BillyD

Heeeey, I resemble that remark.

I don't think it would be safe in ANY part of town.

I don't think there's any question the term is intended to malign and belittle.

Myosmith

I don't know how its used out in CA, but around here the ones who use it most are snobby elitists who use it as a derogatory term somewhere between "loser" and "dork". It is usually directed toward anyone who they consider an undesirable because of their mode of dress, quality or choice of bike, use of any non-elitist approved accessories, or who dares question the elitist status quo. Some do use it in jest, but still not as a positive term.

The good news is that the vast majority of the most respected cyclists in the area are not elitists and are actively supportive of the whole cycling community, including us 50+ clydes wearing MTB shoes on steel road bikes.

halfspeed

I don't know how its used out in NW Minnesota, but around here the only ones who use the term "roadie elitists" are cycling loners who use it as a derogatory term somewhere between "loser" and "dork". It is usually directed toward anyone who they consider an undesirable because of their mode of dress, quality or choice of bike, use of any non-elitist approved accessories, or who dares question the fredly status quo.

We're all just riding bikes. Worry a bit less about imagined slights and what other people are doing and wearing and you'll be way better off.

Myosmith

Touche'

I actually struggled with that post and edited it a couple of times and still didn't get my point across as well as I would have liked. If you look at the timelines, was changing "roadie" to "snobby" at the same time you posted because my problem isn't with roadies, some of my best friends are roadies, at times I could be considered a roadie. My problem is with riders who put down other riders over superficial matters. I do occasionally give the highly fashion conscious a hard time but I don't consider anyone "undesireable" because of their mode of dress, quality or choice of bike, use of accessories of their choice, or who dares to question my opinions (I don't believe in a status quo). I have friends who ride bikes worth many times what mine is and who are much more accomplished riders and I admire both their bikes and abilities. I also have friends who ride old steel Schwinns while wearing jeans and sneakers, no problem there either. I'm far from a loner and ride with two different road cycling clubs and have been a team member or team captain in several charity cycling events for several years. I have been very lucky to associate with many good people who don't judge others by their kit and groupo.

Unfortunately, not everyone is "just riding bikes" and not all slights are imagined. There are "elitists" out there (luckily a minority) who not only believe they are better than others, but feel some need to prove their "superiority" by putting others down by labeling them "Freds", "Posers", or "Wannabes". I've been around quite a while and have developed a thick skin. I couldn't care less if someone considers me "Fred" but there are riders who are new, less confident, and/or self-conscious who would be discouraged by being dubbed a "Fred" by someone they consider to be a "real" cyclist.

Anyway, the comment I responded to was that "Fred" wasn't derogatory, "just a statement". IMHO, No, it is generally recognized as a putdown. It might be used among good friends giving each other a hard time, but it is derogatory, even in jest. My original post in this thread questioned why "Fred" has become commonly used as a derogatory term as the man it is generally attributed to was a cycling legend in his own right.

Halfspeed,
Always good to see another Minnesotan on the forum. I get to the Twin Cities and Rochester areas fairly often. PM me if you would like to meet sometime. BTW, I don't take debates or even disagreements on internet forums personally.

Ghost Ryder

Is it wrong to admit you're a Fred???...???...
With all the chit chat going on this thread, it appears I'd be considered a Fred.
Do I care... Not @ all. I ride for me, not for anyone else.

zvez

By definition anyone (including me) looks like a major dork on traditional cycling gear. I thought I'd never ever wear tights and such and yet here I am. I'd take a pic of myself in full kit but am afraid it'd come back to haunt me some day! Consequently no cameras allowed on my rides!

Myosmith

Not at all wrong to admit you are Fred. Like I said in my first post, I'm happy to be compared to Fred Birchmore, shown here in the YMCA gym at 99 years old.



Bucephalus, the bike he rode around the world. The 42-pound single speed is now on display at the Smithsonian.

What I think is wrong is using the term as a put down to those who, for whatever reason, choose practicality over aesthetics and function over fashion.

