Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 15 May 2007 13:18:02
From: DougC
Subject: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In discussions of saddle comfort issues, I have seen it claimed many
places that the purpose of "chamois"-type material in cycling shorts is
not really for "padding", but for "friction and moisture control". Why
do people hold this misguided belief?

The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.

One common claim is that the padding is there for protection against the
seams in the crotch area. This may partly be true, but does it require a
quarter-inch of padding to protect against seams? No, it does not--the
Volae recumbent shorts are a typical 8-panel cut, with a 9th
peanut-shaped panel sewn inside the crotch area (covering about the same
area that a chamois pad would). Volae's sales literature says this is a
"modesty panel" but it also does cover the crotch seams.

Another common claim is that the padding is there for "friction
control". The problem with this assertion is that in typical bicycle
shorts, most of the friction occurs only between the /thighs/, and the
padding extends to well under the rider's butt. There would be no reason
to extend the padding under the rider's butt, if friction control was
the justification.

Myself having had both types of bicycles for extended riding, I am
fairly certain that the reason for padding in regular bicycle shorts is
simply that--for padding. The small useful area of an upright bicycle
saddle is basically not comfortable to sit on, and the padding in shorts
is a silent testament to that fact. As recumbent seats tend to provide
much larger areas to sit on, the padding isn't necessary--and it isn't
required for any other reason either (I don't have any more upright
bicycles; I don't have any more padded riding shorts either--there's no
need for them).

Why do people make this absurd claim?
I can accept the fact that many riders haven't become enlightened enough
to have ever tried riding recumbents, but who started this silliness?
And why does it persist in the "face" of facts that show otherwise,
among so many who feel themselves to be fairly-knowledgeable on bicycling?
~

Date: 17 May 2007 10:01:20
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 16, 5:47 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> Nashbar Fusion Splice or Essential short:
>
> http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=137&subcategory=1208&bran...
> ku=18247&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Shorts

The Fusion Splice is different from the Splice shorts I got from
Nashbar and recommended in a previous posting, so I can't say whether
the "chamois" is the same or not. My guess is NOT, since the chamois
now has a name (I don't recall the older version having a specially
named chamois).

Date: 16 May 2007 01:30:48
From: lightninglad
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

I took the padding out of a pair of bib shorts because I thought that
on my P-38 high BB mesh seat /bent, I wouldn't need it. Bad move. The
expression 'frozen nuts' sums it up. It took me a lot longer to sew it
back in than to snip it out - my wife was unimpressed by my butchery
of expensive gear.

I would think that moisture control is a very good reason to have
padding. Any hot body bits against non absorbing leather or plastic do
cause a lot of condensation.

Can anyone give a date for the first commercial padded bike shorts?

Date: 16 May 2007 03:15:24
From: Bill Westphal
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

lightninglad <wordy@internode.on.net > writes:

> I took the padding out of a pair of bib shorts because I thought that
> on my P-38 high BB mesh seat /bent, I wouldn't need it. Bad move. The
> expression 'frozen nuts' sums it up. It took me a lot longer to sew it
> back in than to snip it out - my wife was unimpressed by my butchery
> of expensive gear.
>

What, is it past Sornsons bedtime? What did she think about your lack
of anti-freeze, or anti-seize, or whatever. Perhaps teflon tape would
have done the trick. Or a climate control system down there. Or some
Voler shorts:

"The Carbon Micro Mesh panels provide maximum breathability for
comfort, and the exclusive anti-bacterial 3-tier molded Ion pad puts
padding where needed for specific pressure points with minimal
material on the sides to conform to your movement."

It also features:

"the new 220 gram Quantum DSX fabric reduces wind drag while improving
compression & durability."

> I would think that moisture control is a very good reason to have
> padding. Any hot body bits against non absorbing leather or plastic do
> cause a lot of condensation.
>
> Can anyone give a date for the first commercial padded bike shorts?

I'm guessing on or about 1893, just in time for the Columbian
Exibition Worlds Fair in Chgo.

Date: 15 May 2007 18:40:13
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 15, 8:46 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> My friend's new recumbent (Bacchetta Ti, if I spelled that right; the
> complete bike weighs about 21 pounds which was quite surprising to pick
> up) has a mesh frame seat with an open cell foam pad that seems quite
> open. Is that the sort of thing you mean by "filter foam?"

Yes, exactly. I ride a Bacchetta Strada (the steel variant of the
same basic design) with the same seat your friend has. I believe that
stuff is activated charcoal filter foam used for air handling systems,
maybe koi pond filters, stuff like that.

> He reports
> that his is quite comfortable with only a trace of moisture building up,
> and seems to provide adequate support. At least he was very comfortable
> on the 200K ride, riding in a standard cycling jersey and shorts.

Has he ridden it yet on a hot, humid summer day?

That particular seat is one of the best on the recumbent market in
terms of the mix of comfort, power transfer and ventilation, but I'd
still prefer having my back totally open to the wind for the cooling
effect (though having the sun beating down on your back on a DF in
high humidity can be equally uncomfortable).

Date: 15 May 2007 22:33:05
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <1179279613.006678.10770@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 15, 8:46 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > My friend's new recumbent (Bacchetta Ti, if I spelled that right;
> > the complete bike weighs about 21 pounds which was quite surprising
> > to pick up) has a mesh frame seat with an open cell foam pad that
> > seems quite open. Is that the sort of thing you mean by "filter
> > foam?"
>
> Yes, exactly. I ride a Bacchetta Strada (the steel variant of the
> same basic design) with the same seat your friend has. I believe
> that stuff is activated charcoal filter foam used for air handling
> systems, maybe koi pond filters, stuff like that.
>
> > He reports that his is quite comfortable with only a trace of
> > moisture building up, and seems to provide adequate support. At
> > least he was very comfortable on the 200K ride, riding in a
> > standard cycling jersey and shorts.
>
> Has he ridden it yet on a hot, humid summer day?

We've only had a few 90 degree days so far this year, and I don't know
if he's ridden on those. We've been out for rides around 80 degrees and
that seemed to go pretty well, but they were short rides (by
randonneuring standards).

> That particular seat is one of the best on the recumbent market in
> terms of the mix of comfort, power transfer and ventilation, but I'd
> still prefer having my back totally open to the wind for the cooling
> effect (though having the sun beating down on your back on a DF in
> high humidity can be equally uncomfortable).

I like hot weather, at least up to 95F or so. I dislike cold weather
(defined as anything under 60F- which is darned near 9 months of the
year here).

