How come bicycle clothing looks so silly?

Peter Clinch wrote:
Clive George wrote:
"Tom Sherman" wrote in message
...
Clive George wrote:
"!Jones' Sock Puppet" wrote in message
...

I agree with you that any dedicated clothing is out of place in an
office environment; imagine walking in wearing a SCUBA outfit... but,
if cycles are to become a viable form of daily transportation, then
reasonable clothing will have to develop.
Already has - go to most clothing shops. See what people wear in places
where they do use a bike for daily transport - it's nothing special.[...]
Easy for someone in the UK to say. Normal clothing does NOT work well in a
high temperature, high humidity environment.
Like India? Lots of people riding bikes there wearing normal clothing.

Indeed. Simply the case that "normal clothing" in a high temperature,
high humidity environment, assuming it's selected for practicality
rather than what's hot on the catwalks, will be fine for "normal cycling".

Of course if it's 30C and 100% humidity and you insist on wearing a fine
wool business suit and riding sports machinery hard it won't be much
fun, but that's up to the rider. "Normal clothes" for me in those
conditions would be a loose shirt and shorts, pretty much ideal for the
bike.

That implies changing at work for many people, at which point one might
as well wear dedicated cycling clothing.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:44:49 -0600, Tom Sherman
wrote:

Of course if it's 30C and 100% humidity and you insist on wearing a fine
wool business suit and riding sports machinery hard it won't be much
fun, but that's up to the rider. "Normal clothes" for me in those
conditions would be a loose shirt and shorts, pretty much ideal for the
bike.

That implies changing at work for many people, at which point one might
as well wear dedicated cycling clothing.

Quite - that was exactly my reasoning.

On Jan 13, 2:34 pm, !Jones' Sock Puppet wrote:
Actually, I kinda *like* men in tight, black panties...

Um... (never mind.)

... but, my
question has always been: How do you wear [bicycle clothing] in public and
keep a straight face?


Two things: One, a lot of the "public" are getting to be real
lardasses. Bicyclists look awfully good in comparison. Two, who
cares what people think?

I recall when a decent bicycle cost a day's wages...

Decent? You mean like one that you can ride in public and keep a
straight face? If, OTOH, you mean a *good* bicycle... well, that's
subjective, and a good (new) bicycle would take me a while to pay off.

... and you could ride
the damn thing in cut-offs, a T-shirt, and sneakers.

You need a shirt and shoes?

... real *men* rode bicycles
in those days...

http://www.nacholibre.com/


Nowadays, bicycles cost more than an African wage-earner can hope to
make in his or her lifetime! There's something wrong here!

Why can't I buy a decent friction shifter anymore?

Grumpy Old Man: I'm oooooold! And I'm not happy! And I don't like
things now compared to the way they used to be. All this progress --
phooey! In my day, we didn't have these cash machines that would give
you money when you needed it. There was only one bank in each state --
it was open only one hour a year. And you'd get in line, seventeen
miles long, and the line became an angry mob of people -- fornicators
and thieves, mutant children and circus freaks -- and you waited for
years and by the time you got to the teller, you were senile and
arthritic and you couldn't remember your own name. You were born, got
in line, and ya died! And that's the way it was and we liked it!

Life was simpler then. There wasn't all this concern about hy-giene!
It my days, we didn't have Kleenex. When you turned seventeen, you
were given the family handkerchief. ... It hadn't been washed in
generations and it stood on its own ... filled with diseases and
swarmin' with flies. ... If you tried to blow your nose, you'd get an
infection and your head would swell up and turn green and children
would burst into tears at the sight o' ya! And that's the way it was
and we liked it!

Life was a carnival! We entertained ourselves! We didn't need
moooovin' pitchurrrres. In my day, there was only one show in town --
it was called "Stare at the sun!" ... That's right! You'd sit in the
middle of an open field and stare up at the sun till your eyeballs
burst into flames! And you thought, "Oh, no! Maybe I shouldn't've
stared directly into the burning sun with my eyes wide open." But it
was too late! Your head was on fire and people were roastin' chickens
over it. ... And that's the way it was and we liked it!

Progress?! Flobble-de-flee! In my day, when we were angry and
frustrated, we just said, "Flobble-de-flee!" 'cause we were idiots and
we didn't know what else to say! Just a bunch o' illiterate Cro-
Magnons, blowin' on crusty handkerchiefs, waitin' in lines for our
head to burst into flame and that's the way it was and we liked it!

In article ,
!Jones' Sock Puppet writes:

When you put multiple thousands of dollars into a bicycle, what you
have is a fetish, not transportation.

Yeah. Ain't it great? Too bad Faberge wasted his time
and talent making those stoopid eggs instead of making
bicycles. Maybe he'd have figured out a way to make
conventional diamond-frame bikes, out of which one could
pull a nice little folding bicycle. Or two. Or three.
All with ornate gilding and cloisonne.

As for "fetish" transcending functional transportation, I
have two words: Lamborghini Countache. Mid-engine cars
are what you need to outrun the cops -- they're less
likely to wipe out on curves at speed than front-heavy
cars. And they're just the thing for doing those
3:30 AM 7-Eleven runs when you get the munchies.
.... mmmmm ... pepperoni made from various unknown
animal fleshes and a bunch of spices to disguise the
funny taste ... drool

Of course, when I ride my nondescript bike to the
7-Eleven at 3:30 AM, the cops just ignore me.

