Performance Ultra Shorts or Ultra Bib Shorts-opinions

[landotter]

Mike Reed wrote:
> I've been riding in Performance shorts for 15 years. I buy whatever is
> around $30-$35 in a given catalog. They last a long time and have
> always been comfortable.
>
> One year I bought a couple pair of Pearl Izumis for $70 each. They were
> super comfortable in the store, mediocre on the bike, and wore out in a
> huge hurry. I thought they might get more comfortable as I got used to
> them, but they never did. Big waste of money.
>

That's comforting. I've always ridden Performance/Nashbar house stuff
as well, as I could never justify more than $50 for either tops or
bottoms. I've always coveted a pair of Pearl Izumi shorts as they
looked so overbuilt with all that fabulous top stitching. Last pair I
had a look at in the shop had the nastiest thick diaper and finally
burst my wanton lust. What wore out on them specifically? With my
Performance/Nashbar shorts, the only thing that's failed is some
stitching here or there, and I'm quite handy with a needle n' thread
and stitch them right up.

I do agree with shoes being a much more important item. I miss my
chrome calfskin Diadoras from circa 1990 like you wouldn't believe.
Nothing fancy, simple perforated lace ups, but fit like from a custom
cobbler. Prrrr. Fortunately for me, Lakes fit me like a glove, and
Nashbar's shoes, at least till last year, were made on the same last
and have proved to be comfy, if inelegant.

 

[41]

landotter wrote:
Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
> heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years.

A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede c hamois. I found
lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,
and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that they keep
getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
standing position. They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing experience, while it
sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate either, having a high
thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.

Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.ê

 

[[email protected]]

landotter wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > The top two chamois listed in the gallery
> > http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/shorts/chamois/
> > are seamless, and not too thick.
>
> Wow, that's a great site!

Thanks! Only took me a day to put it together. Of course it's not
exhaustive... There may be thousands of chamois out there :-(

> It also seems that the bibs tend to have thinner padding, probably as they're
> usually bought by more experienced riders.

That's my thinking, too: thinner chamois for more experienced riders.
Newbies may prefer thicker, but not me!

 

[[email protected]]

41 wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede chamois. I found
> lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
> riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,

I agree! I've also experienced bad lycra shorts: hot and clammy, won't
stay put, no support. I also dislike the trendy solid silicone (sp?)
leg grippers; the old fashioned "softgrip" leg grippers seem much more
comfortable to me.

> and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that they keep
> getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> standing position.

One factor I've noticed in some shorts that ride up is the lycra may
not be stretchy enough, so that my normal pedaling movememnt "tugs" the
legs up (and sometimes the waist down). Once that happens the shorts
are wrinkled (uncomfortable to sit on!) and have "slack" when I stand
up so they catch on my saddle, etc. as you mention. Now I try on shorts
by bending to make sure the lycra can stretch enough and still fit
smoothly when I stand up again.

> They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
> layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing experience, while it
> sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate either, having a high
> thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.

The clammy lycra is another dislike we seem to share. Although some
shorts seem to be less clammy than others. The lycra in my new Trek
"Club" shorts is pretty good for not feeling clammy. (If only they had
a 1" longer inseam, higher rise at the waist and a seamless chamois!)
Trek says it's normal Nylon/Lycra but it sure feels different for some
reason.
http://store.trekbikes.com/jump.jsp...th=1,2,14,115,116&iProductID=97&bShopOnline=1

or
http://tinyurl.com/g462k

The high-end Pearl Izumis are said to manage moisture well. I'd like to
try those, but not for that much money!

> Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
> or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.

What other options are there? I've seen baggy cycling shorts, but I
like that lycra shorts support me well without being bulky.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
41 <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
> landotter wrote:
> Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
>> heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years.
>
> A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede c hamois. I found
> lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and
> clammy, riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip
> bands, and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that
> they keep getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning
> from the standing position. They are acceptable though in colder
> weather as a layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing
> experience, while it sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate
> either, having a high thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.
>
> Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
> or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.ê

Thanks for the opinion. Now we have a good idea of how much you know about
all cycling aspects. And what your other opinions are worth.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

 

[landotter]

41 wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
> > heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years.
>
> A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede c hamois. I found
> lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
> riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,
> and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that they keep
> getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> standing position. They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
> layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing experience, while it
> sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate either, having a high
> thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.
>
> Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
> or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.ê

Get a size smaller. That's it. That's all that your problem is. Case
closed. Matlock goes out for catfish and collards.

Well, I'm being a bit smug, but the deal for me is, I ride here in
Nashville, which while ain't Mississipi, gets mighty brutal come
August, so I'm familiar with lycra and sweat. And while I wouldn't give
it the Parisian thumbs up on the fashion end, it shines for summer use.
Good lycra shorts and chamois wick the sweat off of your legs, offer
muscle support, keep you from chafing, and the leg grippers should
never ride up--unless you've got the wrong size.

Are ya a string bean or a clydesdale or in any not an "average" shape?
That might be the problem. Just look around for something in a
different brand or different size that fits.

Beware tho, that if you ride around my neighborhood in said lycra,
you're bound to get a five toothed fellow yelling at ya: "yur momma
know u wear them shorts." which makes it all worth it at the end of the
day.

 

[Mike Reed]

landotter wrote:
> I've always coveted a pair of Pearl Izumi shorts as they
> looked so overbuilt with all that fabulous top stitching. What wore out on them
> specifically?

The lycra wore through where it contacts the saddle, in one of the
"slidy" places.

-Mike

 

[Peter Cole]

41 wrote:
> landotter wrote:
> Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
>
>>heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years.
>
>
> A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede c hamois. I found
> lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
> riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,
> and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that they keep
> getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> standing position. They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
> layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing experience, while it
> sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate either, having a high
> thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.
>
> Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
> or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.ê
>

What do you wear?

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > landotter wrote:
> > A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> > shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede chamois. I found
> > lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
> > riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,
>
> I agree! I've also experienced bad lycra shorts: hot and clammy, won't
> stay put, no support. I also dislike the trendy solid silicone (sp?)
> le g grippers; the old fashioned "softgrip" leg grippers seem much more
> comfortable to me.

Mine are not silicone but seemed to be just some sort of rubber, with
high, but not high enough apparently, friction. Even if it were
possible to have the friction/adhesion high enough so that it never
moved, I would think that would make it even less comfortable than it
already is.

>
> > and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that they keep
> > getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> > standing position.
>
> One factor I've noticed in some shorts that ride up is the lycra may
> not be stretchy enough, so that my normal pedaling movememnt "tugs" the
> legs up (and sometimes the waist down). Once that happens the shorts
> are wrinkled (uncomfortable to sit on!) and have "slack" when I stand
> up so they catch on my saddle, etc. as you mention. Now I try on shorts
> by bending to make sure the lycra can stretch enough and still fit
> smoothly when I stand up again.

They are very stretchy but who knows, perhaps it would be possible to
get a pair without this problem, as you describe. My thought was that a
heavier fabric would do it, but then it would be even hotter and
clammier. Of course, it may also depend upon the saddle. I ride a
Brooks Professional with the nose slightly up and with this fabric,
this may catch more than other designs. I do find the fabric much
lighter than the lycra I used to ski race in.

>
> The high-end Pe arl Izumis are said to manage moisture well. I'd like to
> try those, but not for that much money!
>
> > Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> > are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
> > or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.
>
> What other options are there? I've seen baggy cycling shorts, but I
> like that lycra shorts support me well without being bulky.

See my reply to PC further below.à

 

[41]

landotter wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > landotter wrote:
> > Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
> > > heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years.
> >
> > A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> > shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede c hamois. I found
> > lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
> > riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,
> > and on top of everythign I find they are so without body that they keep
> > getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> > standing position. They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
> > layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing experience, while it
> > sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate either, having a high
> > thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.
> >
> > Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> > are so popular either because people have never k nown anything better,
> > or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.ê
>
> Get a size smaller. That's it. That's all that your problem is. Case
> closed. Matlock goes out for catfish and collards.

BZZZT. If they were any smaller, I wouldn't be able to get into them.
They are the correct size.


