No muscle definition, whatsoever.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...90903203_n.jpg
It's like Interbike all over again. :rolleyes: Seriously, Cannondale, you make me regret promoting your brand while I pedal.
Printable View
No muscle definition, whatsoever.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.n...90903203_n.jpg
It's like Interbike all over again. :rolleyes: Seriously, Cannondale, you make me regret promoting your brand while I pedal.
Uh huh!!
Wut? I was too distracted by the bike.;)
Cannondale, knock it off.
Haha. Maybe they're just beginners. ;)
I vote that they may actually be pretty women/models that may actually ride bikes. I would personally give Cannondale props for not going down the bike show babe boobage road.
They are in regular bike clothes, not hot pants and bikini tops.
Flat shoes, not stilettos.
Boobs not popping out: no cleavage showing.
So they don't have "toned" arms or legs. Big Deal. How many of you do? How many of us "look" like cyclists?
I get that the whole podium girl thing is rather distasteful. For me, on the scale of marketing offensiveness, this doesn't even rate a blip.
Sometimes I think TE members are in danger of being elitist and snobbish.... if someone doesn't look just right, or use the right lingo (omg... they said "retailer" instead of LBS" ) someone is quick to jump all over it. This sport is supposed to be for everyone, not just those of us in the know.
Actually, I'm the one on the right.:D
Seriously? Even if I were to consider it a come hither pose, which I don't, once again, on the scale of these things, it doesn't register a blip. How should they stand? Feet shoulder width apart, hands at their sides?
Oh never mind - they shouldn't be there at all.
I'm with Irulan.... I am not seeing gross or overly sexual in those women.... They aren't wearing hot pants or bikini tops or (I've seen this...) bibs with no shirt or bra.... they don't even have their zippers down enough to show cleavage... and how do you know they aren't cyclists??? the one on the right has some quads and it's not like women necessarily get a lot of definition. They don't look much different from this, very much a professional cyclist, young woman if you ask me... are they models, probably, hired to be cheerful, give out the papers and attract men to the stand, probably, but gross, not really.
Attachment 16228
The Cannondale photo to me illustrates that maybe, just maybe, "they" are listening.
Compare to this Marzocchi fork marketing image. I mean, these two images are light years apart in terms of using sex to sell. This one gross? I would totally agree.
http://romain.simonin1.free.fr/img/marzogirlbig.jpg
OK.... now that is disturbing and nothing to do at all with cycling.
You know, this occurred to me last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irulan
I put in about a third of the miles that many of you do, and it took me three years of riding to get any sort of muscle definition. And at work, I see all sorts of people with bikes. They're riding. Maybe not as often as some of us. Most of them don't have the quads that some of us have. Who cares? They still ride bikes. Who is to say what a cyclist should or should not look like?
Is it sort of sad that women are still considered marketing accessories? Yes. Is this anywhere near as bad as those damn Assos ads? No.
I can see both sides of the argument here. If I could look like those models, I'd feel blessed. They're not gross, but also not representative of what we have pictured in our minds when we think "cyclist". I did an organized ride yesterday and very few women OR Men looked like the stereotypical "Tour" rider. They were all cyclists, though. These ladies may ride the trails with their boyfriends every evening on their hybrids. Cyclists. Or they could be C-dale bling that have never sat a saddle in their lives. No way to know.
I don't "look like a cyclist" either. Like a lot of middle age women who aren't pro athletes, my muscles are hidden by a layer of subcutaneous fat. But they are there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irulan
Actually, take many top level cyclists off the bike for a day and their muscle definition fades as well. While muscles are in use and being pumped full of blood, they are more defined than while at rest.
Doesn't offend me or gross me out at all. I don't mind that girls who dig bikes, whether they ride much at all or not, might be hawt.
http://surlybikes.com/blog/post/pedal_pumpers (blog source)
Here is a good example of gross ( without being over the top like the Marzocchi pic)
And no, you don't get legs like that from cycling, you get them from starvation.
http://surlybikes.com/uploads/blog/legs.jpg
Even anorexics can cycle. (And I don't think this model is one.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Irulan