Washing your cycling shorts

powenb

Hi all,

I need to ask a (perhaps rather obvious to some of you) question.
If you cycle to work in padded lycra shorts, what do you do with them in the evening and next day?
As in, do you just use them again the next day?
Do you wash them in the sink with anti-bac hand wash?
Do you wash them in the washing machine every night?
Do you have several pairs and wear a clean pair every day?

I'm really interested to hear.

I had two pairs which I would wash in a hand basin with anti-bac hand wash, but use the dry pair the next day. I think this may have ruined the pad as they now seem to make me very sore where they rub, even after 2 miles!!

I'm going to treat myself to a new pair or two and see if that makes a difference.

Many thanks.

Good ridin' !

iPete

Are the pads not anti-bacterial to begin with?

Not going to comment on the frequency of washes during the week

vorsprung

powenb wrote:

Hi all,

I need to ask a (perhaps rather obvious to some of you) question.
If you cycle to work in padded lycra shorts, what do you do with them in the evening and next day?
As in, do you just use them again the next day?
Do you wash them in the sink with anti-bac hand wash?
Do you wash them in the washing machine every night?
Do you have several pairs and wear a clean pair every day?

I'm really interested to hear.

I'm sure you aren't that interested

But as you ask, I wear the shorts for 2 days, journey in day one, back day one, in day two, back day two and then change them. Unless they seem particularly rank in which case I change them early. In the summer I probably do change them more frequently. I dry them on a radiator if they are damp. I don't use any sort of chamois cream. I have lots of shorts ( I think currently 7 pairs )

MichaelW

I wash mine after one day.
The risk of skin follicle infection increases if you wear shorts several days in a row.
Shorts are worn as underwear so should be washed as frequently.

I do a handwash in soap or an easy wash cycle in the machine.
In summer, dry the shorts outside in the sunshine, this will kill off any bacteria that survives the wash.

Washing shouldn't hurt the pad. I have a pair of Trek shorts that are about 10 yrs old and used regularly.

Moodyman

Two pairs. Wear both on alternative days - wash every two weeks so they get 5 wears each. Spray a little anti-bacterial spray in the seating area during the weekend in-between washes.

I shower at both ends of my commute hence I get away with it every 2 weeks

Headhuunter

powenb wrote:

Hi all,

I need to ask a (perhaps rather obvious to some of you) question.
If you cycle to work in padded lycra shorts, what do you do with them in the evening and next day?
As in, do you just use them again the next day?
Do you wash them in the sink with anti-bac hand wash?
Do you wash them in the washing machine every night?
Do you have several pairs and wear a clean pair every day?

I'm really interested to hear.

I had two pairs which I would wash in a hand basin with anti-bac hand wash, but use the dry pair the next day. I think this may have ruined the pad as they now seem to make me very sore where they rub, even after 2 miles!!

I'm going to treat myself to a new pair or two and see if that makes a difference.

Many thanks.

Good ridin' !

I wash mine in standard Ecover (or supermarket derivative) washing liquid in the machine and ECover conditioner. Anti bac wash powder or biological powder/liquid can cause irriation to the skin, esp if you're handwashing and not necessarily rinsing all the liquid/powder out effectively. Bio powders and liquids are skin irritants and you shouldn't expose bare skin to them. I've heard of people who have developed skin conditions like eczma through constant exposure to biological washing powders/liquids. Certainly wash shorts every day (or at least every other day). Much more than that and you risk developing fungal skin infections!

TheStone

3 pairs, only wear each for a day. (sometimes half day if it's wet).

squeeler

To me it defies belief that anyone commuting enough to get a sweat on would even consider wearing padded cycling shorts for more than one day! Get 5 cheap ones, change them every day and bung them in the wash at the end of the week, it really is basic personal hygene as far as I'm concerned.

If you do wear them multiple days I suggest you ask someone you trust to tell you the truth if you have are the person the office secretly laughs at because of BO issues.

White Horse

Wear one day. Spin and rinse that night. Wear again the next day. Proper wash that night.

