Recent fatal crash at UCLA

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 09:34:47 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/12/2012 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:38:06 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/12/2012 03:40 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:29:18 -0400, Duane
wrote:

snip

BTW, to the OP, comfort over a 120k ride may be a reason for what you
deem a fashion statement and you may only think that we consider it as
protection. Perhaps you don't know everything about cycling or cyclists
either.

I wonder whether you read the entire statement or seized on one
paragraph, and leaped into the fray? I was comparing helmet use
between two groups. One, that uses the bicycle for basic
transportation and the other that uses the bike solely as a
recreation.

So why did you feel that you had to "dis" "recreational" riders for
their choice of a kit? Yes, I had a problem with the one paragraph. I
use my bike for transportation and for recreation. So what? You sound
like the guy with his "purple shorts" crap. If that's not your
intention, sorry I misunderstood. If it is your intention, then what I
said stands.

You still seem not to have read what I wrote. But to rephrase in
simpler, more understandable terms. I have never seen an individual
who's sole means of transportation is a bicycle wear a helmet while
riding while in my local (Phuket, Thailand). But ALL the recreational
riders wear helmets.

And, I might add; Thailand has a helmet law that applies to
motorcycles so the wearing of a helmet while riding a two wheel
vehicle is not an unknown practice.

How did this turn into a helmet question? Weren't you talking about
"equipment" in general?

Nope, I originally said that I found the whole bicycle helmet thing,
and all the discussion pro and con, to be a bit humorous as where I
lived there were two main groups of cyclists - the basic
transportation group and the recreational cyclists. None of the first
group had ever been seen in a helmet but all of the latter wore the
foam helmet. But as the recreational cyclists also wore the colorful
jersey, the lycra pants and the snappy patterned shoes was it a
fashion statement.

In retrospect I find that I had forgotten a third group that are soon
to become becoming extinct. The working cyclist who, driving a trishaw
spent all day and part of the night pedaling back and forth carrying
people and cargo about in Thai towns and cities. No fancy jerseys,
elastic pants or snappy shoes there either although a sun hat woven of
straw, or something similar, was a common garb.


Since none of the Thai's riding for solely as transportation wear
helmets and all of the Thai's riding for recreation do it seems likely
that there is some fundamental reason. Thus my question whether it
might not be a fashion statement.


Ok. And my guess would be that it's not a fashion statement. Perhaps
it's that they find some advantage in the equipment. Why don't you ask
one of them?

On Thu, 13 Sep 2012 10:13:44 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/13/2012 09:46 AM, Dan O wrote:
On Sep 13, 6:32 am, Duane wrote:
On 09/12/2012 10:23 PM, John B. wrote:



On Wed, 12 Sep 2012 09:38:06 -0400, Duane
wrote:

On 09/12/2012 03:40 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 08:29:18 -0400, Duane
wrote:

snip

BTW, to the OP, comfort over a 120k ride may be a reason for what you
deem a fashion statement and you may only think that we consider it as
protection. Perhaps you don't know everything about cycling or cyclists
either.

I wonder whether you read the entire statement or seized on one
paragraph, and leaped into the fray? I was comparing helmet use
between two groups. One, that uses the bicycle for basic
transportation and the other that uses the bike solely as a
recreation.

So why did you feel that you had to "dis" "recreational" riders for
their choice of a kit? Yes, I had a problem with the one paragraph. I
use my bike for transportation and for recreation. So what? You sound
like the guy with his "purple shorts" crap. If that's not your
intention, sorry I misunderstood. If it is your intention, then what I
said stands.

You still seem not to have read what I wrote. But to rephrase in
simpler, more understandable terms. I have never seen an individual
who's sole means of transportation is a bicycle wear a helmet while
riding while in my local (Phuket, Thailand). But ALL the recreational
riders wear helmets.

And, I might add; Thailand has a helmet law that applies to
motorcycles so the wearing of a helmet while riding a two wheel
vehicle is not an unknown practice.

How did this turn into a helmet question? Weren't you talking about
"equipment" in general?



Since none of the Thai's riding for solely as transportation wear
helmets and all of the Thai's riding for recreation do it seems likely
that there is some fundamental reason. Thus my question whether it
might not be a fashion statement.


