Breathable waterproof shorts?

[p3eps]

Got the army surplus trousers yesterday, and the Gore Trail shorts today.
Measured the camo ones against the Gore ones, so I needed approx 30cm off the bottom.
measured several 30cm marks, then drew a line to cut.

The camo trousers have zips... so I just filled them with superglue, and cut right through them! No need for zips on shorts - especially when they’re only about 10cm!

Will give them a try tomorrow and see how they go. It’s been pretty dry for the last couple of days, so it’ll hopefully not be too muddy out there.

£15 + £6.25 postage v’s £110.49 with free shipping.
The Gore ones are Paclite material, and weigh next to nothing. The Camo ones are MUCH thicker and heavier.

 

[carlbiker]

Got the army surplus trousers yesterday, and the Gore Trail shorts today.
Measured the camo ones against the Gore ones, so I needed approx 30cm off the bottom.
measured several 30cm marks, then drew a line to cut.

The camo trousers have zips... so I just filled them with superglue, and cut right through them! No need for zips on shorts - especially when they’re only about 10cm!

Will give them a try tomorrow and see how they go. It’s been pretty dry for the last couple of days, so it’ll hopefully not be too muddy out there.

View attachment 43762

£15 + £6.25 postage v’s £110.49 with free shipping.
The Gore ones are Paclite material, and weigh next to nothing. The Camo ones are MUCH thicker and heavier.

Saw the camo ones but was unsure about the zips...they goretex too?

I was thinking of buying some polycotton shorts too, some super versatile options out there for around £20-30

Funny as you’ve done the same as me, bought the £110 gone hmmm that will rip then bought cheaper ones ?

do you have a link to those trousers I like the look actually, I got the RAF blue ordered and the top, going to make my own gore dirt suit for £45!

 

[p3eps]

Saw the camo ones but was unsure about the zips...they goretex too?

I was thinking of buying some polycotton shorts too, some super versatile options out there for around £20-30

Funny as you’ve done the same as me, bought the £110 gone hmmm that will rip then bought cheaper ones ?

do you have a link to those trousers I like the look actually, I got the RAF blue ordered and the top, going to make my own gore dirt suit for £45!

Mine came from Forces Uniform and Kit.
33” waist and 28” leg!

I’m keeping the Gore ones, as they’re great for wet trails - even in summer as they’re so thin.
I thought the army ones would save them getting continual washing... and the pattern might hide some of the dirt!

Yes, they’re stamped as GoreTex inside the leg. I didn’t notice it until I cut them, as it’s up beside the knee!
Not sure how comfortable they’ll be, as the Gore ones are articulated and shaped for cycling - whereas the army ones aren’t.
They should save my normal shorts getting wet and filthy though.
Worth a go for £21.25!

 

[p3eps]

US Army Woodland Camo Gore-Tex Trousers - Genuine US Army Surplus

New unissued genuine US Army Gore-Tex over trousers in woodland camo. Waterproof and breathable over trousers, two pass-through pockets, zipped fly and adjustable drawstring waist. Available in Small/Short size only. US Woodland Gore-Tex over trousers for sale from Forces Uniform and Kit, the...

forcesuniformandkit.co.uk

 

[apac]

Be careful as some goretex army trousers can be stiff and heavy. go for the Navy over trousers if you can. These seem to be thinner and lighter. I've owned both.

NATO sizing.....
Combat Trousers will come with 3 sets of numbers with a / between them e.g. 85 / 92 / 112 (cm's)

The 1st set of numbers relates to the inseam or inside leg.

The 2nd set of numbers relates to the waist size.

The 3rd set of numbers relates to the size of the seat (arse).
This third number I think is particularly important and will denote whether the trousers will be too baggy or tight. The waists are usually draw string and Velcro and are more forgiving in sizing.

 

[p3eps]

Be careful as some goretex army trousers can be stiff and heavy. go for the Navy over trousers if you can. These seem to be thinner and lighter. I've owned both.

NATO sizing.....
Combat Trousers will come with 3 sets of numbers with a / between them e.g. 85 / 92 / 112 (cm's)

The 1st set of numbers relates to the inseam or inside leg.

The 2nd set of numbers relates to the waist size.

The 3rd set of numbers relates to the size of the seat (arse).
This third number I think is particularly important and will denote whether the trousers will be too baggy or tight. The waists are usually draw string and Velcro and are more forgiving in sizing.

