Recent fatal crash at UCLA

On 09/14/2012 12:02 PM, Dan O wrote:

snip


Headed out this morning about ~50° F...

Oh, yeah - it's going to be 80-some° F on the way home this afternoon (90° yesterday) - not bad, but it will be nice to stow the arm and leg warmers and base T with my work clothes and be in shorts, jersey, and sandals. Very nice. And *really* nice compared to trying to do it in my work clothes.

I tend to push it even when commuting so even if I felt like riding to
work in work clothes they'd be nasty and sweaty by the time I got there.
Saying that it saves time changing is sort of a waste for if you ask me.
I take a shower when I get to the office anyway.

On Sep 14, 12:38*pm, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

Frank's choices makes sense for his kind of riding I guess.

Actually, it would be better to say "for his kindS of riding." *IOW make
that plural. *I've tried to make clear that I do use cycling clothes for
certain types of rides. *However, I also use normal clothing for a great
number of rides (probably most of them). *One thing I argue against is
the idea that one should never ride a bike without... whatever. *And
yes, I've been told that not only about odd looking hats, but about
gloves, special shoes and garish colors, all in the name of "safety."

* That is OK.

At the same time he is narrow minded and judgemental about other peoples
choices and preferences. That is the problem with Frank.

Lou, how many times must I say that I don't care what people choose to
wear? *This is, after all, a discussion group. *If we're going to
discuss equipment or clothing, it would seem desirable to discuss the
detriments as well as the benefits. *Otherwise this would become an
exercise in panegyrics: *"Wow, those new jerseys sure are cool!"
"Right, and so visible!" *"Yes, and stylish!" *"Right, and only a little
expensive!" *"Gosh, I like the shape of the pockets!"

If that's what you'd really like to read, perhaps you should stop
reading a discussion group and stick to reading advertisements.

* I invited Frank

to post some pictures from a typical ride he does; equipment, people and
scenery so we can put the right 'label' on him and his riding buddies,
like he is doing all the time.

Well, these are not people I ride with. *I just happened to pass them
one day:http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/7981360128/
They do look very happy with their choices, which is fine with me.

Rivendell? You gotta be kidding. There is the same marketing BS on their
website as on any other. 'only steel- always lugged- ever since 1994'
geezzzz what a bunch of snobs.

Again, I don't agree with all of what Grant Petersen writes (although I
do enjoy his writing) and I don't agree with all that he sells. *I've
actually bought very little from him. *However, I do agree that most
riders would be better off with a less racing-oriented industry and culture.

--
- Frank Krygowski

If we're actually "just discussing", then maybe Frank Krygowsky could
keep the "Batman costume" remarks to himself?
And the constant snide references to "racers"..?

I haven't seen any reference to "essential clothing", at least that I
can remember. Got one? Or, for that matter, any reference to some kind
of "total superiority of racers" or racerbikes, etc. etc?

Since Frank refuses to get in touch with his inner self: I think the
problem is a form of reverse snobbery. There are lots of racersnots
out there, no doubt about it. Now that I'm old/fat/slow, I get buzzed
fairly frequently by riders who are quite apparently trying to make
some kind of point. It's a joke except that I don't like being buzzed,
of course. These are mostly (if not all) people who would have been
dropped early in the rides of my salad days. But so it goes... Maybe
those guys and gals with grow up and wise up. Not my job except by
invitation. I have been tempted to buy a certain unobtrusive rearview
mirror, and use it to demonstrate what happens when a moving object
with lower mass collides, steering-end first, with a moving object of
greater (sometimes much greater) mass, impacting the GM moving object
on the end that doesn't bend. Yes, tempting. But again, not my job
g.

The point is, the racerdudes aren't by any means all snobs and/or
misbehaving snots. Nor the rest of the "they're all (your derogatory
here) according to Frank Krygowsky" is a bunch of sour apples.

