Originally Posted by rsbob

When I first dipped my toe into cycling I had a Schwinn Varsity, wore cutoffs, t shirt and had flat pedals with toe straps. Serious cyclist would blast by on their pricey bikes dressed in full kit. I learned bit by bit as my strength and distance increased, that each piece of cycling gear had a specific function, like gloves for comfort and saving skin in the event of a fall. 30 years later 2 carbon bikes, 2 steel and a MTB and several kits I have evolved from very low a and s to a medium high a/s. When I see people I might consider as low a/s I remember how many years it took me to gain knowledge and finances to be fortunate to be where I am now, still struggling to keep up with the serious cyclists blasting by me.

Originally Posted by Broctoon

Hear, hear!

Those are not real cyclists. Kudos to them for at least getting outside. They could be sitting on their couch getting fat, but they go out and at least try. I don't care what they or their bikes look like any more than I care what someone is doing on his motor scooter. I respect what's done by anyone on a bike propelled exclusively by muscles!

Originally Posted by DonkeyShow

I found some killer lounge shorts at calvin klein in highlighter yellow that I rock with my striped tank tops from old navy when riding. Helps I got a fetish for sunscreen. last ride i finally hit 20mph avg over 1.5 hours on my piece of **** sora bike. Mainly cause I finally got the 3rd front gear working somehow. I had written it off in all honesty, but damn its soo much faster now. Look dumb, poverty bike, go fast ftw.

Originally Posted by Not2Bright

Nice! I wear $5 Fruit of the Loom drawstring shorts with a fluorescent yellow T-shirt and Red Wing safety toe sneakers on flat pedals. People passing by in cars probably tell their kids "see what happens when you drink and drive, you are stuck riding a bike" I just like to jump on a bike and go, I even made plenty of rides in Dickies work pants with a Velcro strap around my right ankle to keep the pants out of the chainring.

Originally Posted by PeteHski

I would imagine they don't care about being "real" cyclists. My only issue with e-bikes is the really subtle ones where it's not immediately obvious that they are powered. I once tried to race a guy up a local climb and smashed myself to pieces only to realise he was on an e-road bike! They should be made to wear jerseys with a large "E" on the back so you know the score.

Originally Posted by afm199

Interesting.

Back in the day it was all Blackbottoms and wool jerseys for me. ( some of you will recognize this.)

Today it's all fluorescent colors and comfortable seats. I want to be seen. Hell, i want to be impossible to not be seen. I don't wear earth tones, black, gray, olive drab, I wear bright orange or fluorescent green.

Originally Posted by caloso

I don't mind those riders. In my experience, they know how to handle a bike. What I hate are the people riding 30mph in the bike lane on what's essentially an electric moped. Yes, it has pedals but they're not turning.

Originally Posted by Broctoon

Hear, hear!

Those are not real cyclists. Kudos to them for at least getting outside. They could be sitting on their couch getting fat, but they go out and at least try. I don't care what they or their bikes look like any more than I care what someone is doing on his motor scooter. I respect what's done by anyone on a bike propelled exclusively by muscles!

Originally Posted by Broctoon

I like to be very visible on my bicycle and, I put a lot of thought into this. I gave it even more focus when I was into (road) motorcycling. I believe wearing bright clothing can make a difference in being seen by drivers and therefore reducing chances of a collision. But I think there's another benefit. In the event that someone hits me in spite of all my precautions, the liability fight might be a lot easier. Imagine the ammo that you're handing to a driver's defense attorney when you ride in subdued colors. Alternatively, imagine how easy you make it for your own lawyer when he can say to an insurance company or a jury, "My client was wearing the day-glo orange jersey and white helmet shown as Exhibit A, and eyewitnesses confirmed the flashing lights shown as Exhibits B and C were attached to his bike and functioning properly. How can there be any credibility to this driver's claim that he did not see my client on the road? Mr. Broctoon could not have been more visible. It's clearly a case of a driver who was distracted or simply not paying attention." (Any camouflage print is the worst choice, as the driver's attorney will say "My client did not see this cyclist because the cyclist was wearing attire specifically designed to blend into the terrain.") I'm afraid in the world we live in, these are things we have to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by Broctoon

I like to be very visible on my bicycle and I've put a lot of thought into this. I gave it even more focus when I was into (road) motorcycling. I believe wearing bright clothing can make a difference in being seen by drivers and therefore reducing chances of a collision. But I think there's another benefit. In the event that someone hits me in spite of all my precautions, the liability fight might be a lot easier. Imagine the ammo that you're handing to a driver's defense attorney when you ride in subdued colors. Alternatively, imagine how easy you make it for your own lawyer when he can say to an insurance company or a jury, "My client was wearing the day-glo orange jersey and white helmet shown as Exhibit A, and eyewitnesses confirmed the flashing lights shown as Exhibits B and C were attached to his bike and functioning properly. How can there be any credibility to this driver's claim that he did not see my client on the road? Mr. Broctoon could not have been more visible. It's clearly a case of a driver who was distracted or simply not paying attention." (Any camouflage print is the worst choice, as the driver's attorney will say "My client did not see this cyclist because the cyclist was wearing attire specifically designed to blend into the terrain.") I'm afraid in the world we live in, these are things we have to keep in mind.