People in Thailand are people, but I imagine their lives are quite
different from mine. I ride for transportation and for fun. My
lifestyle is such that all kinds of equipment are integral to the way
Ido things. Them, too, I imagine, though probably different
equipment, probably less of it, different priorities. Since helmets
are "unnecessary" to accomplishing their objective, and inconvenient,
maybe expensive, they don't bother. A helmet for me is just another
of many pieces of equipment, and my life experience has caused me to
value it's limited, but real, protection.

And fashion? My jersey's are what Nashbar had on clearance in my
size. Fortunately, they also had blue, and I think they look pretty
sharp, and that matters to me (I should very much like to have a blue
Cat in the Hat jersey), but it's not a major part of my reason for
using them.

Ok. And my guess would be that it's not a fashion statement. Perhaps
it's that they find some advantage in the equipment. Why don't you ask
one of them?

What language would they answer in? How might it translate meaning, I
wonder. And then there's that whole culture and lifestyle thing.


I have no idea but I figured that since John B. apparently knows them
all or at least has some method of determining what they all do, then he
could just ask.

Me, I'd figure that if "all" of the "recreational" riders (for some
definition of all and some definition of recreational) are using some
type of equipment (in this case we seem to have limited the discussion
to helmets) then I would assume that they have some valid reason for
doing so.

Hmm.... Valid in that "Everyone is doing it"?


(Still hoping Santa brings me a new POC helmet.)

James wrote:
On 14/09/12 05:27, wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:11:52 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


Me, I'd figure that if "all" of the "recreational" riders (for
some

definition of all and some definition of recreational) are using
some

type of equipment (in this case we seem to have limited the
discussion

to helmets) then I would assume that they have some valid reason
for

doing so.

Until very recently, I taught at a university in a northern climate.

One winter day, not long ago, I suddenly noticed that almost every
female student I passed was barefoot, except for wafer-thin flip-flop
sandals. Now, the day was dry, but definitely chilly, just a bit
above freezing. Yet their toes were exposed to the cold.

You, perhaps, might assume they had some valid reason for wearing
what were approximately beach shoes, instead of warm boots. But I
suppose that depends on your definition of valid. I suspect, if one
of them were asked, she'd say "They're so cute!" and consider that
perfectly valid.

Incidentally, I think it was the following year that UGG boots
suddenly became just as popular, fall, winter and spring, at least.
Fashion is a powerful thing.


What part(s) of bicycling specific clothing do you find least practical?

First, understand, I do use cycling specific clothing on many rides, so
don't think I'm trying to say it never has practical value. However, as
with many technical "improvements" to the bicycle itself, I think many
cyclists put far too much value on extremely tiny "improvements," or
even alleged improvements, and rationalize them into essentials. I think
that when it gets to the point that a cyclist is saying "I would never
ride without my [helmet; lycra shorts; wicking day-glo jersey; gloves;
special shoes and matching pedals; aero jacket; aero sunglasses...]"
they've bought into serious merchandising myths.

Of course, I think the same is true about micro-clearance plastic
frames, proprietary spokes, bundle-o-watch-parts shift levers, etc. And
it's even worse when they claim "You're foolish if _you_ ride with less
stylish equipment."

But to go down your list (and of course, some of this will repeat recent
conversations):

Shoes that make pedaling for hours more comfortable and capable of
delivering more power for short durations and capable of allowing the
power stroke to be extended - and these days you can walk comfortably in
some of the styles, if that is a concern.

The first impracticality there is that the bike equipped for such shoes
cannot be practically ridden without those shoes. The "more power for
short durations" is negligible for almost all cyclists, and the
"extended" power stroke seems to be a dearly beloved myth. And we can
add that almost all the shoes - like most trendy cycling garb - come
only in clownish colors. I do consider that impractical when I want to
ride somewhere, then look like a normal person.

Pants that make sitting on a saddle and pedaling more comfortable by
reducing chaffing and pressure points.

They work! But again, restricting one's riding to only those pants is
bad. They're frequently not necessary. I've got normal pants that work
perfectly well for rides of 15 miles or less.

