you do realize the MAIN reason cars have mirrors is because of blind spots. a bike has NO blind spots. if you cant look over your shoulder and keep your bike up, go ahead and use a mirror. if you need to write 500 words to make yourself feel better about it, go ahead, but you arent convincing anyone.

Sorry, but for me if it ain't broke don't fix it.

You can call that crass, but I really have never had the need for a mirror in a race. Sure, as you have said if you're "changing lanes," (e.g. commuting) then a mirror makes perfect sense. You're riding in a more controlled setting where you have a stable bike and a stable head.

However, as I've said before, it takes me an instant to turn and look behind me at which point I have a clear view of the entire field behind me. I don't see where it would be practical for me to learn to use a small mirror that even if I did learn how to use it well would never give me the same type of view that a quick head turn would.

Also, this antectdotal about last year's TdF and the possibility of using a mirror on a climb is first of all told from a spectators perspective and is also a lack of judgement on the part of the rider and the team. That rider had an earpiece as well as the ability to check behind him. If he were climbing his way to a hopeful win on a mountain finish, I'd hope that he'd have the sense to check behind him as well as recieve info from his director over his earpiece.

Finally, I do look at the pro's when it comes to my cycling gear. This is because they ride more and their overwhelming experience over mine tells me what is and is not needed. If the pro's felt there was an advantage, I'm sure we'd have mirrors on every bike. However, I tend to believe they think the same thing I do...a split second head turn is much more effective than a small mirror mounted on the bike.

I'm sorry, but when talking about the need for a mirror on the bike all you have is a "what if" story told not by the rider but from a casual observer. Here's my observation on the same story. The rider was beaten on an attack up the mountain. This is as much part of racing as not having a mirror. If the rider had the strength to follow he would have and a mirror would not have made a difference, considering his director sportif was probably screaming in his ear that someone was coming behind him.

Again, mirrors are impractical and not needed.

First off it was Andreas Kloden I believe of T-Mobile, secondly and more importantly you are breaking down one of the most tatical complex moves of the last tour as a reason for mirrors. If you want to understand racing more search for a discussion of this stage here. It was a complex set of moves that were telling about racing as well as the true leadership of T-Mobile since Jan was there as well. Also does anyone know but are mirrors allowed by UCI. I feel like bar end mirrors would be a slight hazard and therefore not allowed. And finally always look over your shoulder before making a move. As soon as you look cars see you and make a conection and really do you trust you mirror to see everywhere, on which if you would need two mirrors to race and people would still be finding those blind spots from mirrors making that head turn more useful.

Armstrong has thrown tons of technology at winning the TdF- look at all the wind tunnels testing, redesigning of components, adjusting clothing- you name it. He is not one who resists change. I would argue that if he felt it created ANY advantage, he'd be all over it.

When I race, I can't even look at my computer or HRM when I'm pegged.

With all the crashes- one of those glasses or helmet mounted mirrors could literally take an eye out... at least that's what mother always told me.

I don't even trust them for commuting. I tried them for a few weeks, and felt like they blocked more of my forward vision than I gained in being able to see behind me. My ears tell me exactly where the cars/bikes are behind me, and if I want a better idea, it's only a second to glance back. I can't see any way that they would help in a race, but I've never raced so I don't know for sure, but I think most of the racers here have made good points....

On bike trails, I have passed other bikes and almost taken someone down. that with mirrors, and I blamed them for not saying 'passing on left.' I always do.
No I don' know how one knows who is behind them. Mirrors are required on cars.
I do not advocate mirrors for pro tourers, but bet domestiques protecting the lead rider from attackers, have taken someone else down..
Maybe sponsors think mirrors uncool and hurt sales, but so do crashes. Just me. I always ride with a mirror. in particular the take a look mirror that is barely noticeable.

What Jaco said.

My guess is that if mirrors would have been a help to pro riders, they'd be using them now. They know what is needed better than any of us.

I genuinely listen to all ideas presented here but it's hard not to laugh at some of them. In the past two tours we've had these:

1. The entire route should be lined with fences so that fans can't interfere with riders.

2. There should be no flat stages and all stages should be time trials.

3. Riders finishing in a pack should be timed seperately so that fans can experience the fun of seeing 150 domestiques sprinting towards the finish.

The pros do vastly different riding than is done in the 'real world'. TdF is not the real world, it is a very different place, and what works or doesn't work there may have no bearing on what works or doesn't work out here in the cities and towns we live and ride in. If you only ride in group rides with no cars and full support, then yeah, maybe you can emulate the 'pros' to your satisfaction. But if you actually get around with your bike, then you need to look beyond the team kit to see what may or may not be practical.

Our biking industry is too heavily driven on fashion and what the 'pros' do, not real world practicality.

peace,
sam

This thread though is about why pros don't use them.

I don't use them because I've never found them necessary. If it helps you, great.

This probably the most logical reason, if it's true.

So far, this thread has become more meaningful and informative. I appreciate everybody's cooperation.

I don't necessarily agree with this.

Cycling world is very conservative. They don't take every new idea seriously unless it comes from big budget company and pays for it and a team that supports it.

There had been, many different clipless before Look pedal but nothing had caught on. Some are experimental and somehow inferior while others were just as good design as Look pedals(remember that ski binders had been on the market for many years by then). After Look pedal's success, there have been many others followed. If others had introduced them before Look pedals, they all would have had the same way as the old clipless in the past that didn't make it.

anyone had luck with those mirrors that clip on inside your glasses. can't be seen.maybe riders do use them? Doubt it. Safety a second issue or riders would have been wearing helmets years ago.