Does anyone still wear underwear under their padded clothes?

[Kies]

Tried it with boxers and without, doesn't make a difference to me. Go with wearing them if it feels right

 

[helston90]

Have a look at the saddle. It may be that.

I do rides of 100+ miles in just the shorts, but I will only do around 20 miles or so in cheap ones (Lidl/Tenn=cheap).

I know the Lidl/ Tenn ones are cheap- but every ride (3000+ miles) last year was in Lidls shorts with not a single issue so didn't feel the need to spend any more. I'm tweaking the saddle fore and aft as that seems to have an affect, just trying to find the balance (without spending any money as that's not really an option).

 

[albion]

my shorts were £8 and there awesome quality and have really nice padding

Another £72 and you get to have some nicer lettering on them.

I still have an original Aldi shell jacket with their lettering on the back. I was quite embarrassed with it but years later, in realising its still the best winter jacket I have ever had I now get to wear it with self amusing pride.

It is a bit of a collectors item now too when you consider that they have now removed the external branding.

 

[Leaway2]

I have £17 bib shorts x2 from off Ebay from China. They are fab. The pad is thin but comfortable. When they wear out, I will buy the same again.
Edit No to the under crackers.

 

[Chrisc]

no

 

[Rob3rt]

errmm...if you chafe without undercrackers then wear them...if you don't, then don't...there is no accepted wisdom on this (much like helmets)....do what works for you, not what the velomunari say!

If you insist on using helmets as an example to make your point... whether cycling shorts are meant to be worn with underwear is like debating on whether a cycling helmet is meant to be worn on your head!

Cycling shorts are designed to be worn without underwear just like a helmet is designed to be worn on your head.

Now if you somehow end up with greater comfort using them in some way other than as intended and designed, well, good for you, do as you wish. However the original intent has not changed!

 

[Dogtrousers]

Cycling shorts are designed to be worn without underwear.

I don't know this for a fact but I very much doubt that the question of whether or not underwear should be worn is a design criterion for cycling shorts. Or that they would be designed differently if it was a criterion.

My guess is that the no-underwear thing is just an internet meme. Probably predated by a changing-room meme.

I could be wrong, of course. I don't have an inside-track to the designers of padded shorts.

 

[John Shingler]

I've worn boxers since I started cycling (18 months ish) without any probelm but my wife mentioned she could see my pant line the other day so I've given it a go without. Was ok either way.

 

[400bhp]

I don't know this for a fact but I very much doubt that the question of whether or not underwear should be worn is a design criterion for cycling shorts.

Of course it is a criteria!!!

 

[Ciar]

not i can remember.

 

[Rob3rt]

I don't know this for a fact but I very much doubt that the question of whether or not underwear should be worn is a design criterion for cycling shorts. Or that they would be designed differently if it was a criterion.

My guess is that the no-underwear thing is just an internet meme. Probably predated by a changing-room meme.

I could be wrong, of course. I don't have an inside-track to the designers of padded shorts.

and indeed you are... of course it is a criterion...

 

[Dogtrousers]

"Of course it is". You might well be right, I have no way of knowing. I doubt it though.

But as it's not at all important, I think we can move on

 

[adscrim]

My first cycling shorts had a chamois leather pad and you had to spent 20mins working the chamois cream into the pad prior to going out or it was like sitting on cardboard for the first 10 miles. From all chamois, shorts moved to majority of the pad being leather with a 'terry toweling' area up from. I believe this was included for the comfort of the knackers as they were designed to be worn without underwear.

 

[MikeonaBike]

I only wear something under the padded shorts (or trousers) if the weather is cold; I don't like cold!!!!! In warm weather, padded cycling shorts are most comfy for me with nothing underneath. The only 'problem' I have had was after a big crash, and after being taken to hospital, the shorts needed to be removed to assess the damage........! Fortunately, I landed on my head!

 

[youngoldbloke]

My first cycling shorts had a chamois leather pad and you had to spent 20mins working the chamois cream into the pad prior to going out or it was like sitting on cardboard for the first 10 miles. From all chamois, shorts moved to majority of the pad being leather with a 'terry toweling' area up from. I believe this was included for the comfort of the knackers as they were designed to be worn without underwear.

Wasn't really a pad IIRC, my 1960s (woollen) shorts had a chamois leather layer sewn in - not much thicker than a good car wash chamois, but I do remember it being very soft. Later shorts had a sort of synthetic fake chamois, but still not very thick. Didn't wear anything under them, and don't remember using cream. I was using a Brooks Professional saddle around that time and don't remember any problems.