Socks: Over or Under tights? Which is the fashion faux pas?

[dmartinjr518]

I’m still trying to figure out all the nuanced style rules for cyclists… but I can’t find a consensus about whether your socks should go over or under your tights (or long bibs) and without taking ourselves too seriously, I was wondering what everyone else does!

For reference, my long bibs are black, and my shoes are black, and I usually wear red or white socks. I’m guessing they should go under, but the white socks end up giving me that Michael Jackson highwater look. lol.

Let the discussion commence!

[John_Hallas]

Under for me. If wearing tights I would wear my old/dull socks and save the bright ones for when I am wearing shorts.

[pwandoff]

The Belgians say over…but they wrong

[alsayers]

If you are fast and win you make the fashion. People will emulate you.

[brenph]

Well obviously the real question is what length are the socks?

But there are two sorts of sock wearing cyclists… those who wear them under their tights/bib longs/warmers… and those who are wrong!

[enekkers]

As I live close to Belgium we do both over here. But I don’t like over.

[Jonnyboy]

Under, for the love of all things holy.

[dmartinjr518]

Haha. Like I was saying… everyone thinks their way is right and the other is CRAZY!

[ChrisJDunbar]

Over. Unless your socks suck or its wet.

[bazcurtis]

I don’t think this is over, under @chad is think of.

[nelsosi]

The correct answer is no socks

[splash]

Just wear shorts all year round, easy!

But if wearing tights…over. So you can take your wet/muddy shoes and socks off without having to undress more.

[Brennus]

left leg --> over
right leg --> under

(except on tuesdays, then the reverse)

[HLaB]

Under for me merely on practicality. If it’s raining (which it often is in the UK) water runs down the tights over the sock. If they were over it run down into the sock