# Shorts with flat seams and stitching inside



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

*Disclaimer*: I used the search function before I posted this. There were a lot of OLD threads, ancient threads, that touched on this. Some of the posts were pretty funny. Anyway, I did my due diligence.

*Background*: My previous bike shorts were high end Pearl Izumi with flat seams and stitching inside. Completely comfortable on very long rides in all kinds of weather.

*Problem*: The previous shorts mentioned above started getting thin from lots of use and washing after each ride. I noticed that some parts of the spandex, especially around my buttockses, had gotten thin enough that it was becoming see-through. Not a good view for persons riding behind me. So I bought another pair of high end Pearl Izumi shorts which I thought would be the same -- the description of them boasted of flat seams. The seams aren't flat where the padding is sewed to the spandex shell. My hot weather rides this summer have often resulted in one of the seams down below sawing a chafe on the side of my otum-scray. Depending on how I adjust my equipment, the chafe can be on the left or right side. The shorts fit perfectly otherwise.

*Question*: Do any of you know of bike shorts that have flat seams and stitching inside like the old Pearl Izumi shorts had?


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

Better question would be does anybody know of any bike shorts which don't have the seam right down the front? In the back of my mind is the possibility of that seam splitting, resulting in a severe wardrobe malfunction and no way to cover it unless someone happens to be carrying duct tape. Wouldn't it be more logical to have a seam on each side rather than dead center?


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Better question would be does anybody know of any bike shorts which don't have the seam right down the front? In the back of my mind is the possibility of that seam splitting, resulting in a severe wardrobe malfunction and no way to cover it unless someone happens to be carrying duct tape. Wouldn't it be more logical to have a seam on each side rather than dead center?


Hm. I never noticed that. I had to go check my shorts before responding. 

That said, if you're worried about your shorts going ka-BLAMMO along that seam, I would recommend larger shorts or underpants between you and your shorts.

Coincidentally, during my use of the search function (so I wouldn't get yelled at by you-know-who), I found a 2012 thread based on the burning question... "Underwear under your bike shorts?" The thread morphed into "You don't wash your shorts after every ride!!??! Ewwww!!! I wouldn't want to ride behind you." and was closed by coolhand.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> Hm. I never noticed that. I had to go check my shorts before responding.
> 
> That said, if you're worried about your shorts going ka-BLAMMO along that seam, I would recommend larger shorts or underpants between you and your shorts.
> 
> Coincidentally, during my use of the search function (so I wouldn't get yelled at by you-know-who), I found a 2012 thread based on the burning question... "Underwear under your bike shorts?" The thread morphed into "You don't wash your shorts after every ride!!??! Ewwww!!! I wouldn't want to ride behind you." and was closed by coolhand.


Wouldn't larger shorts or underwear defeat the non-chafe feature? 

The wardrobe malfunction possibility is in the back of my mind, but it's not on constantly on my mind. I did have a pair of my CX-W tights, which I wear in colder weather, split there once. Of course since my shorts are under them, it was a non-issue.

I'm just perplexed why anyone would design a seam which goes right against the bat and the twins (or between the lips on a woman) unless there would be a significant cost issue to design it otherwise.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Wouldn't larger shorts or underwear defeat the non-chafe feature?
> 
> The wardrobe malfunction possibility is in the back of my mind, but it's not on constantly on my mind. I did have a pair of my CX-W tights, which I wear in colder weather, split there once. Of course since my shorts are under them, it was a non-issue.
> 
> I'm just perplexed why anyone would design a seam which goes right against the bat and the twins (or between the lips on a woman) unless there would be a significant cost issue to design it otherwise.


I'm not a tailor, but it probably has something to do with the construction of the shorts\tights. Getting the material to fit as needed, I would imagine, drives the placement of the seams.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

velodog said:


> I'm not a tailor, but it probably has something to do with the construction of the shorts\tights. Getting the material to fit as needed, I would imagine, drives the placement of the seams.


I always buy the 8 panel shorts because I presume that more panels means a better fit and better movement. 

Now that I think about it, shorts that were made in the same way I think pantyhose are made would be seamless. Not sure about that since I don't wear pantyhose.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Wouldn't larger shorts or underwear defeat the non-chafe feature?
> 
> The wardrobe malfunction possibility is in the back of my mind, but it's not on constantly on my mind. I did have a pair of my CX-W tights, which I wear in colder weather, split there once. Of course since my shorts are under them, it was a non-issue.
> 
> I'm just perplexed why anyone would design a seam which goes right against the bat and the twins (or between the lips on a woman) unless there would be a significant cost issue to design it otherwise.


In my old Pearl Izumi shorts, the seams were there, but constructed in a way that made them flat and not abrasive at all. The spandex in those shorts was more flexible too. Very comfortable in all possible ways.

I should ask coolhand to unlock that hilarious yet informative 2012 thread in which there was a "spirited" discussion about the issues of shorts sizing, and people wearing underpants under shorts, and how often shorts should be washed... all of which devolved into insults and a banning of somebody named Nicole.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> I should ask coolhand to unlock that hilarious yet informative 2012 thread in which there was a "spirited" discussion about the issues of shorts sizing, and people wearing underpants under shorts, and how often shorts should be washed... all of which devolved into insults and a banning of somebody named Nicole.


Can you post the link to that thread? I want to read it.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> Now that I think about it, shorts that were made in the same way I think pantyhose are made would be seamless. Not sure about that since I don't wear pantyhose.


Most pantyhose have seams as well, but since most women don't wear them commando, it's a non-issue. There are seamless pantyhose, but they are very expensive.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Lombard said:


> Can you post the link to that thread? I want to read it.


https://forums.roadbikereview.com/g...mois-no-underwear-how-do-you-ride-276095.html


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

SPlKE said:


> https://forums.roadbikereview.com/g...mois-no-underwear-how-do-you-ride-276095.html


Oh, that was entertaining. Nicole was apparently one of those impulsive posters - think 11spd, who had some even worse behavior in other threads which got her perma banned. 

OK, back on topic.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

More panels bad. Less panels good. Seams, bad. All of them. Go buy Assos. Done.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

I'll check em out.


----------



## Lombard (May 8, 2014)

PBL450 said:


> More panels bad. Less panels good. Seams, bad. All of them. Go buy Assos. Done.


I have some Assos shorts. They still have a seam that rubs the junk.


----------



## SPlKE (Sep 10, 2007)

Circling back here with some exciting news.

So it wasn't that the seams in my shorts were causing abrasions on the side of scrote and other closely associated stuff.

The culprit was my buttocks which were pulling my shorts too tight.

After working out on and cutting down on the chow and (some of) the beer for a few weeks, my 'tocks must have been smaller, and my shorts weren't pulled so tight around my front crotchal area anymore. Wallah. No abrasion after today's 30 mile ride.


----------