By some standards, I'm quite Fredly:

- walkable MTB shoes on my road bike
- MTB shorts, jean shorts or trekking shorts and t-shirts even on organized rides
- dual sided pedals with platforms on one side
- rack and fenders on two of my three bikes
- LED flashlight in a handlebar clamp instead of bike specific headlight
- underseat bag for innertube, tools and CO2
- preference for oatmeal raisin cookies over Gu
- $12 safety glasses from Home Depot, bows worn under helmet straps
- steel road bike
- sometimes ride unclipped in Keen sandals or trail runners
- have brought my flatbar touring on group rides
- don't own a tire under 25mm and prefer 28s

halfspeed

Oh, I agree. But I think you may have a somewhat distorted view of fashion and practicality that makes it hard to remove the plank from your own eye.

WhyFi

Fo real. I wear bibs and jerseys *in spite* of how it looks, not because of how it looks. I don't doubt that the roadie kit IS a fashion statement for some, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't flat out function better.

gc3

halfspeed

Relax. It's a joke at the expense of a silly feature in forum software.

You've made quite an effort to make a list of characteristics that you'd deem "practical" rather than "aesthetic" with the implication that people who choose otherwise are simply fashion driven. Take your own advice.

Ghost Ryder

I have all the proper gear, but I prefer SPD shoes/cleats, so that makes me a Fred.

Ghost Ryder

I'm guilty of the follwing too.

Guess I'm more of a Fred then I realized...

Myosmith

When I left the keyboard last, I deleted my last post (before HalfSpeed posted his reply) but he was apparently already on it. Now I wish I hadn't hit delete because there was a lot more to it than the bits he quoted.

Don't anyone get me wrong. I very much believe that form can follow function and that well designed bikes and clothing can be both practical and aesthetically pleasing. I own and wear a few sets of matching kit as well as several assorted jerseys, shorts and bibs. I understand the value of quality, purpose-designed cycling gear and wear it frequently. There are a lot of people who have better bikes, better gear, and who are better riders than I, including a good number of my friends and acquaintances. No problem, I'm glad for them. I begrudge no person for having more or better than I.

What HalfSpeed apparently took exception to is my use of the term "elitist". When I say elitist, I'm not talking about individuals who have nice stuff or who top the leaderboard. I'm referring to that small percentage of individuals who believe that having more or being better at something makes them superior and entitles them to belittle or look down on others. One is not elitist based on what he/she has but rather on the way he/she treats others who don't have.

The list I posted earlier wasn't a list of "practical" vs. "aesthetic" it was a list of things that I have done that might be considered "Fredly". Nor did I imply that anyone who chooses differently was "simply fashion driven". What I did say was:

If you actually read that, instead of inferring things, you can see that at no point does it say that things can't be practical and aesthetically pleasing, or functional and fashionable. Nor does it imply any put down for those who do choose fashion over form. It simply says that if someone has to choose between practicality and aesthetics nobody should put them down with derogatory terms for choosing the practical.

I do poke fun at those who place extreme importance on trivial bits of fashion that have no impact on practicality or those who will sacrifice function for being in fashion. I don't get Fredly just to be Fred or to make a statement. I simply am not a slave to fashion and will choose what is practical for my present needs every time, whether it is fashionable or not.

BillyD

Why don't you guys drop it. You have different opinions, big deal, that's what makes the world go 'round.

Myosmith

Consider it dropped. I'm willing to shake hands and agree to disagree.

c0urt

that's worse than dividing by zero

zymphad

I always divide by zero.

f4rrest

I divide by NULL.

gc3

This is like an all-time first, 2 guys from Minnesota Internet debating, and one walks away not needing to be right? I don't believe it.

c0urt

it is because of you the movie expendables exists

patentcad

You'd have to work your way up to Fred.

MinnMan

Oh hey, I was wondering when pcad would weigh in.

As another guy from Minnesota, I'll put in my $0.02. I mostly think of fredliness as about mufti vs. cycling gear. The type of bike and accessories count, but not as much. A guy with flat pedals, sneakers, and sweat pants is a Fred.

If I'm riding one of my better bikes with SPD-SL pedals, a jersey and cycling shorts, I"m not a Fred. but then when I commute to work with flat pedals wearing jeans with a rolled up pants cuff, then I exude Fredliness.

cellery

Meanwhile there is a thread on the 41 about tall bikes featuring no tall bikes at all. Apparently Freds think tall bikes are large size road frames.