This was posted 1 year 11 months 23 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Patagonia R2 TechFace Hoody (Men's) $239.96 (RRP $299) Delivered @ Find Your Feet

121
Patagonia R2 TechFace Hoody (Men's) $239.96 (RRP $299) Delivered @ Find Your Feet
Go to Deal
xximmortalxx on 12/12/2022 - 11:23 findyourfeet.com.au (1029 clicks)
Last edited 12/12/2022 - 11:57 by 2 other users

Notch up the warmth with the new R2® TechFace Hoody. Its versatile double-weave fabric combines a weather-shedding, durable face with a warm, breathable, high-loft interior. Stretchy and cosy all-mountain performance further extends into a dialled feature set: The warm, low-profile, under-the-helmet hood has a simple elastic binding to keep out wind; the zippered handwarmer pockets sit high, above harness line and pack line, and their backsides form a pair of interior drop-in mesh pockets; the sleek, stretch-knit Variable Conditions Cuffs resist snags and push up easily; a partial-hem binding seals in warmth; a zippered left-chest pocket holds small essentials. With a DWR (durable water repellent) finish. Fair Trade Certified™ sewn.

High-loft double-weave fabric is soft and warm next to skin but doesn’t trap heat; face is durable and treated with a DWR (durable water repellent) finish to shed moisture
Under-the-helmet hood with elastic binding is warm and simple
One left-chest pocket and two high handwarmer pockets are clean-finished and harness- and pack-compatible; two interior drop-in pockets
Sleek, low-bulk, snag-resistant cuffs with stretch knit provide versatile coverage and comfort
Partial binding on hem seals in warmth
Fair Trade Certified™ sewn
Weight: 485g
Materials

7.6-oz 94% polyester (77% recycled)/6% spandex breathable stretch double weave with a DWR (durable water repellent) finish
Fabric is certified as bluesign® approved
Fair Trade Certified™ sewn
Slim Fit: Closer-fitting. Slim-fitting technical garments may be worn over baselayers and light midlayers.

Fashion & Apparel Hoodie Patagonia

Related Stores

Find Your Feet
Find Your Feet

closed Comments

    • colblair on 12/12/2022 - 11:31
      +9

      Are you arguing that 140 million dollars in donations to helping the environment is a bad thing?

      • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 11:33
        -6

        while their sweatshops work overtime in developing countries where they can exploit cheap labour & materials….'helping' the environment one $300 hoody at a time!

        • el_cheapo on 12/12/2022 - 11:40
          +2

          Patagonia founder donated the entire company ($3 billion) to a nonprofit to benefit conservation with all profits going to conservation.

          https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/14/climate/patagonia-climate…

          You got a link backing up the use of these sweatshops you are talking about?

          • djbst on 12/12/2022 - 11:46
            +6

            @el_cheapo: Perhaps this may explain how he has not really donated much and saved the family 1.2 Billion in taxes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I

          • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 11:50
            -2

            @el_cheapo: lol….just like bill gates donated his wealth to the bill & melinda gates foundation!

            why do you think they moved most of their manufacturing from the US to developing countries like bangladesh vietnam etc?

            • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 11:58

              @franco cozzo: So what is your suggestion? Don't buy from any large or medium sized business? What large or medium sized clothing company aligns more with your ideals?

            • Ozimodo on 12/12/2022 - 12:03
              +4

              @franco cozzo: Is there any business you guys dont believe is corrupt and evil???

              • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 12:08
                -3

                @Ozimodo: is there any business that you believe isnt in it, primarily for profit and everything else is secondary to that???

              • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 12:10
                +5

                @Ozimodo: Interesting how @franco cozzo has not provided a single alternative so far… All objections and no solutions so far.

                • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 12:14
                  -4

                  @g1: uhm….buy something that doesnt cost $300 and pretends to be somehow sustainable despite using plastics metals and synthetics in its contruction. LOL!

                  • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 12:28
                    +1

                    @franco cozzo: What is your suggested alternative product that addresses the same requirements that Patagonia R2 does? Will you provide a company and product name of an alternative?

                    • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 12:30
                      -5

                      @g1: do i look like your personal fashion & shopping consultant?

                      im just here to burst your little patagonia virtue signalling feelgood bubble :)

                      • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 12:42
                        +1

                        @franco cozzo: My Patagonia virtue signalling? What evidence is there that I am Patagonia virtue signalling?

                        Also I cant see you, to claim what you look like. But sure, I’ll play along and write that that is what you look like.

