Rapha 3/4 women's tights

The 'seasonal' comment misses the point for me. It isn't the length of the season but the length of the ride that counts. I own Rapha shorts and after chaffing my gusset on other makes for years I always wear the £150 shorts on long rides.

It's no use saying they're not worth the money if you haven't experienced the difference. Jerseys and macs aren't crucial but the extra cost matters in the case of what part of me contacts the saddle.

If you were driving long distance, wanted to be comfortable and were offered a old Fiat Panda or a brand new Mercedes which would you choose?

Some figure.

The best thing about Cycling is Women's Cycling.

Far too expensive.

Alas, the life of a cycling model - it is not so glamorous where we get brand new clothes for a shoot. What if the model is not the reviewer - the model might not be so pleased to wear a pre-worn chamois, and vice versa for the reviewer? What if the model has to model several clothes on a shoot, which involves getting into and out of a few sets of bibs? Practicality is the order of the day.
Anyway, I think this was a well-written review.
"Would you recommend the product to a friend? If they won the lottery." hah!

I'm not sure why people are having a go. I thought it was fairly common knowledge that you don't wear underwear with a chamois for chaffing reasons. I think the chap was just trying to have banter, and it seemed fairly clear that he knows that the rules are not a highway code for cyclists….only someone a little poe faced might suggest otherwise.

I must admit that he has sharp eyes as I really had to look to see if she had VPL. Why is everyone so over-protective of what is neither a sexist or patronising comment? I've read reams of chat-room talk amongst guys talking about chamois etiquette.

Maybe Mooleur is right and she has to so that the product can be returned. I would be surprised if it is though. Surely a product test should be done in a way which allows replicated usage……anyway I wouldn't blame a woman for wearing underwear for certain reasons and really I couldn't care less if the model does or doesn't wear undercrackers.

What I do know is that some of the women I see riding to work in leggings really don't know how threadbare they are.

But back to the shorts - this really isn't a stunning endorsement of the shorts for the price. Someone made the comment about being cold in them, which seems to be reading into the article something which isn't there. They look good, but comments about the chamois certainly put me off considering these for my other half at £150……though good news, there's 20% off on the women's line at Rapha at the mo…..

This thread has certainly taken a different direction than most other Rapha reviews which is a nice change but I didn't realise some people had such strong views on cycling underwear etiquette. I suppose it's good to be passionate about something in life.

'Designed for those rides when you don't want to wear bib shorts…' (meaning a bit too chilly, presumably?)

'… You honestly wont feel you even have them on.' (so I'll still feel cold - what's the point of that, then?)

I'd probably say that the model - in an attempt to 'provide absolutely no sexual stimuli to obvious perverts' wore some undergarments especially for that reason...
heck she probably even considered a pair of Bridget Jones granny pants...

It's slightly worrying that you were looking closely enough to even notice.

How on earth are we going to encourage more females whilst people like you make such an unnecessary comment.

Did the billy goats get the better of you again?

Tell the model next time that cycle shorts etc are worn without anything underneath - it's so fundamental, it's not even listed in 'the rules'.