Ergonomics and seat test
We tested the armchair with a total of three people. While the male adolescent (16 years, 1.75 m tall and 56 kilos) still coped reasonably well and the woman (37 years, 1.70 m tall, 67 kg heavy) could sit at least sufficiently well, the test for the author (53 years, 1.80 m tall, 105 kilos heavy) was then somewhat good. Arduous.
We will now go into this in detail and have summarized the individual tests in a table for the sake of a better overview:
| Person 1 (16, 1.75 m, 56 kg) |
Person 2 (37, 1.70 m, 67 kg) |
Person 3 (53, 1.80 m, 105 kg) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Seat height (variable) |
Very good | Well | Well |
| Leg rest and contour |
Well | Well | Enough |
| Armrests Length adjustment |
Not possible | ||
| Armrests height adjustment |
Well | Satisfying | Enough |
| Armrests Width adjustment |
Not possible | ||
| Backrest minimum position |
Satisfying | Satisfying | Satisfying |
| Back support |
No | ||
| Padding |
Well | Well | Satisfying |
| Rocking mechanism (tightness) |
not available | ||
| Sitting for over 2 hours |
Well | Satisfying | Enough |
The user should therefore not be significantly over 1.75 to 1.80 m tall (the neck cushion sits slightly deep) and, if possible, be rather slender in the thigh and buttocks area. Otherwise, you get up with the chair after sitting.
The backrest can only be firmly locked in the desired position, but an active back support for multi-writers and a rocking mechanism are sought in vain. The Lordose pillow is a bit thick but usable. The stoppers do what they are supposed to do and are indispensable. The armrests, on the other hand, are far too inflexible.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Material and workmanship
The substructure is extremely cost-savingly implemented, there is nothing to gloss over. However, the whole thing is still sufficiently stable and significantly higher-quality than with DIY chairs in the class up to 150 euros, which have been inspected in the meantime for comparison.
You wouldn't even want an unloved mother-in-law. Here, however, one could risk it in good conscience. However, IKEA's 150-euro mark is even better processed, which should give you food for thought.
The PU-leather imitation does not make a bad impression, even with the carbon effects, but in the first days it causes a certain change in the smell of space. Other products show that this does not have to be mandatory. The seams are acceptable and the embroidery for logo and company lettering is cleanly executed. We wrote something about the gas pressure spring and the rollers.
Summary and conclusion
The chair is too good for a crack, but a little too expensive for a purchase tip, whether the missing skills are a little too expensive. You can get comparable products on relevant Chinese shop pages from approx. 80 USD, better from approx. 100 USD.
Together with import vat and, if applicable, Customs duties, however, would still remain loosely well below EUR 200. Whether you then have the Aorus or Gigabyte logo are worth the extra charge, everyone has to make up that with themselves.
The fact is, there are also much worse copies, which often cost no less. From this point of view, EUR 245 is still somehow justifiable. What the chair lacks, however, are a clever rocking mechanism and, if necessary, better armrests. Whether the underbody was only tagged or cleanly sewn and covered, however, is not seen anyway.
Unfortunately, it was not enough for a purchase tip, because too many things remain in the room as an open question. But it already looks chic and from 200 euros down would certainly arouse certain desires among a much wider mass. So he remains one of many.
Kommentieren