                        • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 12:49
                          -1

                          @g1: not sure what youre trying to convey…but yeh whatever

                      • bargone on 12/12/2022 - 12:48
                        +1

                        @franco cozzo: Actually you look like a clueless bufooon

                        • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 12:50
                          -1

                          @bargone: you soundbutthurt…does your wildly overpriced patagonia jacket that was marketed to you feel as being 'green' feel less special now???
                          lmfao

                      • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 17:16
                        +1

                        @franco cozzo: I agree, every company and individual who gives to charity is a virtue signaller, the bigger the amount the greater the shame and hypocrisy. Better to give nothing to anyone than to be condemned with that weaponised rw cliche.

            • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 17:09
              +1

              @franco cozzo: Yep employing 1700 people to manage grants worth $65B is a blight on humanity. Pity Gates spoiled it by putting deadly viruses into airwave spectrums /s.

              Cheap labour is a double edged sword, as you may or may not understand. When it becomes exploitative there is obviously a big problem, when it provides jobs and puts food on the table, helps drag a country some small way out of poverty, enables people to give their kids education etc etc then overall that's not a bad outcome globally for mine. Add to that the fact that previously unaffordable things become available to a much larger cohort (eg computers, clothes…) and the outcome becomes even more successful. Long way to go but multinational companies are now being questioned about their commitments to their OS workers' welfare.

              • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 18:09

                @Igaf: yeh thats him ….the computer guy dictating global health policy while hanging out with the likes of convicted sex trafficker jeffrey epstein!!

                • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 18:20

                  @franco cozzo: Hmm, I thought you were probably looking down the rabbit hole but it seems you're quite a way down. Is Gates JC reincarnated? No. How will history remember him? Very likely as a flawed human who did great things. Here's a VERY brief warts and all about his divorce and Epstein relationship: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn32E2HFAVU

                  • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 18:27

                    @Igaf: "warts & all"? lmfao!

                    you are either incredibly naive or gullible if you think a bill gates piece on mainstream media is anything except blatant promotion and PR.

                    • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 18:46

                      @franco cozzo: You understand the concept of very brief? Didn't see any self-promotion in that clip myself but perhaps it was subliminal or above my pay level. Gates has a lot of achievements if he really wants to satisfy his ego. Did the presenters let his indiscretions off the hook and paint him as the perfect human you expect him to be or did they simply state some uncomfortable facts?

                      Gates - and other great philanthropists - could conjure up world peace and there's a still certain cohort who would shout "hypocrite" (aren't we all?), "virtue signaller" and various other ill-informed and inane epithets.

    • andresampras on 12/12/2022 - 11:32
      +2

      You're right, nothing is better than something.

      Make it 0%, Patagonia!

    • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 11:42

      What companies that have world wide distribution are better?

      What are the alternatives?

    • telf22 on 12/12/2022 - 11:43
      +2

      there’s always 1……

      • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 11:55
        -3

        i just know a free advertisement when i see one…

  • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 11:32
    +2

    also ugly windcheater for $300…wheres the bargain?

    isnt this just more free advertising for patagonia?

    • tightm8 on 12/12/2022 - 11:38

      it's the uniform for hipsters and finance bro's, so a 'saving' for them if they're looking for one…

      • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 11:43

        i was wondering who wore this overpriced outdoor gear and bought into their green sales shpiel ….thanks for the headsup and makes sense

        • Hinee on 12/12/2022 - 14:29
          +7

          Have you ever even so much as looked at a Patagonia product though? I mean, you have clearly made your mind up on the company regardless. The trouble is though, they make some really great gear. The kind of gear you spend a bit more on because you only need to buy it once. Plus lifetime free repairs. I don't understand your hardcore contrarian attitude. I couldn't give a rats arse about what the label is, I am at the age where I want to buy quality products once and that is something Patagonia offers. The humanitarian side is a nice extra but does not sway my purchasing decision.

          • cerealsmok3r on 13/12/2022 - 04:04

            @Hinee: Their post history says it all. It’s something alright haha

            • franco cozzo on 13/12/2022 - 04:42

              @cerealsmok3r: yeah just looked at yours and got some good laughs as well mate
              keep up the good work…! lol

          • franco cozzo on 13/12/2022 - 04:54

            @Hinee: im not the target demographic for a $300 hoody mate…..much like most people in australia.
            and i dont fall for bullshit 'green' marketing campaigns designed to flog more product and nothing more :)

  • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 11:33
    +2

    R2 is great, so is R3 if one can find it somewhere. Both are warm, comfortable and breathable.

