What is the ideal cycling jacket (for UK commuting)



Ryan Cousineau writes:

>> I'm with you on that except that I use my parka on my summer tour
>> in the Alps where it can snow any day of the year and often does as
>> you can see from the pictures at:


>> For that reason I have a more stringent rule on what works.


>> 1. It must be water proof.


>> 2. It must have a hood that can be cinched down so that only eyes
>> and nose are exposed.


>> 3. It should be double layered, the inner layer can be mesh but
>> must insulate the outer skin from the rider's arms to prevent
>> freezing hands.


>> 4. Velcro closure on sleeves and over the zipper down the front.


>> 5. No vents or slots. Climbing can be done with the front
>> partially open even in rain.


>> 6. No Gore-Tex, the outer layer of which gets wet and doesn't dry
>> readily, and the same goes for condensation on the inside.
>> Breathing is illusory for someone climbing hills on a bicycle.


>> 7. Bonus: Stiff and tight fitting enough so it does not flap in the
>> wind when descending.


>> Flapping sleeves and body is the greatest loss of warmth from
>> forced convection. Next time when descending, hold the arms so the
>> jacket remains still and notice how much warmer it is.


>> Unfortunately, the people who make bicycle jackets haven't tried
>> descending a 20km alpine pass when it's snowing... or at least not
>> with an understanding of why it is as cold as it is. Most jackets
>> have no adequate neck and head covering and have a body to hold
>> Santa Clause with many layers of clothing.


> I have been very happy with my "racing" jacket (a Louis Garneau
> Windtex), which is a form-fitting jacket with no vents, elastic
> cuffs, and a collar (but no hood). On its own, it is remarkably
> warm, rain-resistant, and combined with a jersey, is warm down to at
> least zero.


http://louisgarneau.com/eng/ctm_catalog.asp?catalogue=C7

The main page of this web site is a compendium of grimacing posing
racers as is common in today's bicycling press. That's too bad,
because there are many imitators out there emulating that appearance,
even looking over their shoulder to see if an imagined chase group is
catching up. Can't we just ride bike instead of so much posturing?

> I like this jacket so much (and note that mine is in my club's
> colours) that I occasionally wear it on non-cycling occasions. My
> wife thinks this is weird.


Well I didn't find your team colors on that web site, but if the
jacket is as garish as most, I would agree with your wife. There is
more to life than bicycle racing and hanging it out in other venues.

> Full disclosure: Garneau is a major sponsor of my club. I really do
> like this jacket, though.


Well, that may well be, but I qualified my description for touring in
high country, be that Mt. Evans CO or the Alps. Without a hood, the
jacket is not good enough and from your description I cannot tell
whether it flaps on descents, another major failing of most jackets
for the reason I mentioned.

Jobst Brandt
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau writes:
>
> >> I'm with you on that except that I use my parka on my summer tour
> >> in the Alps where it can snow any day of the year and often does as
> >> you can see from the pictures at:

>
> >> For that reason I have a more stringent rule on what works.

>
> >> 1. It must be water proof.

>
> >> 2. It must have a hood that can be cinched down so that only eyes
> >> and nose are exposed.

>
> >> 3. It should be double layered, the inner layer can be mesh but
> >> must insulate the outer skin from the rider's arms to prevent
> >> freezing hands.

>
> >> 4. Velcro closure on sleeves and over the zipper down the front.

>
> >> 5. No vents or slots. Climbing can be done with the front
> >> partially open even in rain.

>
> >> 6. No Gore-Tex, the outer layer of which gets wet and doesn't dry
> >> readily, and the same goes for condensation on the inside.
> >> Breathing is illusory for someone climbing hills on a bicycle.

>
> >> 7. Bonus: Stiff and tight fitting enough so it does not flap in the
> >> wind when descending.

>
> >> Flapping sleeves and body is the greatest loss of warmth from
> >> forced convection. Next time when descending, hold the arms so the
> >> jacket remains still and notice how much warmer it is.

>
> >> Unfortunately, the people who make bicycle jackets haven't tried
> >> descending a 20km alpine pass when it's snowing... or at least not
> >> with an understanding of why it is as cold as it is. Most jackets
> >> have no adequate neck and head covering and have a body to hold
> >> Santa Clause with many layers of clothing.

