Cycling clothes without looking a berk?

[Michael Macclan]

On 16 Mar 2004 11:02:38 -0800, Vince wrote:

> "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote
> in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> "Michael Green" <[email protected]> wrote in
>> message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>

We're not necessarily talking about 'athletic kit', are we?
There's a lot of functional clothing that can keep you warm,
cool, dry or whatever and that doesn't soak up rain or
perspiration. It's true that none of it is necessary for
leisure cycling, at least not in the sense that a bike is
necessary, but it can add significantly to comfort and
enjoyment.

Of course, if your idea of leisure cycling is the 200yd ride
to the pub and back then the purchase of functional clothing
would not cost effective.

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He has Van Gogh's ear
for music." - Billy Wilder www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Jon Senior]

"Vince" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> 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.

If non-athletic is to not be fit / muscular then that would
seem to mean fat (From podgy to obese).

> 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.

It was an attack on your opinion, but this is an open
forum so you can defend it. As for misrepresentation. It
would appear that everyone interpreted your post the same
way which suggests that your meaning was not as clear as
you thought.

Jon

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes:

>Of course, if your idea of leisure cycling is the 200yd
>ride to the pub and back then the purchase of functional
>clothing would not cost effective.

Depends how drunk you get. If you sometimes honk down your
front (or your mates sometimes do) then a well-oiled leather
jacket is much eaiser to clean honk off than a jersey.
Highly functional and cost-effective. Also well suited to
the frequent falls off the bike on the way home.

You need to be more careful in your choice of words. I'm
sure you didn't mean to be offensive to serious binge
drinkers by implying that any old clothes will do for
heavy boozing.

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Congokid]

In message <[email protected]>, Chris Malcolm
<[email protected]> writes

>You need to be more careful in your choice of words. I'm
>sure you didn't mean to be offensive to serious binge
>drinkers by implying that any old clothes will do for
>heavy boozing.

I personally always wear my drinking trousers when I go out
on the tear.

--
congokid Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

 

[Mark Thompson]

> If non-athletic is to not be fit / muscular then that
> would seem to mean fat (From podgy to obese).

Or a bit on the skinny side like me.

 

[James Hodson]

On 17 Mar 2004 07:06:30 -0800, [email protected] (Vince) wrote:

>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.

Hi Vince

Daft, maybe. However, whatever the bodily shape or size, a
newbie windsurfer would not be considered out of place
wearing a wet suit, similarly a first time skier wearing
sallopettes and a decent jacket.

James

 

[Ian G Batten]

In article <[email protected]>,
Vince <[email protected]> wrote:
> He'd be wrong though. Althletic kit on a non-athletic body
> always looks daft.

What should people who aren't up to your fine standards of
perfection wear when exercising, then? Bin liners?

I would have thought in 2004 we were slightly beyond telling
the fat kids to stay away from the gym, because they don't
look lovely enough. But clearly not.

ian

 

[Terry]

> Why do you think that you will look a berk? Maybe you
> should remember that you will look the same whatever you
> wear. Its the clothing thats different

Hello,

I agree.I have just got back from a week of lectures for
doctors.I was the only one cycling in, but I don't think
anyone would think badly about a polo neck pullover and
tracksters with cycling shoes.If they did I would have
wonder why (if I cared). If there was any comment it seemed
to be moans about 1and a half hrs of traffic jams compared
with 40 mins of canal path cycling, so I don't think I lost
face by being slightly unusual, on the contrary. Our
practice leaflet states ''many of our staff cycle and walk
as much as practicable and often wear clothing appropriate
to those activities'' and it's true.

terryJ

 

[Vincent Wilcox]

James Hodson wrote:
>
> Hi Vince
>
> Daft, maybe. However, whatever the bodily shape or size, a
> newbie windsurfer would not be considered out of place
> wearing a wet suit, similarly a first time skier wearing
> sallopettes and a decent jacket.
>
> James

Or a first time parachuter wearing a parachute for
that matter.

 

[Peter B]

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes: You need
> to be more careful in your choice of words. I'm sure you
> didn't mean to be offensive to serious binge drinkers by
> implying that any old clothes will do for heavy boozing.

LOL

Dinner down me chin.
--
Regards, Pete

 

[Occupant]

> What do you lot wear for riding a bike then? I'd prefer to
> avoid lycra

Much of what I wear depends where i am going afterwards like
a pub or dinner with friends. I usual want to appear in
jeans at some layer for the public.

General riding, black sweat pants; sweat pants and
rainpants. Jeans and longjohns; jeans, longjohns, rainpants;
jeans, rainpants. Jeans or sweatpants and Gortex overpants.

I don't have anything against lycra or its appearance or
what is does to the body's appearance, it just isn't a
fabric I like.

I am not sure what a berk is. Not a Canadian term!

 

[Simonb]

> I am not sure what a berk is.

The funny thing is, people use 'berk' without knowing it is
actually a euphemism for something that rhymes with
Berkshire Hunt!

It's true I tells ya!

Simon

 

[Martinm]

"Simonb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > I am not sure what a berk is.
>
> The funny thing is, people use 'berk' without knowing it
> is actually a euphemism for something that rhymes with
> Berkshire Hunt!
>
> It's true I tells ya!
>
> Simon

Berkeley to be pedantic but yes it is true ;-)