Unless one is loitering, or acting goofy or suspicious,
bicycles are cloaking devices that render one ... not
exactly invisible, but unnotable & unnoticed.

So ultimately it's better to do those 3:30 AM munchies
7-Eleven runs on a $2300 bicycle than in a Lamorghini
Countache. Just remember to lock the bike when you
get there.


cheers, & processed meats - colon cancer,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:51:37 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam
(Tom Keats) wrote:

I have two words: Lamborghini Countache...

Only two? I can think of lots more, but, yes... I'd agree that it's a
clear example of conspicuous consumption.. See also Hummer and Harley
Davidson.

I'm not real sure what you're trying to say; however, it sounds like
you're pointing out that one finds conspicuous consumption in many
other areas of our lives besides bicycles... if that is, in fact, your
point, then I will agree.

The old: "But everyone else is doing it!" argument is certainly true,
although, irrelevant.

Jones

Per Tom Keats:

So ultimately it's better to do those 3:30 AM munchies
7-Eleven runs on a $2300 bicycle than in a Lamorghini
Countache. Just remember to lock the bike when you
get there.

The most appreciated comment I've ever received on my
bread-and-butter sport bike (which cost enough to feed an entire
African village for at least a month) came from my
son-in-law-the-farmer who doesn't bike, but knows equipment:
"Man, that thing looks like it's beat to ****.."
--
PeteCresswell

PatTX wrote:
::
::: There's no law that says you can't wear whatever you want.
::
:: There is where I live. We even have a bicycle helmet law! The
:: interesting part is that we don't have one for motorcycles.
::
:: Jones

Indeed? Then tell us about your law that constricts clothing choices and
footwear choices. As you know, helmets are in a different class of
accessories and are not considered clothing. After that, you might share
with us why you feel "silly" wearing clothing appropriate to the sport.

I thought those brightly colored and expensive bicycle foam hats were
for group identification as a Real Cyclist™.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

John Thompson wrote:
On 2009-01-14, Tom Sherman wrote:

PatTX wrote:
::
:: In that case teachers would have been able to buy more than two bikes
:: a day. Most teachers only work about 200 days a year, the rest is
:: just weekends and long holidays.

You just cannot be so stupid as to believe what you just posted.

Really? When I went to US K-12, it was 180 days/year, 8:30-15:30.

When you went to school US K-12 was it as a student or as a teacher?
Teachers do not work only the hours students are in attendence. I
don't know any teachers who don't take work home with them to be
completed on their own (uncompensated) time or who do not purchase
materials for their classes from their own (uncompensated) pockets.
Those long summers are often spent in curriculum development, continuing
education, and/or teaching summer school.

Most of the teachers in my school also drove school buses or had other
outside work, so they can not have been that busy. Nothing like the 50
weeks of 50+ hours expected of most salaried employees.

College in the US is typically two 16-week semesters.

Never heard of "publish or perish" in acedemia?

Yes, and in those institutions, professors typically teach 2 classes a
semester, so only about 10 hours a week needs to be devoted to instruction.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

Tom Keats wrote:
[...]
As for "fetish" transcending functional transportation, I
have two words: Lamborghini Countache. Mid-engine cars
are what you need to outrun the cops -- they're less
likely to wipe out on curves at speed than front-heavy
cars. And they're just the thing for doing those
3:30 AM 7-Eleven runs when you get the munchies.
... mmmmm ... pepperoni made from various unknown
animal fleshes and a bunch of spices to disguise the
funny taste ... drool[...]

Like this mid-engined high performance chick magnet
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Toyota_Van_1.jpg?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
LOCAL CACTUS EATS CYCLIST - datakoll

In article ,
!Jones' Sock Puppet writes:
On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:51:37 -0800, in alt.war.vietnam
(Tom Keats) wrote:

I have two words: Lamborghini Countache...

Only two? I can think of lots more, but, yes... I'd agree that it's a
clear example of conspicuous consumption.. See also Hummer and Harley
Davidson.

I'm not real sure what you're trying to say; however, it sounds like
you're pointing out that one finds conspicuous consumption in many
other areas of our lives besides bicycles... if that is, in fact, your
point, then I will agree.

I'm just saying: a bike is a bike is a bike.

And while some folks have penchants for expensive bikes,
I acknowledge their right to honestly acquire 'em.
Heck, I even applaud them for cycling, rather than deriding
them about how much they spend beyond the price point of
diminishing functional returns on the avocation.
That money could have been worse-spent, on less wholesome
stuff, like cars or drugs. But a ridable bicycle, no matter
how expensive or fancy, is still a ridable bicycle.
How can anyone criticize anyone for their choice to acquire
and ride a bicycle?

Certain bike configurations are necessarily expensive, such
as Downhill bikes. But those are specialized sports equipment
where cheap & cheesy components must be shunned. So if you're
not into downhill and you walk into a bike shop with a
complement of dh bikes, don't even look at the price tags.
Or the bikes themselves, for that matter.

As for cycling apparel: there /is/ a movement afoot (awheel?)
to integrate cyclable with stylish, streetable clothing.

IME, half a month's pay (as opposed to a day's pay) has always
gotten one an adequate shop-bought new bike.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca