Tights and bib shorts - will I ever find what I want?

[scotsbikester]

So, my usual cycling bottom half is a pair of Tudor Sports tights. They aren't that tight though. But they are a bit thick for summer, or anything too strenuous.

What I like:

Full length tights, because I like to keep my legs covered.

What I don't like:

Bibs, because it's a faff.
Pads. Most of my rides are short-ish. And I just don't seem to need them, my arse must be a perfect match for a Brooks B17. And you can't/shouldn't wear normal knickers briefs or boxers I'M A MAN! with pads, and they take ages to dry.

Some of you may have different tastes, but go with me on this.

What I want is thin-ish, non-bib, tights. "Waist tights" I think they're called. Without a pad.

So questions:

1. Are the Ron Hill Tracksters thick? How do they compare to Tudor sports tights?

2. Are there any other things like the Tracksters available?

3. Has anybody used running/training/hiking type tights on a bike?

Thanks for any tips.
PS, I'd quite like bib shorts without a pad, though this has been asked before and the answer seems to be there aren't any. Though there are bib tights without a pad, Lusso. I've got some.

PPS I do have quite a few items of cycling gear, so have tried several options.

 

[Jenkins]

Sadly the best item of clothing that fit your need are no longer made - Ronhill Bikesters. I've got 2 pairs remaining that are on the verge of having to be thrown out and one pair of 'new old stock' that are still in their packaging and about to be brought into use. I've no experience of their Tracksters so would also be interested to hear from those that have and what ever similar options there are.

I did buy a pair of 'More Mile Tracksters' which look to be similar to the Ronhills with the foot stirrups and were of a similar, but possibly thinner, material to the Bikestars so suitable for use most of the year. Never got to try them out as I'd purchased the medium based on the waist size (32"-34") but the leg length was ridiculously short on me (33" inside leg) so they've gone back for exchange for the large to see if they're longer.

 

[Reynard]

I assume that since you say say "knickers" you're a girl like me? Forgive me if that's not the case.

Anyways, I have some padded tights from Decathlon. My 3/4 - length MTB tights do have a gel pad, which is as thick as I'd want it. Winter roubaix leggings have a lightweight foam pad, which IMHO is far more comfy, as I largely ride unpadded if I'm not on the road bike. Hybrid and MTB are where I'm at mostly, all on a Charge Ladle / Madison Leia saddle.

So yeah, bog standard lycra leggings / football training leggings / lightweight hiking trousers are perfectly fine, though you will want the ones that have the diamond insert in the crotch so you don't get the seams (and associated chafing) in awkward places. Also, with the latter, make sure they're high waist rather than low rise to avoid, umm, an embarrassing gap between the bottom of your top and the top of your bottoms...

Should be plenty of options in Decathlon, TK Maxx or Sports Direct to suit - doesn't need to be anything fancy schmancy.

 

[raleighnut]

Altura 'Cruisers' available in summer and winter weight and Ladies/Mens versions.

 

[OldShep]

I came out of padded anything 5 yrs ago. Used either running tights or leggings since.

 

[Kingfisher101]

Alpkit Trail tights is what you want. These are light and dont have a pad. Theres men and womens versions and 3/4 or full length.

 

[Jameshow]

So, my usual cycling bottom half is a pair of Tudor Sports tights. They aren't that tight though. But they are a bit thick for summer, or anything too strenuous.

What I like:

Full length tights, because I like to keep my legs covered.

What I don't like:

Bibs, because it's a faff.
Pads. Most of my rides are short-ish. And I just don't seem to need them, my arse must be a perfect match for a Brooks B17. And you can't/shouldn't wear normal knickers with pads, and they take ages to dry.

Some of you may have different tastes, but go with me on this.

What I want is thin-ish, non-bib, tights. "Waist tights" I think they're called. Without a pad.

So questions:

1. Are the Ron Hill Tracksters thick? How do they compare to Tudor sports tights?

2. Are there any other things like the Tracksters available?

3. Has anybody used running/training/hiking type tights on a bike?

Thanks for any tips.
PS, I'd quite like bib shorts without a pad, though this has been asked before and the answer seems to be there aren't any. Though there are bib tights without a pad, Lusso. I've got some.

PPS I do have quite a few items of cycling gear, so have tried several options.

