Waterproof as minimum standard

[Dave_Mole]

I got waterproof kit for less than that by shopping around.
There's also no need for Goretex etc: plenty of suitable alternatives out there if you look. Waterproof and taped seams doesn't have to be Goretex or Event (or Pretext Shield). But, at the end of the day it does boil down to the question: what price safety? As discussed elsewhere there's plenty of "budget" gear out there, but do you really want to be relying on it when it comes to the crunch?

[richsund]

I have trawled the internet and this forum thread to identify proposed equipment and sources. It seams that for jacket and leggings it will set you back
£150-200 for non goretex but pertex garments thus more for goretex
less than £150 lesser material garment or sale item.

Stevemon I think you might be getting a little bit carried away with what's needed. Yes, bigger money might get you less weight and perhaps more 'features', but for an average runner (me!) 50 grammes here and there isn't really going to make much difference.
I personally think the trouser half is not important, so I have a £15 pair of Regatta / Gelert / Hi Gear / whatever 'pac-a-mac' type trousers. These are tiny and light enough to carry, and have taped seams. I can't imagine ever wearing them to run in; in bad weather I wear long running tights and can only imagine putting the waterproofs on if I was immobilised for whatever reason.
I was prepared to spend a bit more money on a jacket, in the end I went for a Montane Atomic (£90ish) which is slightly heavier and more robust than some of the pure 'running' jackets, but will also come in handy for other things - walking, and general going-to-the-pub use.
But as Dave_Mole says, there are other bargain-basement jacket options out there. It definitely doesn't have to be Gore-Tex, which is overrated and overpriced in my view, so I wouldn't dismiss other materials as 'lesser'.

I'm quite surprised this issue is causing so much angst, it's really not that complicated and I'd have thought that most people who spend a lot of time outdoors will surely already have some sort of waterproof kit lying around

[stevemon]

Stevemon I think you might be getting a little bit carried away with what's needed. Yes, bigger money might get you less weight and perhaps more 'features', but for an average runner (me!) 50 grammes here and there isn't really going to make much difference.
I personally think the trouser half is not important, so I have a £15 pair of Regatta / Gelert / Hi Gear / whatever 'pac-a-mac' type trousers. These are tiny and light enough to carry, and have taped seams. I can't imagine ever wearing them to run in; in bad weather I wear long running tights and can only imagine putting the waterproofs on if I was immobilised for whatever reason.
I was prepared to spend a bit more money on a jacket, in the end I went for a Montane Atomic (£90ish) which is slightly heavier and more robust than some of the pure 'running' jackets, but will also come in handy for other things - walking, and general going-to-the-pub use.
But as Dave_Mole says, there are other bargain-basement jacket options out there. It definitely doesn't have to be Gore-Tex, which is overrated and overpriced in my view, so I wouldn't dismiss other materials as 'lesser'.

I'm quite surprised this issue is causing so much angst, it's really not that complicated and I'd have thought that most people who spend a lot of time outdoors will surely already have some sort of waterproof kit lying around

Thanks Richsund and Dave_Mole.
I do not currently spend lots of time in the outdoors, although I do have a waterproof/windproof jacket(too bulky for fell races). Yes I will be way down the field, in more ways than one, but the stringency of the Race Organiser may mean a DQ before you start? particularly in my new chosen races next year AL. I want to get the right gear for a price I, and others, can afford in the current economic climate. Yes Rich I will shop around, last years model is usually cheaper than the latest `design`. As for cheaper(non-brand) pants, which meet the written rule, some on this forum question the quality of these products in the event you need to use them. Fell running, like many areas of life, includes many opinions across the spectrum thus we have forums. All views can be expressed but some are more palatable than others. Thanks once again.

[dantodman]

I have a trespass top and pants. £20 for the top and £15 for the pants. They meet the rules and I have worn them both in extreme weather and they perform very well. The top isn't light but 100 g aint making no difference to me. I eyed up the Berhaus ones but at ?140 for a top in the sale I couldn't justify it (I have a Very good Berhaus which is mid weight already)

Dan

[silentrunner]

Each to their own really, but I took the view that instead of paying £40-50 and having something uncomfortable to run in if required (assuming both cheap and expensive kit passes race checks), I might as well have something which doesn't sound like a crisp packet, and is more comfortable. Push comes to shove, I think most would accept that the more expensive gear is likely to be more effective in an emergency if you were crocked and had to keep warm, but not everyone can afford to spend £200 for a jacket/trousers combo. I know it doesn't make me run faster.

[Graeme]

Some races are imposing the new rules already, Wrekin wrecker? I think in general the new rules are sensible, but although the wrecker is a AM is it really required for a race where you are never more than a mile from the road or a marshal? Should the organisers not have a little more leeway?