Stupid cycling fashion trend

Discussion in 'Road Cycling' started by [email protected], Mar 8, 2006.

  1. Can somebody tell me 1) why the hell anyone would wear a SOCK over the
    outside of their shoes and 2) who the hell started this stupid
    trend????

    If it's a little cold, wear wool socks. If it's a bit colder, wear a
    light outer shoe cover (one designed as a shoe cover). If it's really
    cold, wear a heavy bootie/shoe cover.

    If I see one more wanna-be pro (or actual pro) putzing around in SOCKS
    over his shoes I'm likely to frikkin' puke.

    Fred
     
    Tags:


  2. Dan Connelly

    Dan Connelly Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Can somebody tell me 1) why the hell anyone would wear a SOCK over the
    > outside of their shoes and 2) who the hell started this stupid
    > trend????
    >
    > If it's a little cold, wear wool socks. If it's a bit colder, wear a
    > light outer shoe cover (one designed as a shoe cover). If it's really
    > cold, wear a heavy bootie/shoe cover.
    >
    > If I see one more wanna-be pro (or actual pro) putzing around in SOCKS
    > over his shoes I'm likely to frikkin' puke.
    >
    > Fred
    >


    Because it's cheap and it works? Or is that too simple?

    Dan
     
  3. gf

    gf Guest

    because it helps keep your feet warm, and is cheaper than spending
    thirty dollars on shoe covers that are not neccessary.
     
  4. How about this:
    Why are you asking this now?

    Shoe covers when it's not cold is SO 2002.
     
  5. Bob Schwartz

    Bob Schwartz Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    > Can somebody tell me 1) why the hell anyone would wear a SOCK over the
    > outside of their shoes and 2) who the hell started this stupid
    > trend????
    >
    > If it's a little cold, wear wool socks. If it's a bit colder, wear a
    > light outer shoe cover (one designed as a shoe cover). If it's really
    > cold, wear a heavy bootie/shoe cover.


    My guess is that it is the cheapest option if your shoe
    does not easily accommodate a variable sock thickness.

    Speaking of stupid cycling fashion trends, is Hincapie
    still wearing those butt ugly sunglasses? At lea$t that
    one wa$ ea$y to explain.

    Bob Schwartz
     
  6. Dan Connelly wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Can somebody tell me 1) why the hell anyone would wear a SOCK over the
    > > outside of their shoes and 2) who the hell started this stupid
    > > trend????
    > >
    > > If it's a little cold, wear wool socks. If it's a bit colder, wear a
    > > light outer shoe cover (one designed as a shoe cover). If it's really
    > > cold, wear a heavy bootie/shoe cover.
    > >
    > > If I see one more wanna-be pro (or actual pro) putzing around in SOCKS
    > > over his shoes I'm likely to frikkin' puke.
    > >
    > > Fred
    > >

    >
    > Because it's cheap and it works? Or is that too simple?
    >
    > Dan


    D'uh... they don't work, unless the stated goal is to look stupid.

    Besides, how do you account for folks wearing them when it's
    dry/warm???? Frikkin' lemmings...
     
  7. [email protected] wrote:
    > How about this:
    > Why are you asking this now?
    >
    > Shoe covers when it's not cold is SO 2002.


    Dat's right... it's soooo 2002, but you still see the schmucks wearing
    'em.

    Fred
     
  8. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

  9. Mark Fennell wrote:
    > <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > [email protected] wrote:
    > >> How about this:
    > >> Why are you asking this now?
    > >>
    > >> Shoe covers when it's not cold is SO 2002.

    > >
    > > Dat's right... it's soooo 2002, but you still see the schmucks wearing
    > > 'em.

    >
    > And sometimes non-schmucks too...
    >
    > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=172
    >
    > ...with wc stripes even!


    God, I'm gonna hurl... is that you??? No, wait... don't answer.
    Don't want to know.

    That's the quintessential example of schmuckiness re: socks over shoes.
    Between the socks and the Rev-X wheels, somebody should run over that
    poor bastard and put him and everyone within eyesight out of their
    misery.