>
> > I have been very happy with my "racing" jacket (a Louis Garneau
> > Windtex), which is a form-fitting jacket with no vents, elastic
> > cuffs, and a collar (but no hood). On its own, it is remarkably
> > warm, rain-resistant, and combined with a jersey, is warm down to at
> > least zero.

>
> http://louisgarneau.com/eng/ctm_catalog.asp?catalogue=C7
>
> The main page of this web site is a compendium of grimacing posing
> racers as is common in today's bicycling press. That's too bad,
> because there are many imitators out there emulating that appearance,
> even looking over their shoulder to see if an imagined chase group is
> catching up. Can't we just ride bike instead of so much posturing?


You have a strong opinion of posing. It must be said that the splash
page you object to is for Garneau's "Custom" line, which is to say,
directly aimed at clubs doing bulk orders of team kit. I can't vouch for
the tri-guy, but all the other pics I can identify as being one of the
elite teams LG sponsors: Jittery Joe's (US Div III, I think), Garneau
Optik (Quebec team, possibly espoir-level), and Boyuges Telecom
(recently seen contesting the Tour de France). In fact, except for one
training-ride shot of Jittery Joe's, I'm pretty sure all those pictures
were taken in the heat of competition.

> > I like this jacket so much (and note that mine is in my club's
> > colours) that I occasionally wear it on non-cycling occasions. My
> > wife thinks this is weird.

>
> Well I didn't find your team colors on that web site, but if the
> jacket is as garish as most, I would agree with your wife. There is
> more to life than bicycle racing and hanging it out in other venues.


Red and white:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rcousine/53270926/
http://escapevelocity.bc.ca/

My wife is right. But honest: it's strictly a comfort thing.

> > Full disclosure: Garneau is a major sponsor of my club. I really do
> > like this jacket, though.

>
> Well, that may well be, but I qualified my description for touring in
> high country, be that Mt. Evans CO or the Alps. Without a hood, the
> jacket is not good enough and from your description I cannot tell
> whether it flaps on descents, another major failing of most jackets
> for the reason I mentioned.


It fits racer-jersey tight. It does not flap, and indeed, it is highly
conformal. I have worn it in especially cold and wet races.

I'm surprised at your insistence on a hood, but suggest again that it
has a lot to do with your preference for riding without a helmet, too.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but my local jurisdiction
treats adults like children, and all local races are helmets-mandatory.
Between those two rules, I don't end up bare-headed except for daring
forays a few blocks from my house. Which I sometimes do on my 7-speed
BMX, but that's another story.

Perhaps a balaclava?

--
Ryan Cousineau [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
 
In article <[email protected]>, ship wrote:
>
>And my response is please re-read mine whole message.
>I have need something that is at least VERY showerproof - not
>very shower proof just wont cut it!


A car, with a roof, and a heater, and air conditioning. Because:
>It sounds to me that even if I spend GBP 300 or 400+, the jacket
>I seek simply doesnt really exist.
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> > When a driver's headlights shine upon you, there is enough illumination
> > to see color. But as you note, red is still harder to see than yellow.
> > I'd have to dig out my old perception textbooks to see about relative
> > response time to different wavelengths, but I wouldn't be surprised if
> > some wavelengths are seen "faster" than others.

>
> Faster is not the issue - visibility is. The curves you need are the
> photopic and scotopic visual sensitivities and they can be found at
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/bright.html


Does your link does describe MOVING colours or STATIC ones?

I read an article several years ago stating that bright red was a
TERRIBLE colour for fire engines because the red cones in the
eye take longest to respond - albeit that red is the colour that most
jolts/shocks/alerts/stimulates us. The article went on to state
that a bright red fast moving obect across our vision was as
good as invisible.

[As a trained zoologist I have to wonder bright BRIGHT
red being the colour of (oxygenated) blood is just an evolultionary
coincidence... !]


Ship
 

> ship wrote:
>
> > I have need something that is at least VERY showerproof - not
> > very shower proof just wont cut it!

>
> On how many of your commutes does it rain at all? And how long are your
> commutes?
>
> Getting a bit damp from light rain going through ordinary clothing isn't
> /that/ bad, and getting a bit damp from sweat when wearing a waterproof
> jacket in heavy rain isn't /that/ bad - in London (where it's rarely
> terribly cold).
>
> > The thing is yes, if the weather is looking *completely* dry then
> > I can cheerfully wear my Pertex thing from Montane.

