"Sensitive matter"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Wound Up said:

Hello Group

I'm back training on my road bike, and I again find myself dealing with
an uncomfortable problem. I wear regular bike shorts, sans undershorts,
and I get, well, sort of rubbed numb in a very unfortunate spot. It's
just not good. I adjust my shorts constantly it seems, to no avail.

Are there lycra undershorts I should get? What do you wear? I remember
this from last year, but not from the last time I trained, which was 9
years before that. I think it may have to do with the extra poundage
I'm carrying, but whatever the cause of the problem, it's got to be
rectified. Your maturity in responding is appreciated.

I use and recommend Blackbottom eight panel bib knickers
and shorts. No inseam. No perineal seam. Thick, for wear,
four way stretch fabric.

--
Michael Press

Road Man said:

The
"Mark Janeba" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Wound Up said:

Zog The Undeniable wrote:

>>You know, I asked the local shop about Chamois and seamless
>>shorts, and
>
they seemed to think I was insane. He said that chamois was what
they used to use, and all their shorts had the typical parenial
(sp?) pad like the too-small lycra shorts I now have.

The pads in shorts *used* to be made of various animal hides, called
"Chamois" (dunno what animal it actually was), and the name stuck.

Common usage still today is to refer to that coolmax (or whatever
synthetic) perineal-ish pad in your shorts as a "chamois" even
though it never helped enclose an animal. (Surprising your shop
didn't know this.)
Mark

The animal was called "chamois." It's a smallish antelope-like
critter. True chamois "pads" have a really nice surface but no
cushioning. Modern chamois in shorts are synthetic, and have
potentially complex cushioning systems, and rarely have seams, at
least in the cheap Performance and REI shorts I use. The short itself
can have seams, but some designs have flatter seams than others. I
like the Performance Century short, and the REI. With a cutout Selle
Italia saddle, my sleepiness and abrasion problems have subsided, at
least in the 25-mile level.

I think the seamless subspecies of chamois became extinct, due to
demand from cyclists ...

Ken

The poor little critters never had a chance against droves of cyclists
weilding various weapons =)

--
Wound Up

dvt said:

RonSonic said:

I'll also recommend bibs. They don't creep up or down and especially more
comfortable for clydesdales like myself. I've got a pair of inexpensive
Bergamo's that have been great for me.

I like the cheapest Nashbar bib shorts, SKU NA-BIB5. My experience with
various bib shorts is quite limited, so there might be something better
out there.

I normally like to support my LBS. I'd buy these shorts from the LBS,
even if they cost a little more. But the LBS only sells the high-zoot
stuff at 2-4x the cost, and I just can't justify that expense.

That's part of what I want to do. The local shop has treated me well,
and I want to keep buying stuff from them. My LBS was my first job! I
was 13, worked there about a year, and got paid $3/hr. to assemble
bikes, "trainee, friend of the family". My work was always checked, of
course. I need a pair of those damned cable pliers, what a great tool
those are.

--
Wound Up

Quoted message said:

Wound Up said:

Hmm... I may not have the opportunity to try them on. It seems silly to
me that a store that sells clothing has no dressing rooms or policies
about trying stuff on.

The shop I used to work at had no dressing room, but customers used the
bathroom to try on clothes. It was no big deal, the expected way to try
stuff on.

I'll remember that.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

These [Canari Matrix Lyte] look good. I will add them to my list.

Speaking of lists, I had a long list of potential shorts. I bought
about twenty different brands and models, and returned most. I'm
talking a few thousand dollars here(!). I got tham lined up side by
side and tried them all on. Kind of a head-to-head elimination if you
will.

Well then.. I am definitely glad to be speaking to someone with some
research hours in this.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am still wondering
about bib shorts. I feel like they would be cumbersome,

They can be more comfortable than a bad waistband, and I like them for
short rides (less than an hour or so) but on linger rides I like to use
the bathroom without taking off my jersey. And a good fitting waistband
isn't that bad.

Yeah, I never have worn bibs before. I think a properly fitted pair
sans the bib might work fine. But the stay-in-place factor is critical.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Sleepy winky", apparently.

I think sleepy winkie may refer to numbness? I'm no doctor, but I'm
guessing numbness is a sign of a compressed ... nerve? Blood vessel?
Numbness is different from chafing I'd say, though a person might have
both (or just one, or just the other). Not sure how to cure numbness,
except to relieve the pressure somehow, by getting a softer (or firmer)
seat, or tilting the seat up (or down), or lowering the seat (so you
can sit farther back, on the sit bones), or ...something else... Sorry,
not much experience here on numbness.