Date: 15 May 2007 20:17:15
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

DougC wrote:
> In discussions of saddle comfort issues, I have seen it claimed many
> places that the purpose of "chamois"-type material in cycling shorts is
> not really for "padding", but for "friction and moisture control". Why
> do people hold this misguided belief?
>
> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
>
> One common claim is that the padding is there for protection against the
> seams in the crotch area. This may partly be true, but does it require a
> quarter-inch of padding to protect against seams? No, it does not--the
> Volae recumbent shorts are a typical 8-panel cut, with a 9th
> peanut-shaped panel sewn inside the crotch area (covering about the same
> area that a chamois pad would). Volae's sales literature says this is a
> "modesty panel" but it also does cover the crotch seams.
>
> Another common claim is that the padding is there for "friction
> control". The problem with this assertion is that in typical bicycle
> shorts, most of the friction occurs only between the /thighs/, and the
> padding extends to well under the rider's butt. There would be no reason
> to extend the padding under the rider's butt, if friction control was
> the justification.
>
> Myself having had both types of bicycles for extended riding, I am
> fairly certain that the reason for padding in regular bicycle shorts is
> simply that--for padding. The small useful area of an upright bicycle
> saddle is basically not comfortable to sit on, and the padding in shorts
> is a silent testament to that fact. As recumbent seats tend to provide
> much larger areas to sit on, the padding isn't necessary--and it isn't
> required for any other reason either (I don't have any more upright
> bicycles; I don't have any more padded riding shorts either--there's no
> need for them).
>
> Why do people make this absurd claim?
> I can accept the fact that many riders haven't become enlightened enough
> to have ever tried riding recumbents, but who started this silliness?
> And why does it persist in the "face" of facts that show otherwise,
> among so many who feel themselves to be fairly-knowledgeable on bicycling?

There are no wrong answers regarding taste, as you effectively wrote.

Not knowing who 'they' are I cannot rebut 'them', but my favorite, most
comfy shorts are Cemag lycra with a no-padding natural chamois.
Threadbare and probably irreplaceable now.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 16 May 2007 14:39:28
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 20:17:15 -0500, A Muzi wrote:

> Not knowing who 'they' are I cannot rebut 'them', but my favorite, most
> comfy shorts are Cemag lycra with a no-padding natural chamois.
> Threadbare and probably irreplaceable now.

FWIW, I often extend the life of shorts considerably by gluing pieces of
lycra inside over the more revealing threadbare parts, which can appear
long before the shorts start to otherwise wear out. I use silicone slightly
diluted with turps.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 16 May 2007 09:05:33
From: Michael Warner
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:18:02 -0500, DougC wrote:

> Why do people make this absurd claim?

Why do recumbent owners have such massive chips on their shoulders?
If you enjoy yours, great, but you're not going to convince anyone to
switch with this sort of rant.

Ditto Campy lovers :-)

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

Date: 15 May 2007 19:29:31
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:18:02 -0500, DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com >
wrote:

>The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
>that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.

Who cares? I don't.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 15 May 2007 16:15:38
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 15, 6:14 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Well yes--then why is it that recumbent riders don't use chamois padding
> on their backs?... for, you know... all that moisture and friction
> thereabouts.

Because our backs don't move when we pedal, friction isn't an issue,
though some folks feel irritation from the rough-textured filter foam
commonly used on hardshell seats, even through their jerseys. A
thicker jersey or chamois in the jersey helps there, but so would a
cover for the foam pad. Personally it doesn't bother me at all, even
with a thin jersey/shirt on.

As for moisture management on the rider's back, that is one problem
recumbents definitely have yet to solve. Some claim that more
complicated pads (like the Ventisit?) with larger vents help a lot, as
do mesh backed seats, but they are not anywhere near as well
ventilated as we'd like. I don't know if having a chamois on my back
would help there with moisture management--maybe I'll try it with the
large chamois I have for drying my car.

Date: 15 May 2007 19:46:17
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <1179270937.689067.296080@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com >,
Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 15, 6:14 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote:
> > Well yes--then why is it that recumbent riders don't use chamois
> > padding on their backs?... for, you know... all that moisture and
> > friction thereabouts.
>
> Because our backs don't move when we pedal, friction isn't an issue,
> though some folks feel irritation from the rough-textured filter foam
> commonly used on hardshell seats, even through their jerseys. A
> thicker jersey or chamois in the jersey helps there, but so would a
> cover for the foam pad. Personally it doesn't bother me at all, even
> with a thin jersey/shirt on

My friend's new recumbent (Bacchetta Ti, if I spelled that right; the
complete bike weighs about 21 pounds which was quite surprising to pick
up) has a mesh frame seat with an open cell foam pad that seems quite
open. Is that the sort of thing you mean by "filter foam?" He reports
that his is quite comfortable with only a trace of moisture building up,
and seems to provide adequate support. At least he was very comfortable
on the 200K ride, riding in a standard cycling jersey and shorts.

Date: 15 May 2007 14:41:55
From: bdbafh
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 15, 3:27 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> In article <1179255774.315762.266...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Victor Kan <victor....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
> > 1/4" thick.
>
> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
> some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
> most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
> blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>
> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Pearl Izumi. Go for the dark grey colored insert (chamois). Blue is
the thickest, then yellow, then red, then grey.

Specialized also has a thin "century short" but I find the insert to
be too wide for me.

-bdbafh

Date: 15 May 2007 19:57:20
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <1179265315.549505.161010@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
bdbafh <bdbafh@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 15, 3:27 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > In article <1179255774.315762.266...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Victor Kan <victor....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
> > > 1/4" thick.
> >
> > I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
> > some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
> > most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
> > blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
> >
> > Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>
> Pearl Izumi. Go for the dark grey colored insert (chamois). Blue is
> the thickest, then yellow, then red, then grey.

I've only seen the blue PI chamois for the past several years, but that
might just be what REI stocks. I'll keep a lookout for the others.
Thanks!

Date: 15 May 2007 22:49:25
From: Lou Holtman
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

DougC wrote:
<snip >

So you got up this morning and of all the problems in the world today
you want this one sorted out?

Lou
--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)

Date: 15 May 2007 16:16:04
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Lou Holtman wrote:
> DougC wrote:
> <snip>
>
> So you got up this morning and of all the problems in the world today
> you want this one sorted out?
>
> Lou

It seems to be widely repeated, and it's false.

