For me, the comfort level of sports-specific clothing is so much higher than for regular clothes, that I always wear it while cycling. Even if I'm only going three miles - I'll get dressed to ride.

Riding in non-regular clothes also has the advantage of preventing your regular clothes to become dirty from riding. All the fenders and mudflaps in the world won't protect you from the spray of other vehicles in wet road conditions. Before I realised regular clothes weren't that great for riding, I ruined two shirts and a pair of pants. Black stains all over that refused to come off.

"Technical" clothing allows me to ride with comfort over a huge range of temps, no matter how sweaty I get. I cool off better when it's hot. I retain my heat better when it's cold. My sweat evaporates faster at all times.

I will never go back to riding in regular clothes. It's just not worth it with all the discomfort and soaked, smelly cotton clothes, full of dirt from the streets.

I started cycling and bought my first funny clothes, how'd you say it--when Peter Green was still in Fleetwood Mac, okay? After enough crotch sores from riding in jeans, bees down loose street-shirt and t-shirt collars, and hypothermia from wet cotton, I consider myself no longer ignorant enough to disdain funny looking bicycling clothes! We wear the stuff because it works, get it? It is, like, functional.

How can the look of something negate the advantages of the way it works. You are assuming that aero is the key, but for me it is the stretch and movement of the high tech clothing vice something not made for the task.

I really don't care what others think about my appearance in what I am wearing, any more than someone might feel that a rain hat is dorky... but if it keeps the rain off you... then it is effective.

Its not the look of the clothing, its the fat, out of shape, old body it often covers, that makes it pointless. The tiny aerodynamic performance gain has little effect until you exceed about 20 mph. Simply wearing something that wicks moisture is all thats necessary. I own some cycling shorts and have some old jerseys that are way too small due to over consumption of calories in the last 25 years. I won't subject the public to my statuesque figure of manliness because its just not right to impose that on......anyone. :eek::eek::eek:

Aside from that, I don't find tight stuff any more comfortable and I am not bothered by a bit of fabric flapping around, unless it blocks my vision. I guess the only real point I am trying to make is that, you can ride in more stuff than you think and a new cyclist doesn't have to have all the special gear, in order to ride or be reasonably comfortable. Right now athletic undies and cheap shorts along with cotton T's seem fine and sweat pants work in the winter along with my rain jacket unless its really pouring. I don't often ride far in real cold weather. I stop at about 35 degrees unless the trips are under ten miles. Maybe I am just an old, fat, grumpy cyclist but that Superman outfit doesn't fit right anymore. :o

I won't subject the public to my statuesque figure of manliness because its just not right to impose that on......anyone. :eek::eek::eek:


There's the problem right there, people in this country are waaaaaaaaaaay too uptight about what other people wear, and how they look. Next thing we know there will be folks in suits walking behind women with their knees showing below their skirts, or not wearing skirts, and smacking them on the back of their calves with a switch.

I wonder if people don't turn on the Olympics because the athletes are wearing tight clothing.

Its not the look of the clothing, its the fat, out of shape, old body it often covers, that makes it pointless. The tiny aerodynamic performance gain has little effect until you exceed about 20 mph. Simply wearing something that wicks moisture is all thats necessary. I own some cycling shorts and have some old jerseys that are way too small due to over consumption of calories in the last 25 years. I won't subject the public to my statuesque figure of manliness because its just not right to impose that on......anyone. :eek::eek::eek:

Aside from that, I don't find tight stuff any more comfortable and I am not bothered by a bit of fabric flapping around, unless it blocks my vision. I guess the only real point I am trying to make is that, you can ride in more stuff than you think and a new cyclist doesn't have to have all the special gear, in order to ride or be reasonably comfortable. Right now athletic undies and cheap shorts along with cotton T's seem fine and sweat pants work in the winter along with my rain jacket unless its really pouring. I don't often ride far in real cold weather. I stop at about 35 degrees unless the trips are under ten miles. Maybe I am just an old, fat, grumpy cyclist but that Superman outfit doesn't fit right anymore. :o

Eons and eons ago I used to wear cut offs and running shorts to cycle... and I still do if the trip is to the local market or a pub. But anything exceeding about 5 miles and 2 hills brings on sweat and chafing... the latter more so due to a less than perfect body.

I found wearing bike shorts (even the all wool ones back in the day) made a world of difference to me and my parts when doing a longer ride. The new microfiber stuff just feels great.

Hey bottom line... wear what works for you... really. Like I said, I wear cutoffs and cotton shorts at times. But the bottom line... don't tell anyone what they cannot wear. What works for you may not work for the next guy.

do people really think THIS MUCH about how they look on a bicycle?

