Pearl Izumi Symphony Short
May 7, 2010
It seems fairly obvious to me that women’s bike shorts should have chamois that are smooth. Maybe not the entire chamois, but certainly in particularly sensitive areas. This is not obvious to bike shorts designers though, and what could be a very nice pair of bike shorts is fatally flawed by the textured chamois used in the Symphony short. Pearl Izumi claims their “Elite” chamois as used in this short “reduces friction points” but I am here to tell you that no, no it does not. I’m kind of tired today so not inclined to mince words, if you haven’t noticed.
Aside from that, it’s a pretty well padded chamois which I appreciate. If it had a nice smooth chamois cover for those key friction areas, I would be much happier with these. If you can live with a textured chamois, these shorts are decent. I like the waistband for the most part since it’s low in front, wide, and smooth, without some pointless tie cord. It’s clearly designed for roadie use though, since the back of the waistband is super high and I don’t need that. Really – who DOES need that? I know that roadies lean forward but really do they lean THAT much forward? How high up do their butt cracks go? Inquiring minds, and all that. I can also tell these are intended for roadie use because they are REALLY tight. They are so tight that they dig into my non-flabby waist and give the illusion of flab which is really not my favorite thing. I don’t see why they need to be that tight, but again, maybe it’s a roadie thing. I just needed a pair of padded shorts for MTB so maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree with these, but they seem heavy on pointless features, like the leg pocket. What is it for? Some roadie thing? What could go in that pocket that is valuable enough to need to keep on your leg but not so valuable that you would risk losing it by sticking it in a kind of loose pocket? To me, the pocket just makes the shorts look goofy without giving me any function in return.
The other pointless feature I do not like is the HUGE logo. Oh, wait, the huge logos, plural (which you can’t really see in the photo above, so don’t be fooled). And the other little patch that says “ultrasensor” as if anyone would care. Not only are huge logos obnoxious to look at, but they render the breathable fabric underneath them completely airtight. When the logo is more than an inch across and in more than one location on a small item of clothing, that’s a significant downside. Little areas of reduced airflow are a big issue when you’re putting out a lot of effort riding your bike and generating a lot of sweat. I guess they just really want everyone to know these are PEARL IZUMI shorts. Perhaps they are reflective or something – but if you’re riding at night you shouldn’t be wearing black and chances are you’re not relying on reflective logos to keep yourself visible in traffic. Me, I am a little embarrassed by two giant white obnoxious logos on plain black shorts – one on the ass and one on the leg and that “ultrasensor” thing below the back waistband. I wonder if an application of high heat would get those off.
The sticky stuff on the insides of the leg openings is pretty good. The shorts don’t ride up and they don’t leave marks on my legs, so a plus for that. I also appreciate the length which is just past my hamstring tie-in. I don’t like shorts that cut off right in the middle of the hammie muscle; it seems really uncomfortable to me. So, yay on the length and the good leg grippy things, and the padding. Boo on the textured chamois and the dumb logos. The fit is individual to the person so even though these were a bit snug for my taste someone else might like that type of fit, so that is neutral.
In general these seem like a pretty decent pair of spandex shorts whose appeal is reduced by a few unnecessary flaws and a ludicrously high price point. Yes, I know bike shorts are expensive and yes, I know that I am cheap about it. For $100 though I don’t want any flaws on my shorts, since I can get a very decent pair of shorts for $60. I wonder if there is something to those logos and if the $100 price on these shorts reflects $20 per logo, or something like that. I don’t get why these are $100 and other equally good (and even better, in some areas) shorts are $60. If anyone knows – the comment button awaits.
EDIT: Since these were shorts I actually spent my own precious money on, I ended up returning them. Every single ride resulted in some seriously chafed girl parts. No one wants that. Back to the store they went.
Comments
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
