tight v's loose ?

[JohnRedcoRn]

(offshoot from "summer jersey" thread)

Given that i'm more of a 'leisurely' rider who enjoys a couple of hours ride in the evening and longer trips on weekends rather than pushing hard, and especially while i get a surplus 2 stones off (again), i'm tending towards looser tops and 3/4 length baggy shorts (i do have all the lycra gear+arm/leg warmers too)
I generally dont give a rats ass about looking like the only gay in the village in lycra, but i just prefer the looser, 'mountain biker' style.

is there any significant disadvantage in wearing this looser stuff? it all seems to be 'cycle specific' in cut and material anyway, and of course it feels more dignified when i visit my mam en route

Pre- cycling i used to see cyclists in lycra and wonder if they were permanently racing, or had taken a wrong turn on the tour de france ! lycra is undoubtedly comfy and functional but is there an element of being conned into thinking you have to wear it to be a 'proper' cyclist? I wouldnt ride in my jeans and ordinary T shirts but I do like the looser bike gear

 

[bonj2]

you go faster because you're more aerodynamic.
I really did notice the flapping about of my showerproof jacket on a recent sportive, and since it wasn't raining i couldn't wait to the first food stop to take it off.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the only reason you DON'T want to wear lycra is vanity.

 

[JohnRedcoRn]

I think i have to admit your probably right, it is mainly personal taste and indeed vanity.

 

[bonj2]

No, it's not "personal taste". It's vanity. Ditch it. You don't look like a "wannabe racer", you just look like a cyclist.

 

[jimboalee]

No, it's not "personal taste". It's vanity. Ditch it. You don't look like a "wannabe racer", you just look like a cyclist.

A 'Wannabe' wears a trade jersey when riding a £150 piece of junk.

After forty years, still wearing the same jersey and riding the same bike, you become a 'Nevawozza'.

Only wear a Trade Jersey if you have the bike, legs and waistline to match. Otherwise, wear a non-descript plain colour jersey no-one is going to take a blind bit of notice of.

 

[John the Monkey]

Baggy stuff flaps around and is generally a pain in the backside is you're going much above 15mph. The tighter stuff looks ridiculous as soon as you're more than 3 or four feet away from a bicycle, but it's very much comfier to ride in, ime.

When it comes down to it though, it's your leisure time, so unless someone's paying you to ride, wear what you want.

Dave Moulton wrote a very interesting piece on bike clothing on his blog - check out the pics of Coppi in training!

http://davesbikeblog.squarespace.com/blog/2008/4/25/what-to-wear.html

 

[epicurus.]

The only disadvantage to looser clothing is that you are slightly less aerodynamic. If going at the fastest possible speed at every opportunity is important to you, wear tighter clothing. If it isn't, wear what you feel happiest in.

Bonj's suggestion that you have to wear tight clothing to be a proper cyclist is grade A bullsh*t, as John the Monkey's linked photo of Fausto Coppi, probably one of the top 5 cyclists the world has ever seen, clearly shows.

 

[bonj2]

It's not about going at the fastest possible speed, it's about the annoyance of having something that's constantly going flap flap flap, flapping around in the wind all the time.
If you're prepared to sacrifice the enjoyment of cycling in non-flappy clothing for something that you think makes you look less fat, as if it matters, then it's your own choice to do so.

 

[bonj2]

anyway - the talk of "the only disadvantage of" not wearing lycra is coming at it from the wrong angle - why wouldn't you wear lycra?
You're going to get changed at work anyway, presumably - so the clothes you wear for cycling you're only going to be wearing when cycling. So those clothes might as well be cycling clothes.

 

[HLaB]

I also find that baggier stuff soaks up water more and takes longer to dry, unless you spend a fortune.

 

[jimboalee]

What are your aims?

Losing weight? Building muscle?
Then load up your drag coefficient with baggy clothing.

Riding fast? Riding far?
Reduce your drag coefficient with tight clothing.

Looking cool?
Forget it.

 

[John the Monkey]

Bonj's suggestion that you have to wear tight clothing to be a proper cyclist is grade A bullsh*t, as John the Monkey's linked photo of Fausto Coppi, probably one of the top 5 cyclists the world has ever seen, clearly shows.

Remember that at the time "racing" clothing was expensive, somewhat uncomfortable and difficult to care for - it wasn't at all unusual for people to train in "ordinary" clothes, even those of Coppi's fame.

"Racing clothes were made out of wool, they were expensive, needed to be hand washed, and took forever to dry. You could not throw them in the drier, or they would become matted and shrink.

No one wore racing gear on a training ride. I do remember that when I did put these clothes on to race, they felt so comfortable and unrestrictive that I automatically rode faster."

 

[epicurus.]

OK I accept, speed and comfort. But the OP appeared to suggested he found loose clothing comfortable. So in his case the only benefit of tight clothing would be speed.

 

[bonj2]

OK I accept, speed and comfort. But the OP appeared to suggested he found loose clothing comfortable. So in his case the only benefit of tight clothing would be speed.

Nope. The OP is someone who currently cycles in normal clothing, is becoming more serious about his cycling, probably an ex-hybriddist-turned-roadie, and can't help noticing the flappiness and tendency to get rucked up of normal clothing, and as such is soon to buy lycra.
He doesn't want to sacrifice his vanity, but he is fighting a losing battle, and he is making a last ditch attempt to have everyone convince him that cyclists, in fact, DO only wear lycra because they've been 'conned' into thinking it has practical benefits, or just want to look like racers.
He has visions of a 'eureka moment' when he realises due to this thread that actually normal clothes are just as good, and that he's going to stride out there tomorrow as one of those clever cyclists that hasn't "fallen for it" and is going to look down wryly on all the poor victims of marketing hype.
But no eureka moment is going to come - this is the real world.
dhb's fine to start off with, assos if you're feeling flush.

 

[JohnRedcoRn]

no...to adress some points above - i did my first year of cycling with all lycra, decent cycling gear, i accept the undisputable benefits of lycra / tight gear, but i also want to throw in some baggy stuff AS WELL, because yes, i'm conscious of the extra weight i'm working off, and i simply prefer the look (for me) of the baggy stuff ; and it is all pretty much cyle specific, if not as aerodynamic. I didnt mean to sound like i was challenging accepted wisdom, was merely thinking aloud.
However, i dont intend to buy a full on road bike anytime, i like my hybrid, I occasionally push myself when out with my road ridng mates, but for the most part i'm in it strictly for enjoyment and sometimes that means taking my time. And anyway, i'm currently pulling 16+ stone of weight, which is hard work uphill in a headwind, so until i lose at least a stone, i'm not exactly aerodynamic anyway.