Tights over or under riding shorts?



Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gs

Guest
The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my riding shorts for one simple reason: if I get too warm
during or after the ride, I can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under your
shorts! I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those who
wear shorts for a team and with to display their colors. Any thoughts?
 
P

Per ElmsäTer

Guest
GS wrote:
> The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my riding shorts for one simple reason: if I get too
> warm during or after the ride, I can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under your
> shorts! I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those
> who wear shorts for a team and with to display their colors. Any thoughts?

Are you sure you haven't just seen people with legwarmers. I've never seen anybody with tights under
the shorts but a pair of legwarmers may look like that.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
D

David Kerber

Guest
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my riding shorts for one simple reason: if I get too
> warm during or after the ride, I can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under your
> shorts! I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those
> who wear shorts for a team and with to display their colors. Any thoughts?

Depends on the design of the tights. I have a pair of UnderArmor tights, which I wear under the
shorts because they're designed and styled like underwear (long-johns). You're correct about not
being easy to take them off; if I think I might want to take them off, I use a pair of warmup pants
over the shorts.

--
Dave Kerber Fight spam: remove the ns_ from the return address before replying!

REAL programmers write self-modifying code.
 
B

Benjamin Lewis

Guest
[email protected] wrote:

> The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my riding shorts for one simple reason: if I get too
> warm during or after the ride, I can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under your
> shorts! I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those
> who wear shorts for a team and with to display their colors. Any thoughts?

Your experience differs from mine -- I can only recall cyclists with tights over shorts, not the
reverse. Another reason to do it this way: it's the shorts that have the absorbent padding, so it
makes more sense to have this next to your skin.

The folks I ride with tend to be more practical than fashionable, though. Perhaps the more stylin'
people like to have their trendy shorts visible, whether they're on a team or not.

--
Benjamin Lewis

Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent. -- Walt Kelly
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
"GS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my riding shorts for one simple reason: if I get too
> warm during or after the ride, I can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under your
> shorts! I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts,

Almost 100% of the riders I see (including me) wear tights over shorts (I'm guessing they have
shorts under, I do). I've never removed my tights while riding, if the weather is marginal for
tights, I'll wear leg warmers.
 
G

Gs

Guest
Yeah, I'm sure. I know the difference between legwarmers and tights. I use both myself.

"Per Elmsäter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> GS wrote:
> > The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> > shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my riding shorts for one simple reason: if I get too
> > warm during or after the ride, I can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under
> > your shorts! I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for
> > those who wear shorts for a team and with to display their colors. Any thoughts?
>
> Are you sure you haven't just seen people with legwarmers. I've never seen anybody with tights
> under the shorts but a pair of legwarmers may look
like
> that.
>
> --
> Perre
>
> You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
T

Tom Kunich

Guest
"GS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> shorts. I almost always wear my tight over my
riding
> shorts for one simple reason: if I get too warm during or after the ride,
I
> can easily slip them off. Try that with your tights on under your shorts! I can't think of any
> good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those who wear shorts for a team and
> with to display their colors. Any thoughts?

I've seen both ways and both seem to have their pluses and minuses.

If you wear them under the shorts the crotch doesn't catch on the nose of the saddle (though I was
going to say on the nose of brian trdina didn't you?) and hop you forward like a sling shot when you
sit down after standing up a hill.

If you wear them over the shorts you don't have to wash them every time you use them.
 
D

David L. Johnso

Guest
On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:56:25 -0700, GS wrote:

> The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their
> riding shorts.

Yeah? No one I ride with does. Most tights don't have a chamois, but shorts do. Put the chamois
against your skin, and the tights on the outside.

> I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those who wear
> shorts for a team and with to display their colors.

Used to be, old wool tights had poor elastic and were badly cut, and would fall down unless held up
by your shorts. Really. But most of those tights should be full of moth-holes by now.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics, I can assure _`\(,_ | you that mine
are all greater. -- A. Einstein (_)/ (_) |
 
P

Per ElmsäTer

Guest
David L. Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:19:35 +0000, Per Elmsäter wrote:
>
>> Are you sure you haven't just seen people with legwarmers. I've never seen anybody with tights
>> under the shorts but a pair of legwarmers may look like that.
>
> Modern tights are the best excuse to throw away those annoying legwarmers. They never have, and
> never will, stay up where they belong. We used to safety-pin them to the shorts to get them to
> stay put. RPITA. Tights are so much better. I have a selection of weights to work for any range of
> temperature when I can't wear shorts alone.

Try Briko legwarmers. I've never had any problems with those, nor their armwarmers.

--
Perre

You have to be smarter than a robot to reply.
 
B

Bbense+Rec Bicy

Guest
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <[email protected]>, David L. Johnson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:19:35 +0000, Per Elmsäter wrote:
>
>> Are you sure you haven't just seen people with legwarmers. I've never seen anybody with tights
>> under the shorts but a pair of legwarmers may look like that.
>
>Modern tights are the best excuse to throw away those annoying legwarmers. They never have, and
>never will, stay up where they belong. We used to safety-pin them to the shorts to get them to stay
>put. RPITA. Tights are so much better. I have a selection of weights to work for any range of
>temperature when I can't wear shorts alone.
>

_ You should try modern leg warmers. My Hind knee warmers stay up just fine. I even use them skiing
to keep my cranky old knees warm and loose.

_ Booker C. Bense

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBQB++SGTWTAjn5N/lAQH6fgP+INM7LkA9yPRAxG1kH+i7Fvcjuneocnp3
8wz6lMHWR1NVD8xXTB4uflqziSp4H5WxIIb9LaiUXShMuDC1E6SmpXIFBePfsP+n
2dIKgXMJk9U7WnROIAzvifqAJO2/fyGvA03A9GKX7ZM+rEDALUno1DtSIyGFeYVz 1BayRgzMb3A= =SwcL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
David L. Johnson wrote:

> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:19:35 +0000, Per Elmsäter wrote:
>
>> Are you sure you haven't just seen people with legwarmers. I've never seen anybody with tights
>> under the shorts but a pair of legwarmers may look like that.
>
> Modern tights are the best excuse to throw away those annoying legwarmers. They never have, and
> never will, stay up where they belong. We used to safety-pin them to the shorts to get them to
> stay put. RPITA. Tights are so much better. I have a selection of weights to work for any range of
> temperature when I can't wear shorts alone.

I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want to be able to strip down to
shorts. But why? Most cycling garments have a wide enough comfort range so that's not necessary. My
most used garment is probably my knickers -- which are perfect from about 50-70F, and fine for short
periods colder (or warmer) than that.

Some places have huge temperature swings within a few hours, but that's not the norm. Usually it's
more like 20 degrees (F), well within the comfort range of most garments.

So I don't see what the big deal is with all this layering and re-layering. I do understand leg
warmers for one reason -- they cost like $20, and will do the trick if you can't afford another $75
pair of knickers or tights.

I will only buy tights with chamois. Unfortunately they're hard to find, and if you're new to the
sport you might not know they exist -- especially if your LBS is mute about anything they don't
happen to have in stock.

Matt O.
 
H

Harris

Guest
Matt O'Toole <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want to be able to strip down
> to shorts. But why? Most cycling garments have a wide enough comfort range so that's not
> necessary. My most used garment is probably my knickers -- which are perfect from about 50-70F,
> and fine for short periods colder (or warmer) than that.

I've had many occasions where I was in doubt about whether to wear shorts or tights based on the
temperature. Padded shorts plus unpadded tights solves the problem.

I have only one pair of padded tights and I find the fit isn't as comfortable as with shorts.
So even when I know it's too cold for shorts alone, I usually wear shorts and the unpadded
tights. YMMV.

Art Harris
 
P

Peter Cole

Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want to
be
> able to strip down to shorts. But why?

I never remove tights while riding, but I really don't understand tights with pads. It's hard enough
to find a pair of shorts that have a pad & fit that I like, I don't want to go through all that just
for tights. I have 3-4 pairs of tights in different weights and lengths (some are knicker length).
 
M

Matt O'Toole

Guest
Peter Cole wrote:

> "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote
>>
>> I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want to be able to strip down
>> to shorts. But why?
>
> I never remove tights while riding, but I really don't understand tights with pads. It's hard
> enough to find a pair of shorts that have a pad & fit that I like, I don't want to go through all
> that just for tights. I have 3-4 pairs of tights in different weights and lengths (some are
> knicker length).