  • MaxHashrate on 12/12/2022 - 11:39
    +1

    i will wear 2 jackets instead thanks

  • solidussnake on 12/12/2022 - 11:42

    Just in time for summer thanks 😃

  • Nedkellyinthebush on 12/12/2022 - 11:44
    +9

    $40 bucks off such a high RRP is not a bargain imho

    • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 11:52

      nah bro….$300 of green virtue signalling is totally worth it for this hoody!!

      • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 17:19

        Only comes in black and grey from what I saw.

  • djbst on 12/12/2022 - 12:13
    +4

    Just buy the thing if it's a good product and the price is right for you. But just don't be fooled by the BS donations claims that companies make. The whole purpose of these "donations" is for billionaires to get out of paying taxes.

    Posting the same link I've posted above, just in case you missed it.

    What's behind the climate change donations:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I

    • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 12:16

      ….but, muh media told me my patagonia jacket was saving the planet?!?!? what am i supposed to buy now???

    • g1 on 12/12/2022 - 12:26
      +4

      The OP didn't start off with any environment claims. @franco cozzo made the first comment about environment and re-allocation of funds.

      This deal is about an item at a discount. But the comments are triggered by someone's agenda?

      Going back to the OP deal: consider Patagonia R2 for its quality, uses cases, and compare it to alternatives that address the same needs?

      • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 13:25

        lol…the whole brand is based around their environmental claims. its kinda hard to avoid especially when they charge $300 for an ugly hoody!!

    • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 17:40
      +2

      Thanks for sharing. Couldn't get through it because it was extremely simplistic and so blatantly one-sided. Great for people who don't want to exercise their brain cells or look at both sides of the ledger. Did he rant about the tax relief Trump provided to the wealthy by chance? Philosophical question for you. Are $$$$$$$ which result from legitimate tax minimisation better off in the hands of "virtue signalling" billionaires or profligate politicians and governments intent on their own power and self-aggrandisement?

      I don't know the answer but how much tax did Patagonia pay in the last say 10 years? How many incomes did it provide? Have its overseas workers benefited from its claimed activism and transparency? We've yet to see where his donations will land and what impacts they'll have but you and your youtube mate have already decided that presumably?

      • djbst on 12/12/2022 - 18:18
        +1

        Couldn't get through it because it was extremely simplistic and so blatantly one-sided. Great for people who don't want to exercise their brain cells or look at both sides of the ledger.

        So much for the "brain-cell-exercising" man/woman who "looks at both sides of the ledger", yet can't want to open the mouth, without even looking at the whole argument?

        Did he rant about the tax relief Trump provided to the wealthy by chance?

        So you expect him to cover Trump's tax cuts in a video about billionaire donations? What other topics would you like, to be there? Those few cells need some exercise, it seems.

        On an unrelated note, he's a "lefty", if you look at his other videos.

        I don't know the answer but how much tax did Patagonia pay in the last say 10 years? How many incomes did it provide? Have its overseas workers benefited from its claimed activism and transparency?

        Yet, you have an opinion. Fantastic!

        • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 18:30

          Yeh I'm human, with not a great tolerance for simplistic or inane propaganda. Only so much BS one can agreeably absorb in a lifetime. Did he promise to come back and apologise for his massive assumptions if the tax minimising foundation turns out to improve people's lives? Rhetorical question. I don't care if he's left, right or centre, unbalanced opinion is little better than junk.

          Trumps tax cuts to the wealthy would seem a pretty obvious start if you're talking about billionaire "taxes". My question to you about who is better placed to make good use of billionaire "philanthropy" wealth was also commentary on his rant. I doubt you'll answer so maybe you could message him and ask for another brain filling video.

          Are you looking for the data about Patagonia taxes and expenditure on wages, donations etc or can we take it that you don't have a clue and are worried it might expose your - and his - narrative?

          • djbst on 13/12/2022 - 14:04
            +1

            @Igaf:

            Yeh I'm human, with not a great tolerance for simplistic or inane propaganda. Only so much BS one can agreeably absorb in a lifetime.

            What happened to the brain-cell-exercising, looking-at-both-sides-of-the-ledger person?

            I hope you understand that your personal quirks and psychological flaws have nothing to do with the main argument.

            If only you had the capacity to understand how you sound. May be show this to your friends/therapist and see what they think.

            My question to you about who is better placed to make good use of billionaire "philanthropy" wealth was also commentary on his rant. I doubt you'll answer

            Philosophical question for you. Are $$$$$$$ which result from legitimate tax minimisation better off in the hands of "virtue signalling" billionaires or profligate politicians and governments intent on their own power and self-aggrandisement?