Do you ever stop and think "dude I'm on a bicycle, who cares what I look like"

That being said, it's when you get off your bicycle that you get more stares.

I keep some soccer shorts handy for store runs.

Don't want to show off the goods.

And by goods I mean awesome guads.

And by goods I mean awesome guads.

Is that like a hybrid gonad/quadricep?

Al

Can I dress like a superhero for Halloween?

Common courtesy says that you keep out of folks' way when they are trying to go about their business.
.
I haven't read past the OP, but here's an excellent example of the widely held notion that cyclists have a moral and/or practical obligation, if not a legal obligation, to get and stay out of the way of motorists. Sad.

The big business people look at markets a bit different form the small guys like Grant Peterson. Here, Grant (and Sheldon by agreeing with him) is assuming that demand can be pushed around by supply. If only someone would supply a cheap, no frills bike, then everyone will suddenly go out and buy a bike and ride like a kid again. Right?

But it's the other way around. Grant describes the effect of the low popularity of adult transportational cycling, that the only people who want bikes want racing bikes and dress like racers, as if it is the cause and the low popularity were the effect. This is pushing on a rope, hoping to move the cart.

Which progression makes the most sense:

Progression A
1) cycling has a low popularity because cars are used as the primary transportation in the US
2) because of this, the only people who are interested in buying a bicycle as an adult are the ones who are interested in riding fast with racing bikes and clothing
3) because of where the market is, the bicycle companies design or specify bikes which serve this market.

Progression B
1) bike companies decide that they enjoy making high performance racing bikes more than any other type of bike
2) because there are only racing bikes to buy, the only bikes that people ride are racing bikes
3) because some people don't like racing bikes, they don't ride
4) hence, bicycling is unpopular in the US.

Progression A presupposes that everyone, both the consumer and the seller, are acting in their best interests - customers buy what they want, sellers sell what customers buy. Progression B presupposes that the customers are pawns who either take what sellers sell or don't - they have no predetermined preferences, and sellers ignore a market which should be easy for them to service "because they don't want to". If there were a large body of people who wanted plain jane bikes, then there should be a lot of money to be had in selling these bikes to them.

Consider this made up story:
CycleLuna sells both plain jane bikes and a few, almost custom racing bikes. As cars gain in popularity and the US approaches an average of one car per person, the plain jane bikes sales start slowing down because people don't need them anymore to get around having only one or no cars per family. But there are still some people interested in cycling, and they are buying the racing bikes. So CycleLuna's overall market shrinks, but there is still a fairly solid fan base who are buying racing bikes. So, instead of investing in a new factory for plain jane bikes, CycleLuna offers a second model racing bike, at lower volumes and higher margins. As a trend, cycling for sport is becoming a popular hobby and people are buying the racing bikes, but there are now very few people buying plain jane bikes (at this point, they are still being sold right next to the racing bikes). This trend continues until CycleLuna is selling only a couple hundred plain jane bikes a year, while they sell a couple thousand racing bikes (at high margin, I should add). The plant for the plain jane bikes is old and is becoming a drain on the company; because the volume of sales for the plain jane bikes is so low, a plant for popping them out at low cost and high volume is not worth the overhead anymore. So CycleLuna sells the plant to a holding company who takes operations over to China where world sales volume justify the cost of the plant. Now CycleLuna only makes racing bikes for hobbyists.

****

As far as I can see, this is essentially the story of the bicycle industry in the US. Perhaps it isn't racing bikes but mountain bikes which fills the hobby void. Perhaps it is hybrid bikes. Perhaps it is all of these at various point in time. Whatever. The point is still the same. Companies only invest the money into a plant to make something if there are people who want to buy the product. And when people don't want the product coming out of the plant anymore, the company will start selling different things that people do want. The bicycle industry is not the cause of the fall in bicycling popularity (that can probably be attributed mostly to the invention of the car), and it will not be its savior either. The industry will follow wherever their customers want to go. Do they want fixed gears? Well, in the last few years (you can count them) every major bike company has magically come out with an urban fixed gear bike. You want a 17 lb road bike? Magically, those companies who were popping out mountain bikes a couple years ago all now have their tricked out 17 lb road bike. You want dutch utility bikes? Well, same thing; the last couple years have seen the rise of companies which specialize in either look-alike dutch bikes or companies who import dutch bikes to sell in the US.

Grant Peterson tries to push on a rope and where does that get him? He has a couple of retrogrouch fans who buy his stuff, but he is less than popular. He's merely a nitch market guy. His bikes, supposedly the solid, cheap (???), practical variety, are more expensive than (probably) 90% of the bicycles sold in the US. They are sold to people who's stated purpose is to tour and commute; generally the uses which beat up bikes and where people obtain less flashy, more solid pieces of equipment. He is supposedly all about the ride, but don't dare talk about clipless pedals or other efficiency improving measures with him; he is basically intolerant of those who are "racer wannabes". He's used his personality to open up a very small nitch market, and there he remains, probably losing money as often as he makes money. That's what happens if you try to push on a rope.

