Cycling clothes without looking a berk? - Page 4

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:20:16 +0000, Peter Clinch
<p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
<40557550.9040502@dundee.ac.uk>:

>A pal is interested in a 'bent. His grown son (early 20s I
>think) has told him Not To Go There, "because people will
>look at you!".

Best reason for buying one! The abstrads certainly don't
look when you ride a wedgie...

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:tsl8501n4bpchefmf0em5jtg1ej3lsefua@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:02:09 +0000 (UTC), "Peter B"
> <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> <c3172h$ld1$1@sparta.btinternet.com>:
>
> >The point is I don't perceive myself as looking a "berk"
> >when dressed in lycra cycling clothes and cycling
> >footwear when on a bike ride
>
> No, the point is why should you give a flying f**k on a
> rolling doughnut what you look like, as long as you are
> comfortable?

Yes, I don't give a..... Like I said, I don't perceive
myself as looking a "berk" and others perception of me
wasn't mentioned because their perception is irrelevent :-)
(Well, except the silly old git who accused me of "being
dressed to accelerate" when his missus nearly ran me down
which in a way was almost a compliment).
--
Regards, Pete

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> wrote in
news:tsl8501n4bpchefmf0em5jtg1ej3lsefua@4ax.com:

> No, the point is why should you give a flying f**k on a
> rolling doughnut what you look like, as long as you are
> comfortable?
>

I always thought it was *at* a rolling doughnut. Makes more
sense when you think about it :-)

Graeme

Peter Clinch wrote:

> A pal is interested in a 'bent. His grown son (early 20s I
> think) has told him Not To Go There, "because people will
> look at you!".

You could try telling him that he'll get used to it after
twenty years...

> Tom snr. asked Tom jnr. if the various additions to his
> VW Golf such as extra fruity exhaust were designed to
> make it blend it into the background, but alas a reply
> was not heard...

Snk!

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

"Peter B" <peter28@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<c351r5$ble$1@sparta.btinternet.com>...

> Like I said, I don't perceive myself as looking a "berk"
> and others perception of me wasn't mentioned because their
> perception is irrelevent :-) (Well, except the silly old
> git who accused me of "being dressed to accelerate" when
> his missus nearly ran me down which in a way was almost a
> compliment).

You didn't let him finish the sentence. He obviously meant
"dressed to accelerate over".

--
Dave...

Graeme <graeme@gpdods.removethis.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94AE66219803Bgraemegpdodsremoveth@203.2.194.51>...

> I always thought it was *at* a rolling doughnut. Makes
> more sense when you think about it :-)

Although difficult and dangerous.

--
Dave...

Martinm2@wcms.org.uk (MartinM) wrote in message news:<3cf5c6dc.0403141205.42c8d72a@posting.google.com>...

> I feel slightly uncomfortable with wearing Tour de France team kit,
> especially maillots jaune. I much prefer my own club/AUK
> as at least I ride for them. Have to admit that Tour de France team
> kit does look cool though ;-)

You are rather setting yourself up to be shot down if you go
out riding in the yellow jersey or polka dots. There was a
Johnny Helms cartoon during the 2002 Tour showing two
bearded ancients thus attired making their cafe stop and
being greeted by the proprietress with, "Ah, Monsieur
Armstrong and Monsieur Jalabert."

--
Dave...

dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk (Dave Kahn) wrote in
news:57db8bde.0403160246.422c237a@posting.google.com:

> Although difficult and dangerous.
>

There speaks the voice of experience :-)

Graeme

Graeme <graeme@gpdods.removethis.com> wrote in message news:<Xns94AEC08339196graemegpdodsremoveth@203.2.194.51>...
> dkahn400@yahoo.co.uk (Dave Kahn) wrote in
> news:57db8bde.0403160246.422c237a@posting.google.com:

> > Although difficult and dangerous.

> There speaks the voice of experience :-)

Curses! It's a fair cop. :-)

--
Dave...

"Richard Goodman" <rich@NOSPAM.rsk.homechoice.co.uk> wrote in message news:<405470bb$1@news1.homechoice.co.uk>...
> "Michael Green" <michaelrmgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> message
> news:e5c9d40b.0403140449.48e0745f@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > Life will be a lot better just getting used to looking
> > like a berk and wearing the appropriate kit.
>
> And if he did that, he may eventually get round to
> thinking he doesn't look like a berk...
>
He'd be wrong though. Althletic kit on a non-athletic body
always looks daft. In my experience there's nothing wrong
with 'ordinary' clothes for leisure cycling. Trainers,
jeans, tee-shirts, light-weight jackets, etc. None of the
specialist clothing is necessary.