Tops that provide air flow alterations, wick sweat away and have pockets
to make it easy to carry a few useful items within reach while riding.

The value of cycling jerseys is not great for most riders. Some of my
"modern" ones are more comfortable on hot days, but on days with
moderate temperatures, I've ridden long distances in much more ordinary
shirts with no discomfort. Personally, my jerseys with rear pockets are
almost always near-empty (usually, just one handkerchief, and sometimes
a Leatherman Micra tool or some coins). A bag on a bike is a much more
comfortable way to carry gear, and if the bag's in front, it's all
within reach.

A lid to keep the sun off your balding head while allowing the breeze
through, and perhaps reduce the severity of a nasty bump.

Aside from the ludicrous level of over-promotion and silly appearance by
any rational standard, helmets are far less practical than the cycling
cap I sometimes use. They have to be protected from theft when the bike
is parked, or carried like a purse. They don't shade my eyes as well,
they don't keep sweat out of my eyes as well, they are fragile
(regarding any bump at all, including when the helmet itself is dropped
from a low height). They're really difficult to pack in the limited
luggage space allowed by an airline flight. And of course, they don't
work as claimed.

Gloves to spread the load on your hands, wipe your nose,

....ewww... Put a handkerchief or tissue in your pocket or handlebar bag!

and to help protect your hands should you fall.

I like gloves for hand comfort on long rides. But: Fall? I don't need
to protect my hands from falls any more than my knees or elbows, and I
don't ride with knee or elbow protectors. Does anyone?

Bright colours that make you more visible to the half blind incompetent
motorists.

Bright colors help conspicuity. But "I'm a member of Team Copycat"
logos do not, they just look silly. And I believe motorists should have
the responsibility of seeing where they are going. There should be no
requirement for cyclists to dress like clowns. Again, looking like
Batman when you've ridden to a meeting is counterproductive, and thus
impractical. Every country with significant utility cycling (you don't
live in one, BTW) has shown that bright colors are not really necessary.

Leg and arm warmers that also make temperature adjustments easy. You can
take arm and leg warmers off without stopping, with a little practice.

Yes, you're right, I can. They're fine for minimum packing volume, long
rides with big temperature changes, like an autumn century ride. Yet
many riders ride all their lives without them, so their value is not great.

Shoe covers that keep your feet snug and warm even on a cold, wet
winters day.

Perhaps they do. I've never used them, so they can't be essential.

Light weight rain jacket with velcro up front for easy application and
removal, which is also quite possible without stopping, and an extended
rear to keep a bit of spray off your bum.

I prefer fenders, so there is no spray on my bum. But that means I
can't use a modern plastic micro-tire-clearance frame - which bothers me
precisely zero. I also prefer a rain cape, because IME it vents far
better than even Gore-Tex and such. (Yes, I can and do take off my
jacket and/or my rain cape while riding; not that stopping for fifteen
seconds is much of a chore.)

A wind stopper vest to keep the cold night air and light rain from
bothering you.

Really? If someone gives me one someday, I may bother to try it.

It is quite easy to find clothing that is not branded, so is it that
many choose to buy stuff with what they think is a pretty cool logo or
their favorite pro team your beef?

As I often say, "they" can wear whatever they want. I'm just discussing
the supposed benefits in a realistic way.

As for myself, while I've got cycling garb for a change-my-clothes
recreation ride, I've also ridden tens of thousands of miles in
non-cycling-specific clothing that worked just fine for me. I prefer
wool over most plastic fabrics (no stink, greater comfort, more
presentable in non-cyclist company), and I find a monochrome wool golf
shirt, a thin wool sweater and a very ordinary windbreaker work just
fine, especially if I'm (say) riding for transportation either at home
or while on vacation. For similar riding, I've sought out slacks and
briefs that have some give to them and are thin enough to be comfortable
on the saddle. I very frequently ride in absolutely ordinary shoes. I
understand that they make cycling socks, and I've briefly wondered why.
(Then it strikes me: Of course! There are people who will gladly pay a
hefty premium for them, that's why!)

You admit to wearing knicks on *long* rides...

??? I don't think I've ever used the word "knicks." What are they?

