Mojo Slim

First, let me say that some of my best friends are Freds.

Yesterday, I passed a grey-bearded 50+ type pretty much totally Fredded out. Helmet a bit askew, flannel shirt, loose-fitting denims, Xmart MTB, super-spinning up a small incline. But here's what puts him in the FRED HALL OF FAME: he had the legs of his pants tied up with what appeared to be strips of torn sheet. No fancy reflective velcro straps for him.

He's there on the road. Good for him.

Digital Gee

Hey, those sheets probably cost him $30 or more.

Louis

I think he passed me on a long uphill the other day, I'd recognize that laugh anywhere.

Torque1st

Quit laughing at me...

OOOps, spinning!!! -wasn't me this time...

Tom Bombadil

According to most definitions, Freds are supposed to be poseurs. Who have some good gear but still look or act dorky on it (reminds me of someone). This guy does not sound like a Fred to me. He is the Real Deal.

Jet Travis

Here are two definitions I found googling around.

FRED
1) n. a person who spends a lot of money on his bike and clothing, but still can't ride. "What a fred -- too much Lycra and titanium and not enough skill." Synonym for poser. Occasionally called a "barney".


2) n. a person who has a mishmash of old gear, does't care at all about technology or fashion, didn't race or follow racing, etc. Often identified by chainring marks on white calf socks. Used by "serious" roadies to disparage utility cyclists and touring riders, especially after these totally unfashionable "freds" drop the "serious" roadies on hills because the "serious" guys were really posers. This term is from road touring and, according to popular myth, "Fred" was a well-known grumpy old touring rider, who really was named Fred

I myself am a FRED2 (minus the skills) but hope to graduate to FRED1 when I win the lottery.

BlazingPedals

I'd refer to the 2nd Fred type as a 'retrogrouch.' Uses what works and eschews the new, finicky technology, both in equipment and clothes.

Sluggo

Nah, there's a difference. Retrogrouch wears wool shorts with real chamois; Fred2 wears khakis tucked into his socks (or secured with strips of sheet).

Catweazle

Like Jet Travis, I'll proudly step up to the plate as 'FRED2' also. Would I go letting my trouser legs get caught up in the chain? No, not at all. But do I think that a "reflective velcro strap" is the alternative? Not on your Nellie! If khakis tucked into the socks does the job well enough, then that'd be fine with me



A few weeks into this newfound recreational activity I'm already learning that I need to approach some things differently. But I'm also learning, from talking to people and from reading websites such as this, some of the jargon, culture and practices surrounding the activity, and I'm not necessarily going to be embracing it all. I'm Fred, maybe, but I don't plan to stop being me. A battered old codger with limited resources, who likes to 'make do' and rely on his own initiative more than anything else.


My arse is already telling me that I need to attend to the nether regions. So I pedalled off down to the local bike shops to have a looksee. What I found had me aghast. The cheapest of the 'bike shorts' on offer were selling for $AU40. They were a pair of baggy shorts little different to what I'd find in "Go-Lo" or the like for less than $10, and they had a cushioning pad sewn into them which looked like it was made from leftovers from Mrs. C's 80s shoulder-padded blouses! No thanks!

High-visibility gear? Yep. Well aware of the benefits of that. I've still got high-vis t-shirts, coats and the like hanging in the wardrobe, from the last time I worked where machinery was moving about. And when I need alternatives suited to different circumstances I can easy enough find ways to avoid the exorbitant prices charged for the 'fashionable' gear.

Cheap bike? Yep, the borrowed set of wheels I'm currently riding on is only about a poofteenth of a sparrow's fart beyond those 'XMart' jobbies:



But I'm a tinkerer, and I don't really want it to fall apart under me. I can still vividly recall the day, back when I was about 18 and skylarking about, when a bike came apart under me as I was riding down to the shops. So I'll attend to the checks and maintenance on a regular basis, thank you very much. And I'm not planning to pound the thing into oblivion. I've a couple of grandsons due to be dropped off here later this afternoon. Good opportunity to take them out the back shed, and learn a bit helping me to give the bike a thorough overhaul and service prior to me taking a long ride on the weekend.