Lycra Man

I have about 5 pairs of lycra shorts, and usually wear them for two days (4 trips of 15 miles each way on my commute) and then wash them in the machine on a low temperature. In between rides, they get aired dry.

Longer rides get fresh shorts.

I monitor cleanliness and smell far more closely in the summer. If I'm out for a Sunday ride by myself (and I never have a cafe stop = no social interaction) then I'm not too bothered and may well chose to wear my favourite pre-worn shorts, because I have a shower when I get home and Sunday is wash day.

Lycra Man

Wallace1492

squeeler wrote:

To me it defies belief that anyone commuting enough to get a sweat on would even consider wearing padded cycling shorts for more than one day! Get 5 cheap ones, change them every day and bung them in the wash at the end of the week, it really is basic personal hygene as far as I'm concerned.

If you do wear them multiple days I suggest you ask someone you trust to tell you the truth if you have are the person the office secretly laughs at because of BO issues.

I do not understand your point squeeler. I usually wear same pair for a week, but as I have a shower before work and after taking off shorts fail to see how I could have BO. At night, I don the shorts again and have a shower after I get home. Shorts usually are dry, but may have a couple of hours on radiator. If they get dirty/wet/soiled during the week I change them.

squeeler

So you let let your shorts get sweaty and dry out 10 times before you change them? You may well not be smelly if you wash in between but does it not concern you that the shorts you are putting on must be getting pretty rank by the end of the week?

I'm certainly not accusing you of having BO, it's just to me changing my padded lycra shorts every day is the most simple and basic of personal hygene. It must be the way I was brought up. I also change my undies, socks and shirt everyday whether they smell or not.

Wallace1492

squeeler wrote:

So you let let your shorts get sweaty and dry out 10 times before you change them? You may well not be smelly if you wash in between but does it not concern you that the shorts you are putting on must be getting pretty rank by the end of the week?

I'm certainly not accusing you of having BO, it's just to me changing my padded lycra shorts every day is the most simple and basic of personal hygene. It must be the way I was brought up. I also change my undies, socks and shirt everyday whether they smell or not.

They tend not to get sweaty at all. I sweat on my torso and head. If the shorts were rank I would change them. I wear them while cycling only. I obviously change shirt, socks and my fluffy pink panties every day.

iPete

As above. They don't get dirty enough to notice. My base layer and gloves are what really take up the sweat and I only wash the base once a week, merino is brilliant.

squeeler

Agreed on the merino, warm yet cool, and smell free.

Even after washing some of my polyester cycling tops seem to niff a bit! :oops: BTW reffering back to the OP I find Ecover powder to be better for washing bike stuff rather than the usual Ariel or Persil type products.

meanredspider

What's with all this Ecover nonsense? Ecover make products that don't work very well but purport to be "green". The falacy in this arguement is that you end up needing more product (packaging, transport, processing etc) to achieve the same results as a "premium" brand so you are effectively kidding yourselves. I used to work for one of the "big two" (no longer any connection) but we were always perplexed by why people bought this stuff. Worst of all is the washing-up liquid.

Anyway - off my soapbox (pun intended)

I wash mine everyday. 3 kids means the washing machine is on often enough to get away with this

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

What's with all this Ecover nonsense? Ecover make products that don't work very well but purport to be "green". The falacy in this arguement is that you end up needing more product (packaging, transport, processing etc) to achieve the same results as a "premium" brand so you are effectively kidding yourselves. I used to work for one of the "big two" (no longer any connection) but we were always perplexed by why people bought this stuff. Worst of all is the washing-up liquid.

