Performance Ultra Shorts or Ultra Bib Shorts-opinions
JBIthaca
held up?
Thanks,
JBIthaca
Sorni
> Do any of you use these shorts? Are they comfortable? How have they
> held up?
My "best bibs" are an older pair of Ultras. Unfortunately, they changed the
material last year to something stretchier and slipperier (fun making up
words), and I don't care for it nearly as much. YMMV.
They hold up fine.
Bill S.
(PeteCresswell)
>Do any of you use these shorts? Are they comfortable? How have they
>held up?
If you mean bib vs regular, I'd say they each work for different situations.
I've both and, after an initial period of liking the bibs because they cradle my
gut fat instead of having it hang over a waistband, I've gone back to the
regular shorts most of the time. The reason for me is heat/comfort. Unless
it's pretty cold, the extra material of the bib shorts feels uncomfortably warm.
It's probably not a global overheating issue - just the wrong thing in the wrong
place at the wrong time.
--
PeteCresswell
john
>Do any of you use these shorts? Are they comfortable? How have they
held up?
I started shopping at Performance in the mid '80s when they 1st opened
their Santa Monica store. Since then I have never purchased one of the
Performance brand of clothing that has been satisfactory. I have
occasionally been tempted by a piece of clothing - great price, just
what I need, etc. & bought it (I don't learn very fast sometimes) only
to be sorely disappointed, until ~1995. Perhaps they have changed, but
I doubt it. And I'm not going to find out. I'll buy brand names there
if the price is right.
Good luck, John
cycledogg
Bibs for sure.
I use the Ultras and like-em.
Happy riding.........
Scott
Good shorts, and good shoes, are well worth the extra money. Spend a
bit more in the beginning to get a better quality pair of shorts and
not only will you be happier with the fit/feel/etc... they'll last
longer, too.
In other words, while Performance brand shorts are inexpensive, they're
not a particularly good value.
Jeff Starr
Hi, I use a variety of Performance shorts, and jerseys. All have been
decent quality, very good value for money, when purchased on sale.
I'm a member of Team Performance and it only takes a few orderd to be
ahead.
I had one problem with a pair of the gel pad shorts, the seam on the
bottom of the leg let go. I returned them, after having them for a
number of months and they sent me a new pair.
I like the Ultras, but prefer the gel chamois. I'd say, give them a
try.
Life is Good!
Jeff
Earl Bollinger
news:1141324770.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Yes I have both. Although the bibs are great when it is cooler they do tend
to run hotter though. The shorts are cooler when it is hot out.
Bibs are neat in that it keeps the waistband from rolling down on you, if
you have that body shape.
The major disadvantage of bibs, is if you have to go to the bathroom, you
pretty much have to strip down most of the way to do your business.
That is especially difficult when you are trying to use a portapottie out
someplace. Not counting the yucky factor either.
I also do not like the gel versions as the gel pad is too thick and it
tends to bunch up on you causing discomfort.
landotter
(for Performance at least :P) that I bought 7 years ago. I'd say I've
got three years of actually riding in them and am flabbergasted at the
quality of the shorts. Not Pearl Izumi mind, but the lycra is really
heavy weight and they look to be able to go another three years. A
great value.
Michael Press
<RbWdnbrYnPc2BZrZ...@comcast.com>,
"Earl Bollinger" <earlwbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "JBIthaca" <jbo...@ithaca.edu> wrote in message
> news:1141324770.9...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> > Do any of you use these shorts? Are they comfortable? How have they
> > held up?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > JBIthaca
> >
>
> Yes I have both. Although the bibs are great when it is cooler they do tend
> to run hotter though. The shorts are cooler when it is hot out.
> Bibs are neat in that it keeps the waistband from rolling down on you, if
> you have that body shape.
> The major disadvantage of bibs, is if you have to go to the bathroom, you
> pretty much have to strip down most of the way to do your business.
> That is especially difficult when you are trying to use a portapottie out
> someplace. Not counting the yucky factor either.