Besides, I cured all the lepers in my town last week.
~

Date: 16 May 2007 00:56:34
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <9qp2i.92$9a3.34@newsfe03.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote:

> Lou Holtman wrote:
> > DougC wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > So you got up this morning and of all the problems in the world today
> > you want this one sorted out?
>
> It seems to be widely repeated, and it's false.
>
> Besides, I cured all the lepers in my town last week.

Matthew 7:6

--
Michael Press

Date: 15 May 2007 13:32:30
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 15, 4:17 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
> Think hard here: if the padding was there for any other reason than
> simple padding, then recumbent riders would all want it too.

The reason I don't need a chamois when I ride a recumbent while I
might benefit from one when I ride a DF is because on the former,
the moving parts of my lower body do not rub against anything
while I ride (well, sometimes my right calf rubs the chain when I'm in
the big ring).

On the latter, the part where the chamois can do some
good against friction does rub against the saddle as I pedal.

...
> Most of the people who insist that "chamois isn't for padding" are also
> people who aren't aware that recumbent shorts use no padding.

That doesn't make them wrong. Chamois may be advertised as padding
and
may indeed provide that function, but that's not necessarily denied by
these
same majority of folks you're talking about.

Date: 15 May 2007 13:13:51
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 15, 3:27 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote:
> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Last year's Nashbar Slice (or Splice?) are a decent 8-panel short with
a thin, flat "chamois" (really a synthetic material of some kind) and
are made in the USA according to the label. The last time I looked
they had both that older one (with the smaller color patch on the leg)
as well as the current Slice/Splice with the long color patch all the
way up the leg. I haven't tried that newer one.

Some many years old Nashbar shorts I have and still wear (also the two-
color variety) also have a thin chamois (including one with an actual,
real chamois), so maybe that's just a characteristic of their basic 8-
panel shorts (as opposed to whatever super duper "anatomic" gel stuff
they might also have).

Date: 15 May 2007 16:27:58
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <1179260031.477794.270920@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com > wrote:

> On May 15, 3:27 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>
> Last year's Nashbar Slice (or Splice?) are a decent 8-panel short with
> a thin, flat "chamois" (really a synthetic material of some kind) and
> are made in the USA according to the label. The last time I looked
> they had both that older one (with the smaller color patch on the leg)
> as well as the current Slice/Splice with the long color patch all the
> way up the leg. I haven't tried that newer one.

Thanks for the tip!

Date: 15 May 2007 12:36:20
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

DougC wrote:
> In discussions of saddle comfort issues, I have seen it claimed many
> places that the purpose of "chamois"-type material in cycling shorts
> is not really for "padding", but for "friction and moisture control".
> Why do people hold this misguided belief?
>
> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
>
> One common claim is that the padding is there for protection against
> the seams in the crotch area. This may partly be true, but does it
> require a quarter-inch of padding to protect against seams? No, it
> does not--the Volae recumbent shorts are a typical 8-panel cut, with
> a 9th peanut-shaped panel sewn inside the crotch area (covering about
> the same area that a chamois pad would). Volae's sales literature
> says this is a "modesty panel" but it also does cover the crotch
> seams.
> Another common claim is that the padding is there for "friction
> control". The problem with this assertion is that in typical bicycle
> shorts, most of the friction occurs only between the /thighs/, and the
> padding extends to well under the rider's butt. There would be no
> reason to extend the padding under the rider's butt, if friction
> control was the justification.
>
> Myself having had both types of bicycles for extended riding, I am
> fairly certain that the reason for padding in regular bicycle shorts
> is simply that--for padding. The small useful area of an upright
> bicycle saddle is basically not comfortable to sit on, and the
> padding in shorts is a silent testament to that fact. As recumbent
> seats tend to provide much larger areas to sit on, the padding isn't
> necessary--and it isn't required for any other reason either (I don't
> have any more upright bicycles; I don't have any more padded riding
> shorts either--there's no need for them).
>
> Why do people make this absurd claim?
> I can accept the fact that many riders haven't become enlightened
> enough to have ever tried riding recumbents, but who started this
> silliness? And why does it persist in the "face" of facts that show
> otherwise,
> among so many who feel themselves to be fairly-knowledgeable on
> bicycling? ~

You think about the crotch area an awful lot, don't you?

Bill "not that there's anything /wrong/ with..." S.

Date: 15 May 2007 19:30:56
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:36:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>DougC wrote:
>> In discussions of saddle comfort issues, I have seen it claimed many
>> places that the purpose of "chamois"-type material in cycling shorts
>> is not really for "padding", but for "friction and moisture control".
>> Why do people hold this misguided belief?
>>
>> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
>> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
>>
>> One common claim is that the padding is there for protection against
>> the seams in the crotch area. This may partly be true, but does it
>> require a quarter-inch of padding to protect against seams? No, it
>> does not--the Volae recumbent shorts are a typical 8-panel cut, with
>> a 9th peanut-shaped panel sewn inside the crotch area (covering about
>> the same area that a chamois pad would). Volae's sales literature
>> says this is a "modesty panel" but it also does cover the crotch
>> seams.
>> Another common claim is that the padding is there for "friction
>> control". The problem with this assertion is that in typical bicycle
>> shorts, most of the friction occurs only between the /thighs/, and the
>> padding extends to well under the rider's butt. There would be no
>> reason to extend the padding under the rider's butt, if friction
>> control was the justification.
>>
>> Myself having had both types of bicycles for extended riding, I am
>> fairly certain that the reason for padding in regular bicycle shorts
>> is simply that--for padding. The small useful area of an upright
>> bicycle saddle is basically not comfortable to sit on, and the
>> padding in shorts is a silent testament to that fact. As recumbent
>> seats tend to provide much larger areas to sit on, the padding isn't
>> necessary--and it isn't required for any other reason either (I don't
>> have any more upright bicycles; I don't have any more padded riding
>> shorts either--there's no need for them).
>>
>> Why do people make this absurd claim?
>> I can accept the fact that many riders haven't become enlightened
>> enough to have ever tried riding recumbents, but who started this
>> silliness? And why does it persist in the "face" of facts that show
>> otherwise,
>> among so many who feel themselves to be fairly-knowledgeable on
>> bicycling? ~
>
>You think about the crotch area an awful lot, don't you?

LOL
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 15 May 2007 14:24:14
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <fPm2i.37$r%6.4@newsfe06.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote:

> In discussions of saddle comfort issues, I have seen it claimed many
> places that the purpose of "chamois"-type material in cycling shorts
> is not really for "padding", but for "friction and moisture control".
> Why do people hold this misguided belief?

Who says it's misguided?

> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.

