cyclists - why the gear?

[taters]

First off, I'm not ashamed to say I'm not a cyclist hater. I tend to go trail biking.

We live in a rural area and a particular road seems to attract out two wheeled brothers. Fine, no problem — it's actually good to see people of all ages taking up cycling as its good for you (except if you get knocked off and killed or seriously injured) and hopefully will benefit people.

My annoyance is this — why all the clothing? Why the tight shorts, tight top, silly shoes etc? Why do they have to wear that stuff just to go out for a bike ride?

It looks a bit silly, especially as newbies can be right fatties. I just think it looks a bit, well you know, ghey

I love driving and often go for a spirited hoon — but I don't don the sparco's, gloves and a bleedin' helmet though.

I'd feel really self conscious wearing the cycling gear — especially the shorts with my knob clearly on view.

Any fellow cyclist care to explain why they can't just go ride without the pantomime?

Edited by taters on Thursday 5th September 17:38

[supertouring]

taters said:

knob clearly on view.

There is one clearly on view in this thread.

[megaphone]

supertouring said:

taters said:

knob clearly on view.

There is one clearly on view in this thread.

Probably a very small one.

[taters]

Oh great. this thread has been moved.

I've been thrown to the lions.

In all seriousness now, its a genuine question - why do most road cyclists wear all the gear? As if they were on some sort of time trial. C'mon enlighten me?

Ps - very good retort above. My compliments

[JEA1K]

Imagine playing football without football boots ... playing squash in sandles or skiing in a wet suit and trainers ...

The clothes have been developed for the riders.

[Some Gump]

taters said:

First off, I'm ashamed to say I'm not a cyclist hater.

You're ashamed that you don't hate cyclists? Are you some type of ?

[tobinen]

That's what I thought - odd statement

[Engineer1]

This may sound daft but getting all the kit on differentiates between a quick ride and a full on session ride, a couple of miles locally doesn't need the kit a ride down the red routes on the chase needs.

[47p2]

taters said:

It looks a bit silly, especially as newbies can be right fatties. I just think it looks a bit, well you know, ghey

...especially the shorts with my knob clearly on view.

Click

[Vocal Minority]

Obvious troll is obvious.

Also - you try cycling 50 miles in jeans and a t shirt, come back, and then we can re-assess the situation

[Gizmoish]

Some Gump said:

taters said:

First off, I'm ashamed to say I'm not a cyclist hater.

You're ashamed that you don't hate cyclists? Are you some type of ?

Very odd.

[dirty boy]

I even wear my cycling shorts for spinning classes now for the comfort.

Glasses are essential - bugs in your eyes are more common round here than road debris.

The tight tops are designed to house 'bits' and easily accessible too.

Surprising how many people don't realise that cycling shorts are heavily padded though.

[RealSquirrels]

i keep my 'bits' in my shorts, dirty boy seems have some rather alternative arrangements. hence the name, maybe.

[Pablo Escobar]

Me and a mate go out mountain biking. He spent the yearly output of a developed nation on a set of glasses, I went to screw fix and got some safety specs with yellow lenses for a fiver. Nobody can tell the difference.

[WinstonWolf]

taters said:

Oh great. this thread has been moved.

I've been thrown to the lions.

In all seriousness now, its a genuine question - why do most road cyclists wear all the gear? As if they were on some sort of time trial. C'mon enlighten me?

Ps - very good retort above. My compliments

You're in the doo-doo now, I predict you'll have bought a roadie before the thread dies

[NuisanceFactor]

WeirdNeville said:

Lots of interesting stuff.

Thank you; now I understand.

[taters]

Some Gump said:

You're ashamed that you don't hate cyclists? Are you some type of ?

Doh, sorry I their should be a 'not' in front of the 'ashamed '

As I posted in another sub section before jt was moved where many seem to be anti bike I thought I would make my position clear that is all.

[c7xlg]

Pablo Escobar said:

Me and a mate go out mountain biking. He spent the yearly output of a developed nation on a set of glasses, I went to screw fix and got some safety specs with yellow lenses for a fiver. Nobody can tell the difference.

I spent £85 on a set of Oakley 'mumbos', now called m-frames when I was 17. Now 21 years later I still have the original lens and I'm on the 3rd frame after Oakley replaced two for free as they cracked. Not bad for 21 years of use and £85 initial outlay.

[Vocal Minority]

Unfortunately I cannot bring myself to spend more than £20 on something that will inevitably meet its demise under my fat arse one day

[anonymous-user]

taters said:

I love driving and often go for a spirited hoon — but I don't don the sparco's, gloves and a bleedin' helmet though.

You can't think of a reason why you might need gloves and a helmet on a bicycle, but not in a car?