Skipjacks

Well...my butt looks fantastic, thank you. And I never wear bike shorts.

livedarklions

Yeah, the 90% or so of the people who ride bikes and don't wear special clothes or shoes sure must be idiots, right?

Why do without them? Don't need them, they're expensive, they're inconvenient if you're hopping on and off the bike, and they're kind of stupid-looking.

livedarklions

In part, I think it's my well-developed glutes that let me do really well with stock saddles and no padding.

Butt I really didn't want to say that.

indyfabz

This is going to end well.

livedarklions

Cheeky.

KraneXL

First, that was an observation, not a judgment. No penalties are involved. And second, I am a cyclist, and have been one all my life. I have a great deal of knowledge on all of the above.

livedarklions

Oh, BS, you implied people who say they don't need bike shorts are deluded by comparing us with people with ugly hands who ridicule glove use. Play your little passive/aggressive games somewhere else.

And guess what? The people who say they don't need bike shorts have been cyclists all their lives too.

indyfabz

I wish I could say I am that clever. Guess I am subconsciously.

skidder

The main concern I have is that the shorts I wear don't have any thick seams in the crotch are that can rub me raw on rides. I've got a few pairs of bike-specific shorts that only have a thin (artifical) chamois in the crotch area, and they work great. I also have some swim shorts with liners that also work great. YMMV.

And I don't were click-in shoes. Don't see any need for them since I'm primarily riding on suburban streets and like the convenience of being able to pop on-and-off the bicycle and walk freely in normal shoes.

livedarklions

Yup, you know what you need for the riding you do.

The key there is definitely YMMV--butts and feet come in all shapes and sizes. It's always so funny when people assume that everyone needs what works for them but those other people just haven't figured it out yet.

philbob57

Pads - not chamois anymore - come in various widths, lengths, thicknesses, densities, seamed, unseamed.... You want something that's comfortable. The hunt for comfortable shorts can be arduous. Those of us who have found comfortable shorts like them. No need to start the hunt unless you experience chafing.

Chamois is a type of leather, soft, smooth, leather. It was replaced by synthetic stuff primarily because of cost but also because synthetics dry faster. Cheaper, dry faster ... less comfortable, more prone to hosting bacteria colonies. Maybe not a great trade-off. Chamois cream wasn't a product until synthetics took over the market....

Cougrrcj

I'm NOT a 'professional rider' and have never claimed to be. Back 40+ years ago, the 'serious riders' wore wool cycling shorts - some with- and some without padding.

Me? I wore my regular cotton/polyester underwear and regular street clothes - or a 'warm-up suit' on many Century rides. TOSRV four times, Hilly Hundred twice and many many others.... Always on a Brooks-clone hard leather saddle. Even on a 1000+ mile tour. I never even had any padded cycling shorts until ten years later. 60-some thousand miles later and I'm still around and still riding/commuting in street clothes, so it isn't any death-defying thing to ride without padded shorts! However, nowadays if riding more than 60 miles in a day, I'll opt for padded cycling shorts under my hiking shorts (for the pockets) and a wicking t-shirt in deference to my 'senior years' body...

GeneO 

No, they just don't ride very far and usually have an overstuffed saddle that aren't suitable for a long ride either.

livedarklions

Oh look everyone! It's the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Just rode 105 miles in my cargo pants today, and will do another 100 tomorrow. But it doesn't count because I'm not wearing the right pants, right?

Feel free to check the thickness of my saddle. It's pretty much standard rode bike.

Hate to break it to you, but most riders who "suit up" don't ride very far, either.

martianone