            Yeah, I don't answer loaded questions. If you can't figure out that, it's a loaded question, I can't help you.

            Are you looking for the data about Patagonia taxes and expenditure on wages, donations etc…

            What are you doing on about? The question is whether Patagonia owners "donation" was genuine or not.

            You have zero evidence and yet to share anything at all to back anything, and asking me for more evidence. Here you go. I thought you'd Google and see and realise your argument has no basis than having blind faith about the company's donations. But I expected too much of you.

            Here's more evidence.
            https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/how-patagonia-surfed-aroun…

            While the New York Times article that first reported the Patagonia story quoted a company adviser saying it brings the Chouinards “no tax benefit,” that’s incorrect, said Daniel Hemel, an expert in tax law and a professor at New York University School of Law.

            “The Chouinards got a huge tax benefit from this,” Hemel said. By keeping control of just 2 percent of Patagonia, the family can contribute to political campaigns by proxy and steer the company while minimizing their tax liability on a $3 billion corporation, Hemel said. The nonprofit Holdfast Collective can use the company’s money for advocacy work. Crucially, its 501(c)(4) designation allows the collective to put money into political campaigns—something a traditional 501(c)(3) charity is banned from.

            “If I give $3 billion to you, I’d owe $1.2 billion in gift tax,” Hemel said. “They figured out a way to give $3 billion away, having it not go to a traditional charity, and instead of paying $1.2 billion in gift tax, they’re paying $17 million in tax. So they cut their gift tax bill by more than 98 percent.”

            And you would not ask this if you just Googled and realised that it's not his nor my narrative.

            or can we take it that you don't have a clue and are worried it might expose your - and his - narrative?

            I'm not going to waste my time again on this topic with you.

            Again, show this to your friends/therapist and see what they think of you.

            • franco cozzo on 13/12/2022 - 14:21
              +1

              @djbst: …nice research and comment.
              so political campaigning and advocacy disguised as environmentalism. whowouldathunkit?

              • Igaf on 13/12/2022 - 15:55
                -1

                @franco cozzo: Your summary is childish, as expected. I'd suggest you do some reading but I can see you're up to your neck sharing your opinionated ignorance er wisdom on this website.

            • Igaf on 13/12/2022 - 14:58

              @djbst: My therapist, my personal quirks and psychological flaws aside, the bottom line is simple enough. Like many credulous viewers you've been sucked in by assumption based on guesswork as to what Chouinard's motives are and what the outcomes will be from Holdfasts's activities. His actions to date and his plans for the future suggest you and your youtube ranting mate are entirely wrong.

              Here's some basic facts, all outlined in your "more evidence link" which explains clearly why the outrage in your ranter's video was misleading. Chouinard has earned his billions and been taxed as per the laws of the country. If he was as mercenary as suggested he could simply employ his family on enormous salaries or use any number of tax minimisation laws to ensure his billions stay with them. Instead, like many other philanthropists he he puts it into a company which will underwrite and /or subsidise activities and causes he believes in. His money, his choice in democratic societies. He also wants to ensure that he maintains some control over allocations and directions of the "charity". Not only is this entirely understandable, it's prudent at least until he can be confident in others taking over.

              You haven't answered the "loaded question" because you either don't have the wit or you know it won't fit your narrative of "billionaires avoiding tax". Why would any sane person give the American govt $1.2B when he has no say in where that money is spent? Both Democrats and Republicans have shown they are capable of essentially p.ssing it up against a wall. I'll leave you to work out what percentage $1.2B is of $6.7T - the approx USA budget.

              I'm guessing most thinking adults have already made up their minds about the "loaded question", especially as they watch the results of decades of environmental vandalism and culpable inaction on warming reduction unfolding. And that's without taking into consideration the clear threat to democracy and ordered society that Trumpism and Republican obsequiousness poses.

  • RedSky on 12/12/2022 - 12:26

    Found them!

  • wittyusername on 12/12/2022 - 13:07
    +8

    Holy shit this thread is a dumpster fire.

    love or hate their ethics, they stand behind their gear. I purchased their black hole duffle in 2016 or 2017. This year, my dog chewed through the handle. I'd always heard that they promote repair over throwing shit away and buying new, so I thought I'd try my luck. They approved it, I paid for shipping to their repair place (Remote Wilderness Repairs - I've actually used them for customising a ski touring pack and strongly recommend them) and that was it, they sent it back a month later almost as good as new. Cry and bitch all you want that giving away all that money is just a tax move (probably, but it's more than I'll ever be able to put towards the cause), but that warranty service has got me willing to pay the premium.

