October 26, 2002

10:33 AM

You know that horrible Lee Performance Khakis commercial where the woman spills red wine on her pants? Well this article from Slate.com critiques it and then tests it...to surprising results.
posted by adrober (58 comments total)

great link. i've never seen that ad since i live in hong kong, and thus i've never heard of this new technology.

chinese food is very easy to drop, despite that i'm perfectly comfortable with chopsticks, and these pants sound like the perfect solution.

i hope they do shirts next!
posted by bwg at 10:52 AM on October 26, 2002

So what happens when I pee in my pants?
posted by Stan Chin at 10:58 AM on October 26, 2002

I suspect that that "critique" was paid for by Lee.

And yourself, Adrober?
posted by Grangousier at 11:00 AM on October 26, 2002

Let me apologise for that immediately. I've been ill and cranky. It's still a puff-piece, though.
posted by Grangousier at 11:03 AM on October 26, 2002

Stan Chin, this might help.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:04 AM on October 26, 2002

I've got a pair. They really do rule. I spilled ketchup on a pair during lunch one day, and the splotch I saw came right off. When I got home from work I found another splotch, down on the cuff. 4 hours later it came totally off as well, not even a faint stain.
*I do not work for Lee!*
posted by tr33hggr at 11:14 AM on October 26, 2002

I'm with bwg on the shirts! I'm a klutz, and I drop food on myself all the time. But being rather um, bosomy, I haven't had food land on my lap since I was about 11. I've been waiting for them to develop a Star Trek type force field that could be incorporated into a necklace, causing the food to slide over your chest and into your napkin. I've never really seen the point of putting the napkin on your lap, and I've never been brash enough to just tuck it into my collar where it would do any good.
posted by CoFenchurch at 11:16 AM on October 26, 2002

What a relief. I find laundry a consuming task. Now, thanks to these stain-preventing options, I will never have to do laundry again.

Oh, does someone have experience applying Scotchgard to the inside of boxers? Perhaps Nano-Care boxers will hit the stores by the holidays?
posted by quam at 11:20 AM on October 26, 2002

This means that the fabric is built of fibers chemically treated

Call me a luddite, but the idea of wearing chemically coated fabric next to my skin does not sound enticing. I think there are enough synthetics and chemicals in my life as it is.

(slightly off-tangent autobiographical anecdote) Last summer I had a horrible case of dish pan hands. Soon afterwards I discovered I had developed an allergy to deet (the active chemical in most mosquito repellents.) I switched to a non-deet botanical alternative but after only 2 months developed an allergy to that. My doctor said the original skin rash has triggered extreme sensitivity and I should be careful of anything I put on my skin. I think our modern lifestyles promote such sensitivities with all the crazy mixes of chemicals we come into contact with.

See also: The movie, Safe.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 11:25 AM on October 26, 2002

Nano-Care, eh? So is this an early application of nanotech? And more importantly, if I buy these pants, will they become self-aware overnight, join with other pants, and form a khaki goo that all our weapons -- and red wines -- are useless against?
posted by condour75 at 11:28 AM on October 26, 2002

It's not really that big a deal, I don't think. Older water-repellent treatments went on as a layer on top of the cloth. This one just goes on at the thread, or apparently more properly the cellulose, level. Seal it up from the inside out so to speak. WHy wouldn't it work?

Anyway, this is a standard Slate feature -- they've been putting products to the test for a coupla years now, generally with a sense of humor and theater.

As for Borax, I had no idea you could use it to prevent stains. Dang. But I also have a friend who swears by that infomercial-hell Oxi-Clean stuff.
posted by dhartung at 11:29 AM on October 26, 2002

Call me a luddite, but the idea of wearing chemically coated fabric next to my skin does not sound enticing.

Like clothes with any sort of color? I'm pretty sure that dyes used in clothing aren't really safe to roll around in a big vat of, so what's the difference?
posted by eyeballkid at 11:51 AM on October 26, 2002

I'm going to be on the lookout for those pants. When I saw the ad I thought they must feel like sackcloth, but it's beginning to look like they might be a great choice for me.

