I don't consider high performance and practical utility as mutually exclusive. In fact, I consider high performance an intrinsic part of the practical utility value an item has for me. And without practical utility I could never consider an item as high performance, just useless.
I like a pragmatic approach and money isn't the limiting factor, what an item does for me is. If it works it is retained. If it's needlessly heavy, leaks, goes rusty, breaks, or in some other way fails selection I have a simple solution pop it in the bin.
Performance without qualification is a strange notion too, performance at what? How am I to determine performance? A good example for me is boots. I used to spend a lot of money on overbuilt boots no matter what the season. From a performance point of view they could be argued as better than what I often currently use. Tank like build quality that could take Yeti gaiters and all that. However, although in absolute terms they were better they were not better for me for most of the year. Their performance was down on what other boots could do because they were darn heavy and stiff. Now for most of the year I use technically inferior boots and gaiters that only cost about £100 [$150 USD] and they work better because they are lighter, more flexible, more comfortable, and I don't care that they can't take the punishment winter boots can.
Below are some pictures I've recycled from the pics thread for illustration:
That's a Silnylon tarp made by me. I don't know of any other fabric that can do what that does. Silnylon tarps are a great opportunity to dump a bunch of needless weight without any penalty at all. High performance utility value.
The yellow mat inside is one of my old Karrimats from the original and now defunct Karrimor range. I was spending about £25 or so [$40 USD] each on those and they aren't anything more than a bit of pressure blown closed cell foam. Given that's a ways toward the cost of some all singing inflatable job some may think that's odd. I enjoy the properties of them and still do. There's nothing to go wrong, and because they are pressure blown not that cheapo chemically blown crap they are durable but also very flexible. I regard their performance as very high but I'm sure others may not.
The little lantern on the right is £6 worth of OEM. It burns for days on 4*AAA and chucks out more than enough light. I'm pretty sure some bright spark might point me to a heavy Surefire super one for £300 and call mine rubbish. I don't care. I used four of them outside in a blizzard. I stuck four upturned plastic containers that bulk spindles of DVDs come in over the top and they were immune to it.
That's my MacPac Cascade pack. I've had that for years and anticipate having it for many more years. How do I judge the performance of that? When I wanted a good pack for hauling load I wanted the best I could find. At the time, before MacPac was bought, the Cascade was it. It was the trekking pack to have for carrying big loads in comfort. I jumped all the domestic stuff and looked to the Australians because they seem to have more skilled people in that area. I actually got it in New Zealand after talking with a bunch of folk that go walkabout for extended periods with huge loads. It is heavy when empty but as I've said here before the actual weight isn't always the most important thing, perceived weight is. The way that pack is built makes heavy loads feel more comfortable and lighter to me. By my standards that's high performance and utility value but I bet it would get marked down for weight in Bobble Hat and Mint Cake Munchers Monthly.
Barring the hat it's also worth noting that I am waterproof from head to toe. I've heard enough of the modern fabrics are fragile to last me a lifetime and frankly that isn't the case. For simplicity and using Gore-tex as a generic term 'cos there are loads of other great options too I'm going with three broad classifications: 1] townie leisure, 2] military grade, 3] technical mountaineering. Whilst it is true that townie leisure jackets aren't particularly well suited outside the high street, carrying a flask and sandwiches around Kendal, or bicycle riding , that isn't true for the other two. One needs to look beyond the actual waterproofing bit and see what it is laminated or bonded to. What is the construction of the rest of the garment. Strikes me that modern kit works brilliantly on some of the most inhospitable expeditions for a reason and I doubt Harkila earned the reputation it has if their hunting gear couldn't take the pace.
Below is me playing silly in the woods. I am Gore-tex head to toe, this time in some German army bib and brace trousers. As you can see I have a half built nest, and I don't baulk at crawling around if need be. No condensation problems, tough enough, and totally waterproof. I'm going to call that high performance and practical utility. If that isn't I don't know what is.
I think about the only things I have that don't really have a great wide range of performance and utility are natural fibers. I've got several pairs of polycotton trousers from Craghoppers, Regatta, Rohan and I just don't like them. I have them because they are light and cool but as a trouser they leave much to be desired. I prefer an all cotton cargo trouser and obviously they suck in the damp if unprotected.
There's drawbacks with those gloves too compared to technical gloves with synthetics and Nomex. But they are tough and I can grab the vicious thorns, brambles, thistles, and hot coals in them, so I have pairs of those scattered all round the place. Even with these though it's hard to say that I have sacrificed much high performance for utility value 'cos I don't need them to be able to do anything else well, and they perform well at this.
Weatherproof and comfortable. My mileage on that will never vary.
!