Trek is the biggest bicycle manufacturer in the US (I don't think this includes the department store bikes). They let the rope pull them, and they are quite successful because of it.
:beer:

Excellent post, Brian. I agree 100%.

That's the price of capitalism.

However, that said, at my favorite shop in the area, the first thing to face the customer is a bunch of single speed beach crusers, second are some stately 3 speed utility bikes and third is Trek bikes with the coasting group. You go to the back of the store before you see the section devoted to mountain bikes and road bikes. The road and mountain bikes have much bigger selections, mind you (probably because customers of these special purpose bikes are pickier about what they buy), but the first thing the customer sees are the "every-day man" bikes that this particular shop offers.
Hey Gene, doesn't this sound like UC Cyclery? Okay, so they might have a trophy specialized racer up front too, but all the basic bikes are mostly displayed near the front.

[QUOTE=sknhgy;5490221]First off let me say I have a passion for bike riding. I ride every day.
But I do not want to be associated with the kind of riders that come through my neck of the woods on weekends, dressed in superhero costumes while rudely blocking up traffic.

QUOTE]

LOL i agree man them costumed dudes look funny as hell but they do f*ck it up for other people who ride because of the images they portray

Is that like a hybrid gonad/quadricep?


It is a term coined by the highly regarded RyanF in the road forum. Ryan is nearly as well known for his grammar as he is his irrervent posts. He mistakenly used guads instead of quads & the rest is history.

It is a term coined by the highly regarded RyanF in the road forum. Ryan is nearly as well known for his grammar as he is his irrervent posts. He mistakenly used guads instead of quads & the rest is history.

RyanF gave up the charade a while back with a long post about a fake conversation with Jan Ullrich.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Lancelot gear. I'm always going to ride in the clothes I'd use to walk.

I don't dress like you all because I don't want to be associated with the likes of riders like you.


We apologize to you oh holy one but please stop discriminating against us based on the styling of our fabric but instead by the content of our um gel packs?

Seriously, superman lycra doesn't mean jerk and sometimes those guys riding doubled up don't realize traffic has formed behind them because they've forgotten they're in it. It's so easy to forget about cars on a group ride, even though they're whizzing by you. For some reason, in the group, they feel a lot less threatening. Maybe that's why drivers get so desperately angry around group rides?

I gave up doing group rides 20 years ago in order to disassociate myself from rude cyclists from the city acting like they own every country road.

Aside from that, it is curious to me why someone would want to wear and display the colorful logos of all the companies that will never sponsor them.

I gave up doing group rides 20 years ago in order to disassociate myself from rude cyclists from the city acting like they own every country road.

Aside from that, it is curious to me why someone would want to wear and display the colorful logos of all the companies that will never sponsor them.

It's all about the color, not the logos. When I am not commuting, but out on a fun fast ride, I wear jerseys that are bright and colorful, but do not have logos... I sought jerseys for their color and contrast so I can be more easily seen... but I hate wearing logos of any kind... anywhere, on anything. Levis are the only clothing item I tolerate with their label showing.

When commuting, I just wear bright orange or yellow cotton shirts that I buy at Target. They wash well.

Road racers wear "tight kit" for sound, practicla reasons of comfort and aerodynamic efficiency. It has absolutley nothing to do with wanting to fit in.

**cough**cough**bu!!$h1+**cough**cough**

One can dress in a "kit" and not look like a rolling billboard. I see lots of these guys who figure that if they look like the pros who actually get paid to wear such garish getups, maybe they'll ride like them. And how often do you see these technicolor outfit riders riding blinkeyless? If being seen is a primary concern, you wouldn't ride without one. Since buying my PBSF, I haven't riden without it, even on bright sunny days.

My commuting "kit" is cycling shorts, bright solid color lycra shirt, reflective vest (how uncool is that thing? It would get me tossed from the peleton, for sure) helmet with mirror and my daughter's old LL bean backpack with reflective strip. And a pair of really comfy specialized tahoes which actually look almost like normal shoes.

These silly looking jerseys don't bother me as much as they do the OP, but, someone claiming that they have "absolutely nothing to do with wanting to fit in" is full of you know what.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of the Lancelot gear. I'm always going to ride in the clothes I'd use to walk.

Yo, newb...do us all a favor, and check out the posting dates before replying.

It's generally considered a bit rude to reply to a post that's been dead for nearly a year.