Neither do the trousers I wear to work. Did you have a point?

> One common claim is that the padding is there for protection against
> the seams in the crotch area. This may partly be true, but does it
> require a quarter-inch of padding to protect against seams? No, it
> does not--the Volae recumbent shorts are a typical 8-panel cut, with
> a 9th peanut-shaped panel sewn inside the crotch area (covering about
> the same area that a chamois pad would). Volae's sales literature
> says this is a "modesty panel" but it also does cover the crotch
> seams.

Properly designed cycling shorts avoid seams in problem areas. I think
you're confused here. The seams normally discussed vis a vis the
benefits of cycling shorts are those found in blue jeans and other
conventional clothing.

> Another common claim is that the padding is there for "friction
> control". The problem with this assertion is that in typical bicycle
> shorts, most of the friction occurs only between the /thighs/, and
> the padding extends to well under the rider's butt. There would be no
> reason to extend the padding under the rider's butt, if friction
> control was the justification.

It's friction between the skin and the saddle, not between the thighs.
Maybe you need to ride more. Preventing friction between the skin and
its environment is why cycling shorts are tight-fitting. It's not why
they have "chamois."

> Myself having had both types of bicycles for extended riding, I am
> fairly certain that the reason for padding in regular bicycle shorts
> is simply that--for padding. The small useful area of an upright
> bicycle saddle is basically not comfortable to sit on, and the
> padding in shorts is a silent testament to that fact. As recumbent
> seats tend to provide much larger areas to sit on, the padding isn't
> necessary--and it isn't required for any other reason either (I don't
> have any more upright bicycles; I don't have any more padded riding
> shorts either--there's no need for them).

Ah, here we go. Another assertion of the superiority of recumbents.
That's why all the straw men were being set up and knocked down. Poorly
written, transparently disingenuous bullshit.

FWIW I sit on the saddle of my bike 2-4 hours a day, 5-7 days a week,
and not infrequently 6 hours or more. A few times a year, up to 40
hours in a weekend. It's not uncomfortable except towards the end of
the 600k km weekend ride. But then the recumbent riders are moaning
about their butts by then, too.

> Why do people make this absurd claim? I can accept the fact that many
> riders haven't become enlightened enough to have ever tried riding
> recumbents, but who started this silliness? And why does it persist
> in the "face" of facts that show otherwise, among so many who feel
> themselves to be fairly-knowledgeable on bicycling? ~

And further "the recumbent is superior and those who don't ride them are
self-deluding knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" propaganda.

If you like a recumbent, ride a recumbent. If you don't like
recumbents, then don't. I'm glad you like yours. But don't waste my
time trying to convince me of the inherent superiority of recumbents.
It's just a different set of compromises. For some people, the
compromises of recumbents work better; for other people, the compromises
of upright bikes work better. C'est la vie.

A friend of mine who's got disc problems- and has already had surgery
for this once- just bought a recumbent; it has worked out well for him
and is a good set of compromises for his needs. Good for him!

Date: 15 May 2007 15:17:10
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
>> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
>
> Neither do the trousers I wear to work. Did you have a point?
>

Yea--that a lot of people who insist that this is true aren't aware that
recumbent riders ride the same distances and speeds and use seats made
of basically the same materials, and use shorts made of the same
fabrics--the only difference being that there's no padding.

Think hard here: if the padding was there for any other reason than
simple padding, then recumbent riders would all want it too.

>
> Properly designed cycling shorts avoid seams in problem areas. I think
> you're confused here.
> ...
> It's friction between the skin and the saddle, not between the thighs.
> Maybe you need to ride more. Preventing friction between the skin and
> its environment is why cycling shorts are tight-fitting. It's not why
> they have "chamois."

This is just what seems to be commonly claimed; it's not what I think.

> Ah, here we go. Another assertion of the superiority of recumbents.

Most of the people who insist that "chamois isn't for padding" are also
people who aren't aware that recumbent shorts use no padding. So the
recumbent issue has to be brought up, unfortunately.

> And further "the recumbent is superior and those who don't ride them are
> self-deluding knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" propaganda....

The few times I've pointed this all out, there's aways someone who
simply says "well what recumbent riders use doesn't matter", ignoring
the astonishing similarities of the two....
~

Date: 15 May 2007 16:40:15
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <Xyo2i.88$9a3.44@newsfe03.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> >> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of)
> >> is that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
> >
> > Neither do the trousers I wear to work. Did you have a point?
> >
>
> Yea--that a lot of people who insist that this is true aren't aware
> that recumbent riders ride the same distances and speeds and use
> seats made of basically the same materials, and use shorts made of
> the same fabrics--the only difference being that there's no padding.
>
> Think hard here: if the padding was there for any other reason than
> simple padding, then recumbent riders would all want it too.

Again, did you have a point? Recumbent riders largely lay on their
backs rather than sitting on a seat. It's apples and oranges, a point
that seems to elude you.

> > Properly designed cycling shorts avoid seams in problem areas. I
> > think you're confused here. ... It's friction between the skin and
> > the saddle, not between the thighs. Maybe you need to ride more.
> > Preventing friction between the skin and its environment is why
> > cycling shorts are tight-fitting. It's not why they have
> > "chamois."
>
> This is just what seems to be commonly claimed; it's not what I
> think.

"It's commonly claimed" is just a dodge that you are using as cover for
bringing up yet more recumbent propaganda.

> > Ah, here we go. Another assertion of the superiority of
> > recumbents.
>
> Most of the people who insist that "chamois isn't for padding" are
> also people who aren't aware that recumbent shorts use no padding. So
> the recumbent issue has to be brought up, unfortunately.

Only when you're trying to find an excuse to post your usual bullshit
about the superiority of recumbents.

> > And further "the recumbent is superior and those who don't ride
> > them are self-deluding knuckle-dragging Neanderthals"
> > propaganda....
>
> The few times I've pointed this all out, there's aways someone who
> simply says "well what recumbent riders use doesn't matter", ignoring
> the astonishing similarities of the two....

Let me put it to you this way: what recumbent riders use doesn't
matter to me. If I ever start using a recumbent, due to some injury or
infirmity, then it will matter to me. But I ride regular bikes and what
recumbent riders use doesn't matter to me.

I'm always baffled by the chip on the shoulder of many recumbent riders-
particularly those who turn up on r.b.t. They seem to take the niche
market status of the recumbent as a personal insult. It's just another
bike and it's no big deal. Fortunately my friends who ride recumbents
are no so afflicted!

