Speaking of Bike Shorts

[ChiliDipper]

Speaking of bike shorts...

I've been riding for exercise since early summer. Now, I ride as much
because I just enjoy to ride. However, I'm about to the point, I need to
get more comfortable duds.

I know the advantage of bike shorts. I've read many articles/posts about
this subject. However, I'm just not a bike shorts person - at least not the
spandex or lycra or whatever material from which most are made. I've seen
the loose mountain bike and touring specific shorts, and, considered those.

My question is, are these as good in the comfort and support department as
the tighter type of shorts? Which ones do you prefer?

I appreciate any opinions, ideas, suggestions, info anyone can provide.

Thanks,
Gary

[Zoot Katz]

Sat, 9 Aug 2003 13:23:04 -0400,
>, "ChiliDipper"
> wrote:

\szip
>I've seen
>the loose mountain bike and touring specific shorts, and, considered those.
>
>My question is, are these as good in the comfort and support department as
>the tighter type of shorts? Which ones do you prefer?
>
>I appreciate any opinions, ideas, suggestions, info anyone can provide.

I recently got a good deal on some Sugoi "Conrad" shorts so decided to
try them. They're okay.

These shorts have a padded spandex liner just like bike shorts but of
a bit thinner material. Support and comfort are identical to tight
shorts because they essentially are tight shorts. The other design
details of the garment (three stretch panels) make them slightly less
restrictive than my normal attire which is cut-off baggies over
cycling shorts. I like having pockets and the extra layer of fabric
when running around off the bike even though I've no compunction about
wearing tight spandex shorts. I've heard that I look good in 'em.

I've rock climbing shorts with a cool-max liner like swimming trunks
that offer little support and lack the absorbent padding. They aren't
very good for cycling.
--
zk

[ChiliDipper]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Sat, 9 Aug 2003 14:59:12 -0400,
> >,
> "ChiliDipper" > wrote:
>
> >That sounds like the type of short I want. I did an ebay search, but,
none
> >turned up. Where's a good source for these shorts?
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Gary
>
> Check Sugoi's site for dealers. http://www.sugoi.ca/
>
> Not all listed dealers carry every Sugoi product. Besides, I think the
> "Conrad" shorts have been replaced by the "Bully" shorts, hence the
> good deal.
>
> Google returned 393 hits for _sugoi conrad_
>
Doh! I missed their website when I googled. Thanks.

Gary

[kh6zv9@pe.net]

ChiliDipper > wrote:
: "Robin Hubert" > wrote in message
: link.net...
:> "ChiliDipper" > wrote in message
:> ...
:>
:> What do you mean? You don't like the way you look in them? You're
: insecure
:> about what people think about the way you look in them?
:>


Chili,




We really do look goofy in these lycra tight shorts. I am a big guy and I
really am A sight. But after you experience the way they enhance cycling
you can never go back to the floppy shorts. Just no way.

They really are dorky and gay looking though.

Bob Masse

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:14:56 GMT, "Doug Purdy" >
wrote:

>"ChiliDipper"
>> I've been riding for exercise since early summer. Now, I ride as much
>> because I just enjoy to ride. However, I'm about to the point, I need=
to
>> get more comfortable duds.
>> My question is, are these as good in the comfort and support =
department as
>> the tighter type of shorts? Which ones do you prefer?
>
>Don't know about the flappy mtb shorts but I tried a larger than normal =
size
>pair of bibs from Performance and while the less strangled feeling was =
nice,
>they aren't as good at keeping things away from between the seat and the
>side of my leg. I have to be a bit careful getting down. Tighter is =
better.
>
>On the other hand, these are the first shorts I've seen with a gel pad =
and
>I'm not eager to see that again either. Between that and the gel saddle =
that
>came with the bike yesterday's short 65k/40mile ride was quite
>uncomfortable - still sore.
>
>Doug
>Toronto
>

Bicycling shorts are just plain dumb. The tight lycras with long inseam
are too confining and the dark color looks like it would be hot. The =
baggy
mtb shorts with inserts make no sense...if you want padded underwear with
your shorts why have it sewn in?

