Sixties....no padding....now padded saddles and shorts....why?

[tatanab]

Late 1960s, when I started, there was plenty of cycling clothing available from local lightweight shops which dealt with club riders which included CTC. We used Greenspot jackets, Worthy or Hebden Cord shorts and longs with normal shirts. The same shop might keep a small number of racing jerseys for the local clubs.

As a schoolboy I could not afford this stuff and started with cut off school trousers or jeans in the winter, an anorak, and my school shoes for riding with my local CTC group. I even rode my first 12 hour time trial in that kit, except I had cycling shoes by then.

Look in "Bike Riders Aids" of that time - https://classiclightweights.net/united- ... ds-1967-8/

Plain colour cycling tops were becoming common by the very early 80s, and "racing" shorts began to dominate as shops found it easier to stock them than a few pairs of old style touring shorts which simply refused to wear out.

[Bmblbzzz]

One instance is gloves. Once I was trundling over some distances, I decided I wanted light-weight, but grippy, and somewhat protective in the event of a sudden unplanned dismount, gloves. I’d never heard of cycling mitts, so I bought a pair of lightweight goalkeeper gloves and cut the fingers down.

I like the idea of goalkeeper gloves. Maybe with the full fingers as autumn gloves (I'm assuming they're not warm enough for winter).

[Nearholmer]

Well, goalkeepers wear them in winter.

But, modern goalie gloves are very different from what you could buy in a small town in the mid-70s. The ones I had were basically cloth gloves with bits of grippy padding sewn to the palm and fingers. Modern ones are almost like baseball gloves, huge, lots of padding, super-grippy. I wouldn’t want to ride a bike in the modern ones.

[Bmblbzzz]

Two good points in one post.

[ANTONISH]

In the late fifties I quite often wore jeans for cycling.
That would include winter training runs from SE London to Eastbourne and back "over the pylons" for those of a certain age.
I did have a greenspot nomad at one time but usually it was a heavy jersey with newspaper tucked down the front.

[Bmblbzzz]

Newspaper down the shirt is perhaps the very first cycling-specific clothing!

[Vorpal]

I have one pairs of cycling shoes. clipless systems don't really work me, so the cycling shoes get used form spinning bikes when I use them in the winter.

When I started 'serious' cycling in the early 80s, the only special gear I had besides my bike were net-backed cycling gloves. I couldn't really afford the clothes in the bike shop, but I don't recall being uncomfortable. I did have a fancy Avocet saddle, but it came with my road bike, which I bought used.

I bought my first cycling shorts in 1993. I still have them. While they aren't suitable for polite company, I wear them under other stuff. Because they are still the most comfortable cycling shorts I own. They are lycra(ish) with a thin fake chamois, and they were made by Pearl Izumi. The fake chamois is in surprising good condition after all these years & when the rest of the material dies, I plan to sew it into another pair of shorts. Or make a new pair of shorts to go with the pad

The thing is, when I was young, it seems like I could ride for miles on almost any bike and saddle, and never suffer for it (youth, eh? )

These days, if my saddle isn't in *exactly* the right position, or doesn't fit me, I can barely ride across town

I don't really like modern padded shorts, but I do like the lack of seams in padded shorts. Seams next to my skin bother me & have done so, at least since I had babies, so cycling in normal outdoor wear, or work clothes without cycling shorts is a problem for me. Some women's merino boxers also meet this criteria, though they are not as comfortable for long distance as cycling shorts with no / a thin pad. They are more comfortable than the thick pads on many cycling shorts.

[pwa]

Annoyingly, the pads that give me the best results on rides in excess of ten miles or so are the modern ones that have a variable interface of ridges and furrows, thicker around the sit bones, thin at the edges. And I need the pad to be held in place by lycra. These days I wear that as an undergarment, beneath loose fitting cycling specific trousers or shorts. I'm getting on in years now, so I have arrived at this via many thousands of miles of testing what works for me, and what doesn't work. The fact that other people can wear ordinary clothing for cycling is great, for them, but I know it doesn't work for me. It never really did. Not in the 1970s, not now.

It's not fashion. Folk who know me well would laugh at any suggestion that I chase after fashion. In fact, I think the lycra look is considered far from fashionable by people who care about such things. It isn't "cool". If anything, fashion victims will try to wear more normal clothing.

[mattheus]

Annoyingly, the pads that give me the best results on rides in excess of ten miles or so are the modern ones that have a variable interface of ridges and furrows, thicker around the sit bones, thin at the edges. And I need the pad to be held in place by lycra. These days I wear that as an undergarment, beneath loose fitting cycling specific trousers or shorts. I'm getting on in years now, so I have arrived at this via many thousands of miles of testing what works for me, and what doesn't work. The fact that other people can wear ordinary clothing for cycling is great, for them, but I know it doesn't work for me. It never really did. Not in the 1970s, not now.

It's not fashion. Folk who know me well would laugh at any suggestion that I chase after fashion. In fact, I think the lycra look is considered far from fashionable by people who care about such things. It isn't "cool". If anything, fashion victims will try to wear more normal clothing.

Good post.

[pjclinch]

It's not fashion. Folk who know me well would laugh at any suggestion that I chase after fashion. In fact, I think the lycra look is considered far from fashionable by people who care about such things. It isn't "cool". If anything, fashion victims will try to wear more normal clothing.

"Fashion" covers lots of different niches, not just what's notionally fashionable according to the fashion media and buyers for retail chains, and folk following their own idea of fashion exist in all of them.

Being non-fashionable is itself a sort of fashion statement for many, as is following a quite deliberately and distinctly "uncool" path. For example, the "I don't follow fashion, I dress for utility" vibe with the walking boots, combats, multi-pocketed utility vests etc. which is marginally less "cool" than the surface of the sun, but evidently works for the folk following it.

"Fashion victim" is perhaps one of those irregular nouns... "He is a fashion victim" vs. "I just dress to please myself"

Pete.

[Bmblbzzz]

I dress to balance elegance and practicality
You keep up with the trends
He is a fashion victim

[mattheus]

I dress to balance elegance and practicality
You keep up with the trends
He is a fashion victim

That's brilliant.

[pete75]

In the 1960s people also thought that hydration made you weak and that 42-21 was a good setup for Alpine climbing.

It was for this pair.

[pjclinch]

I dress to balance elegance and practicality
You keep up with the trends
He is a fashion victim

[AndyK]

In the 1960s people also thought that hydration made you weak and that 42-21 was a good setup for Alpine climbing.

It was for this pair.

What? Two cyclists wearing specialist cycling jerseys and padded cycling shorts in 1959? But according to most of the posts in this thread, that's impossible!