Are Organic Crash Pads really worth the extra Loot ???

I love my Misty except for it's before they started using the "carpeting". Never had a problem.

Bill Kirby wrote: Try a taste test and decide for yourself. I suggest using marijuana not a F-ing tomato.

I didn't say the way food is grown didn't affect the way they taste but it just annoys me when I see people using a term for something that applies to everything. Being a software developer it also annoys me when someone refers to a windows computer as a PC, it is a PC running windows operating system. A mac is also a PC... your phone is a PC... they are all personal computers.

ViperScale wrote: I didn't say the way food is grown didn't affect the way they taste but it just annoys me when I see people using a term for something that applies to everything. Being a software developer it also annoys me when someone refers to a windows computer as a PC, it is a PC running windows operating system. A mac is also a PC... your phone is a PC... they are all personal computers.

I was just talking sh*t, making a pot joke! :)

How about Donald Trump is PC? Does that make your head explode? Haha..

Naw cause that is a completely different word(s)!

I do like to response when people ask if I use a PC and tell them I don't but have a 100sqft mainframe that I use at home running windows.

Organic pads are great.

They are stiff at first, but they break-in nicely with use.

I've only bouldered outdoors in a few places (Castle Rock, CA, being my home spot), and a lot of folks sport Organic pads.

When outdoor bouldering, there are A LOT of different crash pads out there. And climbers (being the friendly people they are) will let you climb the same route they are climbing...and let you use their crash pads so you do not have to switch the pads around.

You can immediately tell the difference.

Even when getting on an older, used, Organic pad, you can tell the difference from the other brands of crash pads.

Some of the folks have had their Organic pads for over 8 years, and they still feel really good compared to newer crash pads of other makers.

The 5" inch Organic Big pad is great. Yeah...it is heavier. But it is great for highball routes, or for climbers who are heavier.

I recently purchased the 4" inch Organic Full pad to compliment my Big pad, and they work great with each other. I can tie them together for ease of carry, and they give me good fall coverage.

Another crash pad I really like is the Mad Rock R3 pad.

It has 7 baffles that are heavily packed with chunks of foam. It is heavy. But because of the baffles, you can fold it "taco-style," and it does NOT compress the foam on the crease. The individual baffles also lets you place the crash pad on uneven surfaces, and over small boulders or tree roots.

The Mad Rock R3 is heavy, but also softer, more cushy. And because of that, it is also a great pad to have when starting on a low underhang...as the fall will be pillowy soft.

Attached are my two Organic pads. (The 5" Big, and the 4" Full). The photo was taken when my "Full" pad arrived, and was still new.

Just my observations.

In Christ: Raymond

PS: Cut yourself a small square of low plush carpet (1" x 1.5" foot), and keep it in your crash pads. It helps to swat the dirt and debris from the crash pad when outside, and also gives you a small area to wipe your climbing shoes before hitting the boulder. ;)

My Organic Big pad, side by side with my Organic Full, crash pad.

ViperScale wrote: I didn't say the way food is grown didn't affect the way they taste but it just annoys me when I see people using a term for something that applies to everything. Being a software developer it also annoys me when someone refers to a windows computer as a PC, it is a PC running windows operating system. A mac is also a PC... your phone is a PC... they are all personal computers.

By that definition, the term organic is referring to any carbon based compound, excluding some minor exceptions like CO2 and HCN. Not a crash pad company. Pretty much 99% of what you buy and what it is stored in is organic.

But to continue the thread derailment, the whole USDA designation of products being 'organic' due to the minimum 95% of production process exclusion of synthetic molecules, preservatives, pesticides and transgenic modifications doesn't quite fit the original chemical context

ViperScale wrote:This new made up definition of organic: (of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents. Anything made not following the second definition is still matches the first definition making the 2nd one pointless and stupid. They really need to make up a new word for it.

That's not typically what they mean when they say organic. Organic food is food which is not derived from genetically modified organisms or GMOs. However, it's mostly [false] marketing because most of the foods labeled as organic no longer actually exist in a non-GMO form--and they havent existed for hundreds of years. Even organic, "non-GMO" watermelon is very much modified from it's original state from a thousand years ago. So really when they say organic, they just mean the food hasent recently been genetically modified. In other words, food version 3.0 instead of 4.0.