I did my research on NATO sizes before I purchased - legs are too short, but I always intended cutting them off anyway.
The waist / bum are perfect for me with another pair of shorts underneath.

Yeah, the army ones are quite thick - but hopefully that makes them hard wearing for my gritty bum rubbing against my gritty saddle!
My previous Paclite GoreTex ones went through in a hole in the middle of the bum - but Gore replaced them under their 5 year warranty.

At the end of the day, my army ones cost £21, so not a big loss if they’re awful!! Worth a try, or even as a reserve pair if my others are in the wash.

 

[carlbiker]

I’m kind of contemplating buying a level 3 pubg military backpack and an ammo container for some reason ?

 

[JoeBlow]

After a ride in the Cotswolds a couple of days ago, across Cleeve Hill, I've discovered that I need something more cow pat proof than waterproof.

I've found an old pair of waterproof trousers in my cupboard and cut them to long shorts length so I'll give them a try today before investing in Goretex. Not sure how important breath-ability will be as there are two large thigh size holes in the legs.

For any locals who may be interested the golf course is no longer in use so it made a pleasant change not to have to be on the lookout for wayward golf balls. According to the local news letters this is likely to be permanent and not Covid related.

Al

 

[carlbiker]

Mine came from Forces Uniform and Kit.
33” waist and 28” leg!

I’m keeping the Gore ones, as they’re great for wet trails - even in summer as they’re so thin.
I thought the army ones would save them getting continual washing... and the pattern might hide some of the dirt!

Yes, they’re stamped as GoreTex inside the leg. I didn’t notice it until I cut them, as it’s up beside the knee!
Not sure how comfortable they’ll be, as the Gore ones are articulated and shaped for cycling - whereas the army ones aren’t.
They should save my normal shorts getting wet and filthy though.
Worth a go for £21.25!

£110 great though? I mean if you could return them do you think you might stick with the surplus stock instead? I wasn’t planning on keeping it all as the gore is so thin. With you already damaged one pair for example I’m not sure it’s ideal for mtb

 

[carlbiker]

Mine turned up just now, it’s all little too big you need to size down I think to get the right fit


My gore is L upto 35.5 inch the RAF is 34....I mean....

 

[apac]

Mine turned up just now, it’s all little too big you need to size down I think to get the right fit

View attachment 43793
My gore is L upto 35.5 inch the RAF is 34....I mean....

They are over trousers, they will always be loose. Have you tried them over your shorts?

 

[carlbiker]

They are over trousers, they will always be loose. Have you tried them over your shorts?

Yeah but my gore are also overs (in my mind) and there fine as they stretch upto 35 inch but since these don’t its more a 36+ really, they must be sized to have multiple layers but I’ll be interested in knowing what fills 2+ inches up. The jackets too big too, same rule....very good quality with the liner, £25 absolute bargain, I just need a smaller one.

So the gore is 33+ and you can see that RAF isnt a 34 in the sense of a size as such

 

[apac]

Damn shame it's not worked out. To be fair I have 88cm waist which is 34" and I am more like a 36 and I have to pull the draw string quite a bit. When mine start showing wear n tear I will probably go for slightly smaller waist and bum next time. Army sizing is weird, they seem to size very large and with really odd proportions.
I think 84 waist( more like 32") and 100 bum for a medium size 34 waist.

 

[carlbiker]

Damn shame it's not worked out. To be fair I have 88cm waist which 34" and I am more like a 36 and I have to pull the draw string quite a bit. When mine start showing wear n tear I will probably go for slightly smaller waist and bum next time. Army sizing is weird, they seem to size very large and with really odd proportions.
I think 84 waist( mor elite 32") and 100 bum for a medium size 34 waist.

Cheers, it’s annoying as Id told the chap on eBay what my sizing was and the intentions hopefully I can return and swap maybe

 

[apac]

Cheers, it’s annoying as Id told the chap on eBay what my sizing was and the intentions hopefully I can return and swap maybe

you have to keep checking eBay for stock. Quite often the sizes available are limited and all of a sudden a seller gets stock of various sizes that you can tailor to your needs. I've got a army goretex coat too but it's too stiff to use on a mtb.

 

[carlbiker]

you have to keep checking eBay for stock. Quite often the sizes available are limited and all of a sudden a seller gets stock of various sizes that you can tailor to your needs. I've got a army goretex coat too but it's too stiff to use on a mtb.

If that the RAF one?

 

[apac]

If that the RAF one?