No, the sit bones acclimate. That's just fine, a little initial saddle
soreness after a few rides, but nothing with exclamation points. I
think my saddle is still tilted a -little- bit too far down.

Quoted message said:

But chafing...

Quoted message said:

As the shorts slide down, although they are
too small (need replacing, too old probably), the winky gets north of
the padded area, and gets chafed by the lycra. Youch. My muscle
soreness is nothing compared to my that chafing. Even 20 miles and I'm
ready to quit and hobble

I think I'm getting the picture: shorts slide down in front, expose the
winkie to chafing on the fabric above the chamois?

Yep

Couple thing's I'd

Quoted message said:

look for to avoid that. From what I've seen, not all chamois are well
positioned in the shorts. Some chamois are sewn into the shorts too far
forward, some too far rearward. Maybe you've got a chamois that's sewn
in too far rearward?

It might be, because even 20-25 lbs. lighter, this problem occurred. I
feel like I'm not adequately covered.

Is there plenty of chamois hanging off the back of

Quoted message said:

the saddle? Look for chamois fore-and-aft position when you try on
shorts. Crouch and bend the wais as if on your bike, and feel to see
that the chamois is far enough forward.

Believe me, I will pay attention when I try new ones on. I should have
known the variations had grown in the past decade =)

Quoted message said:

Also, some newer men's shorts sometimes include an absorbent "sponge"
or terry-looking panel sewn onto the front of the chamois. It's often
about two or three inches longer than the base chamois itself. Some
women's shorts have similar chamois without the added front panel. For
example, see the "Stretch Quadrotto Multi-L" about half way down the
Chamois Gallery at
http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/shorts/chamois/
So if you think it might help, consider looking for shorts with a
chamois that has this added length in front.

Hmmm.. I will, definitely.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see - the PAD is known as a chamois, because it once was made of
chamois?

Exactly!

Ah... hence my confusion. The warehouse guy just took me too literally.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A pad that has no seams in its main area?

Actually, I prefer a pad that has no seams *at all* (other than the
stitching holding it in the shorts). See the top two chamois listed in
the Chamois Gallery:
http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/shorts/chamois/

Gotcha. I'm getting the picture now.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. High enough rise that the waist stays up (keeping the crotch up as
well)

Right, definitely my main problem

On me, to find shorts with a rise high enough to keep the crotch up as
well, I try on the shorts and stand straight up. The waist should come
up close to my belly button, or even a touch higher. That's pretty high
as cycling shorts go, and there are plenty not so high, so I guess lots
of people may prefer a lower waist, but that's my preference. It seems
to keep the crotch pulled up anyway.

Quoted message said:

Anyway, thanks very much

Yerwelcome, and I hope you find (more) comfort on the bike!

I do too. I will report back, hopefully with AHHH, love my new shorts
or something like that. Such an absolutely critical piece of equipment,
and surely misunderstood, as in my case. Thanks again, it's been very
helpful

--
Wound Up

Quoted message said:

Wound Up said:

You know, I asked the local shop about Chamois and seamless shorts, and
they seemed to think I was insane. He said that chamois was what they
used to use, and all their shorts had the typical parenial (sp?) pad
like the too-small lycra shorts I now have.

As others have said, in the past the term "chamois" refered to the skin
of a chamois (formerly used in the crotch of cycling shorts), but the
term has held on in cycling clothing to mean any
liner/insert/pad/bottom/base/fondello lining the inside of the shorts.

I've never seen seamless cycling shorts; I've been talking about my
favorite seamless *chamois* (whether it's made for the skin of a
chamois animal or a modern synthetic).

Right... I now see they come in panels... 6 or 8, etc.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I know these guys ride, a lot.

That's good -- maybe they can recommend shorts, saddle, position, etc.

I think they definitely could.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

what is the source of the confusion? Is what
you are recommending, while sounds truly like what I want, only
available from certain vendors, or did I not explain myself properly?

Both! :-)

Tis true!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Their warehouse sale is coming up on the 31st. I can score some serious
deals on gear if I know what I'm looking at. Perhaps you guys would be
willing to look at this and give me some ideas?
http://www.touringcyclist.com/

I see Bellwether and Trico. I wouldn't consider the baggy shorts (but
maybe others would).