... what happens in cold and wet weather? Do you just suffer cold wet feet and legs?

Depends what's going on. Again, for wet I use a rain cape, and my bike
has fenders. I do try to avoid riding in rain, however. In my
commuting days, I'd usually drive instead of biking if it were raining
when it was time for me to leave the house. When leaving work, if it
were raining, I'd sometimes just wait for it to stop. Otherwise, just
the cape, and accept that my lower legs would get a wet.

My recreational riding in below-freezing weather has dropped way off as
I've aged, but I do have riding tights for that. (Are those "knicks??)
For utility riding, I've found slacks, shirt, sweater, jacket,
ordinary gloves and stocking cap are fine above about 25F.

Personally, I've found almost every part of cycling specific clothing is
well thought out and functional. I don't recall having a piece of kit
that I found impractical, or merely a fashion statement.

Again, it's partly a case of diminishing returns, and at high prices.
Should I spend $150 on a special jacket for cycling, specially cut to
conform to the position of a rider in the drops, with snug,
wind-cheating contours, day-glow colors, long tail to keep wheel spray
off my butt, extra zippers for all occasions, a special logo on the
chest, and a fabric that purports to magically breathe while keeping me
perfectly dry? Or should I just get a nice, plain nylon windbreaker?

Actually, I have both. I got my Gore-Tex jacket because it was just $10
as a returned item at the Bike Nashbar surplus store. (Arni Nashbar's
company used to be in my town; he's a friend of mine.) It's nice enough,
but Gore-Tex is multi-layer and kind of bulky. It takes up too much
space in my bike bag. So I usually ride in just the nylon windbreaker.

--
- Frank Krygowski

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
James wrote:
On 14/09/12 05:27, wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:11:52 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


Me, I'd figure that if "all" of the "recreational" riders (for
some

definition of all and some definition of recreational) are using
some

type of equipment (in this case we seem to have limited the
discussion

to helmets) then I would assume that they have some valid reason
for

doing so.

Until very recently, I taught at a university in a northern climate.

One winter day, not long ago, I suddenly noticed that almost every
female student I passed was barefoot, except for wafer-thin flip-flop
sandals. Now, the day was dry, but definitely chilly, just a bit
above freezing. Yet their toes were exposed to the cold.

You, perhaps, might assume they had some valid reason for wearing
what were approximately beach shoes, instead of warm boots. But I
suppose that depends on your definition of valid. I suspect, if one
of them were asked, she'd say "They're so cute!" and consider that
perfectly valid.

Incidentally, I think it was the following year that UGG boots
suddenly became just as popular, fall, winter and spring, at least.
Fashion is a powerful thing.


What part(s) of bicycling specific clothing do you find least practical?

First, understand, I do use cycling specific clothing on many rides, so
don't think I'm trying to say it never has practical value. However, as
with many technical "improvements" to the bicycle itself, I think many
cyclists put far too much value on extremely tiny "improvements," or even
alleged improvements, and rationalize them into essentials. I think that
when it gets to the point that a cyclist is saying "I would never ride
without my [helmet; lycra shorts; wicking day-glo jersey; gloves; special
shoes and matching pedals; aero jacket; aero sunglasses...]" they've
bought into serious merchandising myths.

Of course, I think the same is true about micro-clearance plastic frames,
proprietary spokes, bundle-o-watch-parts shift levers, etc. And it's even
worse when they claim "You're foolish if _you_ ride with less stylish
equipment."

But to go down your list (and of course, some of this will repeat recent
conversations):

Shoes that make pedaling for hours more comfortable and capable of
delivering more power for short durations and capable of allowing the
power stroke to be extended - and these days you can walk comfortably in
some of the styles, if that is a concern.

The first impracticality there is that the bike equipped for such shoes
cannot be practically ridden without those shoes. The "more power for
short durations" is negligible for almost all cyclists, and the "extended"
power stroke seems to be a dearly beloved myth. And we can add that
almost all the shoes - like most trendy cycling garb - come only in
clownish colors. I do consider that impractical when I want to ride
somewhere, then look like a normal person.

Pants that make sitting on a saddle and pedaling more comfortable by
reducing chaffing and pressure points.