    • mholling on 12/12/2022 - 14:05

      Yep. Say what you want about their prices or target demographic, but definitely the wrong company to criticise for their environmental ethics.

        • mholling on 12/12/2022 - 14:41

          Sure, I don't necessarily disagree with anything in the video. But it doesn't address the environmental aspects of Patagonia's approach at all. Which I'll continue to presume are better than most brands. I mean, I've got no horse in this race, their stuff is all too pricey for me.

          • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 14:56

            @mholling: who the f buys $300 hoodys, anyway….?

            its like this site got a whole bunch of users along the way that have no idea what the word 'bargain' means

            • ebosh on 12/12/2022 - 16:33
              +1

              @franco cozzo: While this hoody isn't something I'd personally buy, the word "bargain" means something sold for a price that is lower than usual. This appears to be the cheapest price that one could buy the jacket for right now, hence it would be considered a bargain.

              • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 17:57
                -1

                @ebosh: yeah right mate ….10% off a $300 hoody is an absolute fricking ripper beauty good onya cobber 100% legit bargain mate!!!

                • ebosh on 13/12/2022 - 20:32

                  @franco cozzo: 20% cheaper than anywhere else, hence you're correct and it technically is a "100% legit bargain". Again, not for me so I didn't upvote it but it's really riled you up hasn't it?

  • GeneralKeen on 12/12/2022 - 13:08
    +2

    How is this getting so many upvotes? It's overpriced and not even justifying the price. You can get Uniqlo Blocktech which is much cheaper!

    • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 13:17
      -4

      id downvote it too but the patagonia-istas would just end up revoking my neg!

      good on you for for not being one of the 'herd' :)

      • GeneralKeen on 12/12/2022 - 17:54
        +1

        Wow, negative 4 so far

        • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 18:14
          -1

          this place is full of conformists & populists…its so laughably predictable!

          • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 20:00
            +3

            @franco cozzo: Much like your comments

            • franco cozzo on 12/12/2022 - 20:08

              @Igaf: ohhh.. patagonia-istas dont like it when people criticise their favourite brand. im really sorry!!

              • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 20:10

                @franco cozzo: Barking up the wrong tree as usual. Might help if you understood the basics of this site but that still wouldn't explain your persistent and inane trolling.

                • franco cozzo on 13/12/2022 - 05:03
                  -2

                  @Igaf: patagonia: overpriced active gear for people who dont actually do anything active outdoors and want to project the image of caring for the environment while not actually doing anything about it. Mainly worn for social clout by those who need to project their virtue to others.

                  …am i barking up the right tree now?

                  • Igaf on 13/12/2022 - 16:01

                    @franco cozzo: If it's the tree of puerile misrepresentation, opinionated ignorance and misplaced superiority then yes.

    • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 17:45

      Seems expensive to me.

      • GeneralKeen on 12/12/2022 - 17:59

        Do you mean the Uniqlo Blocktech? It used to be less than $60, you might get cheaper in Singapore or Malaysia. I've a big fan of Soft-shell/shell tech type of jackets, I have owned Kathmandu, Macpac, Timberland, Superdry and none of them more than $180.

        • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 18:12

          The Patagonia. There might be small diff in product quality, service etc but I can't see $240 let alone $300 of value myself.

    • el_cheapo on 12/12/2022 - 22:39
      +3

      They are totally different bits of gear with different uses. The R2 is a technical fleece, it's well made, high quality and rock solid. The grid fleece is a good amount of warmth but still breathable and airy for activity. It's also stretchy and has a hood that you can wear under a climbing helmet. There is a reason why you see a lot of R1 and R2s at pretty much every rock climbing crag and on long distance hikes. There are cheaper grid fleeces for sure but the durability is worse. I have both a Patagonia R1 and a decathlon grid fleece, there is no comparison. I have used my R1 for literally 1000s of km of hiking as well as days and days of rock climbing and it's as good as new, the decathlon on the other hand is ratty after a few hikes. It might be a waste of money if you just want a fleece to wear to the shops but it has its purpose and it's good at what it does. That said I wouldn't buy one as I think the R2 is too warm for a activ layer (I would buy another R1 if I ever manage to kill mine).

      • Igaf on 12/12/2022 - 23:01
        +1

        Great info. The 'technical' gear space has become quite murky with various claims and descriptions about what they do. Hard core use warrants quality product use, otherwise plenty of cheaper stuff will suffice.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join