they look. I still love them for their comfort and versatility, so I wear them when she's not around. « Show Less