Why no Fat sized cycling clothing?

rumbataz

I've accrued a fair amount of cycling clothing over the last couple of years and I always find it a very snug fit. I usually have to order 1-2 sizes up. I'm not the right shape for a typical cyclist as I do a lot of strength and weight-training these days so have a very large chest (46") and very broad shoulders. My waist is a 'trim' 36" (not bad for me considering what it was a couple of years ago! ).

So you see the problem. The majority of cycling clothing is designed for very thin people - basically skeletons with a bit of skin on them. So, cycling clothing manufacturers: please do some Lycra gear in Fat sizes! Thanks.

It's only a matter of time before the zipper on my jersey gives way under the strain...

cougie

Even normal people struggle with sizing for bike kit.
I'm pretty skinny and I have to wear XL longs from some brands. It's just weird but there is still plenty of choice.

nick-gti

http://fatladattheback.com/

Thigh_burn

rumbataz wrote:

...I usually have to order 1-2 sizes up. I'm not the right shape for a typical cyclist as I do a lot of strength and weight-training...

I'm with you on this, similarly do a lot of strength training, with broad chest. I'm not quite your dimensions, but find certain brands are fine, others are a nightmare. I don't bother with Castelli. But I do find some are fine: Torm, Gore, Endura, Cafe du Cycliste, some of the Rapha stuff.

homers_double

Same as the above, I find the elitist stuff is a definate no go but in the likes of Gore, Endura, DHB etc I'm an XXL (possibly an XL but that mugh make me look like a bashed up sausage)

haydenm

Because it's unsightly?

I jest, I'm bordering on midget and my size small Castelli bib tights scare the local old ladies...

bristolpete

I am similar, bigger upper body, just because that's how Jesus' Dad made me. Another tip, but buy mountain biking kit, but one or two sizes down, thus a medium, maybe a large endura humvee MTB jersey will fit better than an 3Xl race cut shirt from a.n.other brand. The only issue on the road is a longer back, so don't over load the pockets....

singleton

rumbataz wrote:

basically skeletons with a bit of skin on them.

Hey, woah there big fella....

I probably am on the "lean" side of slim, but if I ride my bike a lot then that's what happens to me - which is also perhaps why cycle clothing manufacturers make more clothing in slimmer sizes.

chris_bass

rumbataz wrote:

The majority of cycling clothing is designed for very thin people

As a relatively thin person I have to disagree on this. to get stuff to fit my body either the sleeves/legs are far too short. so it is either show a bit of wrist/ankle or have something flapping about in the breeze.

bristolpete

Here is the issue -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitruvian_Man

I suspect clothing brands use this !?!?!? ;-)

itboffin

Gap in the market, why not do something about it

rumbataz

I imagine there's a lot of leisure riders who don't have lithe, svelte body shapes but still like to make an effort when they get into their cycling clobber. So, yes. there's definitely a gap in the market for 'Fat' sized (or 'dad bod') cycling attire.

bristolpete

http://fatladattheback.com/

rick_chasey

Chris Bass wrote:

rumbataz wrote:

The majority of cycling clothing is designed for very thin people

As a relatively thin person I have to disagree on this. to get stuff to fit my body either the sleeves/legs are far too short. so it is either show a bit of wrist/ankle or have something flapping about in the breeze.

Yup.

Majority of kit makes are too big for me even in their smallest size. I'm small & skinny but I'm not a borrower..!

Over 8 years I've narrowed it down now to a few brands that can cater for it.

verylonglegs

It is down to trying different brands and finding which ones suit you best. My kit has now been honed down to a mix of 3 brands which have the right fit, I only buy the same brand and size of shorts for example. Very boring I admit but everytime I have a rush of blood and buy something else just because it's in a sale I get burned (Almost literally once with a bad chafing in the crotch area. didn't wear those shorts again.)

neeb

Rick Chasey wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

rumbataz wrote:

The majority of cycling clothing is designed for very thin people

As a relatively thin person I have to disagree on this. to get stuff to fit my body either the sleeves/legs are far too short. so it is either show a bit of wrist/ankle or have something flapping about in the breeze.

Yup.

Majority of kit makes are too big for me even in their smallest size. I'm small & skinny but I'm not a borrower..!

Over 8 years I've narrowed it down now to a few brands that can cater for it.