How about some nice light weight, trim fitting, tan, stretchy shorts with
about a 7" inseam, pockets, and a chamois crotch? (Nike and others used =
to
make some like this.) Of course the current "one size fits many" policy
couldn't be used. More sizes and better, more varied tailoring would be
required. Oh well, 90+ per cent of the cyclists go along with the =
current
dumbness so why bother?

=20

[David Kerber]

In article >,
says...
>
> Speaking of bike shorts...
>
> I've been riding for exercise since early summer. Now, I ride as much
> because I just enjoy to ride. However, I'm about to the point, I need to
> get more comfortable duds.
>
> I know the advantage of bike shorts. I've read many articles/posts about
> this subject. However, I'm just not a bike shorts person - at least not the
> spandex or lycra or whatever material from which most are made. I've seen
> the loose mountain bike and touring specific shorts, and, considered those.
>
> My question is, are these as good in the comfort and support department as
> the tighter type of shorts? Which ones do you prefer?
>
> I appreciate any opinions, ideas, suggestions, info anyone can provide.

I tried a lot of different styles of shorts which I had in my drawer
before deciding to spring for some cycling-specific lycra shorts, and
the difference in comfort for any ride longer than 20 minutes or so was
just phenomenal. I'm not a fan of how they look, but for me the comfort
factor far over-rides the looks.

--
Dave Kerber
Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.

[Hunrobe]

wrote:

>Bicycling shorts are just plain dumb. The tight lycras with long inseam
>are too confining and the dark color looks like it would be hot. The =
>baggy
>mtb shorts with inserts make no sense...if you want padded underwear with
>your shorts why have it sewn in?

---snip---

The dark color "looks" like it would be hot, eh? That sounds suspiciously like
you've never *worn* bike shorts. If that's the case, on what do you base your
opinions? BTW, most shorts are black for several reasons. First, tradition.
Second, black doesn't show dirt and grease as readily as lighter colors. Third,
depending on exactly how light the color is when it gets wet light colored
spandex is often nearly transparent.

>How about some nice light weight, trim fitting, tan, stretchy shorts with
>about a 7" inseam, pockets, and a chamois crotch? (Nike and others used =
>to
>make some like this.) Of course the current "one size fits many" policy
>couldn't be used. More sizes and better, more varied tailoring would be
>required. Oh well, 90+ per cent of the cyclists go along with the =
>current
>dumbness so why bother?

What you describe sounds very much like bike shorts with pockets. I have
pockets in my jersey. I don't need pockets in my shorts.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

On 11 Aug 2003 02:14:49 GMT, (Hunrobe) wrote:

=20
>
>wrote:
>
>>Bicycling shorts are just plain dumb. The tight lycras with long =
inseam
>>are too confining and the dark color looks like it would be hot. The =3D
>>baggy
>>mtb shorts with inserts make no sense...if you want padded underwear =
with
>>your shorts why have it sewn in?
>
>---snip---
>
>The dark color "looks" like it would be hot, eh? That sounds =
suspiciously like
>you've never *worn* bike shorts.=20

Obviously, though I have tried to buy them several times. Just could not
find anything appealing.

>If that's the case, on what do you base your
>opinions?=20

Common sense. Black bodies absorb more radiant heat.

>BTW, most shorts are black for several reasons. First, tradition.
>Second, black doesn't show dirt and grease as readily as lighter colors.=
=20

True, my light colored riding shorts never get perfectly clean from =
saddle
stain. Not that bad though.

>Third,
>depending on exactly how light the color is when it gets wet light =
colored
>spandex is often nearly transparent.=20
>

Spandex at 4-8 per cent? I don't think so.

>>How about some nice light weight, trim fitting, tan, stretchy shorts =
with
>>about a 7" inseam, pockets, and a chamois crotch? (Nike and others =
used =3D
>>to
>>make some like this.) Of course the current "one size fits many" =
policy
>>couldn't be used. More sizes and better, more varied tailoring would =
be
>>required. Oh well, 90+ per cent of the cyclists go along with the =3D
>>current
>>dumbness so why bother?
>
>What you describe sounds very much like bike shorts with pockets.=20

Right! Where can I find some? Currently I'm using converted Sportif
hiking shorts with chamois saddle crotch but they have only 4 per cent
spandex. Twice that amount of spandex would be much better for biking.

