What makes a good kit?

[Armchair Cyclist]

We obviously have wildly differing opinions on which kits are good, which strongly suggests that we vary widely in opinion of what makes a kit good.

Let's give the designers of next year's kits some clues then: what do we like?

You may choose more than one feature, but be aware that your responses will be available for ridicule and accusations of self-contradiction or hypocrisy.

 

[online-rider]

A good kit is stylish and classy but not too much. It must have subtelty and minimalism in some parts. Perhaps the booties here. Some colour coordination between either the top and the shorts or the top and the booties. NO COLOUR COORDINATION IS TO BE HAD BETWEEN THE KIT AND THE ARM WARMERS OR THE KIT AND THE LEG WARMERS. Glove to sunglasses to kit colour patterns are quite likeable on reasonable kit. Generally a Giordana label or a badge will make any crappy kit look very nice

 

[luckyboy]

Lots of people in factories

 

[luckyboy]

Seriously though, it's hard to pick something that makes a kit good - the obvious ones are:

Co-ordination between sponsor logos and design - because it looks terrible when all the sponsors are different colours. Colour co-ordination is also good for the same reason.

Sometimes minimal kits look good, sometimes retro ones do and sometimes visible ones do too.

If there's a link between the 2011 kits of AG2R, Cofidis, QST, Lotto + Highroad, then that is what makes a good kit.

Vacansoleil + Katusha haven't matched the shorts and jersey, which looks bad. Movistar, Leopard, BMC, Sky + Garmin are all either boring in design or plain.

etc.

 

[For The World]

This is a good example. Combine with with black knicks and a sponsors name in white down the side, and you have classy, classic, easy to spot and not so costly to produce.

 

[ak-zaaf]

I voted both classic/retro and originality.
That's the way to go.

 

[online-rider]

This is a good example. Combine with with black knicks and a sponsors name in white down the side, and you have classy, classic, easy to spot and not so costly to produce.

Come on man. The seventies are over. Seriously !

 

[usedtobefast]

i have to say, me wearing it makes for a good looking kit.

 

[theswordsman]

My three favorites for 2010 were Caisse d'Epargne, Vacansoleil and Astana. I'm not sure what they might have in common, but they looked good in the peloton.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the only one that matters is "Distinctiveness and visibility in peloton".

Susan

 

[For The World]

Come on man. The seventies are over. Seriously !

But... but... but... NNNOOOOOOOOO!!!

I can't help it. I like the simple look for kits. Although, the Mapei GB kit is my all time favourite.

 

[Sørensen]

This

 

[taiwan]

A jersey and a pair of shorts.

 

[ScottyMuser]

difficult to know exactly what makes the kits stand out and look good, but my favourite kits from last year were probably

1) Liquigas - just bright enough green to stand out, went brilliantly with the pink jersey when they had it, and relatively plain
2) Euskatel - brilliant shade of bright orange means they stand out from the peloton, and meant for "bleeding carrots strewing the road" on difficult stages - especially fun when the uni-baller is caught bup by them
3) Garmin - had so much potential with Argyle, and kept it classy but decent - could have been better with more FLAMES and colours
4) Caisse d'Epagne - onot for their nornmal kit (which admittedly was nice for a non-stand out one) butfor Gutierrez's National jersey, fireballs FTW

however stand outs are not necessarily always the way (cough cough footon)

 

[jaylew]

It may be classic but I don't like the colored jersey / black bibs look. To me, they look too generic and too much like the majority of club teams out there.

Black shorts are cool when the top is black (Sky, Garmin), and also ok when there is a significant amount of black in the jersey (Saxobank) but I don't like it when the jersey has very little to no black(Omega,'10 Quickstep).

 

[Derrick]

What makes good kit? A nice comfy pad in the shorts. Any kit is useless without one.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the only one that matters is "Distinctiveness and visibility in peloton".

Susan

There speaks one of our providers of text commentary...

 

[RedheadDane]

Originality and visibility in the peloton.
In the thread about the CN article I wrote something about rainbow-coloured tie-dye. That would be both original and quite visible! Not to mention terribly ugly!

 

[Rocksteady]

I like visibility, originality and keeping to the team tradition, pretty much everything Garmin isn't this year.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

There speaks one of our providers of text commentary...

I always have a horror of writing a live report with a four-man breakaway all in blue, and just a distant helicoptor shot. "Well, two of them are shades of light blue, one is dark blue, and the fourth guy is somewhere in between. Oh, look, medium blue has a mechanical! Dark blue chooses this moment to attack and one of the light blues goes with him."

Susan

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Poll closed, and in attempting to analyse it, I can only feel sorry for the designers! The only majority view among the 58 people replying is that the kit should be distinctive, and that is the matter least in the hands of the designer: they don't know what someone else will announce the day before their presentation.

Co-ordination of the logos into the overall design rather than being pasted on regardless of the main colours, and colours that go well together, are generally appreciated, and there was a body of support for originality in the design.

But fashions, whether for minimalism or retro-classic, didn't seem to be a concern for many, and we seem to have only slight interest in the preservation of a team's traditional identifiers (bye bye Argyle).

 

[RedheadDane]

Well, you can still go rainbow-sparkly! And hope no one else gets the same crazy idea!