Originally Posted by Broctoon

I have a theory about road biking street cred, authenticity points, or how “legit” a rider is perceived… whatever you want to call it. I’ll use some abbreviations and put forth my theory, with a few examples. I'm curious to see who agrees, who wants to just add some minor modifications, and who thinks I’m a total doofus out in left field.

Let a = cycling ability, or skill. This encompasses athletic conditioning, bike handling skills, and even wisdom in how to react to tricky situations on the road.

Let s = style, a.k.a. aesthetics. Your bike, accessories, and attire are all included here. Of course, this is very subjective, but there are some generalizations we can maybe agree on: In attire, Rapha > Pearl Izumi > Nashbar house brand > WalMart. (Similar tiers for bikes themselves are easy enough to define.) I’m not talking about product quality and certainly not about value--just style.

Consider the mismatch situations first…

A rider with very high a and very low s will tend to win a great deal of respect. If you disagree, imagine a group ride or race where some guy shows up on a 20 year old no-name beater. He’s wearing tacky, outdated shorts and jersey, cheap weightlifting gloves, and a model of mountain biking helmet that Target just moved to their clearance bin. As soon the ride starts, he absolutely schools everyone. Plays around with the strongest of the other riders like a cat with a mouse. I know… this is extremely unlikely to happen. If it did, you’d be looking for the hidden camera… or waiting to see who’s going to break this guy’s thumbs like they did to Paul Newman in The Hustler. But without a doubt you’d give the guy major points. Everyone would be in awe and wonder what this biking demigod could do on a Dogma or Tarmac. It’s sort of like Dave Stoller from Breaking Away, when the Italian team came to Bloomington (except he rode a pretty legit Masi).

With very low a and high s, a guy will be branded a poseur. Everyone assumes he has lots of money to spend but hasn’t put in the blood, sweat, and tears to earn real respect. He might look cool, but that doesn’t count for much outside of a coffee shop. Serious riders tend to dislike this guy, in spite of the latter’s weak attempt to fit in with the former.

Originally Posted by bblevens

So a guy like me who physically isn't able to be a fast monster rider but loves to ride and is fortunate enough to be able to afford good bikes and decent kit is a poseur? (I think the term you're looking for is Fred).
I am not fast. I cannot ride a century. But I love to ride and I found that a carbon frame with Ultegra was not only comfortable but it helped me enjoy my riding more. Hence I get out more.
If the serious riders don't like me and think I'm just trying to fit in, I suppose it's their loss.
I don't normally reply like this but I'm afraid this hit me wrong. The whole premise seems pompous and diametrically opposed to what bike riding should be about.
I've got my asbestos on, so have at it.

Originally Posted by caloso

The traditional definition is that Freds have no style, high utilitarian (frame pumps, baskets, helmet mirrors, etc); and that poseurs are all style and no legs.

Originally Posted by bblevens

So a guy like me who physically isn't able to be a fast monster rider but loves to ride and is fortunate enough to be able to afford good bikes and decent kit is a poseur? (I think the term you're looking for is Fred).
I am not fast. I cannot ride a century. But I love to ride and I found that a carbon frame with Ultegra was not only comfortable but it helped me enjoy my riding more. Hence I get out more.
If the serious riders don't like me and think I'm just trying to fit in, I suppose it's their loss.
I don't normally reply like this but I'm afraid this hit me wrong. The whole premise seems pompous and diametrically opposed to what bike riding should be about.
I've got my asbestos on, so have at it.

Originally Posted by caloso

The traditional definition is that Freds have no style, high utilitarian (frame pumps, baskets, helmet mirrors, etc); and that poseurs are all style and no legs.

Originally Posted by bblevens

You are correct. My apologies. I've been wrong about this for a long time then. Thank you for the edification.

Originally Posted by Marci

LOL really style counts?

Originally Posted by Marci

​​​​​​Broctoon I got a throttle powered front wheel. Use it on the tough hills or against the north wind but the rest of the time its my own power. The best of both worlds. I have had it a year now, but just bought a back up battery for longer rides. IT does mean that on days when the knees and back are screaming I can still ride. After researching them all I got the least powerful Hill topper. Its just enough that needed boost so even steep hills are feasible. And using the throttle I can give just enough power to work
the knees without over stressing them.

Originally Posted by bblevens

So a guy like me who physically isn't able to be a fast monster rider but loves to ride and is fortunate enough to be able to afford good bikes and decent kit is a poseur? (I think the term you're looking for is Fred).

I am not fast. I cannot ride a century. But I love to ride and I found that a carbon frame with Ultegra was not only comfortable but it helped me enjoy my riding more. Hence I get out more.

If the serious riders don't like me and think I'm just trying to fit in, I suppose it's their loss.

I don't normally reply like this but I'm afraid this hit me wrong. The whole premise seems pompous and diametrically opposed to what bike riding should be about.

I've got my asbestos on, so have at it.