Am I really "Fred" or am I merely someone not caught up in hype, trends and image? I can well understand the young fella who, on a gamer forum where I was having a chat about pushbikes with some online friends, popped in to say:

I kinda like to think that there are many shades of grey between those extremities, though, and that I fall somewhere amongst them.

A "retrogrouch"? Dunno about that either. I need to get myself a bike sometime between now and six months time when that 'loaner' above needs to be returned, and I'm definitely having a good look and learning about what's available. What I end up with will suit what I want to do, and whilst I'll be very mindful of budget when I eventually lay the dollars down I won't be eschewing technology just because it's technology. And in the interim I'm already having a really good look at what's on offer in the way of pedals and footwear. And racks! I'm real interested in what's around in the way of racks for bikes with suspensions. I'll never be a rider who goes on extended tours, I don't think, but I can definitely foresee rides which take place over two or three days. And I've a handy workshop out back of the house.



Yep, I can certainly understand that quite a few people who saw me pedalling down the road might immediately think "Fred!" But I have to wonder just how many of them are akin to that "Wally" who does little more than commute to work on a $4000 racing bike, wearing several thousand more dollars worth of the latest in biking fashion.

ticwanos

This says it for me. Catweazle: One thought for you to consider--unless you plan to spend a lot of time riding off road, consider getting a bike with rigid forks instead of the full suspension. That way your efforts will go into propelling you forward, instead of bouncing up and down.

Timtruro

What was the thread count on those sheets?

DougG

Cat, I think that in order to be a "fred" you have to try to fit in with the in-crowd bikers or at least want to. You are obviously your own man with a clear idea of what you want and what it takes to get there. You are no "fred", at least in my book!

By the way, I look forward to reading more of your posts. I'll have to remember that "poofteenth of a sparrow's fart" expression.

badger1

Indeed, good for him; nothing wrong with being in the Fred Hall of Fame -- he'll fit right in with all the 50+ types spinning along in full kit on full-carbon road race bikes.

Tom Bombadil

I tried that khaki's (and I was wearing khaki) into socks things twice last year and it didn't work well either time. They kept pulling out after a couple of miles.

Catweazle

No self-respecting Aussie bloke, Tom Bombadil, would tuck khakis into anything other than footy socks!



And it's pretty damned hard for the knakis to ride up when those footy socks are pulled up above the calves

buddyp

I'm not sure where that first definition of fred came from, but I've been riding since the 70s and back in the day "fred2" was what was meant by fred. We used to call the first type of person a poser. On teh intarwebs, or at BF at least, the first meaning seems to be more common.

dang kids! get off my lawn!

Little Darwin

I think the bottom line definition for a Fred is:

A bicyclist that doesn't care whether or not someone calls him a Fred.

Digital Gee

With regard to Freds and OCPers, I see them as two ends of a continuum. Perhaps we need another identifier for those who fall somewhere in between? I suspect that's most of us.

Louis

My thoughts, as well.




A "fred", when not cycling, could be a "nerd", a "dweeb", a "creep" or a "****er".

Not sure where that puts me, but I'm probably somewhere in that pot of stew ^.

While I'm thinking of it, why is it that 99% of "freds" are men? I can't remember ever seeing a woman "fred".

ticwanos

Female Freds? Wilmas, of course.

Louis

Yeah, it stands to reason, alright.It's just that I've never seen a Wilma.

roccobike

That first definition is a classic poser (poseur). The second is a Fred. I'm a FRED trainee as stated in my avatar. Of course a Poser is only a Poser until they drop you (individually) like your standing still on a hill, then they automatically graduate to a "class A" rider.