They work! But again, restricting one's riding to only those pants is
bad. They're frequently not necessary. I've got normal pants that work
perfectly well for rides of 15 miles or less.

Tops that provide air flow alterations, wick sweat away and have pockets
to make it easy to carry a few useful items within reach while riding.

The value of cycling jerseys is not great for most riders. Some of my
"modern" ones are more comfortable on hot days, but on days with moderate
temperatures, I've ridden long distances in much more ordinary shirts with
no discomfort. Personally, my jerseys with rear pockets are almost always
near-empty (usually, just one handkerchief, and sometimes a Leatherman
Micra tool or some coins). A bag on a bike is a much more comfortable way
to carry gear, and if the bag's in front, it's all within reach.

A lid to keep the sun off your balding head while allowing the breeze
through, and perhaps reduce the severity of a nasty bump.

Aside from the ludicrous level of over-promotion and silly appearance by
any rational standard, helmets are far less practical than the cycling cap
I sometimes use. They have to be protected from theft when the bike is
parked, or carried like a purse. They don't shade my eyes as well, they
don't keep sweat out of my eyes as well, they are fragile (regarding any
bump at all, including when the helmet itself is dropped from a low
height). They're really difficult to pack in the limited luggage space
allowed by an airline flight. And of course, they don't work as claimed.

Gloves to spread the load on your hands, wipe your nose,

...ewww... Put a handkerchief or tissue in your pocket or handlebar bag!

and to help protect your hands should you fall.

I like gloves for hand comfort on long rides. But: Fall? I don't need to
protect my hands from falls any more than my knees or elbows, and I don't
ride with knee or elbow protectors. Does anyone?

Bright colours that make you more visible to the half blind incompetent
motorists.

Bright colors help conspicuity. But "I'm a member of Team Copycat" logos
do not, they just look silly. And I believe motorists should have the
responsibility of seeing where they are going. There should be no
requirement for cyclists to dress like clowns. Again, looking like Batman
when you've ridden to a meeting is counterproductive, and thus
impractical. Every country with significant utility cycling (you don't
live in one, BTW) has shown that bright colors are not really necessary.

Leg and arm warmers that also make temperature adjustments easy. You can
take arm and leg warmers off without stopping, with a little practice.

Yes, you're right, I can. They're fine for minimum packing volume, long
rides with big temperature changes, like an autumn century ride. Yet many
riders ride all their lives without them, so their value is not great.

Shoe covers that keep your feet snug and warm even on a cold, wet
winters day.

Perhaps they do. I've never used them, so they can't be essential.


Frank Krygowski,
So if you've never used something, it can't be essential to any one else
under any circumstances?
Kerry

On 14/09/12 12:05, John B. wrote:

In retrospect I find that I had forgotten a third group that are soon
to become becoming extinct. The working cyclist who, driving a trishaw
spent all day and part of the night pedaling back and forth carrying
people and cargo about in Thai towns and cities. No fancy jerseys,
elastic pants or snappy shoes there either although a sun hat woven of
straw, or something similar, was a common garb.

If they were provided with, say, double sided SPD pedals and MTB shoes
that allow easy walking, a pair of lycra shorts or two, and a jersey
with pockets and a few snacks to go in the pockets, would the wear that
stuff?

Is it just that they can't afford anything more than a crusty shirt and
thongs?

--
JS.

On 14/09/12 13:22, Phil W Lee wrote:
considered Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:05:23
+1000 the perfect time to write:

On 14/09/12 05:27, wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:11:52 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


Me, I'd figure that if "all" of the "recreational" riders (for
some

definition of all and some definition of recreational) are using
some

type of equipment (in this case we seem to have limited the
discussion

to helmets) then I would assume that they have some valid reason
for

doing so.

Until very recently, I taught at a university in a northern climate.

One winter day, not long ago, I suddenly noticed that almost every
female student I passed was barefoot, except for wafer-thin flip-flop
sandals. Now, the day was dry, but definitely chilly, just a bit
above freezing. Yet their toes were exposed to the cold.

You, perhaps, might assume they had some valid reason for wearing
what were approximately beach shoes, instead of warm boots. But I
suppose that depends on your definition of valid. I suspect, if one
of them were asked, she'd say "They're so cute!" and consider that
perfectly valid.

