Iow, not only is the problem not that “the length of the crotch fork is too long for this model”, it’s the opposite; the crotch fork is too short. The wad is created because there is too much fullness at the CF. Cutting that away lengthens the fork and will correct the front waist dip you see at the zipper closure. Whether the thigh girth at the inseam/crotch needs to be reduced afterward is a wholly separate issue. Accordingly, if it is true that “Most athletic men need to buy 5-pockets that fit the thigh and live with a swimming waist” it is only because there is too much fullness at CF. I disagree that it is inevitable. Cowboys are very athletic (by athletic I mean fit, active and hgt/wgt proportionate) but I don’t know any that would be caught dead in something that fits like this; they buy brands that compliment their silhouettes.

I also disagree with respect to #1 that the “hip breadth is too scant”. The proposed solution of adding yet more girth there will only make the problem worse. The solution is too carve out at CF and to add the difference to the waist/hip, reversing what was done in the uppermost photo of the entry I linked to.

The forum discussion Carol mentions is here. I didn’t participate in it because I disagreed with many of the comments (particularly the tangent about gussets inherently lead to seam failure in activewear). I chose to abstain rather than to be thought argumentative. In retrospect, that was a mistake; silence lends consent.

Carol, where are you up in the mountains? I’m in the Springs. Can you bring that ’substantial machine’ down here? The Colorado Springs street department decided for whatever reason for THE PAST 3 BLIZZARDS to just pretty much not plow. We hit 48 degrees this afternoon and I saw a small portion of our street for the first time in weeks.

The post is up in the Discussion Forum as above.

1) …is to add fabric where it pulls, as J notes.

2) …dart out excess where folds are forming, and reshape the pattern as necessary.

The second often changes the angle of the leg, and oddly, doesn’t usually affect the grain line. I’m drafting a pattern for a woman with this problem in the back and will post with photos with circles and arrows (thank you, Arlo) on the User Forum under “Patterns/Pants Pattern Theory”.

As to where I’ve been, moving snow. Or moving snow. Or moving snow. Charlie spent four hours out in the wee hours of night-before-last, as it was accumulating above the intake scoop of the snow thrower (and up here in the mountains, we have a substantial machine). Wintering in Baja Mexico is increasingly appealing.

What I see here is the inverse of what is typical of a men’s buying problem. Most athletic men need to buy 5-pockets that fit the thigh and live with a swimming waist. However, this model is waif thin; yet, he has the same problem with this style. This style needs to go back to the drawing board because it was interpreted as “skinny jeans” for a bubble-butt – I don’t think it’s flattering.

Now that I’ve thoroughly trashed this, I should say there are redeeming qualities. The problem is design, not patterning or execution. The shaping of the inner thigh of style #2 is precisely what is needed to remedy the vertical folds in style #1.

On photo #1, the problem is that the hip breadth is too scant, which is causing stress over the male genetalia. Simply add about 1/2″ to the width across the front panels (1/4″ at each the crease line). And, the drooping in the thigh can be remedied by simply slimming down the front panel between the crotch fork and the knee.

I find the ideal amount of wearing ease for men’s 5-pockets is 3/4″ at the waist and about 1 1/2″ at the hip. For cargo pants (like in style #1), I suggest about 1 3/4″ to 2″ wearing ease around the high thigh, tapering to about 1 1/2″ around the knee, slightly slimmer for 5-pockets. I’d also suggest swinging the outside leg seam further out by about 2″ at the ankle, because the leg appears too fitted for a cargo style.