Anyway - off my soapbox (pun intended)

I wash mine everyday. 3 kids means the washing machine is on often enough to get away with this

Why does it "purport" to be green? IME you don't need any more of it than you do the major washing brands and even better you can go to Ecover refill stations and simply refill existing containers. In fact didn't Sainsbry's and Ecover have a huge barney a few years ago because Ecover wanted Sainsbury's to have it's refill stations so customers didn't have to constantly by new packaging however Sainsbury's refused.

squeeler

I'd usually agree with you on the Ecover issue but for some reason it does seem to work better at clearing musty smell on my synthetic cycling kit than Ariel or Persil. We use normal environmentally unfriendly stuff on my normal clothes tho'.

meanredspider

Headhuunter wrote:

Why does it "purport" to be green? IME you don't need any more of it than you do the major washing brands and even better you can go to Ecover refill stations and simply refill existing containers. In fact didn't Sainsbry's and Ecover have a huge barney a few years ago because Ecover wanted Sainsbury's to have it's refill stations so customers didn't have to constantly by new packaging however Sainsbury's refused.

Then you have been using far too much of the major brand powder or liquid or tablet then.

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Why does it "purport" to be green? IME you don't need any more of it than you do the major washing brands and even better you can go to Ecover refill stations and simply refill existing containers. In fact didn't Sainsbry's and Ecover have a huge barney a few years ago because Ecover wanted Sainsbury's to have it's refill stations so customers didn't have to constantly by new packaging however Sainsbury's refused.

Then you have been using far too much of the major brand powder or liquid or tablet then.

I used to use Persil for my whites and lighter washes and used exactly what it advised! The Persil box was much larger but the amount of powder needed was also much larger, it usde to fill the powder section of the drawer right up. Ecover advises only 2 and a bit lid fulls...

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

Why does it "purport" to be green? IME you don't need any more of it than you do the major washing brands and even better you can go to Ecover refill stations and simply refill existing containers. In fact didn't Sainsbry's and Ecover have a huge barney a few years ago because Ecover wanted Sainsbury's to have it's refill stations so customers didn't have to constantly by new packaging however Sainsbury's refused.

Then you have been using far too much of the major brand powder or liquid or tablet then.

As for it's "greenness", it claims to be all or mostly biodegradeable, doesn't contain biological agents or chemicals like phosphorous which damage both the environment and skin, claims that it runs its production and office facilities with a very low CO2 profile and has won many awards for its environmental policy.

But what's all that against a bit of chat in the staff room at Tesco, I'm sure the shelf stackers and cashiers know better!

meanredspider

squeeler wrote:

I'd usually agree with you on the Ecover issue but for some reason it does seem to work better at clearing musty smell on my synthetic cycling kit than Ariel or Persil. We use normal environmentally unfriendly stuff on my normal clothes tho'.

I'm no longer up-to-date on the formulations but there was nothing more environmentally unfriendly about the major brands than there was Ecover. In fact Ecover was far less effective and therefore almost certainly more unfriendly than regular powders. It's just an angle in the same way that Calgon is on limescale (major brands won't scale up your washer). Can't imagine why Ecover should work better on your shorts but stick with it if it does. Mine are fab with Ariel.

meanredspider

Headhuunter wrote:

As for it's "greenness", it claims to be all or mostly biodegradeable, doesn't contain biological agents or chemicals like phosphorous which damage both the environment and skin, claims that it runs its production and office facilities with a very low CO2 profile and has won many awards for its environmental policy.

But what's all that against a bit of chat in the staff room at Tesco, I'm sure the shelf stackers and cashiers know better!

The Tesco point is lost on me.

Following your point, if you wanted to be really green, go hit your shorts on a rock by the river. It won't get them very clean but you'll have minimised the harm to the environment.

In what ways do the various enzymes in "biological" products harm the environment any more than the same sorts of enzymes in you harm the enironment? What they do enable is the low temperature breakdown of fats and proteins so you don't need your washing machine running at higher temps to get your clothes clean (15C now). I'm not sure any modern powders contain any phosphates any more. They werre fillers from the big box days of soap powders. Since the big two have educated consumers that they don't need the big box stuff, volumes of chemicals, processing, transport and packaging have come down radically. I can guarantee you that the big two's processing and packaging lines run far more efficiently than Ecovers - both by economies of scale but also the way they are engineered. I'm sure the powder blowing equipment is far more efficient too. All of this dwarfs any office CO2 stuff - but, again, I'm certain the offices at the big two are every bit as environmentally friendly. I had 11 years in manufacturing, R&D & engineering for P&G (Ariel, Daz, Bold, Fairy). We had all sorts of environmental awards too. But they weren't a marketing gimmick.

