Perfect bike short lengths for women

[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.