Sixties....no padding....now padded saddles and shorts....why?

[freiston]

I can't remember but I suppose my earliest cycling experiences are from the very end of the sixties. The seventies were pretty much my school years and I did a lot of cycling then but mostly utility riding (except it was just "riding" [a bike] then), including cycling around the local villages and trips from my home town of Boston to Skegness and Woodhall Spa, just for the crack with friends. All of this was done in whatever clothes we usually wore. I can't remember much detail but I do remember trousers and jeans torn to shreds by the chain and the backside worn out of any trouser we wore on the bikes, especially jeans.

1980 was my first year of cycle-camping and by this time, I was becoming aware (but not by much) of "specialist gear". I had a pair of what are best described as jogging bottoms - a bit like roubaix fleece but a bit stretchier. I took the legs in to make them more like tights and sewed a synthetic fleece insert into them. It didn't offer much in padding but effectively got rid of any seams in the area. Saddles were of the hard plastic variety - I can't remember if they had any thin foam upholstery or not but I definitely remember the hard plastic - and not because of any discomfort. My friend and I had read about not wearing underpants with your cycling trews so we didn't. In the early 80s, with this set-up, I was doing rides of 100 miles+ and never suffered discomfort in the nether regions.

Throughout most of the mid 80s to early 2000s, my cycling waned and became pretty much utility cycling only, with a few sporadic forays into more serious leisure cycling from the late 90s through to the early 2010s.

I got myself some roubaix longs of the Tudor Sports style in the late 90s and used these sans underwear for my leisure rides over 10 miles.

Fast forward to the mid 2010s when I got proper serious about leisure cycling again and I got myself some padded shorts and padded undershorts. By this time, my saddles were modern synthetic affairs with gel or a little padding and, as I recall it, I was getting quite sore on journeys over 20 miles. This improved a little with more regular cycling but chafing remained an issue. The padded clothing usually contributed to this, through bunching at the top of the leg/in the groin and by holding sweat, making the padding damp. Rides of less than 10 miles were ok, whether wearing a pad or not. Longer rides and I had issues with or without a pad, to varying degrees.

Pressure issues were never a thing for me and for me, padded clothing was not to address this. I suppose I got the padded clothing because I knew that that is what "cyclists" were wearing and so I thought I'd better get some too.

A few years back, a friend gave me a leather saddle and things improved dramatically. To put it simply, the chafing stopped. I stopped wearing padding and went to my Endura Hummvees with M&S microfibre pants and that is what I still use. I rarely ride more than 40 miles now but I can't remember having any issues with this set-up.

[hamster]

In the 1960s people also thought that hydration made you weak and that 42-21 was a good setup for Alpine climbing.

It was for this pair.

How much faster would they have been on more sensible gearing? Why is it that people aren't winning on those gears these days then?

[Nearholmer]

went to my Endura Hummvees

Which just shows we are all different, because I bought a pair of those a couple of months back and found them truly awful, way too baggy and draggy. I had a moan to Endura and they exchanged them for a pair of MT500 Burner, which I find absolutely excellent for up to about 25 miles at this time of year (beyond that I’m far happier in thick tights).

[pjclinch]

A few years back, a friend gave me a leather saddle and things improved dramatically. To put it simply, the chafing stopped. I stopped wearing padding and went to my Endura Hummvees with M&S microfibre pants and that is what I still use. I rarely ride more than 40 miles now but I can't remember having any issues with this set-up.

I usually use Brooks B17s, and they work very well for me. Sadly, they don't work at all well for my wife, who for long rides (excepting on the recumbents) will generally go for modern padded shorts/longs. She looked at my rather old Castelli shorts and the (by current standards) rather thin and simple pad in them and wondered if I'd like something a bit more up to date?
I declined, because I don't use them that often and in any case with a well-worn in B17 they're very comfy. Having sat on various... things that pass for saddles on sports machinery these days I can see why folk would want something a bit thicker though.

Pete.

