open topic, for anything cycling related.
16 posts • Page 1 of 1
I've started to ride more now and have felt the need to wear knicks because I have heard they reduce chafing.
Before I rush out to buy them though I just wondered, are they worn with or without underwear? Also, are they effective if other shorts are worn over the top?
I ride a mountain bike and I've also heard about "shy shorts" or mountain bike shorts , are these basically a short with a knick inner?
I wear them (to look the part) because they are more comfy than just wearing normal shorts. I wear without grundies. They cause pain where the seams are. Give both a try. Its individual preferance.
oohhhh shiny new bike parts : -)
The purpose of cycling knicks is to avoid seams and pressure points where it can turn into sores on repeated rubbing. So it's best to wear them without underwears or you are defeating its purpose. Also, when you get the right size (nice and tight fit), there's no real room for undies.
However, you can wear underwear if you want and I have found it's not much of an issue when worn with looser fitting knicks for short ride. But for anything greater than 25-30km, I can definitely feel the difference. At 50km, you are likely to be sorry for wearing undies.
Bianchi, Ridley, Montague, GT, Garmin and All things Apple
I have Netti Shy Shorts and Netti Twilight Nix. Both cost the same. ($80)
Shy shorts are more durable (nylon outer) and have pockets. The quality of the inner isn't that great and the seat pad is pretty low end. On a good MTB comfort saddle I find them fine.
Twilight Nix are Netti Pronix with reflective panels. They are more comfortable, esp on a road saddle, the pad is much better, prevents you from feeling damp and sweaty "there".
+1 Wear with no undies. Wash after each use.
Basically, if you want comfort and just comfort, you get more for your money in conventional bike shorts.
If you want mid-level comfort/style/durability bike clothes, ground effect Ranchsliders or Supertankers might be the way to go. You wear them with undies, but they have a thin pad-like thing to stop your legs from chafing. (groundeffect.co.nz) They also have neat zipped pockets, and a pump pocket, and microfibre lined knees.
These shorts are a pretty good buy
Burn plenty of Glycogen
Frame Size Calculator.....Park Tools Repair Guides Frame Size Calculator.....Rolling Resistance.....Rolling Performance.....Sheldon Brown's Bicycle Technical Info
training log.....Body-Mass Index, Waist-to-Height Ratio, Basal Metaboic Rate
Bicycle FAQs.....Bicycle Safety.....Cadence in Cycling.....Types of Bicycles
If the R-1 rule is broken, what happens to N+1?
Second the motion, AND you can wear them anywhere without getting "those" looks from the uninitiated
[quote="mikesbytes"]These shorts are a pretty good buy
I work a day or two a week at Cycling and Sports Clothing and agree with Mike. These knicks have exactly the same insert as the more expensive knicks, but miss out on the silicon leg grippers. If you have skinny thighs they tend to creep a bit, but are very good value.
I'm happy to be wrong, but ... the 'Ghia' bibknicks have an orange insert which is very different from the blue one in the 'Club' and 'Peleton' ones. Well, at least mine do.
Sorry Lucky Pierre, you are absolutely correct. I didn't explain myself correctly. What I meant was that the cheaper 'Club' knicks (shorts) have the same insert as the more expensive 'Pro peleton' knicks (shorts).
The 'Ghia' Bibknicks have, as you say, the orange 4 way stretch insert. I have a pair of these and find them quite comfortable.... much better than the blue insert in the shorts. Not up to the comfort standard of $200 Santini T-Gels, but damn good value for money.
I bought some longs (netti) recently for winter thinking that they would have the padding like knicks in them but to my surprise they don't.
Are you supposed to wear knicks under longs?
P.S. If you are 155cm tall and stocky, good lick getting longs that fit. Your probably better going with knicks + leg warmers
Also consider if you are going to lose weight. I bought Mediums (34) and now after cycling two months, my legs have lost some weight and my waist is more like 32 (small)
Because they are effectively 'waistless' - no pressure over your stomach (well, there would be if there was less of it) and they stay 'up' better. I was a bit dubious when people said: "If you try them, you'll never go back" but I think that they're right.
I wear the netti shyshorts and basicshyshorts. I like them. Did 100km in the basics without a problem.
The Shyshorts are longer than the basics, the basics are cut more like sports shorts. The pocket is useful though I only carry a key and a handkerchief in it - the rest goes in the rear pockets of my jersey.
I've also got Netti's undernix with the full, pro padding - these are basically nix designed to be worn under shorts. Although the padding is much thicker, I don't find them any more comfortable than the shyshorts.
The abbrasion resistance of the Shyshorts is very good too - I was wearing the basics when I dropped the Black Beast (both times - they're my favourite shorts) and there isn't a mark on them ... mind you, the big 'air bag' that protrudes over the top might have protected them
While you can buy 'longknicks', most 'longs' aren't padded - you just wear them over your knicks. I have the Netti 'Super roubaix' ones (with foot stirrups) and they are fine. They've only been out of the cupboard twice so far this autumn, but I'm sure that it's not going to be long before they are necessary every morning.
Cheers Pierre, Thanks.
16 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: tawacool