Those Lululemon sheer pants are back -- and cost $92

The company says it is 'celebrating failure' with a patched-up version of the bottoms called the 'Second Chance Pant.'

By MSN Money Partner Nov 13, 2013 2:13PM
Credit: © Andy Clark/Reuters

Caption: A customer enters the Lululemon store in downtown Vancouver, British Columbia November 8, 2013By Hayley Peterson, Business Insider

The yoga pants that Lululemon (LULU) recalled in March for being too sheer are back in stores.

Lululemon is selling a patched-up version of the bottoms, called the "Second Chance Pant," for $92.


That's not much less than the $98 the pants initially sold for before they were pulled from stores. The revamped version hit stores in mid-October.


For the "Second Chance Pant," the company has sewn an extra layer of fabric onto the back and added strips of see-through mesh along the legs.


The tag on the bottoms reads: "These pants were inspired by a need to find functional and beautiful design solutions for our sheer pants. This is what celebrating failure looks like!"


The company explains further, "We added mesh panels on the side and a luon fabric panel across the back to give you the coverage you need in Down Dog."


Lululemon confirmed to Business Insider Tuesday that the bottoms are made from the company's recalled yoga pants.


Lululemon's recall in March, which affected 17% of its inventory, is expected to cost the company as much as $67 million in revenue this year.


Lululemon rolled out new pants with a supposedly thicker fabric, called "Full-On Luon," in July. But some customers have been complaining that the new pants are still too sheer and that the material began pilling after only a couple of wears, Business Insider first reported


Lululemon's founder, Chip Wilson, suggested last week that some women's bodies are to blame for the ongoing problems with the pants. He later posted a video apology for his remarks and begged customers to give the company a second chance.


More from Business Insider

Tags: LULU
58Comments
Nov 13, 2013 2:34PM
avatar
As long as they aren't worn by someone who makes the pants look like "a 10 pound sausage stuffed in to a 2 pound casing" I'm ok with it.  
avatar
Kind of reminds me of the spandex era. Remember the wife and I went over to her sisters and her sister was wearing a pair of spandex pants (we all know a nearly 300 lbs. woman should not be wearing spandex), than made the mistake of asking if I liked her spandex, Me being me, I was like not really, and she was like why not, I said it looked like an elephant trying to stretch into a mouse skin. Her husband was sitting on the arm of the couch and he fell off the couch and was howling on the floor, my wife was burying her head in my back trying to keep from laughing, as for me I was just standing there smiling, then my sister-in-law stormed off to her bedroom and kicked her husband in the gut as she passed him, which just made him laugh even harder.
Nov 13, 2013 2:37PM
avatar
ever been to a gym lately?
paa-lease....
those with huge buts and cellulite
should not be wearing lulu pants!

 

Nov 13, 2013 2:58PM
avatar

The President of Lu Lu Lemon sounds like a Lu Lu Looser!  And the women that continue to purchase these poor quality overpriced pants are Lu Lu Lemmings.

Wake up and buy a lose fitting pair of sweat pants.  You will be better off, and so will the viewers in most cases.

Nov 13, 2013 3:51PM
avatar

With all the comments about larger sized women not wearing this type of attire I have

to concur.  Being a larger sized I have never tried to wear something that clings or

exaggerates what might be better concealed.  The old ski pants, tights, jeggins,

not any tunic or sweatshirt can begin cover that stuff.  A decent pair of jeans works better

than trying to be "fashionable" in some cockamamie getup some woman hating

"fashion" designer came up with to increase their profit margin with a "new" trend.

The other end of the spectrum is the sweat pants, just a good mirror and common sense

or is that asking too much?

 

 

Nov 13, 2013 4:03PM
avatar
lmao!  $100 for pants that aren't really even pants?

barnam had it right I guess.

Nov 13, 2013 2:53PM
avatar
They're just playing into our shallow, narcissistic, exhibitionist culture. 
Nov 13, 2013 3:45PM
avatar
Amazing my size 6 wife still makes do with Russell athletic gear.
Nov 13, 2013 5:02PM
avatar
No way I'd ever pay that much for yoga pants, let alone "2nds". 
Nov 13, 2013 3:42PM
avatar
That is some a$$ on that chick with the jeans!!  Too bad most of the women who wear those pants aren't shaped like her!
Nov 13, 2013 5:14PM
avatar
Anyone that pays $92 dollars for a pair of pants has way too much money and way too few brains.... I know we have more than our share of them!
Nov 13, 2013 5:32PM
avatar
There's a sucker born every minute and those pants are just the proof of concept. 
Nov 13, 2013 2:49PM
avatar
People don't need to dress like whores at the gym. men or women your there to work out so cover up. Men don't need to see womens bodys that are fat and ugly. As well as men. Just work out and that's it. Now the other topic black tight streach pants do wee need to see a womans camel toe or fat **** with the pants going deep in her **** crack. put on a shirt that covers your croch and ****
Nov 13, 2013 5:46PM
avatar
Darn! I was hoping for some revealing photos
Nov 13, 2013 4:59PM
avatar
Nothing like a fit, trim woman walking ahead or coming at you in see through Lulu pants.
Such form fitting views.
Keep it girls us guys like it.
Don't buy the patch models unless your overweight and need the extra blow out protection.


Nov 13, 2013 8:04PM
avatar
Remember folks, Spandex is a privilege, not a right!
Nov 13, 2013 3:51PM
Nov 13, 2013 7:02PM
Report
Please help us to maintain a healthy and vibrant community by reporting any illegal or inappropriate behavior. If you believe a message violates theCode of Conductplease use this form to notify the moderators. They will investigate your report and take appropriate action. If necessary, they report all illegal activity to the proper authorities.
Categories
100 character limit
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?

DATA PROVIDERS

Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.

Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.

RECENT QUOTES

WATCHLIST

Symbol
Last
Change
Shares
Quotes delayed at least 15 min
Sponsored by:

MARKET UPDATE

NAMELASTCHANGE% CHANGE
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
NAMELASTCHANGE% CHANGE
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.
Market index data delayed by 15 minutes

[BRIEFING.COM] The Nasdaq Composite (+0.5%) and S&P 500 (+0.2%) posted modest gains on Thursday, but not before enduring a morning dip into the red, which took place in reaction to reports indicating Russia has commenced military exercises on the Ukrainian border.

The news from Europe knocked the key indices from their early highs, while giving a boost to safe-haven assets like gold futures (+0.5% to $1290.80/ozt), Treasuries (10-yr yield -1 bps to 2.69%), and the Japanese yen (102.30 ... More


Currencies

NAMELASTCHANGE% CHANGE
There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.