>
> You can still wear it even if the weather is looking sh1t. Just change into
> your waterproof at a traffic light if it does come on to rain, and take it
> off when it stops. How often will you need to wear a showerproof for the
> whole journey, let alone a waterproof? It's just a few days per year.


OP here, yes in London I would guess I get wet probably about 18 to 24
days per year.
And it's a damned nuicance - one good soaking and it REALLY puts
you off commuting by bike. And I do commute ALL seasons, whatever the
weather - it's about 20 to 25 minutes each way but then if I go
out in the evening (i.e. more nights than not that's a total of another
20-40 minutes
or so to add to the journeytimes. So that's at least an hour per day
spread across the 24 hours

But I'm a big believer in getting the RIGHT EQUIPMENT. And then
commuting in whatever weather is no problem.

Currently if it's raining *hard*, I put on my Paramo jacket which
breaths
extremely well, but is far too warm in the summer - in which case
I either arrive sweaty (fine if on the way home - less fine if on the
way to a date!) OR I simply have to slow down (which I dont like
because in many situations it can be dangerous!)

The other problem with my current Paramo is that it's green and not
good
for visibility. Which is why I'm thinking of buying another jacket for
the coming after-dark commutes this winter.

To be honest, the one thing I DONT want is to arrive at work or to
a date for the evening covered in sweat. (My skin reacts against lying
sweat with a rash, for one thing...)

But my experience of all "waterproof" shells is that they rapidly
become INCREDIBLY sweaty if your are working reasonably hard.

So from what I gather in this thread, waterproof shell materials
are always going to be a fundamental problem - yes even if you
spend a LOT of money there appears to be no material you can buy
that solves this.

But I do like the sound of all that chat about *vents* though.
Mind you some of the jackets mentioned elsewhere on this thread don't
seem
to mention them on their manufacturer's websites (!) - and that
doesnt sound promising... :(

I would also quite like to replace my thin "every day" pertex jacket
with something more DESIGNED for cycling. Maybe with a lot more
reflectors built in to it. Maybe a BIT more water-resistent (not hard)
and maybe having at least a BIT more in the way of vents
(it has none!) This would mean that I could cheerfullly cycle in
*somewhat*
more rainy conditions...

And then when it REALLY tips down? Well I guess a compact
water-resistent goretex-type of shell and just go slower and/or
get sweaty on them days...


Ship (OP)
 

> ship wrote:
>
> > I have need something that is at least VERY showerproof - not
> > very shower proof just wont cut it!

>
> On how many of your commutes does it rain at all? And how long are your
> commutes?
>
> Getting a bit damp from light rain going through ordinary clothing isn't
> /that/ bad, and getting a bit damp from sweat when wearing a waterproof
> jacket in heavy rain isn't /that/ bad - in London (where it's rarely
> terribly cold).
>
> > The thing is yes, if the weather is looking *completely* dry then
> > I can cheerfully wear my Pertex thing from Montane.

>
> You can still wear it even if the weather is looking sh1t. Just change into
> your waterproof at a traffic light if it does come on to rain, and take it
> off when it stops. How often will you need to wear a showerproof for the
> whole journey, let alone a waterproof? It's just a few days per year.


OP here, yes in London I would guess I get wet probably about 18 to 24
days per year.
And it's a damned nuicance - one good soaking and it REALLY puts
you off commuting by bike. And I do commute ALL seasons, whatever the
weather - it's about 20 to 25 minutes each way but then if I go
out in the evening (i.e. more nights than not that's a total of another
20-40 minutes
or so to add to the journeytimes. So that's at least an hour per day
spread across the 24 hours

But I'm a big believer in getting the RIGHT EQUIPMENT. And then
commuting in whatever weather is no problem.

Currently if it's raining *hard*, I put on my Paramo jacket which
breaths
extremely well, but is far too warm in the summer - in which case
I either arrive sweaty (fine if on the way home - less fine if on the
way to a date!) OR I simply have to slow down (which I dont like
because in many situations it can be dangerous!)

The other problem with my current Paramo is that it's green and not
good
for visibility. Which is why I'm thinking of buying another jacket for
the coming after-dark commutes this winter.