    Fred
     
  10. wrote:

    >
    > Dan Connelly wrote:
    >> [email protected] wrote:
    >> > Can somebody tell me 1) why the hell anyone would wear a SOCK over the
    >> > outside of their shoes and 2) who the hell started this stupid
    >> > trend????
    >> >
    >> > If it's a little cold, wear wool socks. If it's a bit colder, wear a
    >> > light outer shoe cover (one designed as a shoe cover). If it's really
    >> > cold, wear a heavy bootie/shoe cover.
    >> >
    >> > If I see one more wanna-be pro (or actual pro) putzing around in SOCKS
    >> > over his shoes I'm likely to frikkin' puke.
    >> >
    >> > Fred
    >> >

    >>
    >> Because it's cheap and it works? Or is that too simple?
    >>
    >> Dan

    >
    > D'uh... they don't work, unless the stated goal is to look stupid.
    >
    > Besides, how do you account for folks wearing them when it's
    > dry/warm???? Frikkin' lemmings...
    >


    Can't you think of anything better to criticize than guys having socks?

    --
    Bill Asher
     
  11. Bob Schwartz wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    > > Can somebody tell me 1) why the hell anyone would wear a SOCK over the
    > > outside of their shoes and 2) who the hell started this stupid
    > > trend????
    > >
    > > If it's a little cold, wear wool socks. If it's a bit colder, wear a
    > > light outer shoe cover (one designed as a shoe cover). If it's really
    > > cold, wear a heavy bootie/shoe cover.

    >
    > My guess is that it is the cheapest option if your shoe
    > does not easily accommodate a variable sock thickness.
    >
    > Speaking of stupid cycling fashion trends, is Hincapie
    > still wearing those butt ugly sunglasses? At lea$t that
    > one wa$ ea$y to explain.
    >
    > Bob Schwartz


    Don't even get me started on those fuggly-assed glasses GH wears. I
    mean, c'mon. Doesn't that man own a mirror?

    Fred
     
  12. Mark Fennell

    Mark Fennell Guest

    Ryan wrote:
    > How about this:
    > Why are you asking this now?
    >
    > Shoe covers when it's not cold is SO 2002.


    Fred wrote:
    > Dat's right... it's soooo 2002, but you still see the schmucks wearing
    > 'em.


    I wrote:
    > And sometimes non-schmucks too...
    > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=172
    > ...with wc stripes even!


    Fred wrote:
    > God, I'm gonna hurl... is that you??? No, wait... don't answer.
    > Don't want to know.


    Fred, may I call you Fred? OK, good...
    Fred you ignorant slut, I said "non-schmuck" so obviously I wasn't refering
    to myself. This is me...
    http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=193

    Then Fred wrote, in reference to this guy:
    http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=153
    >
    > That's the quintessential example of schmuckiness re: socks over shoes.
    > Between the socks and the Rev-X wheels, somebody should run over that
    > poor bastard and put him and everyone within eyesight out of their
    > misery.


    Fred, you aren't from around here are you??
     
  13. Mark Fennell wrote:
    > Ryan wrote:
    > > How about this:
    > > Why are you asking this now?
    > >
    > > Shoe covers when it's not cold is SO 2002.

    >
    > Fred wrote:
    > > Dat's right... it's soooo 2002, but you still see the schmucks wearing
    > > 'em.

    >
    > I wrote:
    > > And sometimes non-schmucks too...
    > > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=172
    > > ...with wc stripes even!

    >
    > Fred wrote:
    > > God, I'm gonna hurl... is that you??? No, wait... don't answer.
    > > Don't want to know.

    >
    > Fred, may I call you Fred? OK, good...
    > Fred you ignorant slut, I said "non-schmuck" so obviously I wasn't refering
    > to myself. This is me...
    > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=193
    >
    > Then Fred wrote, in reference to this guy:
    > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=153
    > >
    > > That's the quintessential example of schmuckiness re: socks over shoes.
    > > Between the socks and the Rev-X wheels, somebody should run over that
    > > poor bastard and put him and everyone within eyesight out of their
    > > misery.

    >
    > Fred, you aren't from around here are you??


    Don't know where you're from, but I know it's not where I'm from, so I
    guess you could say "no, I'm not from around here".

