What Gianni humbly omitted from his last article is that once he finishes ranting about sock color (actually, the lack of need for any color other than than white), he recovers quickly and we wrap up the Keepers executive board meeting with him tearing our legs off on the ride home from the bar with his magnificent stroke. Because after all, he is Rule #72.
But I digress. All the chit-chat Gianni’s article generated, and the timing of it with a new shoe purchase on my end, has me ruminating on Rule #8. Matching saddle, handlebar tape, and tires is, for the Velominatus at least, quite the no-brainer as it were. The only really poignant question I recall ever being raised is whether Vittoria Open Pave’s have an exemption because they are awesome and scream hardman tire (I think they are acceptable).
But what of shoes? They are the one piece of kit that most often throws a rider’s coordination out of sync. Of course this has traditionally been fine as shoes are such a personal matter that expecting one to match one’s shoes with the rest of one’s kit is hopeful at best. That being said, I wonder if shoes are less kit and more equipment. They transfer power directly from rider to bike and thus they are mechanical, they are engineered by smart people using fancy computers, and they render the machine virtually unrideable without them. In fact, I’ve often wondered why retailers list them under “clothing” and why online review forums don’t put them under “drivetrain” instead of “clothing and accessories”.
So if you don’t accept my premise, at least humor me here. If shoes are equipment and not kit, why would anyone buy a pair that didn’t match the rest of their bike? Surely, with the abundance of shoe choices on the market these days I would think one could make every effort to find a pair that fits, has the features and performance characteristics sought, falls within price range, and matches the rest of the bike.
I happened upon this concept casually deliberately this week. You see, I’ve been sporting considerable carbone over Fi’zi:k’s new shoe line ever since they were introduced (you might say I have a thing for shoes). So when a new pair of R3’s fell into my lap for number 1 I was forced to shift the Yellow Princesses over to number 3. The yellow decals and accents on the Serotta look awesome with the YP’s and the new R3’s are oh so sublime with the BMC. Splendid, indeed.
So I’ll put it to you, the Velominati. Does Rule #8 need amending? Are shoes equipment and not clothing? Do we, perhaps, need a new rule pertaining to shoe/bike matching (I think not but a suggestion might be in order). These are the things that keep the Keepers up at night.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
The chin needs to be tilted up slightly for full effect.
@Cyclops
Unless the Cruel Shoes were heat moldable I'm not sure that I see the similarity.
I have two pairs of cycling shoes. Bont A1s and Yellow Princesses.
If I was forced at gunpoint to lay a shit in a pair of shoes it would be Sorry Princess.
@scaler911
Maybe it's not quite so black and white/one or the other. Shoes are mostly equipment and some kit. Kit is mostly kit but some equipment. Kit provides a mechanism for cooling/warming the engine, chamois is most definitely equipment, kit provides aero advantage over say, a t-shirt, but mostly, kit projects a sense of style from the rider.
I think I will be quiet now before I embarrass myself any more.
@Marko
I guess all this begs the question - How many of us are willing to sacrifice a certain level of comfort or even endure discomfort for the sake of style points? I do all the time.
@Marko
I agree. But I was pointing out that shoes are not "just kit". If we didn't have clip less pedals, or cages for that matter, then shoes would be mostly kit (IMHO). As it stands now, they are mostly equipment.
@mcsqueak
HA!
Discomfort from effort or elements is fine. Discomfort from bike setup or attire is my signal that something needs adjusting. For me, function always trumps fashion. After the start of a ride and the blessed road trance kicks in, I hope I'm having a good enough ride that all else falls away except the Stroke and the Road.
@itburns
+1. Sorry Cyclops, but there are so many shoe choices out there that I'm not willing to deal with foot discomfort for the sake of how the shoes look.
There could be the best looking pair of white shoes available, but if they give me hot spots or squeeze my foot in the wrong place, I'll go with the boring all black ones, thanks.
(I do actually really want some white shoes for my next pair... I don't think I'm fast enough or can climb well enough to do the Yellow Princessesesesss proper justice.)
After a worthy dissertation on sock hues and Rule #28's validity, the Keepers move on to a significant debate over work shoes. And although enlightening, the previous article had already done enough to extend my distress over the disclosure that my 2012 Team Kit comes with the required socks ONLY available in Cardinal. And although they appear Rule #27 compliant, they will skirt the edge of being Rule #28 compliant only because of some logos.
Now I have been given the additional burden of contemplating just how much they are going to clash with my favorite Pepe le pew's. I am so conflicted ....... Can somebody change the subject?