To be honest, the one thing I DONT want is to arrive at work or to
a date for the evening covered in sweat. (My skin reacts against lying
sweat with a rash, for one thing...)

But my experience of all "waterproof" shells is that they rapidly
become INCREDIBLY sweaty if your are working reasonably hard.

So from what I gather in this thread, waterproof shell materials
are always going to be a fundamental problem - yes even if you
spend a LOT of money there appears to be no material you can buy
that solves this.

But I do like the sound of all that chat about *vents* though.
Mind you some of the jackets mentioned elsewhere on this thread don't
seem
to mention them on their manufacturer's websites (!) - and that
doesnt sound promising... :(

I would also quite like to replace my thin "every day" pertex jacket
with something more DESIGNED for cycling. Maybe with a lot more
reflectors built in to it. Maybe a BIT more water-resistent (not hard)
and maybe having at least a BIT more in the way of vents
(it has none!) This would mean that I could cheerfullly cycle in
*somewhat*
more rainy conditions...

And then when it REALLY tips down? Well I guess a compact
water-resistent goretex-type of shell and just go slower and/or
get sweaty on them days...


Ship (OP)
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, ship wrote:
> >
> >And my response is please re-read mine whole message.
> >I have need something that is at least VERY showerproof - not
> >very shower proof just wont cut it!

>
> A car, with a roof, and a heater, and air conditioning. Because:
> >It sounds to me that even if I spend GBP 300 or 400+, the jacket
> >I seek simply doesnt really exist.


Very funny. But terrible for the environment and in this traffic-jam
ridden city
of London, terrible for wasting my time.

But FYI, I have now revised my opinion on all this.

On reflection I now think I'm gonna need TWO new jackets.

A)
One everyday one that is cool, highly breathable, massively
bright at night(with built in reflectors), well vented (arms, neck,
armpits, back...?)
and as water-resistent *as possible*

B)
a highly compact genuine "waterproof" for downpoors.
(with as many of the features in A) as I can find!)


Ship
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, ship wrote:
> >
> >And my response is please re-read mine whole message.
> >I have need something that is at least VERY showerproof - not
> >very shower proof just wont cut it!

>
> A car, with a roof, and a heater, and air conditioning. Because:
> >It sounds to me that even if I spend GBP 300 or 400+, the jacket
> >I seek simply doesnt really exist.


Very funny. But terrible for the environment and in this traffic-jam
ridden city
of London, terrible for wasting my time.

But FYI, I have now revised my opinion on all this.

On reflection I now think I'm gonna need TWO new jackets.

A)
One everyday one that is cool, highly breathable, massively
bright at night(with built in reflectors), well vented (arms, neck,
armpits, back...?)
and as water-resistent *as possible*

B)
a highly compact genuine "waterproof" for downpoors.
(with as many of the features in A) as I can find!)


Ship
(OP)
 
Alan Braggins wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, ship wrote:
> >
> >And my response is please re-read mine whole message.
> >I have need something that is at least VERY showerproof - not
> >very shower proof just wont cut it!

>
> A car, with a roof, and a heater, and air conditioning. Because:
> >It sounds to me that even if I spend GBP 300 or 400+, the jacket
> >I seek simply doesnt really exist.


Very funny. But terrible for the environment and in this traffic-jam
ridden city
of London, terrible for wasting my time.

But FYI, I have now revised my opinion on all this.

On reflection I now think I'm gonna need TWO new jackets.

A)
One everyday one that is cool, highly breathable, massively
bright at night(with built in reflectors), well vented (arms, neck,
armpits, back...?)
and as water-resistent *as possible*

B)
a highly compact genuine "waterproof" for downpoors.
(with as many of the features in A) as I can find!)


Ship
(OP)
 
"ship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> But FYI, I have now revised my opinion on all this.
>
> On reflection I now think I'm gonna need TWO new jackets.
>
> A)
> One everyday one that is cool, highly breathable, massively
> bright at night(with built in reflectors), well vented (arms, neck,
> armpits, back...?)
> and as water-resistent *as possible*
>
> B)
> a highly compact genuine "waterproof" for downpoors.
> (with as many of the features in A) as I can find!)