Honestly, don't fall for the hype.

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

As for it's "greenness", it claims to be all or mostly biodegradeable, doesn't contain biological agents or chemicals like phosphorous which damage both the environment and skin, claims that it runs its production and office facilities with a very low CO2 profile and has won many awards for its environmental policy.

But what's all that against a bit of chat in the staff room at Tesco, I'm sure the shelf stackers and cashiers know better!

The Tesco point is lost on me.

Following your point, if you wanted to be really green, go hit your shorts on a rock by the river. It won't get them very clean but you'll have minimised the harm to the environment.

In what ways do the various enzymes in "biological" products harm the environment any more than the same sorts of enzymes in you harm the enironment? What they do enable is the low temperature breakdown of fats and proteins so you don't need your washing machine running at higher temps to get your clothes clean (15C now). I'm not sure any modern powders contain any phosphates any more. They werre fillers from the big box days of soap powders. Since the big two have educated consumers that they don't need the big box stuff, volumes of chemicals, processing, transport and packaging have come down radically. I can guarantee you that the big two's processing and packaging lines run far more efficiently than Ecovers - both by economies of scale but also the way they are engineered. I'm sure the powder blowing equipment is far more efficient too. All of this dwarfs any office CO2 stuff - but, again, I'm certain the offices at the big two are every bit as environmentally friendly. I had 11 years in manufacturing, R&D & engineering for P&G (Ariel, Daz, Bold, Fairy). We had all sorts of environmental awards too. But they weren't a marketing gimmick.

Honestly, don't fall for the hype.

When you said "big 2" I assumed you meant a big supermarket...! I misunderstood...

I have always understood that biological enzymes in bio washing powder take longer to break down and disperse in the environment than non bio solutions, however as you say, they allow washing at a lower temperature. As for phosphorous, I'm sure I saw it listed as an ingredient on the side of a washing powder box quite recently... I'm sure it's still used as an optical brightener isn't it? Makes your whites whiter...

I'm sure in terms of economic efficiencies, the big 2 are far more effective in terms of economies of scale than Ecover. Whether per unit of production they are more efficient in terms of pollutants and CO2 production, I'm not sure....

As for biodegradability, very few manufacturers have 100% biodegradeable products, certainly not Ariel, Daz, Bold etc....

meanredspider

Headhuunter wrote:

When you said "big 2" I assumed you meant a big supermarket...! I misunderstood...

I have always understood that biological enzymes in bio washing powder take longer to break down and disperse in the environment than non bio solutions, however as you say, they allow washing at a lower temperature. As for phosphorous, I'm sure I saw it listed as an ingredient on the side of a washing powder box quite recently... I'm sure it's still used as an optical brightener isn't it? Makes your whites whiter...

I'm sure in terms of economic efficiencies, the big 2 are far more effective in terms of economies of scale than Ecover. Whether per unit of production they are more efficient in terms of pollutants and CO2 production, I'm not sure....

As for biodegradability, very few manufacturers have 100% biodegradeable products, certainly not Ariel, Daz, Bold etc....

Ah OK - I thought there were more supermarkets than 2 - but I meant P&G & Unilever.

Well, since non-bio versions have no enzymes, the enzymes in them don't need to break down (if you see what I mean). But, to achieve the same cleaning results, you either need to substitute them with temperature, harsher surfactants or bleaches such as peroxide bleach. And this is where the issue lies with the so-called eco-friendly brands. I don't remember what the optical brightener is but the environmental issue was with phosphates polluting rivers (in the same way that fertilisers do - in fact, since I believe water treatment plants can be equipped with phosphate stripping technology, it's only really fertilisers that are the issue).

