Overview
About Peak Performance Agile Long Shorts - UPF 50 (For Women)
Closeouts. There's nothing you won't be able to conquer in Peak Performance's Agile long shorts. Featuring a super-stretchy, ultra-durable polyamide twill, these babies stand up to bouldering, heavy hiking, and long treks through creeks. The quick-drying, DWR finish takes the worry out of oncoming weather.
- Peak Performance is a Swedish company that has been designing technologically advanced clothing and gear since 1986
- UPF 50 sun protection shields from UV rays
- DWR-treated fabric resists moisture and wind
- Two-way stretch polyamide fabric dries fast and won't restrict movement
- Hand, back and coin pockets
- Two zip thigh pockets
- Drawcord cuffs
- Made in Viet Nam
- Runs small, order one size larger
Specs
Specs about Peak Performance Agile Long Shorts - UPF 50 (For Women)
- Short style: Flat Front
- UPF rating: 50
- Inseam: 18" (based on size medium)
- Leg opening: 18"
- Weight: 10 oz.
- Waistband: 1-3/4"
- Belt loops: 2"
- Fabric: 94% polyamide, 6% spandex
- Care: Machine wash, tumble dry
- Made in Viet Nam
- Runs small, order one size larger
Sizing
General Women's Size Chart
For Alpha sizing, hover over "Sizes Available" shown above to determine the Numeric size conversion listed below.
| 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 14 | 16 | 18 | 20 | 22 | 24 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bust | 31.5 | 32.5 | 33.5 | 34.5 | 35.5 | 36.5 | 38 | 39.5 | 41 | 43 | 45 | 47 | 49 |
| Waist | 23.5 | 24.5 | 25.5 | 26.5 | 27.5 | 28.5 | 30 | 31.5 | 33 | 35 | 37 | 39 | 41 |
| Hip | 33.5 | 34.5 | 35.5 | 36.5 | 37.5 | 38.5 | 40 | 41.5 | 43 | 45 | 47 | 49 | 51 |
Plus Sizing
| 16W | 18W | 20W | 22W | 24W | 26W | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bust | 42 | 44 | 46 | 48 | 50 | 52 |
| Waist | 34 | 36 | 38 | 40 | 42 | 44 |
| Hip | 46 | 48 | 49 | 51 | 53 | 55 |
Note: Please use the following sizing chart for general reference only. Sizes between different vendors and manufacturers do vary. Item specific sizing is best found in the item description.
Reviews
Do you own this product? Write a review and help others with their buying decisions!
2.000000
5
Overall Rating: 2
2.000000
Based on 2 reviews
Most Helpful 2-Star Review
2.0 out of 5 stars.
Weird Fit :(
Reviewed by Mighty Mouse from Today... Whistler on Friday, January 16, 2015
Your search for "" returned reviews for Peak-Performance-Agile-Long-Shorts-UPF-50-For-Women
-
2.0 out of 5 stars. Too large in the waistReviewed by Lher from Seattle on Friday, March 20, 2015I am 5'10", 137lbs and usually wear a size 6 pants, although my waist is closer to a 4. I'm used to having the waist a little baggy on me since my hips/legs are proportionally bigger than my waist, but these shorts were HUGE in the waist. They were probably 2 inches too big. The legs fit perfect and the length was great too, just covering my knees. The fabric was also great. It's too bad they fit so strangely, I had to return them.
-
2.0 out of 5 stars. Weird Fit :(Reviewed by Mighty Mouse from Today... Whistler on Friday, January 16, 2015I've already reviewed the Agile Pants and have submitted the same review for the shorts as other than the length (pants vs shorts) everything else was the same. I was very excited when I saw the huge collection of Peak Performance shorts and pants with the super-stretch fabric on STP. I like this brand. Here is the good. The fabric is fabulous and construction quality is excellent. Unfortunately the cut is weird. I am 5' 6" and 105 lbs with a lean athletic build. I ordered XS and they were too big for me. The were a bit baggy in the butt and several inches to large in the waist. And the waist sits VERY HIGH. The top of the waist band touched my belly button. Ew. It was NOT attractive or comfortable. Even if it was sized correctly I don't think I would have liked where it sat on my waist. I was disappointed as I was really hoping these would be fabulous. I sent them back. If you still think these shorts might be for you, I would NOT size up unless you are accustomed to vanity sizing. I always buy XS and in this case, XS was a little bit to big, S would have been huge.
