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....
~
 
On May 15, 6:14 pm, DougC <[email protected]> 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.
 
On Tue, 15 May 2007 13:18:02 -0500, DougC <[email protected]>
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
****************************
 
On Tue, 15 May 2007 12:36:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
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
****************************
 
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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Victor Kan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 15, 6:14 pm, DougC <[email protected]> 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Bill Westphal <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Victor Kan <[email protected]> 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.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
bdbafh <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 15, 3:27 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Victor Kan <[email protected]> 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!
 
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
 
On May 15, 8:46 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> 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).
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Victor Kan <[email protected]> wrote:

> On May 15, 8:46 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> 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).
 
On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Victor Kan <[email protected]> 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.
 
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
 
Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill Westphal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes:
>>
>> > In article <[email protected]>,
>> > Victor Kan <[email protected]> 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
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DougC <[email protected]> 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
 
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?
 
lightninglad <[email protected]> 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.
 
Patrick Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 15:30:37 -0600, Bill Westphal <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> 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.
 

Similar threads