Well - having engineered the steam generation for the UK's largest soap powder manufacturing facility, I can assure you that it used the very latest state-of-the-art combustion technology (by Rolls Royce) and burnt the very cleanest of fuels. I also know how much effort went into developing the very thinnest, lightest packaging using the highest possible quanities of post-consumer recycled plastics (we simply couldn't find enough) and board. We developed the most efficient distribution systems located only a couple of miles from the absolutely optimum location in the UK for a didtribution centre to minimise the lorry miles. I even spent 2 years investigating putting as much of our product onto rail as was possible (all of our sites had railway terminals). They are just the things I was involved with. We manufactured much of our packaging on site (saving transportation of empty packaging) and produced as many of the other materials as possible (surfactants for instance) on site too. A company like Ecover can't begin to compete with P&G on this front. In a later job (for a different company) I put an on-site toothpaste tube manufacturing facility into one of P&G's Chinese locations - again minimising wasteful transport of empty packaging. The standards in China were every bit as high as in London, Brussels, Rome or Japan (all sites I was involved with). Our environmental standards would have compared with just about anybody's. It's very easy to think of big business as being evil and polluting but the truth is often very far from that. The significant changes in detergent and packaging technology that have delivered the big changes have all been led by the big companies. Ecover sells on its environmental credentials and that's fine but don't be fooled that you're doing something great

Blue Meanie

These things dry so fast, take them off in the shower! Removes the road-grime.

For commuting I don't see the point unless it's over 25miles or something.

The sensitive folk in the office sit it in the same car seat in the same traffic jam every day? Maybe you should let them know...

Headhuunter

meanredspider wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

When you said "big 2" I assumed you meant a big supermarket...! I misunderstood...

I have always understood that biological enzymes in bio washing powder take longer to break down and disperse in the environment than non bio solutions, however as you say, they allow washing at a lower temperature. As for phosphorous, I'm sure I saw it listed as an ingredient on the side of a washing powder box quite recently... I'm sure it's still used as an optical brightener isn't it? Makes your whites whiter...

I'm sure in terms of economic efficiencies, the big 2 are far more effective in terms of economies of scale than Ecover. Whether per unit of production they are more efficient in terms of pollutants and CO2 production, I'm not sure....

As for biodegradability, very few manufacturers have 100% biodegradeable products, certainly not Ariel, Daz, Bold etc....

Ah OK - I thought there were more supermarkets than 2 - but I meant P&G & Unilever.

Well, since non-bio versions have no enzymes, the enzymes in them don't need to break down (if you see what I mean). But, to achieve the same cleaning results, you either need to substitute them with temperature, harsher surfactants or bleaches such as peroxide bleach. And this is where the issue lies with the so-called eco-friendly brands. I don't remember what the optical brightener is but the environmental issue was with phosphates polluting rivers (in the same way that fertilisers do - in fact, since I believe water treatment plants can be equipped with phosphate stripping technology, it's only really fertilisers that are the issue).

Well - having engineered the steam generation for the UK's largest soap powder manufacturing facility, I can assure you that it used the very latest state-of-the-art combustion technology (by Rolls Royce) and burnt the very cleanest of fuels. I also know how much effort went into developing the very thinnest, lightest packaging using the highest possible quanities of post-consumer recycled plastics (we simply couldn't find enough) and board. We developed the most efficient distribution systems located only a couple of miles from the absolutely optimum location in the UK for a didtribution centre to minimise the lorry miles. I even spent 2 years investigating putting as much of our product onto rail as was possible (all of our sites had railway terminals). They are just the things I was involved with. We manufactured much of our packaging on site (saving transportation of empty packaging) and produced as many of the other materials as possible (surfactants for instance) on site too. A company like Ecover can't begin to compete with P&G on this front. In a later job (for a different company) I put an on-site toothpaste tube manufacturing facility into one of P&G's Chinese locations - again minimising wasteful transport of empty packaging. The standards in China were every bit as high as in London, Brussels, Rome or Japan (all sites I was involved with). Our environmental standards would have compared with just about anybody's. It's very easy to think of big business as being evil and polluting but the truth is often very far from that. The significant changes in detergent and packaging technology that have delivered the big changes have all been led by the big companies. Ecover sells on its environmental credentials and that's fine but don't be fooled that you're doing something great

But that's the thing, bio washing detergents have enzymes which remain in the environment as toxins for longer but you can use lower temps in the wash. Non bios don't have the enzymes but DO have harsher surfactants and bleaches and need to use higher washing temps whereas Ecover has neither harsh surfactants and bleaches or harsh enzymes and is 100% biodegradeable. I haven't tried it on any less than 40C....