>I have
>pockets in my jersey. I don't need pockets in my shorts.
>

Never wear jerseys. Too hot here in Central Texas.


>Regards,
>Bob Hunt

[Buck]

> wrote in message
...

>Never wear jerseys. Too hot here in Central Texas.

There was a discussion on this recently. Several of us did back-to-back
comparisons between cotton t-shirts and coolmax jerseys. The decision was
unanimous - jersey are much cooler than t-shirts. Oh yeah, at least one of
the testers (me) was in central Texas.

As for your notions about cycling shorts, I have been guilty of wearing them
under nylon jogging shorts. But I found that the pockets were useless and
the extra fabric caught the seat when I was off-road. Now I just ride with
the cycling shorts alone. It's surprising how much more comfortable it is.

-Buck

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 04:34:47 GMT, "Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c=
o
r p . c o m> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>
>>Never wear jerseys. Too hot here in Central Texas.
>
>There was a discussion on this recently. Several of us did back-to-back
>comparisons between cotton t-shirts and coolmax jerseys. The decision =
was
>unanimous - jersey are much cooler than t-shirts. Oh yeah, at least one =
of
>the testers (me) was in central Texas.
>
Interesting. But I want as little sweat absorbing material as possible =
to
provide some UV protection. Don't see how you can beat a cotton t-shirt.

>As for your notions about cycling shorts, I have been guilty of wearing =
them
>under nylon jogging shorts. But I found that the pockets were useless =
and
>the extra fabric caught the seat when I was off-road. Now I just ride =
with
>the cycling shorts alone. It's surprising how much more comfortable it =
is.
>

You learned that double shorts are impractical in Central Texas? Sharp!

>-Buck
>
>

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 15:17:14 -0400, ChiliDipper >
wrote:
> Ha, no, I'm sure I'm like most people and have insecurities. Worried
> about
> how I look in these shorts isn't one. I didn't say I didn't like the way
> I
> look in them. I was careful not to mention to much for fear I would
> offend
> most of the cyclists that regularly post here, but, I just don't like the
> way they look period. They aren't for me. But, that's just my personal
> opinion, and, I don't give them a second thought when others wear them.

So, you're saying, that you don't care how it looks
to other people, you just don't like how it looks to
you? Presposterous! Blasphemy!

I often feel the same way about things; I may like or
dislike something for how it looks, but not because I
care what other people see; I often just care what I
see.

> I assume a "serious" cyclist is someone who rides regularly, has the
> road-type bikes, maybe charts mileage, is cognizant of things like
> average speed, etc...?

That's probably what was meant.

> conditions I have. I may become a "serious" cyclist one day. I enjoy it
> very much. Right now, I'm just trying to get some exercise and enjoy the
> ride. I'm riding a hybrid for the upright position and I have no idea
> what
> my average speed is. So, at this point, the loose material isn't much of
> a concern for my purposes.

Sounds to me like you're a candidate for the "try
it out and see if you like it" plan. Give the baggy
cycling shorts a try; see if you like them. If you
don't, you're out a few bucks. If you do, great!

>> Why not just wear cycling shorts under a pair of hiking shorts? That

That is effectively similar to baggy cycling shorts,
but does result in the ability to go to form-fitting
shorts if you ever decide to. Then again, just buying
them when you decide to works, too.

> That may work. I was just wondering about shorts made this way, but, I
> could do that. Just curious, why do you assume an insecurity because
> someone doesn't like the tradional road-style cycling shorts? It's not a

Insecurity is the standard reason for not wearing the
traditional tight shorts. It is the most often cited
reason why people don't. It is also probably experienced
by most people at some point.

I was a bit insecure about them, then I tried 'em, and
realized that I just don't give a damn. Now I wear them
because they're pretty comfortable and don't get snagged
on the saddle nose. I did okay before I started wearing
them, though, just wearing any old shorts, usually plain
ones with stretch waistbands and no
buttons/zippers/anything else to break.