Incidentally, I think it was the following year that UGG boots
suddenly became just as popular, fall, winter and spring, at least.
Fashion is a powerful thing.


What part(s) of bicycling specific clothing do you find least practical?

Shoes that make pedaling for hours more comfortable and capable of
delivering more power for short durations and capable of allowing the
power stroke to be extended - and these days you can walk comfortably in
some of the styles, if that is a concern.

Pants that make sitting on a saddle and pedaling more comfortable by
reducing chaffing and pressure points.

Tops that provide air flow alterations, wick sweat away and have pockets
to make it easy to carry a few useful items within reach while riding.

A lid to keep the sun off your balding head while allowing the breeze
through, and perhaps reduce the severity of a nasty bump.

Gloves to spread the load on your hands, wipe your nose, and to help
protect your hands should you fall.

Bright colours that make you more visible to the half blind incompetent
motorists.

Leg and arm warmers that also make temperature adjustments easy. You
can take arm and leg warmers off without stopping, with a little practice.

Shoe covers that keep your feet snug and warm even on a cold, wet
winters day.

Light weight rain jacket with velcro up front for easy application and
removal, which is also quite possible without stopping, and an extended
rear to keep a bit of spray off your bum.

A wind stopper vest to keep the cold night air and light rain from
bothering you.

It is quite easy to find clothing that is not branded, so is it that
many choose to buy stuff with what they think is a pretty cool logo or
their favorite pro team your beef?

You admit to wearing knicks on *long* rides, what happens in cold and
wet weather? Do you just suffer cold wet feet and legs? Are you that
tough? Or do you turn around and go home, or call a taxi?

Personally, I've found almost every part of cycling specific clothing is
well thought out and functional. I don't recall having a piece of kit
that I found impractical, or merely a fashion statement.

All of that depends on whether you are going out /to ride/ with no
other purpose in mind, or going out for some other purpose, for which
you are intending to use a bicycle merely as the means of getting
there, and not as an end in itself.
If the main aim is to do something else, then the cycle specific kit
is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive, as it adds time
(changing in and out of it) and is likely to reduce the practicality
of using a bike for the trip at all.
If you claim that cycling is impractical without the specialist
clothing, you are claiming that for many trips, cycling is
impractical.
Many people, all over the world, would disagree with that, and daily
prove it to be false.

I would contest that my office clothes are not ever going to get me to
work in anywhere near the comfort level as my bike specific gear, and
when I do ride to work, I much prefer to carry my office clothes
separately and get changed. Besides which, I sweat quite well and would
stink if I rode to work and worked all day in the same clothes.

If I was going to the shops, that are way closer than work from home,
I'd jump on the MTB with SPDs and MTB shoes that allow me to easily walk
and comfortably ride. I'd wear a backpack and bring home groceries in
that. For a really big load, I'd drive. I guess if I had a big trailer
to tow behind the MTB, I could do all my grocery shopping without a car,
but I don't have a trailer, so the car is practical.

Yes, for many trips I do find riding a bike impractical, like going to
the garden supply and buying a cubic metre of mulch, for example. That
has nothing to do with clothing.

--
JS.

On Sep 13, 8:02 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
James wrote:
On 14/09/12 05:27, wrote:
On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:11:52 AM UTC-4, Duane wrote:


snip


One winter day, not long ago, I suddenly noticed that almost every
female student I passed was barefoot, except for wafer-thin flip-flop
sandals. Now, the day was dry, but definitely chilly, just a bit
above freezing. Yet their toes were exposed to the cold.


snip


Incidentally, I think it was the following year that UGG boots
suddenly became just as popular, fall, winter and spring, at least.
Fashion is a powerful thing.

What part(s) of bicycling specific clothing do you find least practical?

First, understand, I do use cycling specific clothing on many rides, so
don't think I'm trying to say it never has practical value. However, as
with many technical "improvements" to the bicycle itself, I think many
cyclists put far too much value on extremely tiny "improvements," or
even alleged improvements, and rationalize them into essentials. I think
that when it gets to the point that a cyclist is saying "I would never
ride without my [helmet; lycra shorts; wicking day-glo jersey; gloves;
special shoes and matching pedals; aero jacket; aero sunglasses...]"
they've bought into serious merchandising myths.


