Inseam in running tights compared to pants?

[blnchflr]

I would like to get running tights for winter, but worry about them being long enough (I like pants to be as long as possible without me tripping in them).

I wear pants with a 35" inseam, but running tights are always shorter in the inseam compared to pants - although it may be long enough, 29½" just sounds awfully short to me.

Could you give me examples of what inseam tights are long enough for you compared to what inseam you wear in pants? I'm hoping that'll give me a better idea of what minimum inseam I need.

ETA: I'm looking at Under Armour's women's ColdGear Frosty Tight, which has a 32" inseam - have only heard good things about Under Armour, but would love to hear your experiences, too. Or, you know, not, because apparently getting a size small is next to impossible, or will cost me $118.56, wtf.

Comments

[gnomad]

I think tight inseams will always be on the shorter side than trouser inseams because of the way the legs are cut. With trousers you expect there to be a wider opening and for them to fall to the top of your foot (if not longer if you want a larger break). Whereas with tights, the bottom opening is expected to hug your leg with no excess room in the fabric, so if it were as long as a normal trouser, it would get bunchy around your ankles and not lay properly.

FWIW: I wear a 31-32 inch inseam in trousers. I have the Athleta windbreaker tights and the workitout tights in regular (27in, 26.5 in inseams, respectively), and I find they hit my ankles perfectly.

[blnchflr]

So 32" inseam should be fine for me. Now I'm just dithering like mad over whether to get the size S or the size M, *headdesk*.

Thanks!