Date: 15 May 2007 17:14:24
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> Again, did you have a point? Recumbent riders largely lay on their
> backs rather than sitting on a seat. It's apples and oranges, a point
> that seems to elude you.
>

Well yes--then why is it that recumbent riders don't use chamois padding
on their backs?... for, you know... all that moisture and friction
thereabouts.

Or wait,,,, no. The angle of seat recline varies among different models,
from nearly laying down to seated nearly-upright. The BikeE and Tour
Easy would be two that sold quite well and are pretty-much upright....
~

Date: 15 May 2007 19:40:39
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <Rgq2i.98$9a3.58@newsfe03.lga >,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >
> > Again, did you have a point? Recumbent riders largely lay on their
> > backs rather than sitting on a seat. It's apples and oranges, a
> > point that seems to elude you.
> >
>
> Well yes--then why is it that recumbent riders don't use chamois
> padding on their backs?... for, you know... all that moisture and
> friction thereabouts.
>
> Or wait,,,, no. The angle of seat recline varies among different
> models, from nearly laying down to seated nearly-upright. The BikeE
> and Tour Easy would be two that sold quite well and are pretty-much
> upright.... ~

Still waiting for a point.

Date: 15 May 2007 21:33:02
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:24:14 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:

[---]

>Ah, here we go. Another assertion of the superiority of recumbents.
>That's why all the straw men were being set up and knocked down. Poorly
>written, transparently disingenuous bullshit.

Atrociously bad attempt, wasn't it.

[---]

>It's just a different set of compromises. For some people, the
>compromises of recumbents work better; for other people, the compromises
>of upright bikes work better. C'est la vie.

Oui - et lui, c'est un troll.

Date: 15 May 2007 16:43:21
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <7j2k43laocql1mmjjbj0e1qrgsjdg6s863@4ax.com >,
Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:24:14 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
> >Ah, here we go. Another assertion of the superiority of recumbents.
> > That's why all the straw men were being set up and knocked down.
> >Poorly written, transparently disingenuous bullshit.
>
> Atrociously bad attempt, wasn't it.

It really was. I wonder if he thinks that he is somehow doing the
recumbent "cause" any good?

> [---]
>
> >It's just a different set of compromises. For some people, the
> >compromises of recumbents work better; for other people, the
> >compromises of upright bikes work better. C'est la vie.
>
> Oui - et lui, c'est un troll.

D'accord!

Date: 15 May 2007 12:02:54
From: Victor Kan
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On May 15, 2:18 pm, DougC <dcim...@norcom2000.com > wrote:
...
> Another common claim is that the padding is there for "friction
> control". The problem with this assertion is that in typical bicycle
> shorts, most of the friction occurs only between the /thighs/,

No it doesn't, unless you're using a saddle with a nose that's too
wide,
or the inside of your thighs rub together, in which case the friction
problem
is present on a recumbent too, unless you widen your Q-factor with
something
like "knee savers" pedal extenders.

I'd say that the friction is mainly a bit further up, near the
junction of the thigh
and the butt cheeks.

> and the
> padding extends to well under the rider's butt. There would be no reason
> to extend the padding under the rider's butt, if friction control was
> the justification.

If the chamois didn't extend under the rider's butt, then it would
create a
problematic seam where one did not exist before.

> Myself having had both types of bicycles for extended riding, I am
> fairly certain that the reason for padding in regular bicycle shorts is
> simply that--for padding.

Myself having ridden both types of bicycles for extended riding in the
last month,
including switching between the two types of bikes daily for the last
couple of years,
I am fairly certain that I can ride my DF bikes with a San Marco Rolls
or Vetta Race Lite saddle while wearing shorts without a chamois
without butt or crotch pain, but would get friction & heat
rash issues in the area I mentioned above if I rode vigorously, and
also where the pants are loose rather than form fitting.

> The small useful area of an upright bicycle
> saddle is basically not comfortable to sit on, and the padding in shorts
> is a silent testament to that fact.

If that is so, then why isn't extra padding on the saddle sufficient
such that folks wouldn't need
to wear shorts with chamois? Is it solely because folks don't want
the weight on their bike so
they can say their bike weighs X pounds rather than X.1 pounds?

> As recumbent seats tend to provide
> much larger areas to sit on, the padding isn't necessary--and it isn't
> required for any other reason either (I don't have any more upright
> bicycles; I don't have any more padded riding shorts either--there's no
> need for them).

I sometimes wear bike shorts with chamois when riding my recumbent,
especially in winter.
It helps keep me warm. This is especially useful on a 'bent with a
full mesh seat and a high bottom bracket (like my tadpole trike). As
you noted in Volae's 'bent-specific shorts, it's also
a "modesty" thing.

I'm not saying it's impossible to get butt or crotch pain on a DF
bike--that's obviously false, and its quite easy to get that pain if
you aren't fitted and riding well.

But it is not the case that such pain is inevitable, and that a
chamois is absolutely required to minimize it. Actually, in my
experience an ill-fitting chamois is itself a source of comfort
problems, and I'd much rather ride with no chamois at all than an ill-
fitting one.

The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
1/4" thick.

Date: 16 May 2007 08:16:48
From: (PeteCresswell)
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Per Victor Kan:
>As
>you noted in Volae's 'bent-specific shorts, it's also
>a "modesty" thing.

http://tinyurl.com/2n4dak
--
PeteCresswell

Date: 16 May 2007 08:42:12
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <9ftl43llvrftoc23996mpf8600roi72jt2@4ax.com >,
"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid > wrote:

> Per Victor Kan:
> >As you noted in Volae's 'bent-specific shorts, it's also a "modesty"
> >thing.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2n4dak

ROTFL!

Date: 16 May 2007 19:42:22
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Wed, 16 May 2007 08:42:12 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:

>> >As you noted in Volae's 'bent-specific shorts, it's also a "modesty"
>> >thing.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/2n4dak
>
>ROTFL!

Indeed - but I've seen a number of versions of that photo, none of
which are strictly identical in the critical area - which suggests
that they may have been "helped" somewhat by PhotoShop ...

Date: 16 May 2007 17:58:28
From: C Wright
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On 5/16/07 12:42 PM, in article pfgm43d9fptvv44mfab2jhqbqoid2daiat@4ax.com,
"Andrew Price" <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2007 08:42:12 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>>>> As you noted in Volae's 'bent-specific shorts, it's also a "modesty"
>>>> thing.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2n4dak
>>
>> ROTFL!
>
> Indeed - but I've seen a number of versions of that photo, none of
> which are strictly identical in the critical area - which suggests
> that they may have been "helped" somewhat by PhotoShop ...

