Perfect bike short lengths for women

[Karen Pflug]

Hi girls
I am having a debate with several male riders I know, who insist that women prefer bike shorts longer to cover more of their muscles/give more support when riding.
As a medium height woman (5ft 5") with "Strong" legs- my preference is for bike shorts sitting MID thigh; it's critical they do not dig in to my bigger quads & I find that mid thigh is the most flattering & comfy even on longer rides & races.

I have raced a bit in Europe (road & mountain bike) & most fellow racing women seem to prefer this mid thighs length too?

Does anyone else in the forum have a point of view; it would be great to get some feedback on this & settle the debate!

I also did triathlon & found some shorts are too short which means they can ride up on the bike or the run; definitely the mid thigh length can't be any shorter on me; but longer just digs in above my knee & looks really unflattering. Critical is a great gripper/elastic anyway to stop riding up but also not dig in!

thanks heaps- looking forward to some feedback from fellow riders.
Cheers
Karen "wish I had more time to ride my bike!"

[Owlie]

What do they know?

I think it's down to personal preference. Some people like the extra coverage of long shorts (sun protection!), some like the muscle support, and some people get "sausage leg" and such from mid-thigh length shorts.

I do like mid-thigh length shorts myself, even though the grippers dig in a bit and look weird. But then, I don't like long sleeve shirts...

[zoom-zoom]

I like 7-8" inseam, which falls mid-thigh or just a hair below the middle. Any shorter and I get BAD sausage leg. Longer and my legs look extra stubby (my crotch-to-floor measurement is only 30, so they're pretty short to begin with).

[ny biker]

No one can speak for all women, or all men for that matter.

[Owlie]

I like 7-8" inseam, which falls mid-thigh or just a hair below the middle. Any shorter and I get BAD sausage leg. Longer and my legs look extra stubby (my crotch-to-floor measurement is only 30, so they're pretty short to begin with).

Funny how that works. I've got freakishly long legs (I feel like this thing, but with smaller feet!), with not so much fat on them...I still get sausage leg at the inner thigh. I go with it because 1) On the bike, no one cares, and 2) I don't like binding things near my knees.

[OakLeaf]

What nybiker said.

I think if anything, women's greater Q-angle and more developed adductors means that shorts ride up on us if they don't come down past the belly of the adductor.

My just-above-the-knee LG Neo Power aren't my favorite length (though they are my favorite shorts overall). But I much prefer that length to a couple of pairs of shorts I have that fall mid-thigh when I first put them on, but wind up in my crotch after a few miles. (Which is why I won't buy the new "short" version of the Neo Power. Something in between would be ideal for me. Sigh.)

Sounds like you might do well with a longer pair with no gripper, too.

[jessmarimba]

Funny, I've never had a problem with shorts riding up on the legs. If anything, I'm constantly adjusting them because the leg grippers don't move up when I bend my legs! Im not too picky about length if the shorts are comfortable.

[Crankin]

I started out wearing long (9-10 inch) shorts. Funny, because I am only 5'1". Now, I have shorts that are about 7 -8 inches and very compressive (Terry Bellas), which I wore all of the time, until they were so hot and uncomfortable on my trip to Spain, that I bought another type. Now I also have 4 pairs of the Shebeest S Pro shorts, which are about 6 inches and less compressive and lighter, but have that great wide/flat waist. I absolutely cannot wear shorts any shorter than 6," probably because I have big quads and a butt, while not huge, is not entirely firm. Short shorts make me look much more "jiggly" than I am. It's the same reason can't wear boy shorts style underwear or swim attire. The things just ride right up my thighs and settle into my crotch. Every time I hike or nordic ski in the winter, my lovely Ibex boy short underwear are riding up. They keep me warm, but boy, do they annoy me.
I tried the Terry Bella short-shorts (maybe 4-5 inch es) and wow, they hurt like hell. It's the same chamois, but the shorter length did something to the way they fit me and into the garbage they went... thankfully, I bought them at half price.

[nscrbug]

I'm one who prefers the longer length. I'm 5'6", and most shorts tend to hit right where my thighs are the "meatiest", thus causing a really nasty case of sausage legs...sigh. Shorts that fall about an inch above my knee, seem to have a more "smoothing" effect and don't look quite as bad. With all that said, I have "chubby" knees with lots of flab in that area...so there really isn't one short (that I've found yet) that will ever make my legs look sleek and strong.

[Becky]

As long as they're long enough to protect my inner thighs for the saddle nose, I'm happy. For me, having long femurs, that means at least a 7" inseam.

[SallyRides]

I am fairly short (5'1) and much, much prefer the shorter length shorts. And there aren't too many of those available. If I were to wear the 8 in inseam shorts, they'd almost be capri length. So 4-5 inseam is perfect, but try and find a good short in that length. There aren't many out there. I tend to go with the shortest length decent short I can find, and then roll them up, if needed.

All depends on body size, shape, and height. We're all different and it's too bad that it can be so hard to find shorts that work.

SR