The Rules

meursault

I love the Velominat site and all it stands for

http://www.velominati.com/

The rules are very controversial, but just for the sake of this thread, let's just accept they exist, and not pass judgement.

But which rules do you break?

http://www.velominati.com/the-rules/

here's mine.

#1 I don't think there are many people who 100% comply.

#30 I don't like too much stuff in jersey pockets, so nice Lezyne power drive goes on frame.

#33 Seems a bit porn star to me.

#56 Usually will go for an Americano, but like all coffees.

#74 Soon getting an edge 810. Route planning and help motivativation.

#90 See #74

Not too bad, of course, I am still on the path...

smidsy

Damn #33 is about the only 1 I do comply with :oops:

Wirral_paul

meursault wrote:

The rules are very controversial,

What?? Are you mad - there's nothing controversial at all - they are THE rules. Obey them or dont dare call yourself a cyclist :twisted:

simon_masterson

They are controversial because they are a bad joke, and a tired one at that. If you actually read them, they merely represent the trendy behaviour of people who like to own bikes and associate with cyclists; rather the road cycling equivalent of the 'fixie' riders that ride with garishly painted frames and train tickets in the wheels, and no brakes, and get together to practice track stands.

P.S. bad jokes go away when people stop telling them.

chrisaonabike

meursault wrote:

I love the Velominati site and all it stands for

So do I. It makes me smile every time I read through the rules. I don't care if they're a bad joke, they amuse me and I haven't been cycling long enough to get bored with them yet.

I break Rule 7 - though not comprehensively enough, I suspect, to completely avoid looking very strange out of my cycling gear by the end of the summer.

I break rule 12, since I only have one bike.

Also rule 24, since I live in England. Kilometres are stupid, except when I've just ridden exactly 62 miles.

29, 30 and 31 I break all the time - I hate anything in my pockets so a saddle bag is essential. For the sportives I'm getting a big one, so ner.

I break rule 60. Extra weight be damned!

And 85. I'm chicken on descents.

Bollox, is all I can say to rule 90. I'd have to stay at home if I had to stay in the big ring all the time.

And my version of rule 91 is three hours, not four.

Other than that, yes, I'm a perfect Velominatus

meursault

Simon Masterson wrote:

They are controversial because they are a bad joke, and a tired one at that. If you actually read them, they merely represent the trendy behaviour of people who like to own bikes and associate with cyclists; rather the road cycling equivalent of the 'fixie' riders that ride with garishly painted frames and train tickets in the wheels, and no brakes, and get together to practice track stands.

P.S. bad jokes go away when people stop telling them.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

They are controversial because they are a bad joke, and a tired one at that. If you actually read them, they merely represent the trendy behaviour of people who like to own bikes and associate with cyclists; rather the road cycling equivalent of the 'fixie' riders that ride with garishly painted frames and train tickets in the wheels, and no brakes, and get together to practice track stands.

P.S. bad jokes go away when people stop telling them.

Is that meant to be Simon not joining in with everyone pretending to enjoy themselves unconvincingly?

I'm no fan of the rules mainly because they are really pretty unimaginative and it's all been a bit done before. If I follow them at all, it is to do the reverse of what they say though that is really just as bad as pointedly following them!

If you like his humour, the bloke who runs that site has a column in the otherwise excellent Cyclist magazine!

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

meursault wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

They are controversial because they are a bad joke, and a tired one at that. If you actually read them, they merely represent the trendy behaviour of people who like to own bikes and associate with cyclists; rather the road cycling equivalent of the 'fixie' riders that ride with garishly painted frames and train tickets in the wheels, and no brakes, and get together to practice track stands.

P.S. bad jokes go away when people stop telling them.

Is that meant to be Simon not joining in with everyone pretending to enjoy themselves unconvincingly?

I'm no fan of the rules mainly because they are really pretty unimaginative and it's all been a bit done before. If I follow them at all, it is to do the reverse of what they say though that is really just as bad as pointedly following them!

If you like his humour, the bloke who runs that site has a column in the otherwise excellent Cyclist magazine!

It's more of a lost for words thing, because some people can't resist telling us how much they hate the rules. I thought I had made it clear

The rules are very controversial, but just for the sake of this thread, let's just accept they exist, and not pass judgement.

It's all good.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

The rules are very controversial, but just for the sake of this thread, let's just accept they exist, and not pass judgement.

It's all good.

Oh, I see. But as you like rules, surely you know rule number 1 of internet forums? i.e. That as soon as you post a thread, it isn't yours anymore whether you like the content or not!

thegreatdivide

Rolf F wrote:

meursault wrote:

The rules are very controversial, but just for the sake of this thread, let's just accept they exist, and not pass judgement.

It's all good.

Oh, I see. But as you like rules, surely you know rule number 1 of internet forums? i.e. That as soon as you post a thread, it isn't yours anymore whether you like the content or not!

meursault

thegreatdivide wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

meursault wrote:

The rules are very controversial, but just for the sake of this thread, let's just accept they exist, and not pass judgement.

It's all good.

Oh, I see. But as you like rules, surely you know rule number 1 of internet forums? i.e. That as soon as you post a thread, it isn't yours anymore whether you like the content or not!

Yeah I am aware of that, would it not be easier for you though, to not post if it is so negative? I mean, just ignore it. The thread was just to see what rules people break.

doug5_10

Agree with most things apart from the black thing, black looks guff: bibs, shoes, socks, saddle, bar tape etc. OREC rules and endorsed products are much more fun: white, white, white! And a pet parrot.

https://www.facebook.com/the.official.rules

markhewitt1978

#9 - I don't like bad weather
#11 - Sorry, family does come first!
#12 - I only own one bike
#24 - In the UK we refer to road distances in mile and use MPH, which is what I use, much to the annoyance of my friends who insist upon following this rule.
#30 - I have a frame mounted pump, best place to keep it. Who's going to faff on with putting it in a jersey pocket every ride?!
#31 - Again saddle bags were invented for a reason, so my repair kit goes in there
#33 - I don't shave my legs, then I'd be like a girl
#34 - I use SPD mountain bike pedals on my road bike, just because the shoes are easier to walk in.
#39 - I rarely wear glasses, I don't really like them, even sunglasses off the bike, I'd rather wear a hat and squint
#45 - My stem is risen instead of slammed!
#60 - I leave my valve stem caps on, why not?
#69 - See #34, I often walk considerable distance in my cycling shoes, because I can
#85 - Anything about 30mph on a decent scares me!
#90 - If I never got out of the big ring I'd never get anywhere!

Looks like I'm a bad roadie

djm501

With internet lists like this they quickly become boring after about rule 20 and above.

See the list of things to do if you're an evil overlord if you really want to see far too many.

It should be distilled down to the ones that are actually funny (and some of them are) - with a maximum of 10 or 20 and then it would have better impact for me.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

Yeah I am aware of that, would it not be easier for you though, to not post if it is so negative? I mean, just ignore it. The thread was just to see what rules people break.

I would be easier not to post - this is true. But you keep posting up patronising gifs so I can't really resist! Besides, I was just responding to a negative post of yours.......

Anyway, the rules aren't controversial - they are just a bit crap! But if you want to do what some bloke you don't know on a website tells you to do, then you carry on; whatever works for you!

edhornby

On Robert Millar's blog this month he reckons there should be two more

never sprint holding the hoods

front brake on the left hand side, rear on the right (not how the british do it but we are out of step with the rest of the world)

Lycra-Byka

Out of curiosity - why no sprinting from the hoods?

Just a fashion thing?

MountainMonster

Lycra-Byka wrote:

Out of curiosity - why no sprinting from the hoods?

Just a fashion thing?

I would imagine it could be because you could slip off a bit easier, I have seen a few videos from pros on YouTube that suggest it is not that safe, especially if in a bunch.

Tom Dean

meursault wrote:

#33 Seems a bit porn star to me.

I think by 'guns' they mean legs...

I break:

#1 - the rules are stupid, except the ones that make sense, which is nearly all of them.

Lycra-Byka

MountainMonster wrote:

Lycra-Byka wrote:

Out of curiosity - why no sprinting from the hoods?

Just a fashion thing?

I would imagine it could be because you could slip off a bit easier, I have seen a few videos from pros on YouTube that suggest it is not that safe, especially if in a bunch.

Yeah I suppose so.

I will obey this too.

MountainMonster

Lycra-Byka wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

Lycra-Byka wrote:

Out of curiosity - why no sprinting from the hoods?

Just a fashion thing?

I would imagine it could be because you could slip off a bit easier, I have seen a few videos from pros on YouTube that suggest it is not that safe, especially if in a bunch.

Yeah I suppose so.

I will obey this too.