As for phosphatesI realise the techniology exists to remove these from water but is it really utilised in the UK or do phosphates filter into the environment?

As for efficiency, I really don't know. I have no stats. Of course as an ex employee of one of the "big 2" you will claim that they are more efficient. I suppose there are many ways of measuring environmental efficiency CO2 emmitted per unit produced, CO2 emmitted per employee, tonnes of toxins produced etc etc...

andrewjoseph

most cycling clothes makers recommend non bio detergent and no conditioner, to keep the wicking/ water beading/ thermoregulating properties of the material up to spec.

I use non bio powder for all our wash because bio irritates me skin.

I put all the bike stuff in a separate wash to ordinary clothes.

read the labels on your bike clothes to make sure you wash it right.

I don't commute, but recommend a clean pair of shorts every ride, if your base layer is getting sweaty, then the bit that sits on a (usually plastic) saddle, then lycra with padding and little ventilation is certainly getting a tad humid!

andrewjoseph

Headhuunter wrote:

...

do phosphates filter into the environment?
...

yes. ask any aquarium owner who cares for his tank. I use reverse osmosis filters to clean the tap water that goes into my marine tank, and still struggle with phosphates.

meanredspider

andrewjoseph wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

...

do phosphates filter into the environment?
...

yes. ask any aquarium owner who cares for his tank. I use reverse osmosis filters to clean the tap water that goes into my marine tank, and still struggle with phosphates.

I think you can safely blame the farmers these days. By far the highest percentage comes from fertilisers (and my info is 10 years old - laundry detergent contribution was shrinking rapidly back then)

meanredspider

Headhuunter wrote:

But that's the thing, bio washing detergents have enzymes which remain in the environment as toxins for longer but you can use lower temps in the wash. Non bios don't have the enzymes but DO have harsher surfactants and bleaches and need to use higher washing temps whereas Ecover has neither harsh surfactants and bleaches or harsh enzymes and is 100% biodegradeable. I haven't tried it on any less than 40C....

As for phosphatesI realise the techniology exists to remove these from water but is it really utilised in the UK or do phosphates filter into the environment?

As for efficiency, I really don't know. I have no stats. Of course as an ex employee of one of the "big 2" you will claim that they are more efficient. I suppose there are many ways of measuring environmental efficiency CO2 emmitted per unit produced, CO2 emmitted per employee, tonnes of toxins produced etc etc...

If Ecover uses neither - either they rely on Harry Potter style magic or it just doesn't work as well. Selling an inferior product that doesn't do the job properly is just a waste of resource. Running your machine at 40C (versus, say, 15C) multiplied by the number of households that use the product, can hardly be described as environmental. As for enzymes, they're incredibly fragile as they're only proteins so I'd be astonished if they even show up in our water courses - I've never heard of anybody questioning their environmental impact. They do cause some people to become sensitised to them and some people are naturally sensitised to them too - almost certainly why the kit manufacturers recommend non-bio - they don't want the hassle of complaints. They do no damage to clothes and, as described, improve cleaning performance without the need for chemicals that might harm the clothes or environment.

I don't think there's much phosphate (if any) left in laundry detergents.

The efficiency bit is a simple engineering statement. Knowing the lengths we (I) went to to reduce energy and improve efficiency, I really can't see how Ecover could do it better - again, unless an H Potter is on the team. I have no stats (I doubt they exist) but, if they do manage it, I'd love to know how because I don't think it's possible.