> criticism of the shorts or anyone who wears them. I agree they probably
> are
> beneficial for the style riding you are talking about. I'm just not that
> type of rider - at least not yet.

You should definately try what you want. You don't
stand to lose much; you're probably wasting valuable
riding time asking people's opinions. ;)

> Thanks for the input.
>
> Gary
--
Rick Onanian

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:19:29 -0000, > wrote:
> We really do look goofy in these lycra tight shorts. I am a big guy and
> I really am A sight.

Same here. OTOH, any worry about possible reactions
to it, can be quelled by considering that you are a
big guy whose legs propel his big ass to XX mph, with
metal cleats on the bottom of your shoes.

> But after you experience the way they enhance cycling
> you can never go back to the floppy shorts. Just no way.

Agreed again.

> They really are dorky and gay looking though.

Agreed, yet again.

> Bob Masse
--
Rick Onanian

[Mark Jones]

> wrote in message
...
On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 14:08:49 GMT, "Robin Hubert" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>
>>Bicycling shorts are just plain dumb.
>
>Yes, most inanimate objects are.
>Ok, then what does that say for the designers and users of these "dumb"
>things? (Rhetorical, no answer required)
Nothing at all.

[Rick Onanian]

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:49:07 -0500, > wrote:
> Common sense. Black bodies absorb more radiant heat.

Really? I thought that black just absorbed more light,
resulting in heat. Wouldn't radiant heat be heat that
was heat to start with? Did that make sense?

> True, my light colored riding shorts never get perfectly clean from
> saddle stain. Not that bad though.

I'd rather walk around in gay looking tight shorts
than have a large skidmark up my ass.

>> depending on exactly how light the color is when it gets wet light
>> colored spandex is often nearly transparent.
>
> Spandex at 4-8 per cent? I don't think so.

Well, what do you think happens to light colored cotton?

> Never wear jerseys. Too hot here in Central Texas.

Err...I thought the whole point of jerseys was to keep
you cool?

I haven't bothered, because I'm comfortable in T-shirts,
too cheap to spend the money on a jersey, and my
aerobelly probably wouldn't fit one; and I'm also just a
bit too modest to wear one -- I'll risk the shorts, but
I don't want to see anybody vomit because of my jersey...

I'll bet they don't help when you've got an aerobelly,
as you end up with gaps in your jersey coverage, so
parts get sweaty and chafed, and other parts do okay.

--
Rick Onanian

Claire,

Don't quit your day job to become a psychic.

On 11 Aug 2003 19:58:00 -0700, (Claire Petersky) =
wrote:

> wrote in message =
>...
>
>> dark color looks like it would be hot. =20
>
>> How about some nice light weight, trim fitting, tan,=20
>
>Clearly, you've never slipped a chain back on to a cog with a single
>finger, then wiped the finger on your shorts, and then peddled on. Or
>changed a tire, struggling to get the chain wrapped the right way on
>the rear derailer, getting dirty grease all over your hands, and then,
>in desperation, wiped both hands on your shorts.
>

Nope, use the rag my tools are wrapped in - in a seat bag.

>You probably never do the one finger nose blow, then wipe your nostril
>with the terry cloth part of your glove, and then wipe that on your
>shorts either.
>

Nope, I keep a handkerchief handy in pocket.

Don't wear gloves but do use GrabOn handlebar padding under handlebar =
wrap.

>You've also probably never gotten your period while on a 60 mile loop,
>and shrugged, oh well, because black will hide blood stains the way
>that a light color like tan would.
>

Right, never had a period on the bike. Or ever.

>You've never seen your riding partner in a pair of light color shorts
>get caught in the rain, and then seen every crease and hair on his
>heinie for the next 70 miles, because light colored shorts often turn
>transparent when wet.
>

Cycling in shorts that don't have a chamois or similar in the crotch? =20

Ok for short, cool rides otherwise not recommended.

>There's probably a number of equally disgusting things that you've
>never done or seen on your bike that make you damn grateful for black.
>

Black sucks.=20

I do try to avoid the disgusting stuff but have had a fair bit of =
bicycling
experience including many cross state rides, and two solo, =
self-contained,
month-long, cross country rides. How about you?