So extend this to pooh-pooh the whole business at every opportunity.

snip


But to go down your list (and of course, some of this will repeat recent
conversations):

Shoes...

(Deceased equine - you got spanked.)


Pants that make sitting on a saddle and pedaling more comfortable by
reducing chaffing and pressure points.

They work! But again, restricting one's riding to only those pants is
bad. They're frequently not necessary. I've got normal pants that work
perfectly well for rides of 15 miles or less.


And I've got a ~normal bare ass that works fine, too; doesn't change
the fact that bike-specific shorts are a godsend.

snip

Tops that provide air flow alterations, wick sweat away and have pockets
to make it easy to carry a few useful items within reach while riding.

The value of cycling jerseys is not great for most riders.

Sounds like a statistical claim. Got data?

snip


A lid to keep the sun off your balding head while allowing the breeze
through, and perhaps reduce the severity of a nasty bump.

Aside from the ludicrous level of over-promotion and silly appearance by
any rational standard, helmets are far less practical than the cycling
cap I sometimes use.

Unless you also value a helmet's protection against head injury. We
know; you don't. Have it your way but lay off the supercilious crap.

snip


Gloves to spread the load on your hands, wipe your nose,

...ewww... Put a handkerchief or tissue in your pocket or handlebar bag!


**** you!

So you'd rather collect and save your snot in your pocket or handlebar
bag?

and to help protect your hands should you fall.

I like gloves for hand comfort on long rides. But: Fall? I don't need
to protect my hands from falls any more than my knees or elbows, and I
don't ride with knee or elbow protectors. Does anyone?


Um... yeah. We know; you don't. You don't get a lot of things, which
is fine, but it's just you, and the sun and moon (and Venus) does not
revolve around you.

Bright colours that make you more visible to the half blind incompetent
motorists.

Bright colors help conspicuity. But "I'm a member of Team Copycat"
logos do not, they just look silly.

Like our Captain, you mean? Weird is okay.


Leg and arm warmers that also make temperature adjustments easy. You can
take arm and leg warmers off without stopping, with a little practice.

Yes, you're right, I can. They're fine for minimum packing volume, long
rides with big temperature changes, like an autumn century ride. Yet
many riders ride all their lives without them, so their value is not great.


Yeah, we know. Many riders stay home or drive the car when the world
is being the world.

Shoe covers that keep your feet snug and warm even on a cold, wet
winters day.

Perhaps they do. I've never used them, so they can't be essential.


(see above)

Light weight rain jacket with velcro up front for easy application and
removal, which is also quite possible without stopping, and an extended
rear to keep a bit of spray off your bum.

I prefer fenders, so there is no spray on my bum.

Fenders and rain jacket are not either / or. (I don't care so much
about the extended rear, as I like the bike-specific vented rain
jacket for keeping my core from being soaked. I use rain jacket very
sparingly, and don't wear rain pants, but would like to get some rain
chaps. A rain cape has good ventilation and cover, but would not work
for me.)

snip


A wind stopper vest to keep the cold night air and light rain from
bothering you.

Really? If someone gives me one someday, I may bother to try it.


I don't think anyone claimed it was essential.

It is quite easy to find clothing that is not branded, so is it that
many choose to buy stuff with what they think is a pretty cool logo or
their favorite pro team your beef?

As I often say, "they" can wear whatever they want. I'm just discussing
the supposed benefits in a realistic way.


With supercilious derision and your own sense of style.

As for myself, while I've got cycling garb for a change-my-clothes
recreation ride, I've also ridden tens of thousands of miles in
non-cycling-specific clothing that worked just fine for me. I prefer
wool over most plastic fabrics (no stink, greater comfort, more
presentable in non-cyclist company), and I find a monochrome wool golf
shirt, a thin wool sweater and a very ordinary windbreaker work just
fine, especially if I'm (say) riding for transportation either at home
or while on vacation. For similar riding, I've sought out slacks and
briefs...

TMI!