    I don't know, nor care, who the hell that is in that picture. I guess
    you're going to tell me it's somebody important, or someone we should
    respect and/or emulate.

    If it ain't cold enough for arm warmers or knee warmers, it AIN'T cold
    enough for shoe covers, especially not lame-assed SOCKS doubling as
    shoe covers. Hell, not only are they NOT cool, they're probably adding
    to his aerodynamic drag.

    Anyway you slice it, it's just some guy trying to look cool, even if it
    has NO added benefit whatsoever. In my book, that equals schmuck.

    Fred
     
  14. Dan Connelly

    Dan Connelly Guest

  15. Jay S. Hill

    Jay S. Hill Guest

    [email protected] wrote:

    > If I see one more wanna-be pro (or actual pro) putzing around in SOCKS
    > over his shoes I'm likely to frikkin' puke.


    Am I allowed to stuff some tools and a tube into a sock & tie it under
    my seat? Haven't done it in a while, but I might need to...
     
  16. Jay S. Hill wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > If I see one more wanna-be pro (or actual pro) putzing around in SOCKS
    > > over his shoes I'm likely to frikkin' puke.

    >
    > Am I allowed to stuff some tools and a tube into a sock & tie it under
    > my seat? Haven't done it in a while, but I might need to...


    Yes.

    Retro for retro's sake = cool

    Retro that actually works well and costs nothing = very cool

    Trendy that doesn't work, but done for trendiness sake = very UNcool

    Fred
     
  17. [email protected] wrote:

    > > Then Fred wrote, in reference to this guy:
    > > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=153


    > If it ain't cold enough for arm warmers or knee warmers, it AIN'T cold
    > enough for shoe covers, especially not lame-assed SOCKS doubling as
    > shoe covers. Hell, not only are they NOT cool, they're probably adding
    > to his aerodynamic drag.
    >
    > Anyway you slice it, it's just some guy trying to look cool, even if it
    > has NO added benefit whatsoever. In my book, that equals schmuck.


    How the hell else are professional Masters Fattie racers
    supposed to cover up their sponsor-inappropriate shoes?
    And can somebody explain to me the difference between
    shoe covers (OK) and oversocks (shmucky)?

    Like, I'm assuming those are oversocks and not off-the-rack
    socks, because socks don't usually have that kind of pattern
    and anyway, if you have even moderately large feet (like if
    you are a 6 foot Masters Fattie rather than a 5-6 Europro)
    the average off the rack sock is not nearly big enough to
    pull over your shoes without shredding it. Or is there
    some kind of new Fantastic Four Elastigirl sock material
    out there?

    I really don't feel we have a detailed enough treatment of these
    issues in RBR. Is the shoe-cover vs sock difference in the fabric,
    shiny vs. terry? Is it the size of the Castelli logo? Knit, or
    not knit? Are Defeet Slipstream covers actually socks
    masquerading as shoe covers?

    Finally, who's the bigger fashion hoes, Socal Masters riding Spinergys
    and wearing extraneous socks with WC stripes to look cool, or those of
    us who pore over Socal Masters' wheel and sock choices out of the
    worry that somebody who isn't actually cool might try to look cool?

    Ben
    RBR Knitwear Consultant
     
  18. [email protected] wrote:
    > [email protected] wrote:
    >
    > > > Then Fred wrote, in reference to this guy:
    > > > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=153

    >
    > > If it ain't cold enough for arm warmers or knee warmers, it AIN'T cold
    > > enough for shoe covers, especially not lame-assed SOCKS doubling as
    > > shoe covers. Hell, not only are they NOT cool, they're probably adding
    > > to his aerodynamic drag.
    > >
    > > Anyway you slice it, it's just some guy trying to look cool, even if it
    > > has NO added benefit whatsoever. In my book, that equals schmuck.

