Cycling shorts are basically compression shorts with a chamois padding (real or synthetic). Basically helps prevent chafing of the skin either from the seat or the muscles of the groin and thighs rubbing together, keeps the muscles warm, and to wick sweat away. Helps prevent or a shorter recovery time from groin, hamstring, and/or hip flexor strains.

People that wear support/compression socks can tell you the advantages of wearing them...your legs just don't feel as tired (and helps prevents varicose veins). Compression shorts are the same principle for the waist to mid or lower thigh and the main reason why cyclists wear them in one form or another...most feel wearing them helps their performance and cuts down on the aches and pains after a long ride plus makes the sitbones more comfy because of the chamois padding.

Sometimes I wear a S'port All, a compression short that has an adjustable lumbar support added/sewn on, under a regular pair of pants or shorts when my back hurts. Helps keeps my back straight instead of going into a slumping/stooping/hunchback position when I'm tired, but it's not for everybody.

You get to look like one of the X-men..

Thanks for all the info it has been rather useful.

I've never had that much trouble with getting a sore butt. - 20kms round trip in Sydney.
but i sweat like a pig in the sydney Summer and even winter a bit and alwasy just wore t--shirts and shorts (we had shower facilities at work so it wasn't a problem.


however I've just moved to London which is a whole other kettle of fish:
its winter and the other morning i was wearing a not very breathable rain coat and had the whole sweating inside freezing outside thing going which does feel like you have a fever..


I've never tried this lycra thing - the stigma i guess... btu i'm curious if it would solve some of my problems.

Okay, so we're not homophobic, we're just sexist*. Swell.

I haven't found lycra to be necessary for commuting or utility cycling. Utility riding is where my initial background in cycling is, but over the last year or so I've become more interested in riding athletically - and if you're riding a bike as an athlete, lycra makes the experience a lot more pleasant.

And hey, my girlfriend happens to think I look great in my cycling shorts, so there!




*Yes, it is sexist. Women don't exist for the purpose of being admired by men. And how many of the women out there are you really talking about, anyway? Guys talking about "the aesthetic qualities of the female form" are talking about the minority of women who happen to meet the arbitrary standards of beauty they have in their heads. The rest? Well, they're not worth much, are they? This is about women as passive objects of mens' admiration, instead of agents of their own destinies. I'm a little tired of that scramble. This has nothing to do with some Platonic aesthetic. Also, there are men out there who look damn good in spandex (I'm straight, but I'm not blind). Deal with it.

Ok, so far I've been labeled a homophobe and a sexist just because I happen to prefer women to men...

My lesbian aunt and my friend John who wanted my mother to adopt him so I could introduce him as my sister would find these comments rather amusing.

If preferring the company of women that tend to not make assumptions, gross generalizations, or make disparaging comments about my opinions makes me a sexist... I can live with that since I'm not the one trying to cover years of testosterone poisoning by trying to appear sensitive on a web forum.


Have a nice day.

Wow, a lot of assumptions in that paragraph. FWIW, the idea that men like looking at women wearing Lycra doesn't imply that anyone thinks they exist solely for men to admire. Looking good in lycra and being agents of their own destinies are not mutually exclusive.

Denying that one sex finds the form of the of the other sex attractive is silly. We've evolved to find the other sex attractive. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here.

I've also seen lycra wearing guys at triathlons where I've thought: "Damn; I wish I was built more like that".

For a 26 mile commute, i found lycra made the trip more comfortable. No one is looking at you when you are pushing the pedals fast enough to move faster than the stalled traffic.

I have a 38-mile r/t commute that gets to 40 degrees (no lower) in the winter. I have mountain bike shorts (frankly I like pockets) and a relatively slim-fitting zippered jacket. I use cheap REI quick-dry t-shirts (breathable, and loose).

Seriously, I have a long commute and have found no need for lycra (nor shaving), except as shorts liner, and it just seems silly to pull up to work with the logos of some random company from Italy.

With your upper body setup (minus the gloves, those are great), I would overcook in that temperature. Even with a thermal long sleeve and a thin base layer, I still overcook sometimes. I haven't tried my setup out in wet condition yet, I have a good rain jacket.

38 miles rt is not a long commute.

It is not even a long ride. Maybe a decent ride if done all at once at a fast pace.

Of course, opinions may vary. For that short of a commute I could wear anything but I would most likely still wear lycra simply for the comfort factor.