Yeah, the RAF/Navy goretex trousers

 

[p3eps]

I wore my cut up army trousers out on the trails yesterday afternoon.
They fitted pretty well, and were cut just below my knees - so there wasn’t a ‘bare’ space between the shorts and my pads.

It was a nice November day - average 6degC, with the sun out. Ground was pretty wet from rain earlier in the week.

The shorts were comfortable enough, and didn’t make any obvious ‘whooshing’ noises like some materials.
I’m not sure if it was the way I’ve cut them, or that the thighs are quite baggy - but I could feel the bottom of them rubbing under my knee pads when pedalling. I was aware of it for a few minutes of road cycling whilst getting onto the trail - but once I was going, my mind was on other things and I didn’t notice it again.
The ‘through’ pockets didn’t really help me - as the pockets in my normal shorts are on the thighs... so I had to reach right down to get my phone for a photo etc.

When I returned to the car, I was pretty muddy. I’ve been MUCH worse, but I had a good spread
up my legs / bum / back.
As per usual, I used an old dish towel to give myself a quick wipe down before taking my shorts / jacket off.
This thicker GoreTex material wipes much easier than the PacLite GTX on my Gore shorts.
When off, I could tell that they weren’t as waterproof as my Gore ones - as my bum was a bit wet. Not soaking, but I could feel my shorts underneath were damp.
I’m wearing boxers, padded shorts, trail shorts and then the GTX ones - so effectively 4 layers. My boxers were dry - but probably due to the padded shorts preventing the water getting through!

Although it was a sunny, dry day - the trail was pretty wet. Lots of standing water, big puddles, and I even cycled through a few streams.

I think my conclusion is probably the obvious one. They’re not as good as my Gore GTX trail shorts. The Gore ones are specifically cut for cycling, light weight, and seem to be more waterproof.
Having said that - they were £21 instead of £110.
They still did a good job, and I’ll definitely use them again for really muddy days. I imagine when I look at them this morning, the dirt will barely be visible on the camo pattern... whereas my black Gore shorts ‘look’ dirty even when they’ve been wiped down!

 

[apac]

Thanks for the feedback. I am surprised they let in water as they look brand new.
I just brush mine off once the mud is dry. I find mine ars quite baggy on the thighs, I think this is to do with bum measurement size. I think as long as the fit is ok, they are well worth the money.

 

[JoeBlow]

Personally I couldn't wear 4 layers. 3 layers is 1 too many. Boxer shorts with padded cycling shorts? Really? I used cheap ripstop directly over my cycling shorts but the fabric was cold and noisy so I may have to rethink. Does anyone use a rear mudguard? Ugly I know but if it works?

Al

 

[p3eps]

Thanks for the feedback. I am surprised they let in water as they look brand new.
I just brush mine off once the mud is dry. I find mine ars quite baggy on the thighs, I think this is to do with bum measurement size. I think as long as the fit is ok, they are well worth the money.

To be honest, they fitted my bum area really well. I think the thighs are just big as they’re over trousers. They’re probably meant to go over combat trousers with thigh pockets.

Personally I couldn't wear 4 layers. 3 layers is 1 too many. Boxer shorts with padded cycling shorts? Really? I used cheap ripstop directly over my cycling shorts but the fabric was cold and noisy so I may have to rethink. Does anyone use a rear mudguard? Ugly I know but if it works?

Al

Didn’t realise there was a code of no pants under padded shorts. I’ve been doing it for 30 years, and never had an issue. Each to their own I guess.

I wear my regular trail shorts under my over shorts so that I have pockets - and also for wearing home when I take the over shorts off.

 

[JoeBlow]

As you rightly say "each to their own". I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a code but there are numerous well known "experts" out there who advise against it and they seem to be in the majority, at least anecdotally. I was told many years ago that it caused chafing and was unhygienic. I've tried wearing something underneath on a couple of occasions but was so aware of the extra layers that I abandoned the idea almost immediately so never got to test the chafing claim. It would be interesting to know if there is indeed a consensus. I think my real question mark is regarding the boxer shorts. Baggy garments under tight ones seems odd.

Here is just one line of reasoning: Should I wear underwear when cycling? Do you wear underwear with cycling shorts?

Al

 

[p3eps]

As you rightly say "each to their own". I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a code but there are numerous well known "experts" out there who advise against it and they seem to be in the majority, at least anecdotally. I was told many years ago that it caused chafing and was unhygienic. I've tried wearing something underneath on a couple of occasions but was so aware of the extra layers that I abandoned the idea almost immediately so never got to test the chafing claim. It would be interesting to know if there is indeed a consensus. I think my real question mark is regarding the boxer shorts. Baggy garments under tight ones seems odd.

