The difference is, for lycra to keep you dry it needs open air contact. Under armor does not need to be in open air. It will stay dry even under a sweathshirt or something heavy if the is too cold to just wear out. The tight fitting has nothing to do with the polymers and how they work.
IMO, I find it more comfortable for some reason. I don't know if it breathers better or what.

It's not about looking gay. It's about aligning yourself with a mentality that can be compared with the guys who dress up as storm troopers at a Star Wars convention. For a good portion of riders, it's really about make-believe and "looking the part".

Justify away..

Huh? For anything to be dry when moisture is being added to it it needs to have evaporation - dry air, air flow, high temps all help increase evaporation independent of material.

Anyway My under armour long sleeve shirt is damp with sweat after my 8.5mi 45F commute. So are my lycra shorts. I don't notice one being dryer than the other.

Al

Maybe to you there isn't... ;)

If you want to believe it's all for show...fine.

But I think that says more about you than it does about most cyclists, who don't have any problem wearing functional clothing that's appropriate for the sport.

+1

2 additional factors:
Those uncomfortable in their own skins tend to hate others that are comfortable.

Our puritan heritage is remarkably adept at making one miserable with his\her own body.

UA is not made from Latex or any rubber. Big difference to me.

I didn't say it's gay. Do some fact checking before you start pounding on that keyboard. :)

Functional I can agree with. But if that's the real reason we'd see more unadorned jersey's (and if visibility is the factor they'd have some sort of reflective quality). From what I see, the logos and designs tend to camouflage imperfections.

Sorry...my mistake (corrected above).

Some jerseys do incorporate reflective material. But, it's not easy to add that to a jersey that will last given the frequency with which they get washed....jackets, yes, but not jerseys.

Regardless, most jerseys are somewhat "loud and proud" and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Being "colorful" helps one to be seen in traffic.

And, celebrating one's fitness and love of the sport by wearing team logos is no different than those who wear their favorite team football jerseys or N-Ass-Car clothing. Except that most cyclists have better bodies. :D

There are many bike specific clothing available without any logos, many available without any printed design/picture and many available with just fabric design and always available with just a solid color.

Only one of the many jerseys I have has words on it and they are not in any way related to any businesses. The rest are all solid color or design created with varied fabric panel color differences.

The functions I want from a jersey: Cool in summer heat, does not flap around in wind, has rear pockets and a front zipper to control ventilation, long enough so it prevents bare skin from showing on my backside when on bike no matter what shorts/pants I am wearing and colors that provides visibility in less than ideal conditions, generally lighter colors such as white and yellow.

Al

He he. Yet again, someone else has to take the hit for a comment I made. Sorry about that CMY. People just like to argue because whatever they say is right and however they ride is right and anyone else is wrong. I should say personally in every sentence so people don't think I am trying to correct them but merely provide this question with my opinionated answer.
By the way, despite whatever SSP believes the definition of "gay" to be. I never mentioned it looking *****exual. Just gay. I use the word Gay interchangeably with "Lame". I agree that most bikers will wear lycra just to look the part. Lycra like UnderArmor is a brand and not a material. Lycra products(on the little tag that comes with clothes) almost all say, "should be worn open to air to help sweat absorbtion." Under Armor does not, and as I said BEFORE, In My Opinion, UA stays dryer. Also Like I said before, contains no latex or rubberized materials or textiles whatsoever. For anybody that has any severe allergic reactions to open skin latex, might like to know that information. But I am sorry for messing with the bicycling Gods and their all mighty attraction to wetsuits we call "Lycra".

Fair enough.. I guess because I'm designer I tend to look at the aesthetic quality more than anything else and being "loud and proud" or "colorful" isn't something I aim for.. therefore it gets rejected immediately. I've got some ideas on how to bridge the gap though and I'm actively working on it. :)

Oh come on, Lycra while a brand name is used interchangeably in common language for the material that most synthetic bike shorts are made from as many do contain some percentage (usually small) of Lycra(TM) fibre and if not Lycra then some similar perhaps non-branded stretchy synthetic fibre - spandex. These fibers are not made from rubber.

I am also quite sure that Lycra containing products do not say "wear in open air to help moisture absorption" That would be stupid. And any material in open air will have greater moisture loss whether or not it has Lycra in it.