Among the Bellwethers, the "911 O2 men's 6-panel lycra shorts $40.00"
claim to have a "C-tex chamois". I googled "C-tex chamois" and found
it's hard to know if the chamois is seamless.

See:
http://www.teamestrogen.com/reference/noteDetails.asp?ID=c-tex%20chamois

The photo shows two "baseball" seams running the length of the chamois
even though the text says: "molded design eliminates unwanted seams".
Of course, that's a women's short, so don't know what's in the men's
version you might be considering. Often men's and women's shorts share
the same chamois design.

Couple other terms from your shop's site:

"Modified 8-panel" is how shorts with no inseam are often described.
That's a good feature, if that's how Bellweather uses the phrase: a
modified 8-panel short eliminates the leg inseam, and along with it the
uncomfortable "seam bump" in the middle of the seat.

I saw those. Looked really nice. $120!!! Hey - I can justify it, I'll
just buy a cheaper jersey

Quoted message said:

"MVT CHAMOIS" sounds worth considering. Again, the below link is from
Team Estrogen (a women's clothing site), but possible the same chamois
is used in the men's shorts:

"MVT CHAMOIS

The Molded Variable Technology (MVT) chamois maximizes comfort with
welded technology which eliminates all seams while allowing the pad to
contour to the body by varying the pad thickness in critical areas.

- 4-way stretch design molds and contours with the body movement to
eliminate chafing and friction
- ergonomic variable pad thickness in key comfort zones
- seamless construction helps reduce possible hot spots
- welded technology creates channels to reduce friction
- internal shock absorbing foam
- supple hydrophobic and anti-microbial face offers quick moisture
transfer"

From
http://www.teamestrogen.com/reference/noteDetails.asp?ID=mvt%20chamois

Enjoy!

It's coming up, I will let you know what I end up with. Now I have
specific things to zero in on. Great!

--
Wound Up

Wound Up said:

Quoted message said:

Wound Up wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am still wondering
about bib shorts. I feel like they would be cumbersome,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They can be more comfortable than a bad waistband, and I like them for
short rides (less than an hour or so) but on linger rides I like to use
the bathroom without taking off my jersey. And a good fitting waistband
isn't that bad.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, I never have worn bibs before. I think a properly fitted pair
sans the bib might work fine. But the stay-in-place factor is critical.

I agree -- a properly fitted pair of shorts without the bib should keep
the pad (chamois) in place. Unless, of course, you have a very strange
anatomy, or you wear your shorts backwards, or ....

I *do* know that bibs do a better job of keeping Fred & Barney in their
place. And I'm sure that bibs keep the chamois in position better than
shorts, although I've never had the trouble you describe. So my
recommendation is sort of an overkill solution; if you want to be darn
sure your problem is resolved, go for bibs.

By the way, I don't have too much trouble going to the bathroom while
wearing bibs. Finding a good place to go is often a bigger problem than
executing the maneuver.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

"Wound Up" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Road Man said:

Quoted message said:

>

I think the seamless subspecies of chamois became extinct, due to
demand from cyclists ...

Ken

The poor little critters never had a chance against droves of
cyclists weilding various weapons =)

--
Wound Up

Especially the angels of the mountain, who could easily outclimb the
chamois while wielding deadly Silca pumps ...

dvt said:

Wound Up said:

Quoted message said:

Wound Up wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I am still wondering
> about bib shorts. I feel like they would be cumbersome,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They can be more comfortable than a bad waistband, and I like them for
short rides (less than an hour or so) but on linger rides I like to use
the bathroom without taking off my jersey. And a good fitting waistband
isn't that bad.

Quoted message said:

Yeah, I never have worn bibs before. I think a properly fitted pair
sans the bib might work fine. But the stay-in-place factor is critical.

I agree -- a properly fitted pair of shorts without the bib should keep
the pad (chamois) in place. Unless, of course, you have a very strange
anatomy, or you wear your shorts backwards, or ....

Just a gut. I would aesthetically prefer non-bibs but function
overrides fashion in this case.

Quoted message said:

I *do* know that bibs do a better job of keeping Fred & Barney in their
place. And I'm sure that bibs keep the chamois in position better than
shorts, although I've never had the trouble you describe. So my
recommendation is sort of an overkill solution; if you want to be darn
sure your problem is resolved, go for bibs.