The bibs I have are hemmed at the navel; the elastic
material can be pulled down in front without shifting the
straps.
[...]
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
Scott wrote:
> john wrote:
> > JBIthaca wrote:
> >
> > >Do any of you use these shorts? Are they comfortable? How have they
> > held up?
> >
> > I started shopping at Performance in the mid '80s when they 1st opened
> > their Santa Monica store. Since then I have never purchased one of the
> > Performance brand of clothing that has been satisfactory. I have
> > occasionally been tempted by a piece of clothing - great price, just
> > what I need, etc. & bought it (I don't learn very fast sometimes) only
> > to be sorely disappointed, until ~1995. Perhaps they have changed, but
> > I doubt it. And I'm not going to find out. I'll buy brand names there
> > if the price is right.
> >
> > Good luck, John
>
> Good shorts, and good shoes, are well worth the extra money. Spend a
> bit more in the beginning to get a better quality pair of shorts and
> not only will you be happier with the fit/feel/etc... they'll last
> longer, too.
Not necessarily true. My cheap-o Nashbar tights are outliving my Pearl
Izumis. Price is no guaranty of quality.
>
> In other words, while Performance brand shorts are inexpensive, they're
> not a particularly good value.
I have three pairs of Performance bibs -- the standard synthetic padded
chamoise (not gel), and they are comfortable; they fit, and they have
held up well. They are not mega-buck Assos, but they are not crap. Well
worth the price, particularly on sale.
Paul Kopit
wrote:
>My "best bibs" are an older pair of Ultras. Unfortunately, they changed the
>material last year to something stretchier and slipperier (fun making up
>words), and I don't care for it nearly as much. YMMV.
They also cut the waistband higher. You can pull them above your
belly and the don't slip down. The inseam is longer.
almos...@yahoo.com
> I have three pairs of Performance bibs -- the standard synthetic padded
> chamoise (not gel), and they are comfortable; they fit, and they have
> held up well. They are not mega-buck Assos, but they are not crap. Well
> worth the price, particularly on sale.
I've been pretty happy with some Performance shorts too. Which chamois
is in your favorites? The Monolith shown at the top of the Chamois
Gallery here?
http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/shorts/chamois/
Yes, I'm a little obsessed with shorts and my crotch's comfort...
Sorni
> I've been pretty happy with some Performance shorts too. Which chamois
> is in your favorites? The Monolith shown at the top of the Chamois
> Gallery here?
>
> http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/shorts/chamois/
>
> Yes, I'm a little obsessed with shorts and my crotch's comfort...
A) They (chamois, not crotches) all look alike; and
B) Too much information!!!
Bill "any pad but gel for me" S.
Jay Beattie
I can live with gel, but it usually feels like I have a full diaper. I
like something a bit thinner. Chamois seams are a big issue for me --
as well as bulky seams anywhere on the short. These can really chafe.
Material weight also is important because I tend to wear holes at the
inside of the thigh real fast on some light weight shorts and tights.
By the way, I am not prepared to say that the Performance shorts are
better than some mega buck short because I have never owned mega buck
shorts -- in 30 years of buying shorts. I am not going to pay $150+
for a pair of shorts, sorry. I can say that the Performance bibs are
way better than my old team issued Aussi bibs that about cut me in
half. I had to slice the suspenders and splice in extensions and wore
them only when racing (grudgingly). -- Jay Beattie.
landotter
Jay Beattie wrote:
> I can live with gel, but it usually feels like I have a full diaper. I
> like something a bit thinner.
That's why I keep hangin' on to my older Performance shorts with the
"hydroflo" chamois. Not really gel but some substance sandwiched
between plastic that is slipperier the harder you press. So not really
padded shorts as much as chafe prevention shorts.
