# Anyone using Royal Racing Esquire shorts?



## Sketchemo (Jan 12, 2012)

I'm done with Fox shorts and looking for feedback on the esquires before I drop the money on them.


----------



## MTB Pilot (Oct 23, 2010)

I have two pair of the '12 stone color and they are my favorite shorts of all time. I'm a 33-34 waists and the large fits great. They have kind of the cut as TLD Skyline shorts but slightly baggier. Light weight and stretchy material with a vent that can be open on the front of both legs. Love em!


----------



## mrfva (Aug 31, 2009)

MTB Pilot said:


> I have two pair of the '12 stone color and they are my favorite shorts of all time. I'm a 33-34 waists and the large fits great. They have kind of the cut as TLD Skyline shorts but slightly baggier. Light weight and stretchy material with a vent that can be open on the front of both legs. Love em!


Given your waist size, how do the shorts feel in a Large (loose, snug)? Trying to decide between a M or L. I'm a 32/33 right now.

Thanks!


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

mrfva said:


> Given your waist size, how do the shorts feel in a Large (loose, snug)? Trying to decide between a M or L. I'm a 32/33 right now.
> 
> Thanks!


I am a true 33" waist and usually have to settle for 34" with a belt, unless they fit tight, or find baggy 32" pants or shorts.

Anyway, I don't have the Esquire but I do have a pair of Royal SP247 shorts and pants (both). Large fits the way I want it to fit. There's another 3/4" to 1" adjustment in the waistband (it's a ratchet on the SP247) and they aren't tight on my glutes or thighs. I'm 180 pounds and used to be a roadie.

Back to you-- I would bet either short will fit your waist, but if you have big legs or butt the large might be more comfortable.


----------



## Sprocking Crail (Jul 13, 2012)

I love all my Royal Shorts. I prefer my Matrix and Turbulence to the Esquire, but they are still in my rotation. I'm a 33" and can go either way on M or L. Dependes on how baggy you want them really, the esquire has a pretty long baggy cut, so it's your call


----------



## squareback (Sep 19, 2011)

Sprocking Crail said:


> I love all my Royal Shorts. I prefer my Matrix and Turbulence to the Esquire,


Why? The Royal website is not super clear on the differences, so I would appreciate your experience.


----------



## Sprocking Crail (Jul 13, 2012)

squareback said:


> Why? The Royal website is not super clear on the differences, so I would appreciate your experience.


Well, it's not a huge difference, mostly the cut and pockets. The Esquire has a really wide and long cut on the legs, I wear baggy stuff and it's a bit much for me. Also the Esquire has two open hand pockets but only one very small (iphone size) zippered pocket. I personally like more substantial zippered pockets, nothing crazy but big enough to hold a bag of gummies and my keys. The Esquire does have leg vents which are neat, but I don't miss them on my shorts without them.

If I had to ride one trail short for the rest of my life it would be the Matrix. They are perfect cut for riding, just long (right below the knee) and wide enough. They have two medium sized zippered pockets on the front of the thighs, the two open hand pockets that are rad off the bike. They also have the same small zippered pocket as the Esquire. Perfect stretch panel in the back, dope pinstripes, pretty much the perfect short for me.

The Turbulence is kinda a beefier version of the Matrix. It has a thicker material throughout, especially on the seat (it's water proof and doesn't breath very well). Very similar cut to the Matrix as well. I've been gravitating towards those (and loving them) lately as the weather here in Tahoe is cooling down quickly.

Hope that helps you. Overall the quality is top notch and I don't see myself buying another brand of shorts for quite a while.


----------



## jgusta (Oct 9, 2004)

Nice performing shorts in that they have a good water repellent/resistant finish with a little tougher fabric from more durability than other shorts in it class. But, one of my front thigh vent zip broke not before long and my main zipper is starting not to work as well. Along with the chamois being very minimal for longer rides. If you can get them on sale, like I did around $40 then worth it, but I wouldn't pay retail for them due to my experiences.


----------



## ALS650L (Apr 19, 2009)

I have a pair, not sure what year they are. I'm not a fan of the liner at all, the shorts are very nice though. They are a longer baggier cut, I'm 6'2" with a 34inch waist, they are plenty long and loose fit. The waist is fine. I do wish they had belt loops though.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

ALS650L said:


> I have a pair, not sure what year they are. I'm not a fan of the liner at all, the shorts are very nice though. They are a longer baggier cut, I'm 6'2" with a 34inch waist, they are plenty long and loose fit. The waist is fine. *I do wish they had belt loops though.*


I don't get it. Belt loops for what... are you wearing these casually after or before a ride?


----------



## squareback (Sep 19, 2011)

Sprocking Crail said:


> Well, it's not a huge difference, mostly the cut and pockets. The Esquire has a really wide and long cut on the legs, I wear baggy stuff and it's a bit much for me. Also the Esquire has two open hand pockets but only one very small (iphone size) zippered pocket. I personally like more substantial zippered pockets, nothing crazy but big enough to hold a bag of gummies and my keys. The Esquire does have leg vents which are neat, but I don't miss them on my shorts without them.
> 
> If I had to ride one trail short for the rest of my life it would be the Matrix. They are perfect cut for riding, just long (right below the knee) and wide enough. They have two medium sized zippered pockets on the front of the thighs, the two open hand pockets that are rad off the bike. They also have the same small zippered pocket as the Esquire. Perfect stretch panel in the back, dope pinstripes, pretty much the perfect short for me.
> 
> ...


thanks. Going shopping now.


----------



## ALS650L (Apr 19, 2009)

Typically I use belt loops for a belt.

I'm usually between a medium and large, the medium being too snug and the large a bit loose. I choose a bit loose and wear a belt. I find that a lot of shorts with waist adjustments don't stay put as well as I would like either, so I look for shorts with belt loops.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

That makes sense. I wear a belt with blue jeans, and even some cargo shorts. But I don't think I'd like it one bit on a bike.

My hydration pack (Camelbak Charge LR) does have a waist strap. It doesn't fit like a belt, though.


----------