... that have some give to them and are thin enough to be comfortable
on the saddle. I very frequently ride in absolutely ordinary shoes. I
understand that they make cycling socks, and I've briefly wondered why.
(Then it strikes me: Of course! There are people who will gladly pay a
hefty premium for them, that's why!)


Actually, I got mine pretty cheap. Mostly wool, but a couple pair of
synthetic. Very low friction, breathable, and they do look stylish,
FWIW, IMO.

You admit to wearing knicks on *long* rides...

??? I don't think I've ever used the word "knicks." What are they?


I knew what he meant. What are you - thick? Or just xenophobic and
critical.

... what happens in cold and wet weather? Do you just suffer cold wet feet and legs?


Asked and answered:

(insert link to Frank's post where he said he doesn't ride to work if
it's raining or likely to.)

Depends what's going on. Again, for wet I use a rain cape, and my bike
has fenders. I do try to avoid riding in rain, however. In my
commuting days, I'd usually drive instead of biking if it were raining
when it was time for me to leave the house. When leaving work, if it
were raining, I'd sometimes just wait for it to stop. Otherwise, just
the cape, and accept that my lower legs would get a wet.

Speaking of looking silly.


My recreational riding in below-freezing weather has dropped way off as
I've aged, but I do have riding tights for that. (Are those "knicks??)
For utility riding, I've found slacks, shirt, sweater, jacket,
ordinary gloves and stocking cap are fine above about 25F.


Sure, lots of people have. But if you have far to go and with no
sanctuary from the elements, I'd sure want better gear than that.

Personally, I've found almost every part of cycling specific clothing is
well thought out and functional. I don't recall having a piece of kit
that I found impractical, or merely a fashion statement.

Again, it's partly a case of diminishing returns, and at high prices.

snip

Or should I just get a nice, plain nylon windbreaker?


Maybe if you cut your own vents, but gee whiz. And my rain jacket
rolls up and stows inside it's own zippered open mesh rear pocket.
Very nice. (Still, I hardly use it, but when it helps, it's
appreciated.)

snip

On Sep 13, 8:02 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
James wrote:

snip


Leg and arm warmers that also make temperature adjustments easy. You can
take arm and leg warmers off without stopping, with a little practice.

Yes, you're right, I can. They're fine for minimum packing volume, long
rides with big temperature changes, like an autumn century ride. Yet
many riders ride all their lives without them, so their value is not great.


I had to come back to the arm and leg warmers, because you have really
missed the boat here. They are great for leaving the house before
sunup when it's chilly, but can be adjusted as my body warms up from
riding, and adjusted more or even taken off when the sun comes up.
This is a realistic scenario for me much of the year. The arm and
knee and leg warmers are fantastic. My favorites are wool, which is
great stuff (though i'm not sure it's sutiable for your stylin' around
and making a impression after you've gotten off the bike... and combed
your hair, of course - a comb being one of your "essentials", IIRC).



snip

On 9/13/2012 10:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
James wrote:
[...]
Shoes that make pedaling for hours more comfortable and capable of
delivering more power for short durations and capable of allowing the
power stroke to be extended - and these days you can walk comfortably in
some of the styles, if that is a concern.

The first impracticality there is that the bike equipped for such shoes
cannot be practically ridden without those shoes.

Really? I find these pedals work fine both with
SPuDs for longer distances, and "street" shoes for shorter rides.

http://bike.shimano.com/publish/content/global_cycle/en/us/index/products/pedals/mountain/product.-code-PD-M324.-type-.pd_mountain.html

Gloves to spread the load on your hands, wipe your nose,

...ewww... Put a handkerchief or tissue in your pocket or handlebar bag!
[...]

Farmer's blow.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!

On 9/13/2012 11:50 PM, Dan O wrote:
On Sep 13, 8:02 pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
James wrote:
[...]
Gloves to spread the load on your hands, wipe your nose,

...ewww... Put a handkerchief or tissue in your pocket or handlebar bag!


**** you!

Odd place for this comment.

So you'd rather collect and save your snot in your pocket or handlebar
bag? [...]

LOL.

(As in Lolrus, not Limitation of Liability.)


--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W
Post Free or Die!