Good little servant of the future rules

iPete

There is actually a lot of sense in many of the rules with some tongue in cheek tarty ones thrown in.

Ultimately it all comes back to #5.

simon_masterson

Tom Dean wrote:

...which is nearly all of them.

So being someone who actually cycles (as opposed to hanging around with a bike and/or cyclists), it makes sense to eschew the highly practical facilities of frame-mounted pumps, seatpost wedges, and shoes with recessed cleats, does it? Or suitable amounts of fluid and food for real training?

lotus49

Simon Masterson wrote:

They are controversial because they are a bad joke, and a tired one at that. If you actually read them, they merely represent the trendy behaviour of people who like to own bikes and associate with cyclists; rather the road cycling equivalent of the 'fixie' riders that ride with garishly painted frames and train tickets in the wheels, and no brakes, and get together to practice track stands.

P.S. bad jokes go away when people stop telling them.

I agree with you about most things except SPD pedals Simon, but I'll have to add this to the list.

I think The Rules are funny and I also think that they are a tongue in cheek distillation of what has been regarded as the done thing by roadies for years. More than most sports there is a long-standing culture surrounding cycling and The Rules are an attempt to describe humorously what that culture is about. The Velominati didn't make up The Rules, they are merely documenting them.

You may not like what The Rules say, but then you are keen to be seen as unfashionable when it comes to cycling so you should be grateful to the Velominati that they give you something to rail against.

lotus49

markhewitt1978 wrote:

#33 - I don't shave my legs, then I'd be like a girl

Eddy Merckx (PBUH) shaved his legs. He wasn't a girl.

PS I don't shave my legs, but I cannot promise I won't start .

lotus49

Simon Masterson wrote:

Tom Dean wrote:

...which is nearly all of them.

So being someone who actually cycles (as opposed to hanging around with a bike and/or cyclists), it makes sense to eschew the highly practical facilities of frame-mounted pumps, seatpost wedges, and shoes with recessed cleats, does it? Or suitable amounts of fluid and food for real training?

Three posts in a row. It's a PB :oops: .

In a word, yes.

meursault

Rolf F wrote:

meursault wrote:

Yeah I am aware of that, would it not be easier for you though, to not post if it is so negative? I mean, just ignore it. The thread was just to see what rules people break.

I would be easier not to post - this is true. But you keep posting up patronising gifs so I can't really resist! Besides, I was just responding to a negative post of yours.......

Anyway, the rules aren't controversial - they are just a bit crap! But if you want to do what some bloke you don't know on a website tells you to do, then you carry on; whatever works for you!

I cannot control what you consider patronising, though you may want to check your own posts, but you do appear to have one fan.

It's subjective what you think is good or not, but it's not some bloke on a website. It's an online community dedicated with a passion for road cycling. Thank you for your permission to carry on.

meursault

iPete wrote:

There is actually a lot of sense in many of the rules with some tongue in cheek tarty ones thrown in.

Ultimately it all comes back to #5.

iPete nails it.

rolf_f

meursault wrote:

I cannot control what you consider patronising, though you may want to check your own posts, but you do appear to have one fan.

It's subjective what you think is good or not, but it's not some bloke on a website. It's an online community dedicated with a passion for road cycling. Thank you for your permission to carry on.

I wouldn't wish you to try to control what I consider patronising! I was merely pointing out that your gifs encourage me to respond! Of course, I haven't actually accused you of being patronising so I am terribly hurt that you accuse me of it!

Apols if I was wrong about the rules. I thought they were just written by Frank Strack, author of aforementioned blog in Cyclist. TBH, I originally thought they were written by a collection of bored students who weren't as funny as they thought they were.

Anyway, back to your beloved rules!*

*incidentally, it is not necessarily the content of the rules that irritates me (though as djm501 says, the sheer quantity of them kills them somewhat) - more it is the tedious phraseology. That peculiar contradiction of trying to be humourous whilst at the same time taking itself way too seriously. The only correct set of rules is #1 Obey the rules. #2 Ignore anyone who tells you to obey the rules; you have a mind of your own.

PS Like your avatar - what is it from?

chrisaonabike

meursault wrote:

iPete wrote:

There is actually a lot of sense in many of the rules with some tongue in cheek tarty ones thrown in.

Ultimately it all comes back to #5.

iPete nails it.

+1

edhornby

sprinting on the hoods is more likely to cause the back wheel skipping so you'd just be slow and not win