D
DougC
Guest
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?
~
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?
~