That is funny! If that image was not "helped" by Photoshop one would think
that before having a photo taken they could have gone into a restroom or
ducked behind a tree and sorted things out. At least if their package
showed it would be in the expected location!

Date: 15 May 2007 14:27:51
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com > wrote:

> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
> 1/4" thick.

I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.

Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Date: 17 May 2007 12:35:13
From: Owen Pope
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in
news:timmcn-5C3065.14275115052007@news.iphouse.com:

> In article
> <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick
>> rather than 1/4" thick.
>
> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes
> problems. I have some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a
> really thin chamois and are my most comfortable shorts.
> New PI's have this weird variable thickness blue 3D thing
> that is not very comfortable.
>
> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Sugoi does, or used to at least- mine are a few years old.
Nice and thin, not too much padding, certainly not the diaper-
like feel of all the newer shorts I've seen recently.

They do have a newer, thick chamois though, so make sure you
can check them out if you're looking at them...

Date: 16 May 2007 23:22:39
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:27:51 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
>> 1/4" thick.
>
> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
> some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
> most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
> blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>
> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Boure "Pro" shorts have padding thinner than most. A RAAM veteran friend
swears by them.

http://www.boure.com/1100.html

My favorites were some Hind shorts from about 10 years ago, with a
synthetic "chamois" no thicker than the real thing. Real chamois is
still available, but way too fussy for me.

Both shorts and saddles have too much padding these days. Together
they're a real pain.

But words like "thick," "soft," etc. make for better ad copy.

Matt O.

Date: 17 May 2007 06:06:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:22:39 -0400, Matt O'Toole
<mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote:

>Both shorts and saddles have too much padding these days.

There are plenty of saddles available with very little padding
nowadays -- look around.

I think there is more diversity in saddle design and availability than
every

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Date: 17 May 2007 13:51:16
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Thu, 17 May 2007 06:06:48 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> On Wed, 16 May 2007 23:22:39 -0400, Matt O'Toole
> <mattotoole@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>
>>Both shorts and saddles have too much padding these days.
>
> There are plenty of saddles available with very little padding
> nowadays -- look around.
>
> I think there is more diversity in saddle design and availability than
> every

This is probably true, and yes, there is definitely a wider selection than
ever -- perhaps too wide!

The thin ones can be hard to find, especially at local shops. For
example, the original Flite is thinly padded, comfortable, and very well
regarded. It's still available, but you're more likely to find a Flite
Kevlar Genuine Gel Embroidered Farthole or something, which just
isn't the same.

Matt O.

Date: 16 May 2007 13:56:39
From: Paul Kopit
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:27:51 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:

>Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Performance Century

Date: 16 May 2007 16:47:38
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <gc3m431slhng4mcs2touvu94aaifi13c53@4ax.com >,
Paul Kopit <pkopit@att.net > wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 14:27:51 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> >Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>
> Performance Century

Another recommendation- thanks!

So, thus far we have four mentioned shorts with a thin chamois (sorry
about the multiline URLs which will break in many newsreaders.
Should've used TinyURL):

Nashbar Fusion Splice or Essential short:

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=137&subcategory=1208&brand=&s
ku=18247&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Shorts

http://www.nashbar.com/profile.cfm?category=137&subcategory=1208&brand=&s
ku=17673&storetype=&estoreid=&pagename=Shop%20by%20Subcat%3A%20Shorts

Boure which has three models, the most expensive having the thinnest
chamois:

http://www.boure.com/shortsmen.html

Voler, with a high end short and a medium range short only a few dollars
more expensive than the Nashbars:

http://www.velowear.com/products/1110104BLKXSM.aspx

Performance Century:

http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=19873&subcategory_ID=
1120

Date: 15 May 2007 15:30:37
From: Bill Westphal
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes:

> In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
>> 1/4" thick.
>
> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
> some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
> most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
> blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>
> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?

Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
Castelli (from various retailers). Castelli is way too pricy, but the
first 2 are quite reasonable and very high quality. The newer
Pearlizumi and Assos have very thick pads. Pearlizumi doesn't have
the quality of the others, but the Boure and Voler are just as well
made and designed as the Assos, at a fraction of the cost. Also, I
prefer unbranded when possible, and those first 2 fit the bill.

Bill Westphal

Date: 16 May 2007 23:30:42
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal wrote:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
>>> 1/4" thick.
>>
>> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
>> some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
>> most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
>> blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>>
>> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>
> Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
> Castelli (from various retailers). Castelli is way too pricy, but the
> first 2 are quite reasonable and very high quality. The newer
> Pearlizumi and Assos have very thick pads. Pearlizumi doesn't have
> the quality of the others, but the Boure and Voler are just as well
> made and designed as the Assos, at a fraction of the cost. Also, I
> prefer unbranded when possible, and those first 2 fit the bill.

I've had great luck with Voler shorts too, but I wouldn't call them thin.
I wish I could find thinner, like my old Hind ones.

The cheaper PI shorts do have thin pads, but they're junk. I have a
pair that are excruciating to ride for more than an hour. Plus the fabric
is thin, the fit is skimpy, and they're falling apart. I don't know about
the more expensive PI stuff. It just looks overpriced to me.

AFAIK, Castelli still makes shorts with real chamois.

Assos are so thick they look like $200 diapers.

Matt O.

Date: 17 May 2007 10:08:04
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

"Matt O'Toole" <mattotoole@letterboxes.org > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.05.17.03.30.40.999842@letterboxes.org...
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal wrote:
<SNIP >

> I've had great luck with Voler shorts too, but I wouldn't call them thin.
> I wish I could find thinner, like my old Hind ones.
>
> The cheaper PI shorts do have thin pads, but they're junk. I have a
> pair that are excruciating to ride for more than an hour. Plus the fabric
> is thin, the fit is skimpy, and they're falling apart. I don't know about
> the more expensive PI stuff. It just looks overpriced to me.
>
> AFAIK, Castelli still makes shorts with real chamois.
>
> Assos are so thick they look like $200 diapers.

This is because Assos uses bank notes as padding -- I believe it is high
denomination Swiss Francs. -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 15 May 2007 22:45:49
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org >
wrote:

>Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
>> In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
>>> 1/4" thick.
>>
>> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
>> some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
>> most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
>> blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>>
>> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>
>Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
>Castelli (from various retailers).

I thought the Voler pads were rather thick. Of course, that's
comparing them to 4-5 year old Performance and Nashbar house-brand
cheapies (the last I bought before I started buying Voler's).