Yes, spare a thought for the few of us in today's dysfunctional society who aren't fat and don't see any need to artificially inflate upper body musculature to conform to the bizarre contemporary stereotype. Castelli size S fits me nicely, thank-you-very-much (I'm 5'9", which is pretty much average human male height), but even most other cycling brands don't do a small enough size to fit what is (basically) default human normal. Outside cycling clothing everything is too big.

It wasn't always this way. I'm 49 yo and 30 years ago I was wearing size M in most clothes (I'm pretty much the same size now as I was then). Now I am XS (if that size is made, which it usually isn't).

Oh, and lay off the skeleton & skin thing if you want us normal people to continue to be polite and diplomatic about your own size.. :twisted:

redvee

I've just bought this jersey, in XL of course.

http://www.aliexpress.com/item/N-M-2016 ... .56.396gq8

Will see what comments my work colleagues have to say whan they read the wording on it.

debeli

rumbataz wrote:

I've accrued a fair amount of cycling clothing over the last couple of years and I always find it a very snug fit. I usually have to order 1-2 sizes up. I'm not the right shape for a typical cyclist as I do a lot of strength and weight-training these days so have a very large chest (46") and very broad shoulders. My waist is a 'trim' 36" (not bad for me considering what it was a couple of years ago! ).

So you see the problem. The majority of cycling clothing is designed for very thin people - basically skeletons with a bit of skin on them. So, cycling clothing manufacturers: please do some Lycra gear in Fat sizes! Thanks.

It's only a matter of time before the zipper on my jersey gives way under the strain...

There are several answers to this question. The most simple is that the market does not identify a profitable gap for larger sizes. If there were a market, demand would ensure that it was satisfied.

But... why the need?

I do appreciate cycling shorts, but that does not seem to be an issue here.

As to cycling tops, there are many alternatives that will in no way compromise the pleasure of a ride or the speed of your progress.

There are advantages in having pockets to the rear, but that aside, many other sport or activity tops will suffice.

I have lined, long-sleeved tops, but in cruel weather I often go out for a ride in an old, baggy sweatshirt. Similarly, a t-shirt or (God forbid) a football shirt seems to do OK for a summer blast. As long as you have shorts, shoes and gloves that fit, the top is an easy thing to substitute.

deejaysee

Castelli sizing though loooooooooooool
I'm typically a medium or large and i had to buy an XXL jersey

guy.spartacus

Yes, spare a thought for the few of us in today's dysfunctional society who aren't fat and don't see any need to artificially inflate upper body musculature to conform to the bizarre contemporary stereotype. Castelli size S fits me nicely, thank-you-very-much (I'm 5'9", which is pretty much average human male height), but even most other cycling brands don't do a small enough size to fit what is (basically) default human normal. Outside cycling clothing everything is too big.

It wasn't always this way. I'm 49 yo and 30 years ago I was wearing size M in most clothes (I'm pretty much the same size now as I was then). Now I am XS (if that size is made, which it usually isn't).

Oh, and lay off the skeleton & skin thing if you want us normal people to continue to be polite and diplomatic about your own size.. :twisted:

You don't sound at all bitter about your small stature...

Your 'default human normal' seems to be well below average - I'd assume clothing manufacturers make clothes to fit the widest (no pun intended) range of people.

neeb

guy.spartacus wrote:

You don't sound at all bitter about your small stature...

Your 'default human normal' seems to be well below average - I'd assume clothing manufacturers make clothes to fit the widest (no pun intended) range of people.

The facts:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _worldwide

I'm almost exactly average height for the UK, and will be above average in a global context. But as you say, it's wideness that's the biggest issue... Fat is now normal, which means that it's increasingly dificult to get clothes that fit if you're not fat. The worst thing is shirts and tops with built-in paunches! Most clothes these days aren't actually tailored, i.e. they assume that peope are the same width around the waist as they are around the chest.. That's not healthy or normal.

guy.spartacus

neeb wrote:

The facts:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _worldwide

I'm almost exactly average height for the UK, and will be above average in a global context. But as you say, it's wideness that's the biggest issue... Fat is now normal, which means that it's increasingly dificult to get clothes that fit if you're not fat. The worst thing is shirts and tops with built-in paunches! Most clothes these days aren't actually tailored, i.e. they assume that peope are the same width around the waist as they are around the chest.. That's not healthy or normal.

So..anyone bigger than you is fat?

ok..

neeb

guy.spartacus wrote:

So..anyone bigger than you is fat?
ok..

No.. although anyone whose waist is the same diameter as their chest (or larger) certainly is, and anyone taller than about 5'10" is above average height.

guy.spartacus

Yeah - that's how averages work though