I've got an Asana pad it's terrific the foam is the best I've seen.

Carter Lake Chain Reaction Wall

20 kN wrote: That's not typically what they mean when they say organic. Organic food is food which is not derived from genetically modified organisms or GMOs. However, it's mostly [false] marketing because most of the foods labeled as organic no longer actually exist in a non-GMO form--and they havent existed for hundreds of years. Even organic, "non-GMO" watermelon is very much modified from it's original state from a thousand years ago. So really when they say organic, they just mean the food hasent recently been genetically modified. In other words, food version 3.0 instead of 4.0.

I guess the key difference is that previously we were just "genetically modifying" plants by picking the "best" watermelons (define that however you want) and crosspolinating them to create watermelons with the traits that we wanted. But the key is that all those traits naturally existed in the watermelon world/genome. They were all there and we just combined them into a single watermelon plant.

Now we are splicing watermelon DNA with DNA from completely different plant species, or just invented DNA.

It's all playing with genetic material, but one is something that could potentially occur naturally on its own...

yes

Stagg54 wrote: I guess the key difference is that previously we were just "genetically modifying" plants by picking the "best" watermelons (define that however you want) and crosspolinating them to create watermelons with the traits that we wanted. But the key is that all those traits naturally existed in the watermelon world/genome. They were all there and we just combined them into a single watermelon plant. Now we are splicing watermelon DNA with DNA from completely different plant species, or just invented DNA. It's all playing with genetic material, but one is something that could potentially occur naturally on its own...

The common misconception is that we are splicing organisms. This is not true. They use agrobacterium tumefaciens to be a mode of gene transport by creating a vector from its plasmid. (This is excluding the more modern method of the "gold gun" gene transfer) The most common thing is to insert a gene that translates to a herbicide or pesticide, but it's now becoming common to translate an ability to grow in high salinity environments. There is also no such thing as invented DNA

Also you're confusing GMO with allopolypoidy (or any alloploidy really, just polyploid are the easiest to do) when you are talking about cross-pollination

Totally worth it. Think about who you are supporting as well. Josh is awesome and his business ethics are sound. The pads he makes are peerless. Quality of craftsmanship, function, durability, and they carry really nice too.

I suffered with BD and Franklin Mondos for many years, it was a faithful companion and carried me deep into the vgrades, saved my comrades and myself from many nasty situations, and 5" of foam gave me confidence on highballs. But when I started falling on Organic pads, as they became more ubiquitous, I never looked back. As soon as I carried my wife's Organic pad for the first time, I was completely sold.

Who pays for crash pads??? They're laying around all over the woods.

No. Buy mad rock because they VELCO TOGETHER. 

I think metolious is better for pads.

ViperScale wrote: I get a laugh everytime I hear organic. So what you are telling me is this tomato is not organic just because they use some kinda chemical on it to make sure it doesn't get eaten by bugs, disease, and grows better. Original definition of organic: of, relating to, or derived from living matter. and of, relating to, or denoting compounds containing carbon (other than simple binary compounds and salts) and chiefly or ultimately of biological origin This new made up definition of organic: (of food or farming methods) produced or involving production without the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, or other artificial agents. Anything made not following the second definition is still matches the first definition making the 2nd one pointless and stupid. They really need to make up a new word for it.

C'mon, you know we live in the era of linguistic appropriation. :)

caesar.salad wrote:

No. Buy mad rock because they VELCO TOGETHER. 

Thats nifty.

Nick Lozica wrote:

I think metolious is better for pads.

The foam in Metolius pads seems to die rather quickly(especially if you stuff your gear in it when it is folded), the suspension is weak at best and the materails used are so so. Other than that they are great.

Mike Brady wrote:

The foam in Metolius pads seems to die rather quickly(especially if you stuff your gear in it when it is folded), the suspension is weak at best and the materails used are so so. Other than that they are great.

Hahaha. That's like saying a car looks great other than the fact it doesn't actually drive.

reboot wrote:

Hahaha. That's like saying a car looks great other than the fact it doesn't actually drive.

I know