I've looked at shorts in the store and all the ones I've seen gross me
out. The new chamois covers are nice, but the thickness reminds me of
just that, a diaper with a load in it. Are any of the affordable
Nashbar/Performance shorts any thinner these days, or has everything
gone the way of the infintilism fetishist?
almos...@yahoo.com
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> I've looked at shorts in the store and all the ones I've seen gross me
> out. The new chamois covers are nice, but the thickness reminds me of
> just that, a diaper with a load in it. Are any of the affordable
> Nashbar/Performance shorts any thinner these days, or has everything
> gone the way of the infintilism fetishist?
I agree, too thick is not good. The thinnest chamois listed (as far as
I can tell) are also available in the less expensive shorts.
The top two chaois listed in the gallery (
http://www.geocities.com/almost_fast/shorts/chamois/ ) are seamless,
and not too thick.
landotter
Wow, that's a great site! Looks like the liquicell are very similar to
the old Performance Hydroflos. It also seems that the bibs tend to have
thinner padding, probably as they're usually bought by more experienced
riders.
Earl Bollinger
news:jack-D439A6.1...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
I was trying to be polite, how about taking a "dump" or "crap" out on an
organized ride with 7000 fellow cyclists with hundreds of others all trying
to use the same overused dirty messy portapotties as you are. Bibs do not
work very well in that case.
Mike Reed
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.
I'll never spend more than $35 on shorts again (though I will probably
try some bibs soon, for slightly more).
Performance has my vote.
Now as far as shoes go... I'll agree to spend 'til it hurts. I've had
two pairs of Sidis (road and mountain) last me 10 years each. They fit
like socks and last for a career.
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
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
almos...@yahoo.com
> almos...@yahoo.com 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!
almos...@yahoo.com
> landotter wrote:
> A couple of years ago I got for free an expensive pair of Sergal lycra
> 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?itemID=97&itemType=PRODUCT&path=1%2C2%2C14%2C115%2C116&iProductID=97&bShopOnline=1
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
news:1141479595.5...@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com,
41 <KingGe...@yahoo.fr> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
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
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.
:P
Mike Reed
landotter wrote:
> I've always coveted a pair of Pearl Izumi shorts as they
> specifically?
The lycra wore through where it contacts the saddle, in one of the
"slidy" places.
-Mike
Peter Cole
What do you wear?
41
almos...@yahoo.com 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?)
> 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
> > 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,
> > getting hooked on the nose of the saddle when returning from the
> > standing position. They are acceptable though in colder weather as a
> > 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
> 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
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
> 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
>>
>>
>> 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
> What's wrong with Performance's $20 shorts?
Depends.
landotter
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 :-P
Tim McNamara
(PeteCresswell)
>to be a little less diapery than some of the others.
>
>It's $20, get a pair and report back :-P
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
almos...@yahoo.com
> 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.
Dave Larrington
> What's wrong with Performance's $20 shorts?
Too expensive?
--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Decathlon shorts, 8 GBP (14 USD)
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>The pad is the critical comfort element for me.
>>It prevents chafing and/or pinching from seams or fabric folds.
> 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.
>
I'm embarrassed to admit (despite having sewn several pairs of pants)
that I never noticed this. I just went through my collection of shorts,
and what you say is true, my most comfortable shorts have no inseam
(PI), those that do (Voler) seem to compensate with thicker pads, which
I dislike.
William O'Hara
> 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 :-P
I have two pairs of Peformance colorblock
shorts. I had them for two seasons. They
have gone through approximately 4,000 miles
of riding of short rides(5-10), regular rides(30 miles)
and medium length rides(60 miles). Along
with two centuries. I don't ride as much as
others or such.
I don't think that they are too bad. They
are 8 panel construction and heavy lycra.
I ride pretty comfortably with them. Only
recently has the edging on the outside bottom
become slightly frayed.
Given today's standards, I think that was pretty
good. If I had three pairs then they would
probably last longer. It's like shoes. So
I recommend buying a whole bunch of the $20
ones.
The chamois doesn't seem to be bad. I've ridden
in other shorts that left me very bad after
a short ride. I haven't had the problems with
the performance sets.