Kurt Erlenbach

This is a post from one of the numerous "What is a Fred?" threads that have gone on over at the Road Forum:

Fred is a nickname for 40+ year olds (or younger, but not normally) who still bike and do so not for the performance but for the love of the art.
The name came from Fred A. Birchmore, the first person to cycle around the world. He did so in the 1930's on a single-speed.
I personally know the man, he is in his 90's, is a complete bad-ass, and one of the nicest people you could ever meet.

Reinhardt bicycle
Catalog #: 311,533, Accession #: 148,650
In collection
From the Smithsonian Collection
The donor, Fred A. Birchmore, a resident of Athens, Georgia, bought this bicycle in Gotha, Germany, in July 1935. An "Original Reinhardt," it was made by Fahrradfabrik Otto Reinhardt, Bielefeld, Germany, and was bought for 67 reichsmarks. In the course of the next two years Mr. Birchmore rode it through western Europe, eastern Europe, Crete, Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, India, Siam, Indochina, and the Philippines, before pedaling his bicycle home across the United States from California.

It has been estimated that his travels covered approximately 40,000 miles, of which about 25,000 were on the bicycle, and the rest by boat. Approximately four saddle covers and seven sets of tires were worn out during the journey. The present tires were purchased from a shop in Calcutta, India.

Catweazle

So I'm learning the jargon, as mentioned earlier, and I had to go looksee what 'OCPer' referred to. And if there's any hint of disparagement, as the definition above suggests, THAT'S the one needs replacing. 'Fred' you see, seems at first glance to be a disdainful disparagement. 'OCPer', at first glance for the uninitiated, appears likely to be an acronym for some technical and genuine term.

Bullcrap to that! If disparagement is being thrown about then both of those blokes deserve an equally gutteral and immediately obvious insult to describe them. They're both part and parcel of the same thing. Opposite ends of a continuum, as you rightfully acknowledge. Stereotypes which are not really descriptive of hardly anybody at all, when you go beyond the shallowest of considerations. The tosser who flaunts the latest and greatest in gear and kit "just because he can!" is as deserving of disdain as the tosser whose contempt for technology is severe enough to see him prepared to hurt himself for the sake of principle. Why should one get mealy-mouthed consideration and not the other? If we're to throw insults about why not have them equally blunt, gutteral and brutal?

And, guess what? That 'poser' doesn't stop being a poser just because he can pedal up the hills faster than me. That scenario just makes him a poser who has better legs than mine. Let the bugger go head to head with the best riders out there before he rightfully sheds his tag. My legs are nothing special!




The 'in-betweens' are, in reality, most of us aren't they? People who've identified what they want to do and then get out and do it, kitting themselves out as best they can? And enjoying each others company, when they find themselves in each other's company, without feeling the need or motivation to disparage. A modicum of humility goes a long way in generating enjoyable interaction, after all.

I've been chatting this morning with a lady who is secretary of a local group called SADSAC (lovely name, that ). Sale and District Sunday Afternoon Cyclists. They have a social ride calendared for this weekend which interests me. Of particular interest to me was the illumination that, should I start participating, I'd soon find myself invited to join other local groups, who have regular rides at various levels of difficulty, speed and whatnot else, because the local scene is very much geared up towards encouraging and increasing participation, rather than elitism. Sounds good to me. Sounds like the approach to activity I admire and enjoy the most. I've spent years coaching (and participating in) local comp softball sides, for example, and always enjoyed most taking a team of newbies who had low opinions of their capabilities and potentials, and encouraging/teaching them how to use their bodies to effect.

Disparaging comments have no place, really, except between peers of comparable levels of skill, who use them in light-hearted fashion to inspire each other to better achievements. Other than that, they're just words, and words can't take the place of achievements, IMO.







I hope I'm not offending anyone with my language, by the way. I'm a proud Aussie. I'm SUPPOSED to be colourfully blunt!

The Smokester

CW, You are right on. I've always imagined that disparaging remarks revealed more about the the remarker than it ever did about the remarkee...No matter what level they are on.