Bicycling Wearing Apparel - Page 4

What we have here, is a failure to communicate!!

Well, it's been fun, but I suppose we all knew it was only a matter of time until this discussion devolved into a p*ssing contest.

I think we all need to ride more.

__________________
...


i relish complicating the obvious and trivializing the stupendous

shorts and shoes are good for all the reasons set out here, but all this talk of crotch rot and chafing etc is BS for the most part. sure it's nicer to have the right stuff but people on this website sugesting you're gonna do something so bad it requires you to HEAL? nah, don't think so. unless your lard-ass thighs rub together when you don't shave and wear lycra.
as a longtime freerider (roadie first) i soon learned you don't need to be encased in spandex to ride a goddam bicycle, and this is doing 25 mile runs (flat and climbs included) on a 40lb singlespeec. having said that there are a lot of nice things to be said for shorts and clip shoes when riding road or, i suppose, xc.
as for the rest it's up to you. summertime i just ride with an old t-shirt, wintertime in freezing-ass nyc i throw whatever i can on. thing is that it IS nicer to get stuff that's actually made with what you do - like jerseys that are longer in back and have some pockets etc to carry **** around with. but i see your point. some people can't leave the house with less than ten grand's worth of **** on and under them and that's some silly poser BS to me. and then to try and claim you're gonna die of crotch rot or some grievous thigh-related injury is just wimpish.

not my legs though, and that's kinda the point

You don't think this is a lousy attitude? Don't forget -- the "crotch rot" and "chafing" arguments might be a little rash, but they were offered as a defense against the initial suggestion that wearing cycling-specific gear was frivolous and needless. The first salvo in the "who's looking down who's nose at whom" battle was fired at the gear-wearing crowd, not the other way around.

The fact is that many riders are simply more comfortable in lycra, a chamois, and a wicking-fabric top than they are in other clothes. Some riders do get a bad rub when they do 40 miles of climbing in tighty-whities and gym shorts. So what? What do you care?

Don't feel the need or desire to wear Castelli from head-to-toe? Great, good for you. It's purely arrogant to suggest that anyone who prefers riding in lycra (for WHATEVER reason) is a BS-laden poser. Who's qualified to ride in lycra, huh? What makes one fit for the club?

Anyone who struts around labeling others as posers is pretty suspect themselves -- you're obviously paying a lot of attention to your own self-image. Ride in whatever makes you happy, comfortable, and in whatever makes you feel faster. Sheesh.

What are you suggesting? That you're somehow more legit, or cooler, or generally a more credible person than a cyclist that gets off on emulating the pros?

How could you possibly care?

you certainly feel strongly about the urban legend status of chafing and saddle sores.

you and i may not chafe so easily so shorts are more of an improvement than a necessity, but there were folks i raced with back in the day where mere cycling shorts were not enough to prevent chafing and a rash. they had to put noxema or something on the chamois before every ride and even then were getting saddle sores and stuff just thinking about biking. they didn't have lard-@ss thighs either.

for some folks it's no problem, even if they wear the same bike shorts all week without washing them (yes, i knew some of them too). to me that sounded like wearing the same underwear all week. no thanks. for them it was a hassle that showed not much benefit and with the high cost of quality shorts, who could own more than a couple in college?

not everyone is physiologically identical. ain't individuality grand?

hey read the post, ladies! i said shorts and good jerseys are undoubtedly better, and also that i wear both (except in high summer when my good ol washed and worn thin cotton t-shirt does the trick just fine). what i said was that implying that you'd be hospitalized for a week if you didn't wear your head-to-toe euro-pro outfit was disingenuous to say the least. and poserish

You misunderstand. I don't care at all if someone dresses up on the bike, but I AM entertained by it. I am even more so when it comes to the golf and ski gear. But I laugh only because it's funny to me -- putting the gear so far head of the ability -- not because of some value judgment.

For the record, my arms grew way too long on cycling gear, and I feel somewhat ashamed to be riding as nice of stuff as I am when there are thousands of people with infinitely greater fitness riding beater bikes for lack of cash. When some ragged t-shirted dude on a rusty clunker passes me, I can't help but think I should trade rides with the guy. But where I draw the line is on wearing logo-strewn stuff (other than the countless Colnago logos on my frame/fork). I just can't do it. You are free to. So what if I laugh? Who really cares?

Alright Aztec, point taken, my apologizes for the misunderstanding

__________________
Power is nothing without control

relax lokstah - it's not like i care that deeply. i just find it quite funny is all. imagining these 45 year-old account execs at ad agencies perched one leg up on the edge of the tub with the gillette venus poised…

oh **** - i just grossed myself out

but hey apologies if i touched a raw nerve

read my post honey. no need for petty name calling, which you seem to enjoy in spades.

i just said, everyone's different so don't generalize so much. for some folks it was an absolute necessity and they did need medical attention unless they went even above and beyond the specialized gear. for others they could be sitting on brillo pads with no further discomfort.

i don't think it's poserish to state the possible consequences, whether you may fall into that category of sensitive skin or not. and, if you read my posts, i don't advocate the multi-logoed euro-pro look.

Enough rubbish! I guess the bottom line question is to ask the rider, ANY rider IF he's happy OUT riding his bike wearing whatever it suits him/her?

If the answer is YES, then... period!
We're missing the bottom line here:
Riding our bikes happily.

Corsaire

Ok, ok. I'm willing to bury the hatchet. After 4 pages of mulling over these opinions, I suppose some nerves are a bit raw. But to clarify, Eddie, if you read your original post again, your above statement is a bit misleading. Sure, you had a bone to pick with chafing-alarmists, but you also succeeded in venting some general bile towards folks who chose to dress up to ride:

Call me an idealist, but cycling seems to have a gloriously broad appeal, with categories of rider filling in every gap between a kid on a bigwheel and a five-time Tour champ. Seems a bit unfortunate to propel 4 pages of discussion thread with a nose-up critique of riders who's gear dosn't fit a particular style profile.

__________________
...


i relish complicating the obvious and trivializing the stupendous

This is true, very true.