does techwear have to be waterproof?

>>12464968
no. tech wear is more about the visual style of the clothes rather than the performance aspects nowadays anyways

>>12464970
would the pic I posted be considered tech wear?

>>12465012
you're a dumbass.
not all tech wear is water resistant.
do you want clothes that aren't outerwear to be waterPROOF? not unless you want to sweat like a donkey

>>12465012
tripfags go kys

>>12465012
tech fleece has tech in the name though

>>12465012
fleece isn't water resistant tho

>wearing tech fleece
what are you some kinda roadman

tell my man shut up!

>>12465025
Plenty of real techwear isn't water resistant. Base layers have no reason to be water resistant, since their function is wrapped up in moisture transport. Both garments are designed to keep you dry from different sources of moisture.

File: techfleece.png (114KB, 298x293px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 298x293px

>>12464968

File: 444.png (40KB, 171x242px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 171x242px

>>12465029
sauce?

>>12465039
that tripfag is a retard, you can ignore him

>>12465258
Hm, quite

Is there some kind of techwear camp they send you to and brainwash you? Even Dick Ovens fanbois had more of a sense of humour about it...

>>12465036
Why do you type in capitals?
Most of the brands in the sticky aren't waterproof

>>12465483
I know, techwear idiots are the fucking worst. They just want to justify their $5000 jackets that they are full of science because they can't understand how to just look normal or good. It's pathetic really.

That's not techwear that's a tracksuit.

>>12464968
You could probably assemble a full tech wear fit with just Nike ACG and maybe a few off brand accessories for sub $500

I think a lot of tech wear autists are mad that their style is more affordable (accessable)

where the fuck do i buy tech wear shit nowadays


nothing looks too good