What about the 'use a t-shirt to ride in rather than your work shirt'
option?

cheers,
clive
 
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:47 Tony Raven wrote:
>
> Simon Brooke wrote on 17/10/2006 18:46 +0100:
>>
>> SMIDSY is almost always just an excuse. If there was a two ton
>> steel statue of a cyclist painted black and bolted to the road, no
>> car would hit it. Things that might kill them are very easy for
>> drivers to see.
> >

>
> Do you want to reconsider that statement? They frequently
> manage to hit gert big trees that have been growing alongside
> the road since before they learnt to drive so I can't imagine
> a statue on the road faring better.


Car drivers also manage to hit: traffic islands, other cars, lorries,
pedestrians, etc. And they do this whether said objects are
stationary or in motion (although to be honest I've not heard of a
collision with a moving traffic island, but I'm not convinced it
couldn't happen) unlit or illuminated.

--
Tim Forcer [email protected]
The University of Southampton, UK

The University is not responsible for my opinions
 
ship wrote on 19/10/2006 09:37 +0100:
>
> Does your link does describe MOVING colours or STATIC ones?


I don't think it really makes much difference.

>
> I read an article several years ago stating that bright red was a
> TERRIBLE colour for fire engines because the red cones in the
> eye take longest to respond - albeit that red is the colour that most
> jolts/shocks/alerts/stimulates us. The article went on to state
> that a bright red fast moving obect across our vision was as
> good as invisible.


Sounds like a red herring. The cones are only in a small central part
of the vision and are relatively slow responding. Detection of a moving
object is done primarily by the rods which are not colour differentiated
like cones. However, as I pointed out earlier with rear LED lights, the
rods are pretty insensitive to red as a whole (see the sensitivity
curves in my previous link) and given Pieron's Law that the visual
response time depends on the stimulus intensity, it is likely to take
longer to spot a red stimulus of the same intensity as a green one in
your peripheral vision. But at equal perceived brightness there is no
colour dependency of visual response times.

It also ignores the largish percentage of males with red/green colour
blindness who have difficulty differentiating red anyway

>
> [As a trained zoologist I have to wonder bright BRIGHT
> red being the colour of (oxygenated) blood is just an evolultionary
> coincidence... !]
>


Red is quite widely used in nature as an attractor/warning but it is a
pigmentation effect rather than blood. So it is probably evolutionary
but not blood colour based.


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:

> ship wrote on 19/10/2006 09:37 +0100:
> >
> > Does your link does describe MOVING colours or STATIC ones?

>
> I don't think it really makes much difference.


I would agree with that assessment, assuming relatively even
illumination and coloration.

> > I read an article several years ago stating that bright red was a
> > TERRIBLE colour for fire engines because the red cones in the eye
> > take longest to respond - albeit that red is the colour that most
> > jolts/shocks/alerts/stimulates us. The article went on to state
> > that a bright red fast moving obect across our vision was as good
> > as invisible.

>
> Sounds like a red herring.


Was that a pun? ;-)

> The cones are only in a small central part of the vision and are
> relatively slow responding. Detection of a moving object is done
> primarily by the rods which are not colour differentiated like cones.
> However, as I pointed out earlier with rear LED lights, the rods are
> pretty insensitive to red as a whole (see the sensitivity curves in
> my previous link) and given Pieron's Law that the visual response
> time depends on the stimulus intensity, it is likely to take longer
> to spot a red stimulus of the same intensity as a green one in your
> peripheral vision. But at equal perceived brightness there is no
> colour dependency of visual response times.


Noting that equal perceived brightness is achieved with higher light
source output for some colors than others. As an aside, some of the old
psychophysics research has to be taken with a grain of salt as the
highly unnatural conditions of the experiments gave distorted results.
Psychophysics research conceptualized perception as a passive process on
the part of the organism. See James J. Gibson's _The ecological
approach to visual perception_ for example, or his earlier book _The
senses considered as perceptual systems_. Also Edward Reed wrote well
on this topic.

The equivalent for this newsgroup might be measuring rolling resistance
on a two inch diameter steel roller and then trying to extrapolate that
data to riding on a road with rough pavement.

> It also ignores the largish percentage of males with red/green colour
> blindness who have difficulty differentiating red anyway


Differentiating red from greens or browns, but seeing red objects is
only an issue of the object is surrounded by other objects of
confounding colors. This would be less an issue with a red rain jacket
illuminated by a driver's headlights on a dark rainy night, as it would
be prominent in for foreground with little competing background. A fire
truck on a street in New York or London, with all the other visual
information to obscure it, might be hard to see. Hence the siren and
flashing lights.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"ship" <[email protected]> wrote:

> OP here, yes in London I would guess I get wet probably about 18 to 24
> days per year.