[pete75]

In the 1960s people also thought that hydration made you weak and that 42-21 was a good setup for Alpine climbing.

It was for this pair.

How much faster would they have been on more sensible gearing? Why is it that people aren't winning on those gears these days then?

They managed well enough on those gears. I think Charly Gaul's Ventoux record lasted for the best part of 40 years.

[mattheus]

It was for this pair.

How much faster would they have been on more sensible gearing? Why is it that people aren't winning on those gears these days then?

They managed well enough on those gears. I think Charly Gaul's Ventoux record lasted for the best part of 40 years.

Were their shorts actually padded in that era? Or was it just a chamois to minimise friction?

(Wool or lycra in the main shorts panels? They're certainly short shorts!)

[tatanab]

(Wool or lycra in the main shorts panels? They're certainly short shorts!)

Wool and real chamois. I certainly had chamois until about the late 1970s, I don't recall the change to foam etc. And it is only comparatively recently that shorts (and socks) have become so very long. Here is a picture of me in a 1974 time trial

.

[AndyK]

How much faster would they have been on more sensible gearing? Why is it that people aren't winning on those gears these days then?

They managed well enough on those gears. I think Charly Gaul's Ventoux record lasted for the best part of 40 years.

Were their shorts actually padded in that era? Or was it just a chamois to minimise friction?

(Wool or lycra in the main shorts panels? They're certainly short shorts!)

Chamois was padding. Not very thick padding, but definitely padding.

[foxyrider]

(Wool or lycra in the main shorts panels? They're certainly short shorts!)

Wool and real chamois. I certainly had chamois until about the late 1970s, I don't recall the change to foam etc. And it is only comparatively recently that shorts (and socks) have become so very long. Here is a picture of me in a 1974 time trial MKM crop.jpg.

If i recall, lycra shorts and padding pretty much turned up at the same time courtesy of Castelli in @ 1978. My first pair (iirc they cost @ £30) had the 'wool' insert which i have to say really was comfy but you definately needed a good washing regime. And they were short like your picture although you do have long socks , most of my contempories used ankle socks or on 'fast' days, no socks at all! It was certainly much easier to cover tan lines when they were at the top rather than bottom of your thigh.

Prior to that i'd been using either wool or cotton shorts with real chamois inserts.

[Mike Sales]

My first pair of actual cycle shorts were from Been Bag, with thick fibre pile padding.

[pete75]

They managed well enough on those gears. I think Charly Gaul's Ventoux record lasted for the best part of 40 years.

Were their shorts actually padded in that era? Or was it just a chamois to minimise friction?

(Wool or lycra in the main shorts panels? They're certainly short shorts!)

Chamois was padding. Not very thick padding, but definitely padding.

With well broken in leather saddles, which many riders used back then, masses of thick padding wasn't necesary for comfort.
A lot of fifties, sixties and seventies utility type bikes had sprung mattress saddles, made by Brooks and others. They were very comfortable.

[ANTONISH]

In the 1960s people also thought that hydration made you weak and that 42-21 was a good setup for Alpine climbing.

It was for this pair.

How much faster would they have been on more sensible gearing? Why is it that people aren't winning on those gears these days then?

In those times they were just used to pushing bigger gears - Charly Gaul had a reputation of using lower gears than most and a lot of his opponents found it demoralising in riding alongside him due to his relatively high cadence and calm demeanor. I think his rear block may have gone to 25t
Bahamontes was an in and out of the saddle rider.
I watched them both on the Puy de Dome in 1959 - Bahamontes won the day and the tour.
I doubt they would have gone much faster with "more sensible gearing" I think modern lighter equipment would have made more of a difference.
When Steven Rooks broke Gaul's record he was on a lighter bike and with a better range of gears - I think in 1959 the Ventoux wasn't completely tarmac surfaced which would make a difference.

[pwa]

It's not fashion. Folk who know me well would laugh at any suggestion that I chase after fashion. In fact, I think the lycra look is considered far from fashionable by people who care about such things. It isn't "cool". If anything, fashion victims will try to wear more normal clothing.

