I have two pairs of Endura under shorts, size medium which measure
41cm across the flat at the waist, This translates to 32in
circumference.

My neighbour has Boardman Bibs, medium - 37cm = 29 inch waist.

My undershorts are fine and the Boardman bibs were tight.

So I ordered Endura Bibs - Large and on arrival I thought there was a
mistake as they measured 32cm across = 25 inch waist.

Now if you use their size guide (which I did) it states 'Large' 34/35
inch waist.

I contacted them and the reply was they are a 'racey' fit Wow ten
inches smaller = 'racey'!

I bought bibs as they are reportedly 'loose around the waist, so they
don't constrict'.

Am I missing something?

Graham

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:27:29 +0100
Graham C <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote:

I have two pairs of Endura under shorts, size medium which measure
41cm across the flat at the waist, This translates to 32in
circumference.

My neighbour has Boardman Bibs, medium - 37cm = 29 inch waist.

My undershorts are fine and the Boardman bibs were tight.

So I ordered Endura Bibs - Large and on arrival I thought there was a mistake as they measured 32cm across = 25 inch waist.

Now if you use their size guide (which I did) it states 'Large' 34/35
inch waist.

I contacted them and the reply was they are a 'racey' fit Wow ten
inches smaller = 'racey'!

I bought bibs as they are reportedly 'loose around the waist, so they
don't constrict'.

Am I missing something?

Stretchiness? Bibs are great because they don't dig or bunch around
your waist when you're in a tuck and they don't slide down to leave a
gap at the back. I do find that sizing can be variable and in some
cases just doesn't go big enough for my currently 40+ inch waist, but
you are within the "acceptable size range" for "proper cyclists" so
that shouldn't be a problem. If in doubt ask for actual measurements,
but that's not necessarily helpful when dealing with something as
stretchy as Lycra and particularly when you might be looking at
garments that are intended to have a compression fit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 17:29:03 +0100, Rob Morley <nospam@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2020 18:27:29 +0100
Graham C <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote:

I have two pairs of Endura under shorts, size medium which measure
41cm across the flat at the waist, This translates to 32in
circumference.

My neighbour has Boardman Bibs, medium - 37cm = 29 inch waist.

My undershorts are fine and the Boardman bibs were tight.

So I ordered Endura Bibs - Large and on arrival I thought there was a
mistake as they measured 32cm across = 25 inch waist.

Now if you use their size guide (which I did) it states 'Large' 34/35
inch waist.

I contacted them and the reply was they are a 'racey' fit Wow ten
inches smaller = 'racey'!

I bought bibs as they are reportedly 'loose around the waist, so they
don't constrict'.

Am I missing something?

Stretchiness? Bibs are great because they don't dig or bunch around
your waist when you're in a tuck and they don't slide down to leave a
gap at the back. I do find that sizing can be variable and in some
cases just doesn't go big enough for my currently 40+ inch waist, but
you are within the "acceptable size range" for "proper cyclists" so
that shouldn't be a problem. If in doubt ask for actual measurements,
but that's not necessarily helpful when dealing with something as
stretchy as Lycra and particularly when you might be looking at
garments that are intended to have a compression fit.

I've just rechecked all my cycling shorts etc and all measure within
the manufacturers quoted size charts, except..

These Enduras (Large) are quoted as 35 to 37 inch waist. Measured
they are 24 inch slack to 30 inch fully expanded. This has to be
wrong. They are not a racey fit - they are an impossible fit.

Graham

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Quoting Graham C <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com>:

So I ordered Endura Bibs - Large and on arrival I thought there was a >mistake as they measured 32cm across = 25 inch waist.
Now if you use their size guide (which I did) it states 'Large' 34/35
inch waist.
I contacted them and the reply was they are a 'racey' fit Wow ten
inches smaller = 'racey'!
Am I missing something?

I think they're taking the piss and you should endeavour to reverse the
charge on your credit card because the goods are not as described.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Second Sunday, Presuary - a weekend.
Tomorrow will be Gloucesterday, Presuary.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <bhkegf1c2645lbu4fgdluhslv90m6fp941@4ax.com>,
Graham C <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote:

I have two pairs of Endura under shorts, size medium which measure
41cm across the flat at the waist, This translates to 32in
circumference.

...

Am I missing something?

I think you may be missing the Consumer Contracts (Information,
Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (aka DSR-bis)
:-). Order three sizes, send two back.

Also there seems to be a thing where "srs" cycling gear is very tight,
because people think that shorts really squeezing your things is a
good thing somehow. IHNI if it makes people faster, but I don't like
it much.

Sometimes retailers hint at whether particular shorts are like this.
For example I just bought a pair of DHB bibshorts aobut which Wiggle
say things like this:

Perfect for commuters and leisure cyclists

while comfort has always been key - whatever the length of your
commute or leisure ride.

ideal for commuting, touring and leisure rides

rather than going on about "compression" and "performance" and shaving
every millisecond or whatever. They're rather more comfortable than
my other bibshorts which are more colourful but were sold with more
"race" emphasis in the blither.

--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Graham C <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote:

I have two pairs of Endura under shorts, size medium which measure
41cm across the flat at the waist, This translates to 32in
circumference.

My neighbour has Boardman Bibs, medium - 37cm = 29 inch waist.

My undershorts are fine and the Boardman bibs were tight.

So I ordered Endura Bibs - Large and on arrival I thought there was a mistake as they measured 32cm across = 25 inch waist.

Now if you use their size guide (which I did) it states 'Large' 34/35
inch waist.

I contacted them and the reply was they are a 'racey' fit Wow ten
inches smaller = 'racey'!

I bought bibs as they are reportedly 'loose around the waist, so they
don't constrict'.

Am I missing something?

Graham

I found that most cycling kit is well under sized, I’m comfortable in a
large for non cycling clothes.

The posher the kit, (generally though not always) the more X’s I have to
add.

Worse for roadie stuff than MTB as you’d imagine.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 12:29:07 +0100
Graham C <grahamcrisp@btopenworld.com> wrote:

These Enduras (Large) are quoted as 35 to 37 inch waist. Measured
they are 24 inch slack to 30 inch fully expanded. This has to be
wrong. They are not a racey fit - they are an impossible fit.

I wonder if they might be mislabeled. It doesn't seem reasonable that a manufacturer's sizes would be so far off.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)