Al

I suggest you use "lame" when you mean "lame", as the definition of "gay" does not include "lame":

http://www.google.com/search?num=50&...ition&ct=title
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay


Your use of the term is about as ignorant as using the word "queer" for a similar meaning.

huh
 

What ? I was making a comment on the O.P.'s ?

Fair enough.

My off-the-bike wardrobe tends to be more form-fitting (because I like my body), but not "loud" (I prefer earth tones).

But having once been an overweight corporate clone who wore nothing but a gray or navy blue suit and tie to 10+ years of boring meetings, the chance to wear loud "super-hero" clothing on the bike seems to me a celebration of life and fitness. I could buy more subdued bike clothing, but I much prefer my local race team kit, and my jerseys celebrating some of the places I've cycled (including Colorado, the Death Ride, Alpe d'Huez, etc.).

Not saying they don't exist, just that it's extremely rare to see. I live within sight of a popular path/course and can say that I've only seen it a handful of times- generally most appear to be commuters or part-time (overweight or with kids) riders. You never see it within a group, which leads me to point at the "me too" mentality.

Keep in mind that I do live in Los Angeles and appearances are everything. Your results might vary. :)

I suggest you not worry about how other people write. Maybe you should work on your self esteem if you are offended by alternative uses for the word gay. If gay can mean *****exual, (when the definition is happy) it can certainly mean Lame in my book. Once again, you were the only one referring to "Gay" as a term for *****exual. And my ignorance for how others perceive me only seems to be affecting you. Enjoy your lack of esteem.

BTW, Wikipedia is definitely the best resource for looking definitions to words as apposed to a dictionary which puts *****exual second to happy.

Words are useful to communication because they have generally accepted meanings.

While those meanings can change over time, the commonly accepted definitions for "gay" are "*****exual" or "happy", not "lame".

If you wish to continue to write in a style that sounds ignorant, well, it's a free country.

And you're the one who has problems with form-fitting, cycling-specific clothing...my self-esteem is just fine.

It is very popular to see plain designs in stores. Cycle clothing found at REI (only as that was where i was most recently) is 90% non logoed (with exception of small brand logos) Most brands of cycle clothing come without printed designs or more than tiny logos.
Club rides have many riders with solid/solid print designs, the other half with logos/design from moderate to over the top. I see local cycling team training in fully logoed and color patterned gear, all matching each other.
Al

Me too. It creates dilemmas when buying gear for cycling that would be nice to wear off the bike.

For example: Do I buy the light orange/yellow merino wool long sleeve top or the dark brown one. I really want one and it has been over 6wks since I started wanting one and I still can't decide on a practical color vs. a comfortable color. ;)

Al

Being that I own lycra and underarmor and wear them both, but prefer UA as a product. Where you got this idea that I dislike form-fitting clothing is funny to me. I was simply agreeing with what CMY said about people wearing it just to look the part. You really need to read a little more before defending the products you wear as though somebody is attacking them. The reason I don't wear my lycra is that is I just find my UA to be much better in every way. That's all. If you would like for me to take a picture of my wardrobe to show that I don't mind form-fitting clothes. That can easily be done. But I am sure you would find something wrong with the way I fold my clothes or hang stuff up in my closet.

I live in the mountains and for me staying warm is key. Just because I mentioned that it is OK to Layer with under armor doesn't mean I dislike my body. It just means I am not too "Gay" about having to wear a single layer in below 20 degrees, as I would with lycra.

Funny thread.

My loose fitting fleece pullover says "Old Navy" on it. My form fitting tights have no visible logo at all.

Like clothing for many other sports and activities cycling specific clothing is a combination of form and function. Sometimes one is emphasized more than the other.

It's quite possible to wear lycra and not be splattered with colorful logos. I'm not interested in "looking the part". I do like to be comfortable and I do like to go fast (when safe to do so). I also don't want to worry about stuff getting caught in my chain and getting messed up, or worse, - causing me to crash.

Further, when possible I want avoid both looking like a slob and avoid calling a great deal of attention to myself. This is pretty far down the list and I'm not always successful.

yea
 

The all inclusive word gay is often used by younger people (and even old guys like me) to communicate lame, stupid, silly or something of that nature. Its too bad the *****exual community, very calculatingly hijacked the word for their own ulterior motives. My mother used to comment how the word gay meant happy and that it made her mad that the meaning was changed so much. Word meanings change constantly and vary by region, age, race, religion, lifestyle, subculture etc., thats a fact!:o

Wow, you seem like a nice person and all, but even for MySpace that's one really fugly web page.