Have you considered a rain cape? Excellent protection from the rain
(keeps your legs fry and all, and if you have fenders and a mud flap
you'll be snug as houses), better ventilation than possible with a
jacket. The downside is wind resistance, but at commuting speeds that's
a minimal issue unless you live somewhere prone to being very windy.
 
Clive George wrote:
> "ship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> But FYI, I have now revised my opinion on all this.
>>
>> On reflection I now think I'm gonna need TWO new jackets.
>>
>> A)
>> One everyday one that is cool, highly breathable, massively
>> bright at night(with built in reflectors), well vented (arms, neck,
>> armpits, back...?)
>> and as water-resistent *as possible*
>>
>> B)
>> a highly compact genuine "waterproof" for downpoors.
>> (with as many of the features in A) as I can find!)

>
> What about the 'use a t-shirt to ride in rather than your work shirt'
> option?


A merino wool t-shirt, obviously. Otherwise you'll get cold in the rain.

A
 
Clive George wrote:
> "ship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > But FYI, I have now revised my opinion on all this.
> >
> > On reflection I now think I'm gonna need TWO new jackets.
> >
> > A)
> > One everyday one that is cool, highly breathable, massively
> > bright at night(with built in reflectors), well vented (arms, neck,
> > armpits, back...?)
> > and as water-resistent *as possible*
> >
> > B)
> > a highly compact genuine "waterproof" for downpoors.
> > (with as many of the features in A) as I can find!)

>
> What about the 'use a t-shirt to ride in rather than your work shirt'
> option?


Yes well... hmm.... I'm torn... you NEARLY have a point there.

The downsides are
a) Hassle - finding somewhere to change,
b) and then actually changing.
c) an extra garmet to wash (on a regular basis presumably!)
d) hassle of transporting a shirt WITHOUT it getting creased.

In the winter I'm afraid I dont wear cycling shorts - just long
trousers - for similar reasons. In fact I even wear ordinary
shoes
[shock horror!]

I just want an easy/convenient life.
And in my life time * energy = money!


Ship
 

> > I read an article several years ago stating that bright red was a
> > TERRIBLE colour for fire engines because the red cones in the
> > eye take longest to respond - albeit that red is the colour that most
> > jolts/shocks/alerts/stimulates us. The article went on to state
> > that a bright red fast moving obect across our vision was as
> > good as invisible.

>
> Sounds like a red herring. The cones are only in a small central part
> of the vision and are relatively slow responding.


How come I can see my red flashing bike LED in the very corner of my
eye - and yes it's very clearly red - if there are NO cones in my
peripheral vision area!

> Detection of a moving
> object is done primarily by the rods which are not colour differentiated
> like cones. However, as I pointed out earlier with rear LED lights, the
> rods are pretty insensitive to red as a whole (see the sensitivity
> curves in my previous link) and given Pieron's Law that the visual
> response time depends on the stimulus intensity, it is likely to take
> longer to spot a red stimulus of the same intensity as a green one in
> your peripheral vision. But at equal perceived brightness there is no
> colour dependency of visual response times.


You are probably right.
It sounds like you are arguing that white sun-light has great a
significantly
greater degree of red light waves, even though we are adapted to
perceive it as
white, yes.

Ah maybe the point of the article was that it would take longer to
perceive it as *being red* - i.e. a bright colour rather then a merely
pale-ish-grey.

> It also ignores the largish percentage of males with red/green colour
> blindness who have difficulty differentiating red anyway

So if their greens and reds look the same, I presume that can these
guys can still perceive yellow as being different? Ergo get a yellow
not a red or green jacket!

> > [As a trained zoologist I have to wonder bright BRIGHT
> > red being the colour of (oxygenated) blood is just an evolultionary
> > coincidence... !]
> >

>
> Red is quite widely used in nature as an attractor/warning but it is a
> pigmentation effect rather than blood. So it is probably evolutionary
> but not blood colour based.