And since I can't afford a new wardrobe, I'm off to buy a box of Borax as well.
posted by Salmonberry at 11:55 AM on October 26, 2002

Bah! What's that compared with upcoming Nano Pel, Nano Dry and Nano Tan? This last one will actually tan your legs. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:07 PM on October 26, 2002

My link is actually very interesting, btw.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:08 PM on October 26, 2002

There's another miracle fabric treatment that makes 100% cotton shirts truly no-iron. I bought two from Brooks Brothers. They're amazing - they come out of the dryer like they were dry cleaned.

Still, when I was a kid I thought for sure we'd have flying cars by 2002. Settling for no-stain/no-iron fabrics is lame.
posted by Zombie at 12:10 PM on October 26, 2002

from Miguel's link

Nano-Press is revolutionary in that it opens a formerly-closed gate for the dimension stabilizing of general thin cotton fabric through the significant restoration of flex abrasion resistance from fatal inadequacy.

Amazing!
posted by stbalbach at 12:23 PM on October 26, 2002

I suspect that that "critique" was paid for by Lee.
And yourself, Adrober?

It seems that posting to boards like this is the latest guerilla advertising method making the rounds. It seems to be happening more and more.
(OR...maybe I'm just JADED! Ha ha... yeah, and water ain't wet)
posted by HTuttle at 12:25 PM on October 26, 2002

Nano-Care, eh? So is this an early application of nanotech?

Yes. Although I wouldn't necessarily call it an "early" application of nanotech. Nanotech is all over the place (like in LEDs), just not in the self-aware, evil, robot form. Here's another article that explains the origins of Nano-Care fabric from USA Today (printed 1/20/2001).

Some other products that have resulted from work in nanotechnology:
Memory wire
Amorphous metal
Ferrofluids
posted by ligeia at 12:27 PM on October 26, 2002

doesn't this mean that they'll fail to wick away moisture? if you use these clothes for anything that involves exercise, won't you have little streams of sweat running out...? ewwww.

also, from what i understand of miguel's link, the useful life is 20 washes. a good pair of jeans (for smelly ol' cheapskate me) can last for a year or two, washed once a week - that's a lot more than 20 washes (i've only recently progressed from jeans to "ordinary" trousers, which may last less time).
posted by andrew cooke at 12:27 PM on October 26, 2002

*This brings to mind one of my favorite movies of all time, that 1951 Alec Guiness classic, "The Man in the White Suit". Gist - a scientist invents a fabric that will not get dirty, will not rip or tear, and will never wear out. Clothing companies, instead of rejoicing, try to have him killed before he can patent the formula, because no one will have to buy new clothes anymore, thereby putting them all out of business. A clever dark comedy, highly recommended.

*This critique was not paid for by Universal Pictures or any of its subsidiaries. Void where prohibited by law*
posted by iconomy at 12:32 PM on October 26, 2002

ligeia - since when does nanotech include metallurgy and materials science? i always thought that nanotech meant manipulating molecules as individual physical structures. that doesn't seem to cover any of your examples.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:34 PM on October 26, 2002

"I do not fear those pale green pants,
with nobody inside them."

I said, and said, and said these words.
I said them, but I lied them.

    Dr. Seuss

The khakis are a little scary too...
posted by zekinskia at 12:43 PM on October 26, 2002

"I do not fear those pale green pants,
with nobody inside them."

I said, and said, and said these words.
I said them, but I lied them.

    Dr. Seuss

The khakis are a little scary too...
posted by zekinskia at 12:43 PM on October 26, 2002

andrew cooke wrote a good pair of jeans (for smelly ol' cheapskate me) can last for a year or two, washed once a week

Man I must be the only out there who actually owns more than a few pair of jeans, I toss my jeans for wash after wearing them just once, even if it was only for a hour or two. I've got two that I had purchased back in '97, and they still look nice, faded but nice, and after so many washes, they are very comfortable to wear.
posted by riffola at 1:05 PM on October 26, 2002

another article on nano-pants! (via plastic :)
posted by kliuless at 1:16 PM on October 26, 2002

andrew cooke - All those materials were engineered by manipulating molecular composition, which is exactly what nanotechnology is all about. The end products themselves are not nano-sized, but they are nanostructured. For example, the magnetite particles in ferrofluid are nanoscale, which is key to the whole clumps-of-solid-that-behave-like-liquid thing.

