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

[heuradys]

Try Athleta. They sell a lot of their stuff in Tall.

[blnchflr]

Yeah, and their longest tights are 30", next-longest 29½", which seems on the short side to me, even if tights don't need to be as long as pants.

[heuradys]

I think it depends on the tights. The ones I checked before suggesting are the Portillo tights, tall for those have a 34.5" inseam. Didn't look any further... *g*

[blnchflr]

You're right - it threw me that the windwarrior looks longer in the pic, despite being apparently 4½" shorter O_o

But frak, shipping to Denmark is so depressingly expensive, *sigh*.

[ilanarama]

Huh. I never really thought about it - but I'm pretty short. The costs you're quoting are insane, though.

[blnchflr]

At underarmour.com, the Frosty Tight costs $49.99. Except if I set shipping destination to Denmark. Then they cost $69.99 \o/ !

I know what you're thinking, that's taxes and shipping - no-no, that comes on top of that - totalling an insane $118.56 /o\

Generally, clothes are a huge and expensive hassle when you're tall, and some things are pretty much impossible to acquire, such as raingear :o(

[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!