Arc'teryx  Sentinel Relaxed Pants - Women's

Favorite freeride/touring pant I've ever used! Love the fit, the pockets (for a cell phone and beacon or wallet), the side zipper vents, and the feel of the fabric. The waist band is super comfy for long tours and doesn't ride up or slip down at all. I've worn these snowmobiling and riding lifts in the pouring rain and the waterproofing is excellent. My go-to pant for every type of skiing for sure!

These are my second pair of Sentinel's - the first pair blew the crotch stitching, probably after one two many demonstrations of a fine search/first base slide, (Arc'teryx replaced them no problem) so went with the relaxed for some more leg/seat room. I am thrilled they offer a L inseam, as most other brands don't and I am 5'10". The leg pocket is a personal favorite among my coworkers because it fits a 313 Rite-in-the-Rain Field book!

These relaxed fit version of these pants is a vast improvement to the previous regular Sentinel models...where I had to buy 1-2 sizes up ( from a 4 to an 8 or S to M) in order to lift my leg more than 45 degrees to break trail while backcountry skiing! Previous models featured an internal belt which allowed you to crank the waist on an otherwise oversized pant. For some strange reason, Arcteryx changed the belt configuration and it now comes in 2 pieces that are sewn-in and anchored at the sides of the pant. I ended up ripping out one side of the belt on my first day of use! Luckily I was only out for the day...this would have been more tragic if I was on a week long backcountry trip. I returned the pants to Arcteryx and they re-attached the belt piece. This would not have happened if the belt was completely threaded through the waist band. I would suggest Arcteryx considers returning to its previous belt design. I am guessing the cost would be less too as you would not have to stitch 2 extra anchor points...and the belt would be more reliable this way. Unfortunately, this pant still needs improvement when it comes to a SHORT inseam. Most brands use a 26” inseam for a short version of a pant. I realize this is a ski pant so I understand if this inseam length was increased to 27-27.5 inches to accommodate a ski boot. If you are under 5’4”, the “short” version with a 29-30” inseam ( for sizes S - XL ) is likely too long. I do not have short legs for my height ( 5’3”, 120lbs. ) I do have several folds of material just below my kneecap that collects snow and cools my lower legs instead of keeping me warm. These folds also decrease efficiency of movement which adds up over a day of touring. I noticed that if you ordered a SHORT in a larger size, the inseam length increases to within an inch of the REGULAR inseam sizing. This does not make sense as someone’s inseam is generally a function of their leg length/height. The Waist and Hip measurements are likely based more on how much a person weighs. Thusly, a “short” pant should be 3 inches shorter than one deemed “regular”. I noticed there is a 3 inch ( 31 vrs. 34 inches ) difference between a “regular” and a “tall” inseam in size Medium. There is only a 1.5 inch difference ( 29.5 vrs. 31 inches ) between a “short” and “regular” inseam in size Medium! Please make a “SHORT” version that is truly short and can be worn by anyone under 5’4”.

I am missing the belt loops on these pants. The material is comfortable and moves well, but not very durable. The pants suffered a small tear in the pocket after only two weeks of wear.