Nanotechnology is very closely related to chemistry and material science, along with dozens of other fields. If you're implying that nanotech must necessarily result in nanoproducts that can't be seen with the naked eye, you're thinking too much inside the box.
posted by ligeia at 1:40 PM on October 26, 2002

First off, I don't work for Lee! I swear! And I hate that commercial...

Actually, I still don't even get the commercial. It just feels like one big non-sequiter. The Slate article says the old lady is going down a list of things that can stain your pants---but why does she say "You bought ice?" The way I understood it, the old lady is just going through the groceries they bought---maybe in preparation for cooking dinner---and then randomly, when requesting "red wine," the daughter-in-law pours it on her pants. Why does the daugher-in-law do that? Is she on drugs? I just don't get it.
posted by adrober at 1:52 PM on October 26, 2002

the way i understand the ad is that the grandma is going through a list of foods, and it's implied that she's double chekcing to make sure the daughter got everything necessary for dinner....then they let you in on the fact that, actually, she was asking about all the things the pants won't be stained by. surprise! stupid, yes.
posted by tristeza at 2:12 PM on October 26, 2002

And more importantly, if I buy these pants, will they become self-aware overnight, join with other pants, and form a khaki goo that all our weapons -- and red wines -- are useless against?

I, for one, welcome our new stain-resistant overlords.
posted by UnReality at 2:15 PM on October 26, 2002

I hadn't seen the Lee ad (don't watch too much TV), but I have seen print ads for a Dockers version. Does anyone know if they're the same thing?

tell me more about these no-iron shirts, Zombie. They sound great. (but damn, Brooks Bros. is 'spensive.)

Second iconomy's recommendation for The Man in the White Suit.
posted by Vidiot at 2:36 PM on October 26, 2002

Man I must be the only out there who actually owns more than a few pair of jeans

just to correct any unfavourable impressions about my personal hygiene - i may only wash clothes once a week, but i do change what i'm wearing more regularly than that!

and if nanotech is nothing more than manipulating molecular composition then what is left for chemists to do? i know it's the latest cool buzzword, and that everyone wants a piece of the action, but i still maintain that there is a distinction between nanotech and chemistry (or metallurgy). the distinction is not (just) to do with size (lots of science studies the world at small scales) but with an "engineering" approach at those scales - manipulating molecules or atoms "directly and individually" (like waving a stick around, or throwing a ball from one place to another). none of those examples - although all cool technology - are based on that. obvious examples of what would be nanotech under that definition include etching tiny cogs on silicon or moving atoms around with stms.

it's not about "thinking outside the box" (if you're going to be condescending, please, at least be imaginative with it), it's about restricting the meaning of words so that they remain useful. just as every bad guy isn't a hitler, nor is every molecular-scale science nanotech.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:46 PM on October 26, 2002

adrober, I took it as the MIL being critical about the yuppies spending money on the fancy trousers. She clearly didn't believe that they would really resist the stains. When proven wrong, she moves on to the next thing: they bought ice. Who buys ice? Isn't it more economical to just MAKE ice?

Does that make sense?
posted by Andrea at 2:49 PM on October 26, 2002

All those materials were engineered by manipulating molecular composition, which is exactly what nanotechnology is all about.

By that logic, cooking a pie is nanotechnology.
posted by ook at 2:52 PM on October 26, 2002

Andrea, that sort-of makes sense, but you can't really apply that theory until you've already seen the commercial once---since they don't introduce the trousers til the end. Thus to the layman first-time-viewer, it's still one big non-sequiter. Unless tristeza's "surprise" theory---which does make some sense, I guess---applies. Either way, I think it's a pretty bad ad.
posted by adrober at 3:01 PM on October 26, 2002

So what else do people want their clothing to do? Any suggestions? I know some people who work at Nano-Tex... :)
posted by mhh5 at 3:39 PM on October 26, 2002

Secret Life of Gravy: See also: The movie, Safe.

That is one of the most unsettling movies I have ever seen. Excellent cinematography, though.
posted by eddydamascene at 4:55 PM on October 26, 2002

mhh5, I would like clothes that can accomodate any...ummm...variation in one's size. You know, you gain a few pounds, no big deal. They could call it "SmartSize" or something (please note that no spandex can be used in the making of this material).
posted by Salmonberry at 4:58 PM on October 26, 2002

andrew cooke/ook: Do you guys have a basis for what you're saying, other than what you think nanotechnology means or what've seen in the popular press?