And Oh My God, please, "The World According to Grant Peterson"? Is he
offering any Ti frames yet? You know, the really superior frame-
building material, the one that doesn't need paint and doesn't rust...
(going to look)

Well, I guess not:
(exerpt from Cycloculture interview with GP):

(quote)The frame should be steel, because steel is the safest and best
material for bike frames, and the joints are lugged, because lugs are
the best way to join tubes. Steel always ages well, even paint ages
well. Titanium is a good material, too, but it stays the ghosty same
forever, and to some people that’s good, and to others it’s creepy.
Anyway, you can’t just take a good material – steel or Ti or whatever,
and make a skinny-tire, low-handlebar frame and call it “good.” What’s
it good for? If it doesn’t fit, it if isn’t useful beyond racing or
some weekend warrior’s fantasy racing and if the buyer doesn’t race,
then it’s a nice bag without a bottom to hold anything. (end quote)

Wow. Steel is "safest"??? Lugs, "best"? Horse****. Steel doesn't "age
well", because paint, in use on bicycles, doesn't "age well".

(I could ask how many of the Rivendell faithful found Ti "creepy"
before they read The Master's words. Would that be unfair?)

Ti stays "same forever". Well, I'm sure it's not really "forever", but
wouldn't that "enduring" quality make Ti superior for many uses,
including bicycle frames, compared to steel that rusts and paint that
gets knocked off and chips and looks ugly, especially when the steel
underneath rusts?

(I could ask how much it costs to get your painted steel Rivendell
refinished at the Rivendell Refinishing Works when it riven-rusts.
Would that be snide?)

And then we get into the "useful" (utility) BS, and then the outright
insults begin: "some weekend warrior" "fantasy", and the implied
"slaves to fashion" and "anyone who rides a road-pattern bike ("race
bike") is stupid and deluded, etc.

There's more in the interview about tires, implying that everyone who
uses narrow tires over-inflates them, and so forth.

Wow. Well, no wonder The Verses of Grant are the Krygowsky Bible.
Birds of a feather...
--D-y

On 09/14/2012 02:29 PM, wrote:

snip

And then we get into the "useful" (utility) BS, and then the outright
insults begin: "some weekend warrior" "fantasy", and the implied
"slaves to fashion" and "anyone who rides a road-pattern bike ("race
bike") is stupid and deluded, etc.


Sound familiar? Creepy isn't it?

On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:10:20 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

Op 14-9-2012 7:55, Dan O schreef:

On Sep 13, 10:40 pm, "Tom $herman (-_-)" ""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI

$southslope.net" wrote:

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.





Well, he seemed to be expressing disgust, implying that I am

inherently repulsive. I don't mind snot on my thumb wipes.... Jeez, how prissy can you get?)



Exactly. All other than disposables, handkerchiefs are a filthy

invention. Disposables are not practical while riding and a constant

production. Farmers blow, as you call it, and wipe your nose with the

back of your gloves is the way to do it.



:-) Well, you and Dan might want to list all the other situations in

which snot on your hands and gloves is considered elegant...

So you're unconcerned with fashion, but wish to be "considered elegant"?

, or even

normal!

So maybe you weren't implying that I was repulsive - just abnormal.

And how odd to consider a handkerchief unsanitary...

Seriously? You collect your snot, hide it away, and save it up for later?!

, yet consider

an objection to snot on one's gloves prissy! Seems a bit inconsistent, no?


No. A little residual wetness (after discharging the bulk onto the ground.... or maybe into or onto a car that's passing too close :-) wiped on a dedicated pad that will dry on its own in the open air and has no reason to contact anything is far, far, *far* (so immensely far) less repulsive than a soggy rag full of boogers and what not tucked away IMO.

Hiding your snot away is both prissy *and* repulsive.



I almost always use disposables anyway.

Disposable handkerchiefs? Do you mean Kleenex? Facial tissues? Why didn't you just say so.

Used ones go into a certain

pocket inside my handlebar bag. All you manly snot fans can do as you

like. ;-)


Smarmy and supercilious to the end.

On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:02:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Kerry Montgomery wrote:

"Frank 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?