Pat

Email address works as is.

Date: 16 May 2007 20:55:35
From: R Brickston
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 22:45:49 -0500, Patrick Lamb
<pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote:

>On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org>
>wrote:
>
>>Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>
>>> In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
>>>> 1/4" thick.
>>>
>>> I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I have
>>> some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois and are my
>>> most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird variable thickness
>>> blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>>>
>>> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>>
>>Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
>>Castelli (from various retailers).

velowear.com for the Voler company

>
>I thought the Voler pads were rather thick. Of course, that's
>comparing them to 4-5 year old Performance and Nashbar house-brand
>cheapies (the last I bought before I started buying Voler's).
>
>Pat
>
>Email address works as is.

Date: 16 May 2007 09:41:57
From: Peter Cole
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:

>>> Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>> Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
>> Castelli (from various retailers).
>
> I thought the Voler pads were rather thick. Of course, that's
> comparing them to 4-5 year old Performance and Nashbar house-brand
> cheapies (the last I bought before I started buying Voler's).

I also find Voler shorts to have pretty thick pads, very similar to the
last PI shorts I've bought. I don't care much for either of them.
They're OK for shortish rides, but chafing is a problem on longer ones.

To answer the OP (assuming he actually wants an answer), on traditional
bikes (unlike a 'bent) one's weight is supported on a relatively small
area. Compliance in a saddle or pad tends to cause movement at this
contact area, causing the skin to get rubbed raw. Moisture compounds the
problem as it softens the skin -- something easily shown by the
softening of foot callouses after a shower. So, the answer is that pad
both prevents friction and mitigates moisture.

Date: 15 May 2007 19:55:50
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <81k5v9n5aa.fsf@westphal.org >,
Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org > wrote:

> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>
> > In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
> >> 1/4" thick.
> >
> > I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I
> > have some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois
> > and are my most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird
> > variable thickness blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
> >
> > Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>
> Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
> Castelli (from various retailers). Castelli is way too pricy, but
> the first 2 are quite reasonable and very high quality. The newer
> Pearlizumi and Assos have very thick pads. Pearlizumi doesn't have
> the quality of the others, but the Boure and Voler are just as well
> made and designed as the Assos, at a fraction of the cost. Also, I
> prefer unbranded when possible, and those first 2 fit the bill.

Thanks, Bill. I've never tried Voler shorts nor Boure so the
recommendation is appreciated. Pearl Izumi's overall quality appears to
have declined over the past few years (I have three "generations" of PI
shorts to compare) and the chamois is now so diaper-like that it is
really annoying.

The Voler hype is a bit much, though with "Quantum DSX fabric" and an
"anatomically sculpted silhouette with the benefits of "Carbon Micro
Mesh panels provide maximum breathability for comfort, and the exclusive
anti-bacterial 3-tier molded Ion pad puts padding where needed for
specific pressure points with minimal material on the sides to conform
to your movement."

Yikes, I just want some shorts. Presumably the less breathless and
cheaper Voler shorts (e.g., the Equipe) are less intimidating.

I am always a bit bemused by the sport clothing industry. They develop
a good design that works well, such as PI's shorts of 6-7 years ago, and
then keep changing it every year to make it "new and improved" but it
works less well with each iteration.

Date: 16 May 2007 23:41:11
From: Matt O'Toole
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:55:50 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> The Voler hype is a bit much, though with "Quantum DSX fabric" and an
> "anatomically sculpted silhouette with the benefits of "Carbon Micro
> Mesh panels provide maximum breathability for comfort, and the exclusive
> anti-bacterial 3-tier molded Ion pad puts padding where needed for
> specific pressure points with minimal material on the sides to conform
> to your movement."
>
> Yikes, I just want some shorts. Presumably the less breathless and
> cheaper Voler shorts (e.g., the Equipe) are less intimidating.

AFAIK, the Equipe is the same they've been selling for years, and that
I've been buying for $35-40 on sale. It's only recently that Voler has
gone upmarket with higher priced product lines, fancy brand names, and
techy gobbledygook.

> I am always a bit bemused by the sport clothing industry. They develop
> a good design that works well, such as PI's shorts of 6-7 years ago, and
> then keep changing it every year to make it "new and improved" but it
> works less well with each iteration.

Or they expand a successful product's name into a brand name for a
whole line of products, often dropping the original good product and
replacing it with a bunch of crap.

Matt O.

Date: 16 May 2007 19:34:57
From: Andrew Price
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:55:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:

[---]

>I am always a bit bemused by the sport clothing industry. They develop
>a good design that works well, such as PI's shorts of 6-7 years ago, and
>then keep changing it every year to make it "new and improved" but it
>works less well with each iteration.

I've also been somewhat disappointed by PI's evolution - at that time,
I felt that their shorts were well ahead of their competitors.

Date: 16 May 2007 16:37:11
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <32gm43pfpjmi1e76ffru490n48cbps5gvu@4ax.com >,
Andrew Price <ajprice@free.fr > wrote:

> On Tue, 15 May 2007 19:55:50 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> [---]
>
> >I am always a bit bemused by the sport clothing industry. They
> >develop a good design that works well, such as PI's shorts of 6-7
> >years ago, and then keep changing it every year to make it "new and
> >improved" but it works less well with each iteration.
>
> I've also been somewhat disappointed by PI's evolution - at that
> time, I felt that their shorts were well ahead of their competitors.

I agree. My old PIs are great shorts, but after many years of use and
many launderings, the chamois is finally starting to fail. My new PIs
are fine for short rides under 50 miles, but for longer rides there
tends to be too much chafing.