I work in nanotechnology education and that is exactly what the scientists I work with (chemists/material scientists/engineers) have defined nanotechnology to mean - an interdisciplinary field that deals with manipulating particles and properties on the molecular or atomic level. "Manipulation" is not limited to picking up atoms/molecules and moving them - chemical reactions also manipulate atoms/molecules, and much more efficiently than physical manipulation at this point.

Nor is nanotechnology (pdf, 2nd page) actually a new idea; there are a lot of things you use in your every day life that are applications of nanotechnology. However recent technological advances have taken the field in a new direction - molecular engineering. This new conception of what nanotechnology is has been popularized to the point of ignoring everything that's come before.

it's not about "thinking outside the box" (if you're going to be condescending, please, at least be imaginative with it), it's about restricting the meaning of words so that they remain useful.

No, it's about using a definition that scientists who've been working on nanotech use. Not being condescending, just pointing out that your view of the field is limited.
posted by ligeia at 5:40 PM on October 26, 2002

dhartung, they now have Clorox and Shout versions of the Oxi-Clean stuff at stores, and they seem to work pretty well. They don't get chocolate milk or kool-aid stains out of the carpet, though, although it does fade them.
posted by CoFenchurch at 5:55 PM on October 26, 2002

When added to water, OxiClean (sodium percarbonate) basically turns into hydrogen peroxide (plus soda ash, a solid residue). You're seeing the bleaching effects of, well, a non-chlorine bleach. You can buy it in bulk at a lot cheaper than the OxiClean guys will sell it to you; a typical price is $15 for a 50-pound pail. You can get it at a dry-cleaning supply store.

It's chemically similar to the active ingredient in Oxydol and Borax and has long been used in professional laundry, so there's nothing new about it, it's just clever marketing.
posted by kindall at 6:29 PM on October 26, 2002

Andrea, that sort-of makes sense, but you can't really apply that theory until you've already seen the commercial once---since they don't introduce the trousers til the end. Thus to the layman first-time-viewer, it's still one big non-sequiter.

That's a standard technique. It's not a non sequitur, since it actually follows quite naturally. Throughout the bulk of the commercial, you're thinking "What are they talking about?" Then you get the punchline, and the "Ah, I get it!" revelation. Some people whose brains aren't well suited to revelation could find it difficult to grasp, but the general concept is to associate the pants with (1) the smug, self-assuredness of the annoying lady in the commercial, and (2) the sense of "getting it" that you get when you realize what the pants do. It's a common marketing trick.
posted by oissubke at 6:44 PM on October 26, 2002

also, from what i understand of miguel's link, the useful life is 20 washes.

I just bought two pairs of these pants, and the instructions say they're good for "50 home washings." I suspect that the label underpromises and overdelivers. The fabric feels no different from the fabric in other khaki trousers.
posted by Holden at 4:13 AM on October 27, 2002

Are people out there really so sloppy that they need a pair of pants that can shed all that goop? I can't remember the last time I accidentally dumped a glass of red wine on my lap.
posted by crunchland at 5:54 AM on October 27, 2002

And the winner for the new metafilter tag is Miguel!

Metafilter: "My link is actually very interesting, btw"

So what else do people want their clothing to do?
Change colors. "Mood Pants" black on Monday and purple on Tuesday and red on Friday!

Riffola, I would like you to meet my partner. He is fully capable of tossing a pair of shorts in the laundry after two hours of wear. A typical days worth of clothes is: sleeping boxers, at home clothes, work clothes, and sports (tennis or biking) clothes. All with accompanying underwear-- that means a minimum of three pairs of socks in the laundry hamper per day.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:26 AM on October 27, 2002

secret life of gravy, that sounds like me, I go through at least three sets of clothes in a day too.
posted by riffola at 8:57 AM on October 27, 2002

Secret Life of Gravy: Change colors. "Mood Pants" black on Monday and purple on Tuesday and red on Friday!

Or you could just bring back Hypercolor...
posted by Vidiot at 9:23 AM on October 27, 2002

And the winner for the new metafilter tag is Miguel!