Your crystal ball isn't working!

>Warm Regards,
>

Likewise!

>
>Claire Petersky )

lorendi

[Zoot Katz]

Mon, 11 Aug 2003 22:40:55 -0500,
>,
> wrote:

>Claire,
>
>Don't quit your day job to become a psychic.

Give it up, this group already has a clown.
--
zk

[Robin Hubert]

"Rick Onanian" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 21:19:29 -0000, > wrote:
> > We really do look goofy in these lycra tight shorts. I am a big guy and
> > I really am A sight.
>
> Same here. OTOH, any worry about possible reactions
> to it, can be quelled by considering that you are a
> big guy whose legs propel his big ass to XX mph, with
> metal cleats on the bottom of your shoes.
>
> > But after you experience the way they enhance cycling
> > you can never go back to the floppy shorts. Just no way.
>
> Agreed again.
>
> > They really are dorky and gay looking though.
>
> Agreed, yet again.
>

Disagree, en masse.

You can wear it and look good, rather manly, I think. I will walk into
biker bars (the I-hate-Harley Davidson-bars) dressed in full-on cycling
regalia
(no team crap). I haven't had any problems to date, other than the usual
stare-downs and puff-chest.

What's wrong with you guys?



--
Robin Hubert >

[Buck]

> wrote in message

>Interesting. But I want as little sweat absorbing material as possible to
>provide some UV protection. Don't see how you can beat a cotton t-shirt.

Perhaps you aren't paying attention. Jerseys do not absorb sweat. The
material wicks sweat away from your body where it is evaporated outside of
the garment. This is the same process your body uses to cool itself. Cotton
absorbs and holds water. You will stay wetter and hotter in a cotton shirt
than in a jersey. Your point about "as little sweat absorbing material as
possible to provide some UV protection" is a bit confusing. Jerseys have the
same coverage as t-shirts, thus provide the same UV protection. Many jerseys
have zippers in the front to open them up more to increase airflow. Try one
out, you will be surprised how much better it is. If you don't want to
spring for the jersey, go down to Academy and buy a coolmax t-shirt.


>You learned that double shorts are impractical in Central Texas? Sharp!

Considering your current line of thinking, perhaps your weak attempts at
sarcasm should be reconsidered. What you are suggesting is very similar to
wearing a set of cycling shorts or cycling underwear under a pair of fitted
shorts. But looking at your description, perhaps you don't understand the
function of the chamois or the need for a tight fit, thus don't realize the
folly of having loose shorts on a bike. Fabric that rubs your skin will
cause chafing, especially where there is a seam. Cycling shorts protect you
from chafing by providing a smooth, seamless surface to sit upon and fit
tightly so the fabric doesn't move around and rub your skin. For roadies,
the longer fabric covers the thigh and keeps the nose of the saddle from
rubbing your inner thigh. For mountain bikers, the tight fit also keeps your
shorts from being snagged as you move around on the bike. Have you ever
decended a slope steep enough that you needed to slide off the back of the
saddle? Just imagine trying to get back on the seat when the crotch of your
baggy shorts gets caught on the back of the seat. Yes, this is one of the
reasons I switched to cycling shorts alone.

As for the color, it really isn't an issue. Lycra tends to stay pretty cool.
Black doesn't show dirt or grease. As for its transparency, go down and
check out the poly/lycra blend swimsuits. Notice the liners in all of the
white ones? But if you are determined to find something different, you can
get them in a few colors. Heck, if you would even bother to take a look at a
place like Nashbar, you would find a bunch of semi-baggy shorts in tan,
blue, black and green.

-Buck

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:36:01 -0500,
>, >
wrote:

>I still think bicycling shorts could be more comfortable, more practical,
>and much better looking.=20
>
>lorendi

No, you're looking for some other type of shorts. Bicycling shorts are
what you repeatedly said you don't like for all the reasons that make
them bicycling shorts.
--
zk

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:14:32 -0700, Zoot Katz >
wrote:

>Tue, 12 Aug 2003 11:36:01 -0500,
>, >
>wrote:
>
>>I still think bicycling shorts could be more comfortable, more =
practical,
>>and much better looking.=3D20
>>
>>lorendi
>
>No, you're looking for some other type of shorts. Bicycling shorts are
>what you repeatedly said you don't like for all the reasons that make
>them bicycling shorts.