I fully understand that there are all sorts of special clothing items

that lots of cyclists falsely consider "essential." That's really my

point. It's not that there aren't certain, often small, advantages to

special bike clothes. But the idea that one should not ride without

those items is silly, given the number of people who do so and do fine.



James asked about what I find least practical. I went into some detail

because a judgment of practicality is really a comparison of benefits to

detriments. But since I've ridden in temperatures from 20 below zero to

116 Fahrenheit, and in rain, snow, slush, mud etc. without shoe covers,

I can't consider them "essential." YMMV.





--

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski,
And not essential for those with diabetes, or peripheral neuropathy, or any other condition that reduces blood circulation or sensation of cold in their extremeties? I see why you have been called ""narrow minded" in this group.
Kerry

On Sep 14, 10:38*am, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

Frank's choices makes sense for his kind of riding I guess.

Actually, it would be better to say "for his kindS of riding." *IOW make
that plural. *I've tried to make clear that I do use cycling clothes for
certain types of rides. *However, I also use normal clothing for a great
number of rides (probably most of them). *One thing I argue against is
the idea that one should never ride a bike without... whatever. *And
yes, I've been told that not only about odd looking hats, but about
gloves, special shoes and garish colors, all in the name of "safety."

* That is OK.

At the same time he is narrow minded and judgemental about other peoples
choices and preferences. That is the problem with Frank.

Lou, how many times must I say that I don't care what people choose to
wear? *This is, after all, a discussion group. *If we're going to
discuss equipment or clothing, it would seem desirable to discuss the
detriments as well as the benefits. *Otherwise this would become an
exercise in panegyrics: *"Wow, those new jerseys sure are cool!"
"Right, and so visible!" *"Yes, and stylish!" *"Right, and only a little
expensive!" *"Gosh, I like the shape of the pockets!"

If that's what you'd really like to read, perhaps you should stop
reading a discussion group and stick to reading advertisements.

* I invited Frank

to post some pictures from a typical ride he does; equipment, people and
scenery so we can put the right 'label' on him and his riding buddies,
like he is doing all the time.

Well, these are not people I ride with. *I just happened to pass them
one day:http://www.flickr.com/photos/16972296@N08/7981360128/
They do look very happy with their choices, which is fine with me.

Rivendell? You gotta be kidding. There is the same marketing BS on their
website as on any other. 'only steel- always lugged- ever since 1994'
geezzzz what a bunch of snobs.

Again, I don't agree with all of what Grant Petersen writes (although I
do enjoy his writing) and I don't agree with all that he sells. *I've
actually bought very little from him. *However, I do agree that most
riders would be better off with a less racing-oriented industry and culture.

Earth calling Frank. Earth calling Frank . . . Go to your local bike
shop. Note bicycles for sale. Note that forty years ago, there were
not half the "non-racing" bicycles now available. You can even buy
this set-up straight off the showroom floor of Clever Cycles here in
PDX.
http://bikeportland.org/2012/06/28/w...-by-bike-73731

http://clevercycles.com/

And let's not mention mountain bikes -- which people seem to buy in
droves. You would be hard pressed to find a racing bike of any kind at
a number of shops in town. Even Universal -- one of the best shops in
the Universe -- has very few racing bikes. http://www.universalcycles.com/visit_us.php
It has plenty of the Surley moon units with the Big Apples, etc.

Look at your picture -- not a single racing bike, although, yes, they
do like to dress alike -- which is a bit freakish, but then again, so
do many of the cycling subculturalists: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessek/4461347206/

And BTW, try riding in near freezing rain for a few months at a time
without shoe covers. You will learn instantly that they are essential
equipment -- and so is a good rain jacket and not some rain poncho
that flaps around in the wind. Gloves, ear warmers and some other
things are also essential winter gear -- for any ride over about 300
meters, unless you enjoy being miserable -- which you may.

-- Jay Beattie.

AMuzi wrote:
On 9/14/2012 12:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
-snip-
However, I do agree that most riders would be better off
with a less racing-oriented industry and culture.

Really? This in a world where people commonly run short errands with 427
V8s and 1000cc motorcycles [1]? What the hell?

