>>1778242Not sure what things are like now as I'm less broke now than when I first started taking the gay superhero pill, but used to be that 5+ year old deadstock kit from certain mainstream brands (sugoi, pearl izumi, louis garneau) was way uncool and sold for a steep discount. It's also what will trigger normies the hardest because they've been exposed to those styles for longer and have cultivated a stronger knee-jerk reaction to it. If you wear current-season colorways the reaction is mild because people don't know what to make of it, so I'd go for the stuff from around 2010-2015 for maximum anger.
Most bibs are going to be plain black, so use your jersey to maximize normie rage. Although some bright colors are back in style again, if you go for bright colors + large "cycling brand" text that signals that it's out of fashion and should piss off coronatards, cagies, grabble hamplanets, and pretty much everyone else except roadie chads (the least judgmental subculture)
>>1778255The unracer schtick doesn't really work unless you're a lanky 35-65 year old white guy with perfect teeth and $900 eyeglass frames, the whole point of becoming an "unracer" is because upper middle class whites found out that cycling was considered cool in certain circles they want to be a part of, but needed to justify themselves against their own deep rooted belief that cycling is something poor losers do against their will. So they ride $5000 replicas of some old dutch piece of shit, and wear shirts marketed exclusively to unracers that look like a "poor" extra from a 1920s movie set, but made with 15% merino 15% tencel and 6% lycra and one extra pocket and has a random quote by Jane Jacobs inside the collar which makes it "not for cyclists", and that reassures everyone else around them that they are not a poor loser and can DEFINITELY afford a car ok?
Just riding a walmart bike and cheap clothes doesn't make you "unracer" it just makes you look actually poor, not "poor (rich)".
