Portlanders Amber and Beth Bogdewiecz want to make biking in a dress easier. The sisters are the entrepreneurial duo behind The Bike Dress and they’ve launched a crowdfunding campaign to help get their first production run off the ground.
Here’s more from their website:
“Being a couple of stylish ladies, we always have the desire to look good no matter what we’re doing. However, our passion for fashion is conflicted. We also want to be comfortable at all times since we are very active gals!
After years of wearing shorts under our dresses, searching for creative ways to carry all of our stuff, and trying to coordinate everything into a fashionable outfit, we decided it was time to create something new. And thus, The Bike Dress was born!”
Check their teaser vid below…
Advertisement
The basic black dress boasts shorts underneath, invisible pockets (including a “secret pocket for valuables”) and durable fabric that wicks away moisture.
Amber and Beth’s project is a year in the making. They’ve already raised enough money to complete several prototypes and the design is all set. Their current campaign aims to raise the money needed to actually make the dresses. Last month they sent final prototypes to manufacturers and last we heard they were awaiting a quote to begin the manufacturing process.
It’s great to see this type of budding business take root in Portland. Check out their Indiegogo campaign, Instagram, or website — and be sure to lend your support if you can.
Good luck Amber and Beth! Keep us posted!
— Jonathan Maus: (503) 706-8804, @jonathan_maus on Twitter and jonathan@bikeportland.org
Never miss a story. Sign-up for the daily BP Headlines email.
BikePortland needs your support.
Good idea! I hope they meet their goal.
Great idea!
At first, I was going to scoff and say just throw a pair of bike shorts under a dress or skirt (which is what I do for my regular work commute). But I actually love the features that are mentioned and it would be great for weekend riding to BBQs or social events where something a bit nicer than my usual rec wear is required.
Love this! I hope they get it into production!
Good–there is not enough clothing for normal, fit adult women as opposed to what you could call “anorexic chick wear.” I hope this company’s product is very successful.
We need to stop with this narrative that “clothing makers only design for anorexic girls.” Despite being smack dab in the middle of “average height” and “healthy weight” measures for women, I’m an XS (or even XXS/Size 00) in most women’s clothing stores. For certain items (like bathing suits and dresses) I end up shopping in the juniors department or at teenager-oriented stores. I’m yet to find a business-quality button-down shirt I didn’t have to have taken in. Even at outdoor shops like REI that you’d expect to cater to active people of mostly healthy weights, I’m still an XS. Like I mentioned, I’m average height and normal weight; I have no idea how women shorter and/or slimmer than I find anything age-appropriate that fits properly anymore. I can’t even imagine what it’s like to shop as a tall, healthy-weight woman, as larger clothing sizes refer to the width of clothes much more than the length.
Your comment is irksome. The outdoor industry has most certainly been catering to women you call “healthy-weight” for many, many years. In my experience, cycling apparel companies have been especially unaccommodating to larger, curvier bodies.
My point is that the clothing industry’s effort to include/cater to more body types has come at the expense of people on the slimmer side. I’m not familiar with the cycling clothing industry specifically (because I just wear whatever when I ride), but it’s pretty obvious when shopping for base layers, hiking clothes, etc. that vanity sizing has hit activewear hard. The last-decade M size base layer pant that I bought used fits the same as a brand-new XS. This leaves the women who used to be an S or XS under the old sizing system with few-to-no choices. Clothing companies are going to produce whatever sizes lead to best profit, and with a majority of Americans being overweight or obese, that’s how they’re going to skew. There’s no point in arguing how “unfair” clothing companies are being for seeking profits over maintaining level-of-service for healthy-weight individuals, because that’s just the capitalist society we live in. However, I’m going to speak up whenever someone suggests that clothing companies are only catering to super-slim women, because it’s not only untrue, it furthers misconceptions about what constitutes a healthy weight (which are already a complete mess: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/05/12/95-percent-of-parents-think-their-overweight-children-look-just-right/?utm_term=.1a1052e03889). Given the wide-ranging health implications of the ever-worsening obesity epidemic on both individuals and society, let’s at least get real about ballooning clothing sizes, and the fact that a “size 0 body” isn’t what most people think it is.
I don’t understand…
it’s a dress, with pockets, made of a wicking material… and they throw in a pair of Safety Shorts with each order…
how is this different than every other combination of dress with pockets made of wicking material and added shorts?
I’d love to know where you’re doing your dress shopping, Spiffy.
I love this idea, but the indiegogo campaign makes it look like these dresses will go for $250 each (the $500 level includes everything at the $250 level, plus one dress). That’s really expensive for something that’s supposed to be on the casual end of fashion.