    >
    > How the hell else are professional Masters Fattie racers
    > supposed to cover up their sponsor-inappropriate shoes?
    > And can somebody explain to me the difference between
    > shoe covers (OK) and oversocks (shmucky)?
    >
    > Like, I'm assuming those are oversocks and not off-the-rack
    > socks, because socks don't usually have that kind of pattern
    > and anyway, if you have even moderately large feet (like if
    > you are a 6 foot Masters Fattie rather than a 5-6 Europro)
    > the average off the rack sock is not nearly big enough to
    > pull over your shoes without shredding it. Or is there
    > some kind of new Fantastic Four Elastigirl sock material
    > out there?
    >
    > I really don't feel we have a detailed enough treatment of these
    > issues in RBR. Is the shoe-cover vs sock difference in the fabric,
    > shiny vs. terry? Is it the size of the Castelli logo? Knit, or
    > not knit? Are Defeet Slipstream covers actually socks
    > masquerading as shoe covers?
    >
    > Finally, who's the bigger fashion hoes, Socal Masters riding Spinergys
    > and wearing extraneous socks with WC stripes to look cool, or those of
    > us who pore over Socal Masters' wheel and sock choices out of the
    > worry that somebody who isn't actually cool might try to look cool?
    >
    > Ben
    > RBR Knitwear Consultant


    You know what's really funny (and accurate, BTW) is that a masters
    racer would worry about shoe sponsor problems. The guy's probably
    making 6 figures and still accepts shoe sponsorships so he can save
    $200 on new shoes every couple of years. Should be ashamed of himself.


    Only thing worse is some marketing schmuck gives the guy a deal on his
    shoes, knowing that 1) he can afford his own damn shoes, and 2) he
    can't provide ANY return on investment.

    The sponsorship support should be going to someone more deserving, like
    an aspiring junior/espoir.

    Fred
     
  19. On 8 Mar 2006 14:06:34 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >Don't even get me started on those fuggly-assed glasses GH wears. I
    >mean, c'mon. Doesn't that man own a mirror?


    You mean, you think a mirror would make the sunglasses look better?

    Not sure about the look, but it would let George get a glimpse of TB
    before being passed at P-R.

    Curtis L. Russell
    Odenton, MD (USA)
    Just someone on two wheels...
     
  20. On 8 Mar 2006 14:21:21 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

    >
    >Mark Fennell wrote:
    >> Ryan wrote:
    >> > How about this:
    >> > Why are you asking this now?
    >> >
    >> > Shoe covers when it's not cold is SO 2002.

    >>
    >> Fred wrote:
    >> > Dat's right... it's soooo 2002, but you still see the schmucks wearing
    >> > 'em.

    >>
    >> I wrote:
    >> > And sometimes non-schmucks too...
    >> > http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=172
    >> > ...with wc stripes even!

    >>
    >> Fred wrote:
    >> > God, I'm gonna hurl... is that you??? No, wait... don't answer.
    >> > Don't want to know.

    >>
    >> Fred, may I call you Fred? OK, good...
    >> Fred you ignorant slut, I said "non-schmuck" so obviously I wasn't refering
    >> to myself. This is me...
    >> http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=193
    >>
    >> Then Fred wrote, in reference to this guy:
    >> http://www.shutterfly.com/progal/slideshow.jsp?auto=0&aid=768a5498cf451feea5e5&idx=153
    >> >
    >> > That's the quintessential example of schmuckiness re: socks over shoes.
    >> > Between the socks and the Rev-X wheels, somebody should run over that
    >> > poor bastard and put him and everyone within eyesight out of their
    >> > misery.

    >>
    >> Fred, you aren't from around here are you??

    >
    >Don't know where you're from, but I know it's not where I'm from, so I
    >guess you could say "no, I'm not from around here".
    >
    >I don't know, nor care, who the hell that is in that picture. I guess
    >you're going to tell me it's somebody important, or someone we should
    >respect and/or emulate.
    >
    >If it ain't cold enough for arm warmers or knee warmers, it AIN'T cold
    >enough for shoe covers, especially not lame-assed SOCKS doubling as
    >shoe covers. Hell, not only are they NOT cool, they're probably adding
    >to his aerodynamic drag.
    >
    >Anyway you slice it, it's just some guy trying to look cool, even if it
    >has NO added benefit whatsoever. In my book, that equals schmuck.


    The guy in the second picture got top 15 in the Olympic road race and
    late rode on one of the best pro teams in the world, among other
    things.

    JT

    ****************************
    Remove "remove" to reply
    Visit http://www.jt10000.com
    ****************************
     
Loading...
Loading...