Here is just one line of reasoning: Should I wear underwear when cycling? Do you wear underwear with cycling shorts?

Al

My boxer shorts are more of a fitted trunk style thing. Definitely not baggy!

I only ride off road, and have never had a chafing issue on 40+ mile rides. I always wash both underwear and padded shorts after my ride, so I don’t see any hygiene issue?

 

[Gary]

Those are actually called trunks. and no you're not meant to wear any underwear beneath a padded short. The chamois isn't doing it's job if you do. and I can't imagine fit is very good ontop of your underwear. Having said that I don't wear padded shorts on my mtb at all. Only my roadbike.

My GF insists on wearing her knickers under her padded under shorts, then leggings on top of those and baggy shorts over the top. Pesonally I can't think of a worse combination. I don't have a vagina though.

 

[Binhill1]

All my jeans and work trousers are a 32” waist, and I wear a Large. They’re plenty big for me to pull over a pair of padded shorts and trail shorts (so I end up wearing 3 pairs!).
I could skip the trail shorts, but then I’d forfeit some useful pockets... as the one in the GTX shorts isn’t big enough for a phone!

Where are you seeing Large on offer? I was looking for another pair!

Can you tell me are they hard wearing these shorts. Just got a pair sending back for bigger size , but not the most robust looking to be honest. Then again technolagy nowadays.

 

[p3eps]

Can you tell me are they hard wearing these shorts. Just got a pair sending back for bigger size , but not the most robust looking to be honest. Then again technolagy nowadays.

My first pair lasted about a year, then wore through on the bum. I wear them all winter, and quite often in summer if it’s been raining the night before.

I emailed a photo of the hole to Gore, and they sent me a shipping label to return them for a refund. They come with a 5 year warranty.

My tip would be to buy them from Gore if possible, as their warranty process is awesome.
If you buy elsewhere, Gore request that you send them back to where you bought them.

 

[Binhill1]

My first pair lasted about a year, then wore through on the bum. I wear them all winter, and quite often in summer if it’s been raining the night before.

I emailed a photo of the hole to Gore, and they sent me a shipping label to return them for a refund. They come with a 5 year warranty.

My tip would be to buy them from Gore if possible, as their warranty process is awesome.
If you buy elsewhere, Gore request that you send them back to where you bought them.

Ok got them from wiggle. If you are wearing them a lot that's ok. So light and packable you could actually just put them on when needed. I will always have two layers on shorts and tights on top .

 

[p3eps]

Ok got them from wiggle. If you are wearing them a lot that's ok. So light and packable you could actually just put them on when needed. I will always have two layers on shorts and tights on top .

I’ve actually moved on to wearing the Gore GTX C7 trousers for winter now - as I can just take them off and throw them in the boot... and whatever’s underneath is clean and dry.

The shorts are very packable and light, and could easily be chucked in a backpack without needing much space. I generally put them on at the start to save my bum getting soaked cause where I am, the trails are usually wet!

Make sure you brush off any excess dirt when they’re dry before the next use. I think a build up of dry gritty mud contributed to mine wearing through.

 

[Binhill1]

I’ve actually moved on to wearing the Gore GTX C7 trousers for winter now - as I can just take them off and throw them in the boot... and whatever’s underneath is clean and dry.

The shorts are very packable and light, and could easily be chucked in a backpack without needing much space. I generally put them on at the start to save my bum getting soaked cause where I am, the trails are usually wet!

Make sure you brush off any excess dirt when they’re dry before the next use. I think a build up of dry gritty mud contributed to mine wearing through.

Hard this time of year im out every other day when im at home. Its a constant drying programme and we wont mention the bike cleaning . Been bad this past 3 weeks not even had snow to get a clean run for once.

 

[Binhill1]

I’ve actually moved on to wearing the Gore GTX C7 trousers for winter now - as I can just take them off and throw them in the boot... and whatever’s underneath is clean and dry.

The shorts are very packable and light, and could easily be chucked in a backpack without needing much space. I generally put them on at the start to save my bum getting soaked cause where I am, the trails are usually wet!

Make sure you brush off any excess dirt when they’re dry before the next use. I think a build up of dry gritty mud contributed to mine wearing through.

Got these camos

today £25 each just need to chop down , not the middle ones though . No stopping me now.