Cycling jackets and hoods; or lack thereof

[vickster]

Helmet cover, or a Boots disposable shower cap over your helmet. Of course if you are a 'gravel' rider, you can wear a 'gravel' jacket. complete with hood. If you're a roadie hoods are a no-no.

OP says he doesn’t do helmets

 

[youngoldbloke]

OP says he doesn’t do helmets

Shower cap would still work

 

[vickster]

Shower cap would still work

True dat

 

[Fab Foodie]

Of course, the correct answer is a Sou'wester... as any fule kno....

Cape optional!

 

[Kingfisher101]

The reason I ditched mine is that it doesn't keep the rain off, the water pours in within 5 minutes of it starting to rain. It's also far too big and heavy.

I bought it because I was really taken by the idea of a coat that sheds water like a thatched roof or animal fur instead of having a membrane or coating to wear out and leak, but the simple fact is that it just doesn't work. It's better if you're not carrying a rucksack, but not much. The problem is that rain runs down your back, and then when it reaches the rucksack the pressure of it against your back forces the water through the fabric because it's not proof against a static head. The same happens at the shoulders, under the straps. And it really leaks, not just soaking through gradually, it pours in so fast I can feel it running down my sides and back then drenching my trousers and underpants.

Despite the fact that it leaked from the day it was new, when the proofing should still have been intact, I tried all sorts of treatments. The Nikwax wash-in stuff was as useless as it is expensive, as were all the other wash-in ones, but a Granger's aerosol spray had some effect. The problem even with the Granger's aerosol was that the rucksack rapidly rubbed it off again, so that by the time it started raining there was none of it left, and it still leaked.

Without a rucksack to rub it off, the Grangers stuff would have been slightly more practical, if a little expensive, but by the time I'd switched from walking to cycling it was unavailable anyway.

Yes you are right, I've got 3 paramos one a windproof and 2 velez light smocks. The latter which are supposed to be waterproof will not withstand a downpour when wearing a rucksack. You get wet under the armpits.
What I would say though its that they are very windproof, showerproof and lightish and comfortable to wear. So overall I still think to me they are worth it. They also have a big map pocket which I find good.

 

[Threevok]

Of course, the correct answer is a Sou'wester... as any fule kno....

View attachment 698624

Cape optional!

I'd be worried about red balloons and cycling too close to rain gutters, wearing that Georgie

 

[presta]

Yes you are right, I've got 3 paramos one a windproof and 2 velez light smocks. The latter which are supposed to be waterproof will not withstand a downpour when wearing a rucksack. You get wet under the armpits.
What I would say though its that they are very windproof, showerproof and lightish and comfortable to wear. So overall I still think to me they are worth it. They also have a big map pocket which I find good.

I wouldn't describe my Paramo as lightweight, after 8 years of putting up with it leaking like a sieve, it was the size and weight that finally made me give up with it. I've just checked:

The Paramo is 1016g and 2920cc, compared to the Regatta at 463g & 1590cc, more than double the weight and nearly double the volume. My lightweight Montane wind proof is just 145g and 398cc seven times less than the Paramo (but that's not waterproof, nor intended to be).

The Regatta's done well for about a tenner, the coating's all peeling off like sunburn now after 20 years, but it was still ok after 10 years.

 

[freiston]

Of course, the correct answer is a Sou'wester... as any fule kno....

View attachment 698624

Cape optional!

I have both. The cape (hi-viz yellow Carradice) gets more use than the sou'wester (a tasteful dark blue). The cape is my first choice for proper wet weather.

 

[cougie uk]

Surely a hood is a dangerous thing to wear on a bike? I wouldn't want to risk limiting my peripheral vision or shoulder checking the inside of a hood.

I'd suggest this is why cycling specific waterproofs don't have a hood.

A whole generation of school kids went off in the morning with snorkel parkas back in the day.

 

[Lee_M]

Aldi middle aisle had hooded cycling jackets when I went in yesterday

 

[presta]

Surely a hood is a dangerous thing to wear on a bike? I wouldn't want to risk limiting my peripheral vision or shoulder checking the inside of a hood.

I solve that problem by wearing a peaked cap under the hood, with the hood drawcord over the top of the peak. That way you're sure that the hood always turns with your head.

 

[TheDoctor]

What's all this "riding in the rain" nonsense?
*baffled*

 

[presta]

What's all this "riding in the rain" nonsense?
*baffled*

Have you found the stop cock? Where's it hidden?

 

[GuyBoden]

I solve that problem by wearing a peaked cap under the hood, with the hood drawcord over the top of the peak. That way you're sure that the hood always turns with your head.

Yes, I wear a cycling cap with a bit of a peak.

 

[wafter]

Thanks again all; seems like the headgear quest is back on as I've just bought a Brompton (Endura) London jacket for a reasonable price; apparently new and unused.

Providing it fits (which might be a bit of a push) and performs OK I'll be looking for some complimentary headgear.

I was on the fence about a hood, however had my suspicions reinforced earlier when playing with my walking jacket - even with it's well-fitting hood sinched down nicely on the pull cords, it still struggles to rotate with the head when attempting to look to the side / behind.. so I think hoodless is the way to go.

Will keep this thread updated regarding the extent of my folly this time