> Are ya a string bean or a clydesdale or in any not an "average" shape?

I believe that I am perfectly proportioned, something like a Greek god.

> That might be the problem. Just look around for something in a
> different brand or different size that fits.

Well, I got them for free, so that's not on the menu...


> Beware tho, that if you ride around my neighborhood in said lycra,
> you're bound to get a five toothed fellow yelling at ya: "yur momma
> know u wear them shorts." which makes it all worth it at the end of the
> day.

Rider, I salute you!

 

[41]

Peter Cole wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > landotter wrote:
> > Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
> >
> >>heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years.
> >
> >
> > A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> > shorts with what I suppose is called an ultrasuede c hamois. I found
> > lycra to be an absurd material for summer shorts, being hot and clammy,
> > riding up at the legs even with the even clammier rubber grip bands,
> > and on top of everythig n I find they are so without body that they keep
> > getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> > standing position. They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
> > layer under sweatpants. From nordic ski racing experience, w hile it
> > sheds snow well, it is not good for that climate either, having a high
> > thermal conductivity, and again being clammy.
> >
> > Apart from racers interested in the aerodynamics, I conclude that they
> > are so popular either because people have never known anything better,
> > or for sheer vanity- for men, of a rather naive kind I must say.ê
> >
>
> What do you wear?

Three favourites at the moment, in no particular order:

-Polyester soccer shorts. The length is good. Fabric is shiny-slippery
on the outside, velour on the inside. They are not tight and not
floppy. Two zippered pockets on the sides, as deep as pants pockets.

-Old Cannondale touring shorts, polyester-cotton with fleece chamois. I
believe they have a little bit of lycra in them (not the original model
with the side flap pockets, but a later one), but they are not clammy
because they are almost all polyester and cotton. Also, not tight and
not loose, just right.

-Polyester (?) swim trunks. Looser than I would like, an inch or two or
three shorter than I would like, but they work fine for an all day ride
through the mountains to the lake.

I also used to use for a long time cotton-polyester ordinary shorts,
like for hiking (but not with all the extra pockets and doodads), and
the pair I had was perfectly comfortable. Of course with all of the
above except #3 for swim days, ordinary Jockeys or equivalent. One day
I may buy a nice pair of wool cycling shorts, Kuchariks probably, just
to try them out, but not in the foreseeable future.à

 

[Peter Cole]

41 wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:

>>What do you wear?

> -Polyester soccer shorts.

> -Old Cannondale touring shorts, p

> -Polyester (?) swim trunks.

> I also used to use for a long time cotton-polyester ordinary shorts,

> One day I may buy a nice pair of wool cycling shorts,

OK, I think we ride in different universes.

 

[41]

Peter Cole wrote:
> 41 wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >>What do you wear?
>
> > -Polyester soccer shorts.
>
> > -Old Cannondale touring shorts, p
>
> > -Polyester (?) swim trunks.
>
> > I also used to use for a long time cotton-polyester ordinary shorts,
>
> > One day I may buy a nice pair of wool cycling shorts,
>
> OK, I think we ride in different universes.

Of course, we do not. You may have sufficient curiosity then to wonder,
why the difference?
Some possible hypotheses:

1. You have amazingly more sensitive and fussy hindquarters. But then,
I was the one complaining that lycra was uncomfortable.
2. Distorted fashion sense. Of course, some of us believe any fashion
sense, in the literal sense, is distorted.
3. Sheer habit.

The polyester soccer shorts would probably be liked by many here. I
haven't seen lately a pair with the proper cut, but then I haven't
looked hard. Another good alternative I forgot to mention: rowing
shorts. These have no pad but are usually available with or without a
double seat.

>From a quick search:
<http://tinyurl.com/lcpxe>
Mine are cut somewhat trimmer, and I'm not sure if the fabric is the
same (shiny outside/velour inside), or if they have pockets like mine,
but you get the idea. And look at that price.
Or something like this:
<http://tinyurl.com/rud9p>

Misc. rowing shorts: (no endorsement, just to give you an idea of what
they are)
<ttp://tinyurl.com/pxean>
<http://www.rowbust.com/rowing-shorts.html>

 

[Peter Cole]

41 wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>

>>OK, I think we ride in different universes.
>
>
> Of course, we do not. You may have sufficient curiosity then to wonder,
> why the difference?
> Some possible hypotheses:
>
> 1. You have amazingly more sensitive and fussy hindquarters. But then,
> I was the one complaining that lycra was uncomfortable.
> 2. Distorted fashion sense. Of course, some of us believe any fashion
> sense, in the literal sense, is distorted.
> 3. Sheer habit.