Date: 16 May 2007 00:33:07
From: Bill Westphal
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > writes:

> In article <81k5v9n5aa.fsf@westphal.org>,
> Bill Westphal <aioe@westphal.org> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> writes:
>>
>> > In article <1179255774.315762.266840@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Victor Kan <victor.kan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> The ones on the shorts I like are more like 1/8" thick rather than
>> >> 1/4" thick.
>> >
>> > I agree. A thick chamois just bunches up and causes problems. I
>> > have some old Pearl Izumi shorts which have a really thin chamois
>> > and are my most comfortable shorts. New PI's have this weird
>> > variable thickness blue 3D thing that is not very comfortable.
>> >
>> > Who makes good quality shorts with a thin chamois?
>>
>> Boure (boure.com), Voler (volowear.com for non custom design),
>> Castelli (from various retailers). Castelli is way too pricy, but
>> the first 2 are quite reasonable and very high quality. The newer
>> Pearlizumi and Assos have very thick pads. Pearlizumi doesn't have
>> the quality of the others, but the Boure and Voler are just as well
>> made and designed as the Assos, at a fraction of the cost. Also, I
>> prefer unbranded when possible, and those first 2 fit the bill.
>
> Thanks, Bill. I've never tried Voler shorts nor Boure so the
> recommendation is appreciated. Pearl Izumi's overall quality appears to
> have declined over the past few years (I have three "generations" of PI
> shorts to compare) and the chamois is now so diaper-like that it is
> really annoying.
>
> The Voler hype is a bit much, though with "Quantum DSX fabric" and an
> "anatomically sculpted silhouette with the benefits of "Carbon Micro
> Mesh panels provide maximum breathability for comfort, and the exclusive
> anti-bacterial 3-tier molded Ion pad puts padding where needed for
> specific pressure points with minimal material on the sides to conform
> to your movement."
>
> Yikes, I just want some shorts. Presumably the less breathless and
> cheaper Voler shorts (e.g., the Equipe) are less intimidating.
>

I have team-ordered Voler kit with 1.5 years heavy wear/tear, but in
new condition and all I recall is the Ion pad on the bibs & knickers,
but not so sure about all the other great "features", or whether what
I have is one or the other, or the cheap one with the "nice" pad, or
what. I think there was a $10 upcharge for the ion pad, so I checked
that box on a whim. The one you mention is just a little more cost
than the "cheap" stuff, but I guess the only way to compare is buy one
of each and use them for several years, and reflect. I think if you're
going to spend 10,000 hrs in them it's probably to too extravagant to
spend an extra $20 for "anatomically sculpted silhouette" and other
features. I'm guessing that company has to be more on the level with
their product quality than most because I suspect a vast majority of
their customers actually ride bikes, a lot, as opposed to PI customers
in places like Performance Bike, where most customers don't actually
wear the stuff out by use so much as with time, the elastic drying out
after 10 years, or whatnot. I guess it's a good business decision to
make it good enough for 99.9% of the customers, and assume the .1% who
put on miles to wear it out are most likely going to buy high-end (but
inconvenient to purchase and size) stuff with the price held down
through elimination of aggressive marketing. Boure is pretty much a
one-man front end so far as I can tell. Voler mainly takes large
volume team orders, and uses the on-line store to unload overrun. I
think they both rely heavily on word of mouth of serious cyclists, and
reputation, and repeat business. I think they're going for the
"European" quality, and building up a base of customers and
reputation. It's a business model I admire.

> I am always a bit bemused by the sport clothing industry. They develop
> a good design that works well, such as PI's shorts of 6-7 years ago, and
> then keep changing it every year to make it "new and improved" but it
> works less well with each iteration.

Much of that change comes from manufacturing in a new place. The know
it's going to be different, and most likely worse, so they counteract
that force by hyping up the marketing, using lucrative American
business ethics. Ecco shoes moved some manufacturing from Denmark to
Portugal, and it was an entirely different shoe, despite appearance
and model name. I really felt conned by my favorite shoe company, and
that was the end of them.

I had a cheap red PI jersey bleed in delicate cycle Woolite onto very
$$ stuff w/ white, and that was the end of PI for me, forever, even if
I can't bring myself to actually throw it in the trash. I'd assumed
they are going Chinese, and not bothering with quality control, so I
lost all respect. I'd be surprised to know of any high volume
manufacturer not at least dabbling in Chinese, just to keep the prices
down sufficiently to stay in business. Catering to the cost-conscious
PI customer, e.g., comparing to the "house brand". But Japanese used
to equate to "junk", so I guess soon "Made in China" will eventually
be a big selling point. (All high-end name brand hiking boots are
made in China, and are $100-150 and very high quality.)

The Boure is from Durango, Colorado, and Voler, California, but my
legs are too sore to get up to hike to the closet to check where
they're actually made.

Bill Westphal

Date: 16 May 2007 13:13:47
From: Patrick Lamb
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Bill Westphal wrote:
> The Boure is from Durango, Colorado, and Voler, California, but my
> legs are too sore to get up to hike to the closet to check where
> they're actually made.

Voler "Made in USA." (Had some hanging off a file cabinet to dry before
this afternoon's commute.)

Pat

Date: 16 May 2007 16:49:28
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

In article <zf-dnaZJK_hB1NbbnZ2dnUVZ_uzinZ2d@comcast.com >,
Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote:

> Bill Westphal wrote:
> > The Boure is from Durango, Colorado, and Voler, California, but my
> > legs are too sore to get up to hike to the closet to check where
> > they're actually made.
>
>
> Voler "Made in USA." (Had some hanging off a file cabinet to dry
> before this afternoon's commute.)

While I am not particularly insistent on Made-in-the-USA clothing (we'd
all have a hard time getting dressed suitably for work if we were), it's
nice to see that there are some options for clothes made here.

Date: 15 May 2007 20:46:34
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Dans le message de news:fPm2i.37$r%6.4@newsfe06.lga,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> In discussions of saddle comfort issues, I have seen it claimed many
> places that the purpose of "chamois"-type material in cycling shorts
> is not really for "padding", but for "friction and moisture control".
> Why do people hold this misguided belief?
>
> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.

That's because recumbies sit on their brains.
Got the response you were after?

Date: 15 May 2007 15:20:07
From: DougC
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Sandy wrote:
>> ....
>> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
>> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
>
> That's because recumbies sit on their brains.
> Got the response you were after?
>

No--but when involved in collisions, it is true that recumbent riders
tend not to /land/ on their brains.

But this wasn't a discussion of the helmet issue, this is about the
other end....
~

Date: 15 May 2007 22:56:11
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?

Dans le message de news:HBo2i.89$9a3.15@newsfe03.lga,
DougC <dcimper@norcom2000.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> Sandy wrote:
>>> ....
>>> The problem with this claim (and that many people are unaware of) is
>>> that recumbent-bicycle shorts tend not to have padding at all.
>>
>> That's because recumbies sit on their brains.
>> Got the response you were after?
>>
>
> No--but when involved in collisions, it is true that recumbent riders
> tend not to /land/ on their brains.
>
> But this wasn't a discussion of the helmet issue, this is about the
> other end....
> ~
Your seat/saddle/lounge chair is a helmet? You got bad fashion advice.

Date: 15 May 2007 14:30:25
From: Just A User
Subject: Re: Purpose of Bicycle Shorts Padding?