Tracksters are thinner than Tudor sports, but not a right as lycra tights.

I think they will suit.

Outdoor shops will sell similar for hiking too.

 

[Webbo2]

I can’t speak for ladies Ron Hill tracksters but the mens are low at the back. So any bending over shows your friends the bike parking.

 

[vickster]

Altura 'Cruisers' available in summer and winter weight and Ladies/Mens versions.

Not sure they are any more for men at least? Looks to be final clearance on ladies around the web too, no longer on the Altura site for instance

 

[scotsbikester]

I assume that since you say say "knickers" you're a girl like me? Forgive me if that's not the case.

Anyways, I have some padded tights from Decathlon. My 3/4 - length MTB tights do have a gel pad, which is as thick as I'd want it. Winter roubaix leggings have a lightweight foam pad, which IMHO is far more comfy, as I largely ride unpadded if I'm not on the road bike. Hybrid and MTB are where I'm at mostly, all on a Charge Ladle / Madison Leia saddle.

So yeah, bog standard lycra leggings / football training leggings / lightweight hiking trousers are perfectly fine, though you will want the ones that have the diamond insert in the crotch so you don't get the seams (and associated chafing) in awkward places. Also, with the latter, make sure they're high waist rather than low rise to avoid, umm, an embarrassing gap between the bottom of your top and the top of your bottoms...

Should be plenty of options in Decathlon, TK Maxx or Sports Direct to suit - doesn't need to be anything fancy schmancy.

I'm a man. Apologies to mislead (not deliberately)

 

[scotsbikester]

I can’t speak for ladies Ron Hill tracksters but the mens are low at the back. So any bending over shows your friends the bike parking.

I'm actually a man, sorry if I misled.

 

[scotsbikester]

I'm afraid I may have confused some posters, who thought I was a woman. I'm a man.

But it got me thinking, women, and men, are we really that different? I mean, "if you prick me do I not bleed", as the bard said? Anyway, philosophy aside, do the obvious, er, anatomical differences matter that much?

There does seem to be a bit more choice in women's tights/leggings type things.

Here's what made me think along those lines. I teach. In a girls school. If the girls have got PE/Games later in the day they will often be wearing leggings/tights to class. Now, they are close fitting and look like the sort of thing that would suit. However, saying anything at all which signals that I've even noticed a pupil's clothing is a very very bad idea - "oh, those leggings you are wearing, are they comfortable? Do they chafe at the groin at all? How high is the back? Is the crotch a diamond shaped patch? " - would pretty soon get me into the head's office, or worse, obviously.

So I went to the website of the school's uniform supplier. And noticed that they sell unisex leggings, including in the large sizes suitable for older pupils, which would fit me. We have an associated boys school. Our older pupils (both boys and girls), certainly six formers, are, ahem, usually fully physically developed. Some of them are taller than me. So I assume that these unisex things work. I could have a quiet word with one of the games staff, which is marginally less creepy than talking to the pupils, but still a bit weird.

But it got me thinking. Apart from aesthetic differences, how different are these products for men and women? I know men are supposed to have a longer trunk relative to leg length (or is it the other way around?), so that might matter for bib things. But if I'm getting separate tops and bottom that shouldn't matter.

 

[scotsbikester]

Alpkit Trail tights is what you want. These are light and dont have a pad. Theres men and womens versions and 3/4 or full length.

Many thanks for such a specific reply*. A few questions

1.I would prefer to wear whatever I get all year round. How are these in warm weather? I'm not a "high intensity" cyclist, but I try not to hang around either. And obviously I'll get warm on a hill.

2. Do you wear briefs/boxers/knickers underneath?

3. I'm 5'10" 12 stones. What size do you think would suit?

*other posters' more general replies are also valuable.

 

[raleighnut]

Not sure they are any more for men at least? Looks to be final clearance on ladies around the web too, no longer on the Altura site for instance

That's a shame, I've worn them whilst cycling for 20+ years

 

[OldShep]

As a 70+ male in leggings most days at home I can tell you the comfort of these things are great. Waist bands on trousers are a form of torture in comparison.
For a longer leg take a look at Lovall and Urban Trail Yes I wear, carefully selected for seam placement, underwear underneath when cycling.