Ah, the man with the answers.... he can spot a troll or a bicycle short
with a single glance!

Well Nike and Nashbar used to market some shorts as I have described. =
They
referred to them as bicycling shorts. Actually Nashbar used terry cloth
instead of chamois and Nike used an ultra-suede kind of material in the
crotch. The Nikes were available at my LBS.

But this is all academic. I was hoping to gain some ground swell support
for what I thought would be much improved bicycling shorts for the =
cycling
tourist. Looks like the status quo is succeeding to squelch the idea so
I'll continue to convert Sportif hiking shorts to what I =
unauthoritatively
call bicycling shorts.

lorendi

[Zoot Katz]

Tue, 12 Aug 2003 17:04:21 -0500,
>, >
wrote:

>The Nikes were available at my LBS.

Nike makes lots of things, like baseball caps, that they call cycling
clothes. You've seen and rejected their "Dri-Fit Trail Riding Shorts"?
Trek dealers carry Nike. If they haven't got what you want, call head
office and quibble with them about it there.
--
zk

[Peter Cole]

"Buck" <j u n k m a i l @ g a l a x y c o r p . c o m> wrote in message
m...
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >Never wear jerseys. Too hot here in Central Texas.
>
> There was a discussion on this recently. Several of us did back-to-back
> comparisons between cotton t-shirts and coolmax jerseys. The decision was
> unanimous - jersey are much cooler than t-shirts. Oh yeah, at least one of
> the testers (me) was in central Texas.

CoolMax T-shirts are the best of both worlds.

[Paul Bielec]

> Don't see how you can beat a cotton t-shirt.

A cotton t-shirt is the last thing you want to wear when doing an intense
activity.
Once you sweat, the cotton t-shirt will absorb you sweat and it will take
forever for it to dry.
You want ot use syntetic which will protect you from the sun while its
fibers don't absorb sweat.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:18:10 GMT, "Peter Cole" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>
>Bicycling shorts are just plain dumb. The tight lycras with long inseam
>are too confining and the dark color looks like it would be hot. The =
baggy
>mtb shorts with inserts make no sense...if you want padded underwear =
with
>your shorts why have it sewn in?
>
>How about some nice light weight, trim fitting, tan, stretchy shorts =
with
>about a 7" inseam, pockets, and a chamois crotch? (Nike and others used=
to
>make some like this.) Of course the current "one size fits many" policy
>couldn't be used. More sizes and better, more varied tailoring would be
>required. Oh well, 90+ per cent of the cyclists go along with the =
current
>dumbness so why bother?
>
>*****************************************
>
>My belief is that tight shorts are necessary to keep the pad tight to =
the
>skin, not bunching or shifting. Any type of seam is a potential friction=
area.
>Those 2 requirements eliminate most types of conventional shorts. You =
could
>make shorts tight in the crotch and loose in the leg, but I don't see =
the
>point, and they would look much stranger than traditional shorts.
>

Loose clothing is in general more comfortable than tight fitting. =
Keeping
the crotch protection in place is not a problem. The looser leg does =
ride
up a little and requires some periodic correction but the extra =
ventilation
is more than worth it.

In my experience, a proper, trim fit works the best. But of course the
material needs to flex with the body movements. The Sportif hiking =
shorts
that I've converted to bicycling shorts (by adding an suede-like crotch)
contain 4 per cent spandex and work well but not as well as some old =
Nikes
and Nashbar shorts that have more spandex. These shorts look good and =
feel
good. I've used them in many cross state rides and 2 solo, =
self-contained
cross country rides in a variety of weather so these shorts have been =
well
tested.

