waehrik

waehrik t1_iryhehr wrote

My wife is 5ft and great friends with her tailor. As long as you don't need elastic cuff bottoms it seems really straightforward to modify, or at least it was cheap to do. And they work well skiing for her. She has a Columbia bib pair that were comically long before the hemming.

6

waehrik t1_irsdjve wrote

Exactly, and just as with survivorship bias that's what skews the bias of "good" to smaller companies sometimes. Sometimes they truly are better but sometimes it's also because they didn't have the large resources to perform the value engineering analysis to perform the cost reduction so had to overbuild. Nowadays the bar to entry is so low that anyone can do it. So the often-smaller quality driven companies really stand out. Those are the modern ones we see for sale today though sadly they're few and far between.

2

waehrik t1_irozk9z wrote

Absolutely. There's also the fact that back in the day things were intentionally overbuilt prior to the introduction of finite element analysis and CAD design. And engineers had to intentionally make things overbuilt in order to make sure they were sufficiently strong enough. Sometimes that meant it was adequate, other times it meant that it was so overbuilt that was impossible to break. Value engineering for many common products didn't exist 50 years ago because it wasn't possible.

13

waehrik t1_iroa0mm wrote

That's exactly it, plastics nowadays can be and are value engineered and have the potential of being far better but most often aren't. There's a lot of survivorship bias here too. Because all of the cheap stuff from 50 years ago has long been sitting in the landfill. You can absolutely buy good stuff today but it'll cost a lot more

39