Expedition and competition cycling is a different thing
altogether.

"Vince" <vjosullivan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e3209b0e.0403161102.1e476dc8@posting.google.com...
> Althletic kit on a non-athletic body always looks daft.

I think mass body piercings do but who gives a **** and at
least the cycling kit is functional.

>In my experience there's nothing wrong with 'ordinary'
>clothes for leisure cycling. Trainers, jeans, tee-shirts,
>light-weight jackets, etc. None of the specialist clothing
>is necessary.

IME jeans are bloody awful, they attempt to drag up and down
my knees with every pedal stroke, no thanks.

> Expedition and competition cycling is a different thing
> altogether.

No, not really, they are just more of the same.
--
Regards, Pete

> He'd be wrong though. Althletic kit on a non-athletic body
> always looks daft.

Athletic kit looks ok until it's taken out of context. Thus
hill walkers look daft when they're not walking, and
cyclists look daft when they're not cycling.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-
virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.624 /
Virus Database: 401 - Release Date: 15/03/2004

On 17 Mar 2004 07:06:30 -0800, vjosullivan@hotmail.com (Vince) wrote
in message <e3209b0e.0403170706.dae7826@posting.google.com>:

>Are you sure you read what I wrote? I never mentioned
>overweight people, fat people or fat arses, just non-
>athletes dressing like athletes. I think they look daft
>[...] Nor did I say anything about clothing for exercising
>in, just that specialist clothing is not necessary for
>leisure cycling.

But bike clothing is not athletic clothing, so no problem
there. And leisure cycling is more comfortable with the
right kit. You might have a three-mile trundle round the
park in mind when you mention leisure ccyling, for me
leisure cycling is a Sunday century or 50 iles with the kids
on the triplet. I wouldn't want to do either in anything
other than the proper kit. Commuting is different. Or not. I
ride 20+ miles back from Didcot - I wouldn't want to do that
without the proper kit either.

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University

Vince wrote:
> In my experience there's nothing wrong with 'ordinary'
> clothes for leisure cycling.

And what exactly is your experience? Do you wear
'specialist' cycling clothing? If not, you're not really
in a position to comment - I used to think 'ordinary'
clothes were fine for cycling until I tried some proper
cycling gear.

Or are you the sort of person that wears his smart office
shoes when he goes for a walk in the countryside?

Just think a little bit more carefully about what you are
saying next time - you complain about people not reading
what you wrote but it's actually you that needs to acquire
better understanding of the words you use.

d.

"Jon Senior" <jon@restless_REMOVE_lemon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<1079555221.30149.0@nnrp-t71-02.news.uk.clara.net>...
> "Vince" <vjosullivan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e3209b0e.0403170706.dae7826@posting.google.com...
> > Are you sure you read what I wrote? I never mentioned
> > overweight people, fat people or fat arses, just non-
> > athletes dressing like athletes. I think they look daft
> > and I'm perfectly entitled to that opinion.
>
> "Althletic kit on a non-athletic body always looks daft."
> What exactly did you mean by a non-athletic body? The
> implications of your statement were that you didn't agree
> with fat people wearing athletic clothing. What would you
> say were the obvious physical differences between an
> "athletic" and a "non-athletic" body?

Athletic as in fit/muscular (not necessarily in the 'Charles
Atlas' sense). Non-athletic as in the rest of the
population. No mention nor intention of fatness on my part.
>
> > Nor did I say anything about clothing for exercising in,
> > just that specialist clothing is not necessary for
> > leisure cycling.
>
> Neither is good equipment. But using a good bike can make
> the leisure more enjoyable. And wearing "good" clothing,
> can do the same.
>
> > I didn't talk about banning people, nor not allowing
> > people to wear what they want. In fact, with the
> > exception of what you say about your experience of
> > wearing jeans when cycling, everything you've written is
> > just ranting, over sensitivity and invented responses
> > the stuff the wasn't written.
>
> Actually it was a quite amusing rant based on the basic
> implication in your post.

I was, in part, amusing but it also a remarkable
misrepresentation of what I wrote and it contained uncalled
for personal insults. I felt it came across as an attempt to
intimidate me into silence for holding the 'wrong' opinion.

Vince.