By Jason B.
It seems like performance underwear is all the rage in the industry now, and the days of tighty whiteys appear to be numbered. SAXX is one of the newer companies on the block, and they believe that their specific style of performance underwear with their proprietary ball park pouch, flat seams and technical fabrics will deliver the best experience for their wearer. I am fortunate enough to see if this is true. I will be reviewing the Quest 2.0 over the next several months.
SAXX Underwear was founded in 2006 by Trent Kitsch after a fishing trip that left him unhappy with his current underwear choices. The result is the SAXX Underwear that is available today. Their website does a nice job of laying out the remainder of their story on how the founder went from uncomfortable to comfortable. Their website is laid out well and easy to use.
There are three main features that make SAXX Underwear different from others – BallPark Pouch, Three-D Fit, and Flat Out Seams. The BallPark Pouch is described by SAXX this way: “Designed for contact-free support, this 3D hammock-shaped pouch keeps everything in place, thanks to mesh panels that prevent skin-against-skin friction, and feature no exposed stitching for chafe-free comfort.”
SAXX describes the Three D fit this way – “Taking a 360-degree view of the body, we consider fit, feel and function, and use nine panels of fabric to create 3D shaping around glutes, thighs, quads and hamstrings.”
Finally the Flat Out Seams are described – “While other underwear companies place the raised-thread seam against the body, we reversed conventional thinking and placed the flatter, softer side of the seam inward, for chafe-free comfort.”
Overall there seems to be a pretty impressive amount of engineering for a pair of underwear. I am intrigued with the BallPark Pouch, as it seems to be the most unique feature that separates SAXX Underwear from others. SAXX offers underwear in multiple styles- boxers, briefs, and long leg boxers.
The Quest 2.0 which I will be reviewing is the latest version in the Quest line up and is made with “ultralight, quick drying, pin dot mesh fabric for easy wash and go wearability.” My first impression is that the fabric is really soft and seems to have quite a bit of stretch in all directions. The fabric is thin and if held up to a light is partially see through. I can see why it is called “pin dot mesh fabric.” The inside seams seem to be soft but I don’t really feel much difference between the inner seams and the outer seams. Maybe I need to recalibrate my tactile sensations. The underwear has a wide waist band that is not supposed to roll. The fabric also features an anti-microbial technology to help with the funk.
The Quest 2.0 comes in a boxer style with a 5” inseam and a Long Leg version that has a 8” inseam. The Quest 2.0 boxer retails for $29.95 and the Quest 2.0 Long Leg retails for $32.95.
I received two pairs of the Quest 2.0 to try out – a regular boxer and a Long Leg version. When I tried the regular boxers on, my initial impression was positive. I am 5’6” and generally weigh around 180 pounds and the large size seems to fit me well. The leg fabric is supportive and the BallPark Pouch feels natural. What I really want to know is how it performs on the trail.
I generally evaluate underwear on several characteristics. Number one is comfort – are they comfortable to wear? Do I want to wear them or do I have to wear them? Does the BallPark Pouch really make a difference? Do I chafe? The second characteristic is durability. How well do they last? Can I wear them several days without seeing any undue wear? Do they lose any elasticity over time? Third is smell. This is pretty major drawback for synthetic fabrics in general. Can I wear them for multiple days without chasing off my hiking partners?
Thanks for taking the time to read my initial review. Check back in about a month for my update.