If people like their equipment (and pay for it !) and hence ride more,
what's the problem?

First, let me say yet again (and again, and again) that people are free
to buy whatever they want. But in a discussion group, we should be able
to discuss pros and cons; and this would be a boring place with no
differences of opinion.

But to use your analogy: If car buyers knew as little about cars as
novice bike riders do; and if most car salesmen told most novice drivers
"The best car for you is this 427 Cobra replicar we have on sale," I'd
say that wouldn't be very good for those motorists.

And that does happen in the bike world! I've told before about the old
guy I knew, a complete novice with money to spend, who was steered
toward a full-on carbon fiber racing bike with handlebars he could
barely reach. He probably rode that bike a total of five times. Just
recently, a guy in his sixties whom I've known for decades decided to
replace his never-ridden 1970s ten speed. He ended up on a bike with
23mm tires that _may_ accept 28mm if the wheels are within 0.005" of
perfection. This to cruise slowly along a beach. And I remember when
my paperboy was asking my advice about a bike for long rides to visit
his girlfriend, plus to do some touring with camping gear, but who let
the bike shop talk him into a racing bike with a frame that was too big
for him.

If a person is going to race, or going to try to ride fast almost all
the time, then sure, a racing bike can make sense. Most people, though,
would do better with a bike that is more versatile and less fragile.

Believe me, riders who want mudguards, wide tire
sections and carriers are not buying race bikes so in fact there is
precious little overlap.

Of course, those who do know they want such things can make the right
decision. But as my examples illustrate, many people simply don't know.
They'll see no bikes with fenders on the sales floor. They won't
understand that narrow tires have detriments, especially for people who
don't realize they need inflated pretty frequently. So the question is,
how many people would buy a non-racing bike instead if they realized
there are detriments to racing bikes? (I don't doubt that you take
pains to ask a person how they intend to ride; but I know by experience
that not all shop owners do that.)

And BTW, I think society would be better off if people came to
understand that they can use a bike for more than a toy or a piece of
exercise equipment, and that the "best" bike isn't always the most
expensive or single-purpose one.

--
- Frank Krygowski

wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:38 pm, Frank
wrote:
Lou Holtman wrote:

Frank's choices makes sense for his kind of riding I guess.

Actually, it would be better to say "for his kindS of riding." IOW make
that plural. I've tried to make clear that I do use cycling clothes for
certain types of rides. However, I also use normal clothing for a great
number of rides (probably most of them). One thing I argue against is
the idea that one should never ride a bike without... whatever. And
yes, I've been told that not only about odd looking hats, but about
gloves, special shoes and garish colors, all in the name of "safety."

That is OK.

At the same time he is narrow minded and judgemental about other peoples
choices and preferences. That is the problem with Frank.

Lou, how many times must I say that I don't care what people choose to
wear? This is, after all, a discussion group. If we're going to
discuss equipment or clothing, it would seem desirable to discuss the
detriments as well as the benefits. Otherwise this would become an
exercise in panegyrics: "Wow, those new jerseys sure are cool!"
"Right, and so visible!" "Yes, and stylish!" "Right, and only a little
expensive!" "Gosh, I like the shape of the pockets!"

If that's what you'd really like to read, perhaps you should stop
reading a discussion group and stick to reading advertisements....

Again, I don't agree with all of what Grant Petersen writes (although I
do enjoy his writing) and I don't agree with all that he sells. I've
actually bought very little from him. However, I do agree that most
riders would be better off with a less racing-oriented industry and culture.

--
- Frank Krygowski

If we're actually "just discussing", then maybe Frank Krygowsky could
keep the "Batman costume" remarks to himself?
And the constant snide references to "racers"..?

I haven't seen any reference to "essential clothing", at least that I
can remember. Got one?

Sheesh. Do you really pretend that helmets have not been called
essential for bicycling? Have you forgotten the flack I got for stating
that I preferred not to use clipless pedals? And granted, I'd have to
dig for a while to find the posts (there were several over the years)
saying we should always wear gloves for "safety," but such posts did
appear in these discussion groups.

