In reply to UKC/UKH Gear:
I'd really appreciate if UKC stopped just regurgitating the marketroids' PR materials as in:
> Polygiene fabrics help bust the smell
Nope, Polygiene™ doesn't really help that much after a few days, it might be a plus for a day or so, but it certainly doesn't "bust the smell" (WTF is even this expresion from?).
> With a max output of 380 lumens compared to the Bindi's 200 it's a comparative powerhouse in the light provided, giving you a much more capable get-out-of-jail card when benighted on a hill or crag. Battery life matters just as much, and at 2 hrs on max and a very handy 6-7 hrs in mid range, the Swift LT won't only get you all the way home in extremis, but packs enough juice to be genuinely usable as an all-round torch.
Are you seriously saying that at almost the same size and weight as the Bindi, it packs in a lot more light output at a longer running time? Physics and battery chemistries disagree...
The only difference that would explain that would be a differently tuned curve, where the torch starts at 380 lumens for the first thirty seconds, than rapidly goes down to 100 or even less.
> Thanks to the addition of Bio-Dyneema to its ripstop fabric, the Aether offers the sort of durability and protective feel you might usually associate with a burly mountain shell
Ahem, copypasta right from the PR...
> which pulls no punches in its use of a mega abrasion-resistant sailcloth material incorporating dyneema-like fibres said to have 15 times the tensile strength of steel.
Ahem, cringe, ahem...
Stop fecking regurgitating marketroid PR points from the press releases. I don't care that dyneema-like UHMWPE has "15 times the tensile strength of steel" or some other unrelated PR shite like that (without even telling us how much of UHMWPE is in there and in which textile configuration, as actually, some dyneema sail or tent composites are extremely weak to abrasion, no matter their tensile strength), I want to know how the pack feels, loaded.
The actual information in this article is very, very low quality. Almost negative. Get better, your show reports used to be quite better!
TL;DR: Do some proper gear journalism, please. The whole article is just full of regurgitated PR phrases from the companies' materials. How much of it have you actually written yourself? I'd bet not that much. I still quite appreciate the UKC covering it and like it, but it could have been a lot better.
Post edited at 18:56