Well I'm not 100% sure these shorts ever properly fit, since I do recall
having this problem at times when I was 30 lbs. lighter. It was one of
those "oh yeah" things. Now, my shape is different and my waist has
expanded, making this problem really bad. I'm quite sure bibs would
have to keep things in place better, and keep the chamois from slipping
too due to the upward tension on them

Quoted message said:

By the way, I don't have too much trouble going to the bathroom while
wearing bibs. Finding a good place to go is often a bigger problem than
executing the maneuver.

=) I'm sure you're right. The only time it would be an issue at all is
when I start doing 50-60 miles at a time on weekends in preparation for
my century.

I've heard getting to 50 miles is far more difficult than going from 50
to 100. First, is that on-topic here (I did read the FAQ, but am not
sure), and if so, do you believe it's true? Thus far, my longest at one
time has been 65, completed in 3:15 - 3:20. Not a breakneck pace, but
respectable for being alone, and yeah I should have gotten the CamelBak
sooner because I was dehydrated and weakening with 10 to go. Reminds
me... that 12-year-old Camelbak has to be replaced too!!!

--
Wound Up

Road Man said:

"Wound Up" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Road Man said:

I think the seamless subspecies of chamois became extinct, due to
demand from cyclists ...

Ken

The poor little critters never had a chance against droves of
cyclists weilding various weapons =)

--
Wound Up

Especially the angels of the mountain, who could easily outclimb the
chamois while wielding deadly Silca pumps ...

Truly a sad tale... someone should have seen the writing on the wall and
started a farm, but it would have to be difficult to keep seamless
chamois penned. I'm sure their skin was best harvested in the wild
anyway...

--
Wound Up

Michael Press said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Wound Up said:

You know, I asked the local shop about Chamois and seamless shorts, and
they seemed to think I was insane. He said that chamois was what they
used to use, and all their shorts had the typical parenial (sp?) pad

Congratulations. You misspelled perineal and perennial.

Oops. Well, I did give the (sp?) qualifier, and was a bit tired.

--
Wound Up

Wound Up said:

I've heard getting to 50 miles is far more difficult than going from 50
to 100. First, is that on-topic here (I did read the FAQ, but am not
sure), and if so, do you believe it's true?

I don't really know... I never paid much attention to mileage in my
earlier days, and even then, my memory isn't the best. It's been a while
since I had to work up to a 50-miler. You might get more opinions if you
repost that question under another header.

Quoted message said:

Thus far, my longest at one
time has been 65, completed in 3:15 - 3:20. Not a breakneck pace, but
respectable for being alone...

That works out to 19.5-20 mph average speed. That's better than
respectable; I'd call that pretty darn impressive. Even when I was an
amateur racer, I didn't go that fast on solo rides.

Of course, my rides may have been hillier... yeah, that's the ticket!
Gotta find some kind of excuse.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

dvt said:

Wound Up said:

I've heard getting to 50 miles is far more difficult than going from
50 to 100. First, is that on-topic here (I did read the FAQ, but am
not sure), and if so, do you believe it's true?

I don't really know... I never paid much attention to mileage in my
earlier days, and even then, my memory isn't the best. It's been a while
since I had to work up to a 50-miler. You might get more opinions if you
repost that question under another header.

Very true. I might do that, or on second though, I might just see how I
progress. Sometimes, getting a certain mindset about something like
that is just the wrong thing to do...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Thus far, my longest at one time has been 65, completed in 3:15 -
3:20. Not a breakneck pace, but respectable for being alone...

That works out to 19.5-20 mph average speed. That's better than
respectable; I'd call that pretty darn impressive. Even when I was an
amateur racer, I didn't go that fast on solo rides.

Thanks man. I pushed harder on that 65-mile ride than I ever have. I
don't really have that much of a frame of reference about average speed,
except that around that same time, a guy from N.M. rode 45 with me, and
called me a "beast". I can do 19-20 in an hour now, but that's one
hour. And then, I am pooped. I just gotta keep putting in the miles.

Quoted message said:

Of course, my rides may have been hillier... yeah, that's the ticket!
Gotta find some kind of excuse.

They may well have been. Of course, out in the plains, you can find
yourself riding into a 20-mph headwind for an hour at a time. Very
important to have that heart rate monitor if you're still working your
way up! Reminds me - gotta take that watch in tomorrow when I go past
the jeweler...

--
Wound Up