I gave up doing group rides 20 years ago in order to disassociate myself from rude cyclists from the city acting like they own every country road.

Aside from that, it is curious to me why someone would want to wear and display the colorful logos of all the companies that will never sponsor them.

1. It's normal.
2. It's personal expression (I like Jersey's about beer, cause, um, beer is good).
3. They're more comfortable then everything else (They don't chafe my nipples).
4. Not all jerseys display corporate logos (well, at least not all of them display them in a big way).

Yo, newb...do us all a favor, and check out the posting dates before replying.

It's generally considered a bit rude to reply to a post that's been dead for nearly a year.

Not nearly as rude as insulting someone for chiming in. Ever noticed how advocacy and safety never has a full page of new posts (at least not for me). Commuting on the other hand is always packed. Must be the lack of angry perfectionists.

/me doesn't check dates either.

Yo, newb...do us all a favor, and check out the posting dates before replying.


Dude, go away. Seriously. Find something better to do than playing moderator. If we weren't allowed to comment on threads older than two weeks, threads older than two weeks would be automatically locked, the way they are on other forums. I found this thread via the search function and deliberately chose to post on it. If you can't handle that, maybe you should find somewhere else to post on where people aren't allowed to comment on threads you don't want to see any more.

Dude, go away. Seriously. Find something better to do than playing moderator. If we weren't allowed to comment on threads older than two weeks, threads older than two weeks would be automatically locked, the way they are on other forums. I found this thread via the search function and deliberately chose to post on it. If you can't handle that, maybe you should find somewhere else to post on where people aren't allowed to comment on threads you don't want to see any more.

I was just trying to give you a heads-up on forum etiquette.

This thread was a dumb*ss troll post in the first place...it had nothing to do with "Advocacy and Safety".

Raising it from the dead with a post that says nothing more than "Me too" adds nothing to the discussion. Sometimes it's better to listen than to talk...this is one of those times.

I was just trying to give you a heads-up on forum etiquette.

Once again, thank you but no thank you. This is the second time you've found your way to one of my posts to offer unwanted critique on my posting habits. You're the only one who seems to care enough to go around telling people not to post on old threads. It really might be a good idea to advocate for a rule added to the guidelines on old threads if this affects you that much. Because I'm not changing on your account otherwise. I really don't mean to come off as super-hostile on this, but this is one of those cases where, if the moderators don't intervene (and they almost never do), it might be because this isn't as big of a deal as you think it is.

Once again, thank you but no thank you. This is the second time you've found your way to one of my posts to offer unwanted critique on my posting habits. You're the only one who seems to care enough to go around telling people not to post on old threads. It really might be a good idea to advocate for a rule added to the guidelines on old threads if this affects you that much. Because I'm not changing on your account otherwise. I really don't mean to come off as super-hostile on this, but this is one of those cases where, if the moderators don't intervene (and they almost never do), it might be because this isn't as big of a deal as you think it is.

+1

Protip to you SSH - if you want to give a "newb" tip, do it in a PM. All you do is antagonize - and if you WANT to antagonize in public, that's cool (as obviously, I'm doing. . . :D )

If he wants to bring back an old thread, why not? Just don't read or reply to it (you DO have a choice. . . :roflmao2: )

Don't worry no one wants to be associated with a moron like you either.

That was uncalled for!

George Washington said people judge you by the company you keep. When the locals vent their anger at bicyclists, they always mention the duded-up costume bikers. I am careful to disassociate myself from that group for that reason.

Those bikers can easily and safely get out of the way. Like I said, I routinely do so on the very same roads.

Just because a bicyclist can "get out of the way" of a car doesn't mean they should and they certainly aren't legally required to. Why is the motorists convenience more important than the cyclists safety or for that matter more important than the cyclists convenience? They are both legal users of the road and they both have the same right to use the road even if it slows someone else down for a few seconds.

I don't know why this thread got revived, but please leave me out of it. You all can wear chicken feathers and ride down the middle of the highway on a kids tricycle for all I care. I was just blowing off a little steam almost a year ago. I wish a moderator would close this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHNd_HXn9U0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHNd_HXn9U0

Wow, that sheriff's lieutenant is not qualified. Cyclists are not required to yield to traffic. And cyclists are not required to ride to the right in a lane wherein they cannot legally be passed within the lane, and cannot legally be passed via a lane change since it would be illegal to cross the double yellow. The groups shown were riding more than one abreast, which might be illegal in the area: They should have ridden single file, far enough out in the lane to tell drivers that a pass will not be welcomed.

They did run the stop sign.

I was glad to see that this news organization grabbed someone who did know what she was talking about to speak against the silliness from the sheriff's lieutenant.