Seriously, all you dudes and dudettes who are ragging about lycra, if you ever just tried some "lycra" shorts or tights with a pad for a few days, you would start wearing them and never look back. It's really no different than cyclists wearing wool shorts and jerseys with real chamois leather years ago. Cycling has a long tradition of form-fitting, breathable clothing. If you choose not to try it, fine, but it's your loss.

I knew I never should have started reading this thread.

I own two different pairs of Lycra shorts and they both suck. The "girly pad" looks and feels odd, all bunched up down there too! I'm sticking to wicking, athletic under shorts and lose fitting, fast drying, plain shorts with pockets as sold by backpacking stores. Loose fitting T-shirts of lightweight wool in the summer and as a base layer in the cold. I found a nifty pair of "bicyclers" pants from Rivendell for everyday wear and cycling. I don't care if I gain a 1/8th mph riding something formfitting. I don't wear formfitting clothes in regular life and I bicylce to get around not just for the exercise.

Charles, if you already knew the answer, why did you ask the question?

Maybe you have the wrong size shorts, or cheap ones (I bought some cheap bib shorts the other day and they are terrible)?


Good shorts won't bunch up. I dunno what sort of riding you do, or how long you ride for, personally, I agree with DataJunkie (except I reckon 38m rt is a decent distance to commute).

I disagree.......38 miles is a long commute, maybe not for a young buck working at a warehouse but for middle ager, with family obligations, who has to think on the job and be mentally fresh, its long enough. I applaud anyone doing that much mileage every stinking day. Thats over 9000 miles a year.

Forget the lycra... Under Armor makes stuff that is just as comfortable, twice as warm and keeps you from losing too much sweat. Why buy anything else? I use the Cold Gear for the winter and Hot Gear pretty much for the rest of the year.

There are shorts available without the 'pad'. Instead just a very thin synthetic chamois.

Al

I wore fairly form fitting shorts over my lycra non-padded cycling shorts on my 8mi RT errand yesterday evening. The head wind was strong and during the ride out the shorts kept riding up my legs and bunching between saddle and inner thigh and I had to pull them down every few minutes or so. I've worn this combination many times before and never had this problem. I think it was the strong headwind as on the ride back it didn't happen.
Al

It's OK, Charles...some bodies are simply not compatible with lycra, and by not wearing it you're probably doing the rest of the world a favor (from an aesthetic point of view).

However, don't presume that your negative experience with the ill-fitting shorts you tried is typical. Most of us find cycling-specific lycra shorts to be both comfortable and functional, and have no problems with the "girly pad" (as you call it) feeling "odd", or "bunching up".

FWIW, those cycling pants from Rivendell do look pretty cool. They're relatively inexpensive ($40), made in the USA, and made from functional nylon. I may order a pair of the similar knickers, which look pretty stylin' and functional to me. Looks like a good choice for when running errands...but, for regular commutes and recreational riding, nothing beats lycra.

It is a free country after all....
For instance, I disagree with virtually every position you advocate.

Anyhow, I have a family and have done that mileage easily everyday.
Tis a matter of opinion. Just like all your Grant lovin.

As a general rule I don't wear anything that I wouldn't normally wear if I was running errands or going to lunch. I think a lot of guys wear a full kit because they want to look cool (or their version of); I don't know how many times I've seen overweight riders hanging out at Starbucks for hours.

Yeah, I get that it's more comfortable, breathable and aerodynamic. But IMHO the majority of riders that I see wear it for an entirely different reason, and most are complete a-holes when they're on a bike.

In other words, it's possible to take yourself too seriously.

Generalizations to the effect that most riders who wear lycra are aholes is just about good enough reason to wear lycra by itself.
Though I am an ahole so ............

Like I said previously. UnderArmor gives you both things. The comfort and appeal to a rider that lycra has without the everyone staring at how gay you go out of the way to look. Personally, I don't think the one set of lycra that I own is anywhere near as comfortable or warm as any of the 5-10 sets of Under Armor that I have. Plus you can wear street clothes over the underarmor and you won't get any sweat marks or stains. Basically no1 will even have to know you're wearing it, because you don't have to keep it open like lycra.

This makes no sense.

under armour=tight fitting=lycra
lycra under clothing=under armour under clothing

Al

It's funny how many hetero guys are so damned worried about "looking gay".

But I've been to San Francisco, and didn't see any gay guys walking around in lycra bike shorts!

And football and baseball players routinely wear tight pants. So, what's with all the "gay" fear?


Frankly, I think it's really more about fat guys being ashamed of their bodies...that's why most men these days wear the male equivalent of moo-moos (those baggy dresses from the '60's). Baggy pants, and baggy shirts worn outside of the pants are pretty good at hiding all those big guts and big butts.