>Pockets in cycling shorts are also problematic, since the contents would
>either be sat upon, or pumped up & down with each pedal stroke.
>

Of course, one must use discretion in filling pockets. Overdoing it can
affect fit. I usually carry only a handkerchief, ID, paper money and MP3
player. Pocket use is not a problem.=20

>Black is a practical color, given the potential of chain grease to get =
on
>shorts, but other colors are available, and becoming quite common. Solid=
black
>shorts will probably become a minority style in the not too distant =
future.
>
>I think the traditional color and the extra inseam length act to restore=
some
>of the modesty lost to tight fit. I've worn shorter, but still =
traditional,
>bike shorts and felt like I was wearing hot pants.
>
>I've done touring and ultra-cycling events, and couldn't imagine doing =
them in
>anything other than a good pair of cycling shorts. I need a good pad, =
and I
>need it to stay where it belongs.
>
>As for the "thermal" effect of black shorts, I doubt very much that it's
>significant. The fact that a cyclist delivering 150 watts to the road is
>generating 600 overall, the relatively small surface area of the shorts
>(particularly that exposed to the sun), means that solar loading on =
shorts is
>a miniscule effect.
>
>

It would be interesting to know what the real difference in heat =
absorption
is between black and light colored shorts but I do not believe it is
negligible. Just the thought of wearing black shorts here in Central =
Texas
in summertime is very repulsive to me. Yet I've seen some do it, with =
dark
jerseys as well(!). Of course in cool weather when sweat is not an =
issue,
color doesn't matter. Even the crotch protective material becomes much
less important.

Sure black hides dirt, but how often do you need to handle the chain? =
Why
not carry a cleanup rag with tools and spare tire?

It's clear to me that I have not convinced anyone in this NG of the
benefits of shorts that are...light-colored, trim-fitting but not tight,
stretchy with chamois crotch, pockets, and short legs (7 inch inseam). =
But
I sure like 'em and when I see a rider with tight black shorts I think
"poor guy doesn't know any better".

By the way, I crusade for better bicycling shorts about every 2 years.
Sooo, I'll be back! ;-)

lorendi

[Wayne Menzie]

> wrote in
:

> Sure black hides dirt, but how often do you need to handle the
> chain? Why not carry a cleanup rag with tools and spare tire?

I've heard it suggested that black shorts are an anachronism from
the time when everybody rode leather saddles that were dyed black.
As the saddle wore, the dye would stain your shorts so just wear
black shorts and there's nothing to worry about.

> It's clear to me that I have not convinced anyone in this NG of
> the benefits of shorts that are...light-colored, trim-fitting
> but not tight, stretchy with chamois crotch, pockets, and short
> legs (7 inch inseam).

I'll agree with everything but the length of the inseam. I find
that full coverage down to near my knees keeps my leg muscles
happier. I wear non-padded spandex shorts under my basketball
shorts because of this phenomenon and prefer a longer inseam in my
cycling shorts.

> But I sure like 'em and when I see a rider with tight black
> shorts I think "poor guy doesn't know any better".

What about the guy on the Brooks saddle who just doesn't want the
black stain on his crotch to show?

--
Wayne Menzie

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:33:06 -0500,
>,
> wrote:

>By the way, I crusade for better bicycling shorts about every 2 years.
>Sooo, I'll be back! ;-)
>
>lorendi

Design them yourself, buy a sewing machine, start a business.
--
zk

[Zoot Katz]

13 Aug 2003 18:02:15 GMT, >,
Wayne Menzie > wrote:

>I've heard it suggested that black shorts are an anachronism from
>the time when everybody rode leather saddles that were dyed black.
>As the saddle wore, the dye would stain your shorts so just wear
>black shorts and there's nothing to worry about.

For the longest time too, the UCI rules required black shorts and
white socks be worn by all riders in competition. Essentially, there
was no need that other colours be available.
--
zk

[Hunrobe]

wrote in part:


>>Third,
>>depending on exactly how light the color is when it gets wet light =
>colored
>>spandex is often nearly transparent.=20
>>
>
>Spandex at 4-8 per cent? I don't think so.

You don't *think* it happens. Those of us that have experienced it *know* it
does.