Metafilter: "My link is actually very interesting, btw"

Oh Secret Life, you rascal, you! I meant as opposed to my other links. I summoned a quick Google, as I always do when I'm interested in a thread, and was surprised it brought up something actually bearing on the post and discussion.

Whenever they're boring, as they usually are, I prefer not to mention it. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:47 AM on October 27, 2002

On topic, I change my clothes the second they're stained. And I'm secretly glad; as there's no greater pleasure. I always have a spare blazer, white shirt and tie in my car.

With my advancing girth age, I find stains become more and more frequent and although I'm not gay or an aesthete (I think) they do put paid to one's colour scheme and therefore should be cruelly and summarily dealt with.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:54 AM on October 27, 2002

"Nano-Care, eh? So is this an early application of nanotech?"

condour75: I loved your take!
Just between you and me, "nano-"anything is like anything-"zilla." Hot word du jour. ;)

I'm old enough to remember when the hot words du jour were "-omat," "electro-," "atomic," and "-rama." The small town in NJ where I grew up had (I kid you not) a self-proclaimed "Atomic Laudromat." On my way to supermarket these days I pass "Electro-Nucleonics, Inc." (Someday I must stop in and find out what they actually DO there.) LOL!
Thanks...even tho I did sprayed coffee on my keyboard.
posted by realjanetkagan at 11:55 AM on October 27, 2002

No, it's about using a definition that scientists who've been working on nanotech use. [ligeia]

I don't doubt that the people you work with use that definition... but you must admit it's an unusually broad -- one might even say watered-down -- application of the term. I'm sure it's much easier these days to get grant money for "nanotech research" than for "chemistry" -- so more power to them if they want to redefine the term. But most people don't seem to have such an all-inclusive approach. Probably to keep all those pie bakers from putting "Nanotech Engineer" on their resumes. ("Responsibilities included manipulating starch molecules into sweet sugary goodness.")

I wouldn't have bothered bickering about a semantic issue like this, but your "you guys don't work in the field, so you must not have any idea what you're talking about" snark was tacky, and got my back up.

So what else do people want their clothing to do?
Datapants!
posted by ook at 12:03 PM on October 27, 2002

ook: I wouldn't have bothered bickering about a semantic issue like this. . .

I thought we were anti-semantic here.

*ducks*
posted by Vidiot at 3:38 PM on October 27, 2002

Are people out there really so sloppy that they need a pair of pants that can shed all that goop?

*raises hand guiltily*
posted by dg at 6:03 PM on October 27, 2002

About all I have to say:
Mmmmmmmm, grey goo trousers.
posted by adamgreenfield at 7:01 PM on October 27, 2002

Are people out there really so sloppy that they need a pair of pants that can shed all that goop?

As the mother of small children, I'd gladly accept this new technology in the form of pants, skirts, blouses, jackets, sweaters, turtlenecks, blouses, blue jeans, onesies, blankets, washcloths, towels, bedsheets, pajamas, tablecloths, aprons, art smocks, carpets, furniture upholestery, car upholstery, wallpaper...
posted by Dreama at 1:52 AM on October 28, 2002

Well, I see your point about how messy kids can be... But the goop has to go somewhere, after it's shed off all those things, doesn't it?

Maybe in the future, people will just have a river of spilled stuff that comes out their front door, and gets absorbed by the front lawn or something. (Or would you have that be stain resistant, too?) Live on a hill, and it's your neighbor's problem!

I also think that the "50 washes" aspect, aside from kid's clothes, is a pretty major shortcoming.
posted by crunchland at 4:17 AM on October 28, 2002

I have the new Dockers version, and not only does it only last 50 times, it suggests being ironed from time to time to re-activate. But, it is based on Teflon technology (I guess I could "cook an egg on it") and sounds a little different.

The feel of the material is distinctly not cotton, either, but stain prevention is a nice thing, when you have a three-year old that likes pasta and hugging daddy.
posted by dwivian at 12:51 PM on October 28, 2002

car upholstery, wallpaper...

wall paint, ceilings, doll's hair, teddy bear fur, basically anything that any child under 4' tall comes in contact with, even momentarily.
posted by dg at 5:10 PM on October 28, 2002