I do too, but they all have pads. I'm a pretty standard size and proportion, so most fit me fine. I
do understand the fit issues, though. However, if you have shorts that fit, the corresponding tights
from the same company usually fit too. And bibs usually solve most other fit problems, but then
you're really kicking the price up.

Matt O.
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want
to be
> able to strip down to shorts.

So you can wear them x-c skiing, too. Of course, the last time I wore my thermal tights x-c
skiing, I did a low-speed but still flailingly spectacular wipe-out that caused them to rip up
the center seam. I probably could have worn them for several more years cycling before that would
have happened.

--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com

Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at:
http://bookcrossing.com/friend/Cpetersky
My bookshelf: http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Cpetersky

"To forgive is to set the prisoner free and then discover the prisoner
was you."
 
R

Ryan Cousineau

Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

> David L. Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 18:19:35 +0000, Per Elmsäter wrote:

> > Modern tights are the best excuse to throw away those annoying legwarmers. They never have, and
> > never will, stay up where they belong. We used to safety-pin them to the shorts to get them to
> > stay put. RPITA. Tights are so much better. I have a selection of weights to work for any range
> > of temperature when I can't wear shorts alone.

My Trek leg warmers, when used with my ordinary cycling shorts, don't fall down. You need to make
sure there's enough overlap to keep everything in place, but it's not hard.

> Some places have huge temperature swings within a few hours, but that's not the norm. Usually it's
> more like 20 degrees (F), well within the comfort range of most garments.
>
> So I don't see what the big deal is with all this layering and re-layering. I do understand leg
> warmers for one reason -- they cost like $20, and will do the trick if you can't afford another
> $75 pair of knickers or tights.

The other nice thing about leg warmers is that they don't get very dirty during normal use (unless
you're a nut and go play in the mud with your mountain bike, like me). Because of that, one pair of
leg warmers and multiple pairs of shorts is as good as multiple pairs of shorts and tights.

My entire lower-body bike wardrobe consists of a pair of cycling shorts, a pair of mountain bike
shorts (baggy synthetic shorts with zip-up pockets and a liner), leg warmers, and Activa Stormfront
fleece tights with rain-shell fronts and no chamois. The tights are incredibly warm: they are
probably too warm above 10C (but I run cold-blooded, often wearing a jersey, arm warmers, and a neck
tube when I know it will be dry and above 5 C)

I wear the tights over the cycling shorts, or sometimes on my short commute with a pair of boxer-
briefs instead.

The plan for this year is to buy a set of bib shorts for racing and some really warm booties. I'm
tired of cold feet.

--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.sfu.ca/~rcousine President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
S

Steve Knight

Guest
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 19:06:10 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want to be able to strip down
>to shorts. But why? Most cycling garments have a wide enough comfort range so that's not necessary.
>My most used garment is probably my knickers -- which are perfect from about 50-70F, and fine for
>short periods colder (or warmer) than that.

I do I have 5 pairs of shorts but I only need one pair of tights over them. if they had chamois i
would need 5 pair.

--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices See http://www.knight-
toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
 
B

Bernie

Guest
"David L. Johnson" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 02 Feb 2004 10:56:25 -0700, GS wrote:
>
> > The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their riding
> > shorts.
>
> Yeah? No one I ride with does. Most tights don't have a chamois, but shorts do. Put the chamois
> against your skin, and the tights on the outside.
>
> > I can't think of any good reason to put the tights on under the shorts, except for those who
> > wear shorts for a team and with to display their colors.
>
> Used to be, old wool tights had poor elastic and were badly cut, and would fall down unless held
> up by your shorts. Really. But most of those tights should be full of moth-holes by now.

Well I wear mine under my shorts. Of course they aren't really tights. They are polypropylene long
johns, and would look like undies if I wore em over my shorts. But what the hey! Keep Stylin' Bernie
 
H

Harris

Guest
Claire Petersky <[email protected]> wrote:

> > I don't understand tights without chamois to begin with, unless you want
> to be
> > able to strip down to shorts.

> So you can wear them x-c skiing, too.

Ah, another good point that I forgot to mention. I wear my unpadded tights for jogging.

Art Harris
 
B

B A R R Y B U R

Guest
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004 10:56:25 -0700, "GS" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The vast majority of riders that I see when it's cold wear their tights underneath their
>riding shorts.

Are you sure? You may be seeing leg warmers tucked inside the shorts. This would look just like
shorts over tights.

Barry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.