Regards,
Bob Hunt

[ChiliDipper]

I want to thank everyone for the input. I really appreciate the help. I
believe I'll get a pair of riding shorts and a pair of the "loose" style
shorts and see which I prefer - too many yea's for the tight shorts to
ignore.

Thanks again,
Gary

"ChiliDipper" > wrote in message
...
>
> Speaking of bike shorts...
>
> I've been riding for exercise since early summer. Now, I ride as much
> because I just enjoy to ride. However, I'm about to the point, I need to
> get more comfortable duds.
>
> I know the advantage of bike shorts. I've read many articles/posts about
> this subject. However, I'm just not a bike shorts person - at least not
the
> spandex or lycra or whatever material from which most are made. I've seen
> the loose mountain bike and touring specific shorts, and, considered
those.
>
> My question is, are these as good in the comfort and support department as
> the tighter type of shorts? Which ones do you prefer?
>
> I appreciate any opinions, ideas, suggestions, info anyone can provide.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>

[Robin Hubert]

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Wed, 13 Aug 2003 11:33:06 -0500,
> >,
> > wrote:
>
> >By the way, I crusade for better bicycling shorts about every 2 years.
> >Sooo, I'll be back! ;-)
> >
> >lorendi
>
> Design them yourself, buy a sewing machine, start a business.
> --

Thank you!



--
Robin Hubert >

[Johann S.]

On Wed24Sep03-1838
, Buck wrote:

> >Interesting. But I want as little sweat absorbing material as possible to
> >provide some UV protection. Don't see how you can beat a cotton t-shirt.
>
> Perhaps you aren't paying attention. Jerseys do not absorb sweat. The
> material wicks sweat away from your body where it is evaporated outside of
> the garment. This is the same process your body uses to cool itself. Cotton
> absorbs and holds water. You will stay wetter and hotter in a cotton shirt

Hello,

Could someone please post a link to the type of "jersey" you are
talking about? In this country, the word jersey means a woolen knitted
shirt/thing to keep you warm in the winter. I am looking for something
better than T-Shirts to wear, but I do not understand what you are
talking about.

Thanks!!
--

QUIPd 1.02: (496 of 647)
-> *Don't count your chickens - it takes too long.
##2080 #'Mandrake Linux.'

[Buck]

"Johann S." > wrote in message
. ..
> Hello,
>
> Could someone please post a link to the type of "jersey" you are
> talking about? In this country, the word jersey means a woolen knitted
> shirt/thing to keep you warm in the winter. I am looking for something
> better than T-Shirts to wear, but I do not understand what you are
> talking about.

"Jersey" has many meanings, but in a cycling context it is basically a
shirt. They come in sleeveless, short-sleeved and long-sleeved varieties.
They are usually cut long in the back to keep you covered when you are in an
aero position on a road bike. They often have pockets along the lumbar
region for carrying important items since cycling shorts usually have no
pockets.

Jerseys are made of a variety of materials, but are designed with two things
in mind - keeping you cool and moisture-free; and keeping the garment from
flapping around. I've seen jerseys made from wool, polyester, Coolmax, and
other trademarked "wicking" materials, but they often have lycra as well to
help keep them tight-fitting so they don't flap.

Here's a link to some jerseys online:
http://www.nashbar.com/results.cfm?category=137&subcategory=1207&storetype=&estoreid=&init=y

T-shirts made from wicking materials work well for cyclists not looking for
that tight fit. I'm not sure what kinds of stores would have these t-shirts
in South Africa, but a cycling shop should have jerseys.

-Buck

[Zoot Katz]

Wed, 24 Sep 2003 17:54:29 GMT,
>,
"Buck" <s c h w i n n _ f o r _ s a l e @ h o t m a i l . c o m>
wrote:

>T-shirts made from wicking materials work well for cyclists not looking for
>that tight fit. I'm not sure what kinds of stores would have these t-shirts
>in South Africa, but a cycling shop should have jerseys.
>
>-Buck

Jerseys also come in a "relaxed" fit that are cut generously.
The mens' and women's models generally differ only in size.

The tighter "team" fit jerseys are cut differently for men and women.
--
zk