I have ridden in many types of pants and shorts. I've found that tight
shorts with some elastic (Lycra) work best simply because they keep the
pad tight to the skin. The pad is the critical comfort element for me.
It prevents chafing and/or pinching from seams or fabric folds. I have
tried 2-piece setups, either MTB-style "baggies" (tight liner with pad
under looser shorts) as well as padded briefs under plain shorts. Both
were too hot in warm weather, and the loose fabric has a tendency to get
caught on the saddle nose. If I'm running errands or going for brief
rides, I'll sometimes wear a light pair of bike shorts under soccer or
cargo shorts, but that's not a good solution to most of the cycling I do.

My favorite shorts are made from a very coarse woven Lycra blend that
Pearl Izumi sold years back for mountain biking. Unfortunately they're
no longer made and I've been unable to find bike shorts in a similar
material.

 

[William O'Hara]

>>>OK, I think we ride in different universes.
>>
>>
>> Of course, we do not. You may have sufficient curiosity then to wonder,
>> why the difference?
>> Some possible hypotheses:
>>
>> 1. You have amazingly more sensitive and fussy hindquarters. But then,
>> I was the one complaining that lycra was uncomfortable.

What's wrong with Performance's $20 shorts?



--
---
William O'Hara

 

[Sorni]

William O'Hara wrote:

> What's wrong with Performance's $20 shorts?

Depends.

 

[landotter]

William O'Hara wrote:
> >>>OK, I think we ride in different universes.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, we do not. You may have sufficient curiosity then to wonder,
> >> why the difference?
> >> Some possible hypotheses:
> >>
> >> 1. You have amazingly more sensitive and fussy hindquarters. But then,
> >> I was the one complaining that lycra was uncomfortable.
>
> What's wrong with Performance's $20 shorts?


Not much. Fewer panels so perhaps less perfect fit. Lighter grade lycra
so less durable. On the plus side, after seeing the chamois--it looks
to be a little less diapery than some of the others.

It's $20, get a pair and report back

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote:

> William O'Hara wrote:
>
> > What's wrong with Performance's $20 shorts?
>
> Depends.

ROTFL!

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per landotter:
>to be a little less diapery than some of the others.
>
>It's $20, get a pair and report back

I already have - for about five years now...

They work for me, but I mostly ride FS and not that hard.

There's a noticeable diff between the most el-cheapo padding they offer and the
next step up. But the el-cheapo stuff works well enough for 1-2 hour
rides...but personally I'll pay the extra five bucks and get the next-better
stuff.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Cole wrote:
> The pad is the critical comfort element for me.
> It prevents chafing and/or pinching from seams or fabric folds.

Amen brother! And for me it's got to be a seamless chamois (except for
the stitching holding it into the short).

After the pad, I'd say the stretch of the fabric might be second most
important. Not stretchy enough and the bend around the back of my
glutes pulls the legs up and the waist down; then I'm sitting on
wrinkles (no fun!). Stretchy is good.

And getting down to the nit-picking, the seams through the crotch can
get bumpy if the seam allowance is inside the shorts (not flat seamed
like some newer shorts) *and* the inseam and center seam cross. Then
I'm sitting on a bump in the middle (no fun!). A short with flat seams
in the crotch or no inseam at all are both good by me.

If there's no inseam (just the center seam) then it doesn't need to be
flat seamed; the seam allowance seems (no pun intended) to lie flat
enough I can't notice it. I only figured this out when it dawned on me
some shorts don't actually have an inseam! Pearl Izumi, Assos, Nike
Pro, Bellwether Elite II, Canari Matrix Lyte, Garneau Alveo (and others
no doubt) have only a center seam through the crotch.