Or, for that matter, any reference to some kind
of "total superiority of racers" or racerbikes, etc. etc?

Wait - isn't this coming from the guy who within the past day or two
called his racing buddies my "betters"? What was the basis for that?

Since Frank refuses to get in touch with his inner self: I think the
problem is a form of reverse snobbery. There are lots of racersnots
out there, no doubt about it. Now that I'm old/fat/slow, I get buzzed
fairly frequently by riders who are quite apparently trying to make
some kind of point. It's a joke except that I don't like being buzzed,
of course. These are mostly (if not all) people who would have been
dropped early in the rides of my salad days. But so it goes... Maybe
those guys and gals with grow up and wise up. Not my job except by
invitation. I have been tempted to buy a certain unobtrusive rearview
mirror, and use it to demonstrate what happens when a moving object
with lower mass collides, steering-end first, with a moving object of
greater (sometimes much greater) mass, impacting the GM moving object
on the end that doesn't bend. Yes, tempting. But again, not my job
g.

Hmm. How odd that you're now giving your own evidence for an attitude
you accuse me of having. And I don't even have that attitude!

The point is, the racerdudes aren't by any means all snobs and/or
misbehaving snots.

Of course not, and I never said they were. FWIW, I couldn't have been
president of a bike club without getting to know quite a few racers.
One of my very best friends (as in, "we want to buy a house near you")
was one of the very top local racers in his day. And (yet again) a
racing bike and racing garb makes sense for a racer.

However, bicycling would be better off if cyclists didn't attack a guy
who says he prefers to ride without using clipless pedals; or if they
didn't assume that the best cyclist is by definition the fastest; or if
they didn't say "I can't ride my bike to work because there's no place
to change out of my lycra."

It would also be better off if there were less foaming at the mouth when
different opinions are expressed. But such is our culture, I guess.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Kerry Montgomery wrote:
On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:02:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Kerry Montgomery wrote:

"Frank wrote in message

...

James wrote:


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?



I fully understand that there are all sorts of special clothing items

that lots of cyclists falsely consider "essential." That's really my

point. It's not that there aren't certain, often small, advantages to

special bike clothes. But the idea that one should not ride without

those items is silly, given the number of people who do so and do fine.



James asked about what I find least practical. I went into some detail

because a judgment of practicality is really a comparison of benefits to

detriments. But since I've ridden in temperatures from 20 below zero to

116 Fahrenheit, and in rain, snow, slush, mud etc. without shoe covers,

I can't consider them "essential." YMMV.

--

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski,
And not essential for those with diabetes, or peripheral neuropathy,
or any other condition that reduces blood circulation or sensation of
cold in their extremeties? I see why you have been called ""narrow
minded" in this group.
Kerry

Kerry, I was pointing out what I consider essential. That obviously
means essential to me, as does my statement "YMMV."

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Kerry Montgomery wrote:
On Friday, September 14, 2012 10:02:00 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
Kerry Montgomery wrote:

"Frank wrote in message

...

James wrote:


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?



I fully understand that there are all sorts of special clothing items

that lots of cyclists falsely consider "essential." That's really my

point. It's not that there aren't certain, often small, advantages to

special bike clothes. But the idea that one should not ride without

those items is silly, given the number of people who do so and do fine.



James asked about what I find least practical. I went into some detail

because a judgment of practicality is really a comparison of benefits
to

detriments. But since I've ridden in temperatures from 20 below zero
to

116 Fahrenheit, and in rain, snow, slush, mud etc. without shoe covers,

I can't consider them "essential." YMMV.

--

- Frank Krygowski

Frank Krygowski,
And not essential for those with diabetes, or peripheral neuropathy,
or any other condition that reduces blood circulation or sensation of cold
in their extremeties? I see why you have been called ""narrow minded" in
this group.
Kerry

Kerry, I was pointing out what I consider essential. That obviously means
essential to me, as does my statement "YMMV."

Frank Krygowski,
Your original statement:
"I've never used them, so they can't be essential."
No indication, obvious or otherwise, that you were referring to only
yourself.
Kerry