Yes I know that... but the question is why did nature choose
red? The issue at stake is which way around was cause and effect
during our ancestral past? I am assuming that
haemoglobin pre-dates colour vision... and that there was a
survival value in clearly seeing spilt blood. Spilt blood would be a
pretty important thing to be able to see, after all. Because
it would mean a) food if you are a carnivore or b) serious
injury going on - i.e. get the heck out of here! - if you are a
herbivor.
And if it's your OWN blood then... ***********!

Whereas if blood just looked the same colour as the grass
the sky and everything else I think you would be at a disadvantage
to competitors that could see it.

Mind you... even if haemoglobin evolved AFTER colour vision
it might still work.
Suppose we could all see just greens and blues, if someone threw
a mutation that let them see red blood - again that could be
of big survival value. I mean I wonder how many *other* colours of cone
receptor have evolved - other than RBG + rods...but which were
of insufficient survival value to us... - have I lost you yet? zzzz?
I *believe* certain species can see ultra-violet for example...
though dont ask me which!
Strangely I am told that a lot of predators only see in black
and white - which has always sounded rather strange to me.
I can certainly distinguish rabbit and dear when the are stationary
purely using colour. After all, the bottom line is that plants are
green but
not very many animals have evolved green pigment - particularly
mammals for some reason. But now I fear I really *am* off topic


Ship









Ship
 
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "ship" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > OP here, yes in London I would guess I get wet probably about 18 to 24
> > days per year.

>
> Have you considered a rain cape? Excellent protection from the rain
> (keeps your legs fry and all, and if you have fenders and a mud flap
> you'll be snug as houses), better ventilation than possible with a
> jacket. The downside is wind resistance, but at commuting speeds that's
> a minimal issue unless you live somewhere prone to being very windy.


Hmm... Downsides of cape:
- Takes up too much space in my luggage - I REALLY dont have much space
in my panier/rucksack
- I am concerned that I might get blown around by passing lorries.
- A hassle setting it up.
- massive wind resistance (presumably)

....All in all yes probably a still good idea if regular heavy rain
predicted I guess.

But no I dont think I have ROOM for one on an every day basis.
(Just much space do they take up when folded up...?)

I remember back in the late 1980s cycling into work in Aberdeen
(Jockland) and I swear I got soaked either going IN to work
or coming OUT from work (or both) every single day for 4 weeks.

Mind you apparently that November was an all time record even
for them!

But yes I'll keep an eye out for them next time it rains


Ship
 

> > What about the 'use a t-shirt to ride in rather than your work shirt'
> > option?

>
> A merino wool t-shirt, obviously. Otherwise you'll get cold in the rain.
>


Isnt it a bit prickly next to the skin?
And are you sure that there isnt anything that
wicks better without actually absorbing water
than merino wool?
Do you have to keep oiling it?
Does it smell bad?
Can you throw it into the washing machine?
Will the clothes moths gobble it up?

Btw, I've often wondered about string-type construction vests - they
may look cr*p but
they would presumably:
- keep the bulk of the wet clothing off your skin
- offer quite a lot of insulation with used little ventilation
- but minimal insulation when used with lots of ventilation

Ship
 
"ship" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>> What about the 'use a t-shirt to ride in rather than your work shirt'
>> option?

>
> Yes well... hmm.... I'm torn... you NEARLY have a point there.
>
> The downsides are
> a) Hassle - finding somewhere to change,
> b) and then actually changing.


I'm guessing you're of the male persuasion, in which case changing a top is
really very easy. Although the look on my boss's face when I arrived at the
same time as him wearing nothing but a pair of cycling shorts, shoes/socks
and a lot of sweat was quite amusing :)

> c) an extra garmet to wash (on a regular basis presumably!)
> d) hassle of transporting a shirt WITHOUT it getting creased.


I don't worry about the latter two. An extra t-shirt is hardly much extra
laundry, and the shirts tend to survive fairly well in my very limited
experience.

> In the winter I'm afraid I dont wear cycling shorts - just long
> trousers - for similar reasons.


I stopped doing that because I wore them out too quickly. I've no desire to
waste nice trousers.

> I just want an easy/convenient life.


Easy, convenient = slow down on your bike, hence sweat less and you can get
away with a more waterproof jacket.
If you want to ride harder, you've got to make some different compromises.

> And in my life time * energy = money!

(What does that make the dimensions of money?)

cheers,
clive