"Fashion" covers lots of different niches, not just what's notionally fashionable according to the fashion media and buyers for retail chains, and folk following their own idea of fashion exist in all of them.

Being non-fashionable is itself a sort of fashion statement for many, as is following a quite deliberately and distinctly "uncool" path. For example, the "I don't follow fashion, I dress for utility" vibe with the walking boots, combats, multi-pocketed utility vests etc. which is marginally less "cool" than the surface of the sun, but evidently works for the folk following it.

"Fashion victim" is perhaps one of those irregular nouns... "He is a fashion victim" vs. "I just dress to please myself"

Pete.

My own route into lycra was a troubled one. From the very start, I didn't like the look. Clingy is not my thing, except perhaps on someone with the perfect, lean physique. But I went down the lycra path because it gave me clothing that provided me with more comfort when working hard on the bike. Before that I had done a lot of running, and for that I had used minimal and thin garments that let the air to my body. So on the bike I looked for the same sort of thing, but with that bit of bum cushioning my body demanded. In spite of the look, not because of it. And I bought plain garments with nothing more than the maker's logo on, not team replica.

The leather chamois of old were aimed at reducing friction and chafing, rather than cushioning. And perhaps the synthetic pads that superseded them were also aimed at that, but with the opportunity to introduce a bit of cushioning that some bottoms require.

[pjclinch]

My own route into lycra was a troubled one. From the very start, I didn't like the look. Clingy is not my thing, except perhaps on someone with the perfect, lean physique. But I went down the lycra path because it gave me clothing that provided me with more comfort when working hard on the bike. Before that I had done a lot of running, and for that I had used minimal and thin garments that let the air to my body. So on the bike I looked for the same sort of thing, but with that bit of bum cushioning my body demanded. In spite of the look, not because of it. And I bought plain garments with nothing more than the maker's logo on, not team replica.

The leather chamois of old were aimed at reducing friction and chafing, rather than cushioning. And perhaps the synthetic pads that superseded them were also aimed at that, but with the opportunity to introduce a bit of cushioning that some bottoms require.

I'm entirely onside with this and it shares a fair amount with my own choices. What I'm trying to get across is how "comfort" is at least in part to do with psychology, not just what comes back to you as tactile feedback. For example, when I changed from a hand-me-down "girl's" bike to a "you'll grow in to it" Raleigh racer when I was ~13, physically I was far less comfortable (new bike was a bit big, had drop bars and a crouch position I wasn't used to and an awful narrow, hard plastic saddle) but psychologically I was much happier, and thus effectively more comfortable, than on the old bike on which I was embarrassed to be seen.

Over the years I've come across various folk who might benefit from a recumbent and have suggested one, but the person concerned just can't face riding something so glaringly different ("why do you wear hi-viz?"; "so people will notice me!"; "people really notice you on a 'bent"; "But that's different!"). The psychological aspect of comfort trumps the physical.
Similarly among walkers, there's been no end of people who've dismissed my suggestion of Tracksters on the grounds that "the world isn't ready to see me in Ron Hills!", when actually the world wouldn't really notice.

Now, maybe these examples are all "fashion victims", but I think it's worth realising that fitting in to where they want to fit in is very important to people in general and a very real part of "comfort". And "in spite of the look, not because of it" is itself a fashion niche for people who like to see themselves rising above fashion (that is, those bits of fashion for which they don't care). If either of us were offered two pairs of padded shorts for £x each, identical except for big Ineos logos all over one, and we were offered a small discount for the Ineos ones, I suspect we'd both spend the extra on plain.

Pete.

[Manc33]

Even as kids we didn't need padded saddles/pants. I can't remember ever seeing any saddle other than a hard plastic one on any BMX back then (1980's). I remember riding around on my BMX for hours on this very saddle, the one that was on most BMX bikes. Another thing that was ubiquitous back then but now costs an absolute fortune if you want to buy an original one.