In Fashion

There are only two universal truths in wild and wonderful world of bikes. Our professional athletes have the best psychological disorders, and the fashion industry loves us.

Not love in a “lifelong bond of mutual respect” sort of way, so much as a “some kinds of touching is bad” vibe. The most recent example was brought to my attention by Brad at UrbanVelo.com.

Ah, yes, designer Louis Vuitton crap for bike polo, or perhaps, based on the photos, some new combination of hockey, polo, kayaking, and croquet. The site arkitip sheds some light on the various artistic processes.

Cut to summer 2011, as we’re invited by our friends at Louis Vuitton to visit their Paris offices for a surprise. And what a surprise it was . . . They first showed us moodboards with images extracted from our bike polo fashion story, then revealed to us what they had been developing: a polo bike and a mallet. They collaborated with friends and fellow players Hannes Hengst and Grégory Barbier to manufacture an intricate and refined collection of parts. From the embossed leather pedal straps and mallet holders, to the machined chainring (by Victoire), etched barplugs, via the leather wheel cover, culminating with a spectacular hollowed out mallet head, attached to a fully wrapped shaft. All of it using the classic Vuitton patterns and shapes. I was a bit surprised to see that they decided to go for a fixed gear brakeless setup, since 99% of players now ride freewheel bikes, but beyond that was impressed by the attention to detail and the build quality.

Naturally, it’s slightly funny to read that phrase, “they had been developing: a polo bike and a mallet,” given that Vuitton themselves seem to take trademarks and intellectual property rather seriously, and that they no more “developed” a bicycle than I can download a print of VanGogh’s Sunflowers and call myself a painter.

Having just seen this same sort of thing with Need Supply Co.’s “bicycle,” I’m a little sensitive, but the thing I find most interesting about the creepy hand Fashion keeps putting on our knee is that there’s not only no substance to the infatuation, but there’s not even any genuine interest. They’re not even trying.

This is largely because so much of bicycle culture results from form following function, whereas in the world of fashion, form only follows function so that it can stab it in an alley.

Manolo’s passion for Tolstoy shines through in the group of shoes which one can imagine on the feet of Anna Karenina in snowy Russia.”

All this seems particularly unfortunate to me, because here we have a fashion industry based largely on aesthetics and price tags continually drawing associations with one based largely on function, and yet the cycling industry’s only sense of craftsmanship seems to be hand-built steel frames. Recently, I mentioned that long-time frame builder Sapa is closing up shop, and why not? They made high-end aluminum frames in a market that had all but entirely moved to carbon fiber. We build satellites and we sell wildly overpriced fashions here in the U.S., so why can’t we make great bicycles? With the possible exception of Cervelo’s “Project California”, where’s the insanely expensive because of technology American-made bicycle? If something in this world can support the absurd photo shoot pictured above, and a bunch of carbon fiber bikes that cost over $10,000 and are made in China, why can’t that same market support a genuine U.S.-made super bicycle–something hand-built of barely declassified materials or using suspension designs and technology never seen before–and also fabricated with the same craftsmanship normally reserved only for steel frames being brazed in Portland?

Why can’t the U.S. build a better bicycle?