Pro cycling “has been failed structurally and commercially”

[phreak]

Don't know how much it has changed in the last ten years since I raced my last road race, but I podiumed on a Chinese bike that cost a grand. I at no point felt that I was disadvantaged compared to guys on their S works and the like. I wasn't the only one using cheap parts in races.
Also recalling a guy who used to be on the forum being competitive in crits on a budget Btwin with a triple.
Harry Mack raced the Nationals on a cheap Chinese sourced bike and was competitive. The junior world champion was on a Chinese bike last year. All substantially cheaper than equivalent brands that want to charge you five grand plus for a decent race bike.
The biggest factor is the engine.

Isn't equipment cited as one of the reasons why we've seen a 10% boost to both average speed in races and times up key climbs in the last handful of years?

 

[N0bodyOfTheGoat]

Isn't equipment cited as one of the reasons why we've seen a 10% boost to both average speed in races and times up key climbs in the last handful of years?

Who knows how long pro racing teams have known and acted on the knowledge, but for us mortals, the focus on aero over weight for performance gains has been huge in the last ~10 years.

 

[matticus]

I think you can build a competitive road or gravel bike for 3-4k € (from parts, used etc.). Whether that is cheap or expensive, is for each person to decide. Gear will cost you an additional 300-400€ I'd guess. I think it's very possible to win spending that level of money. When you do, the gear will improve due to the interest your results will have garnered.

... but compare that with top-end running kit. £200? And you could race in £60 shoes without anyone looking down on you.

Then there's the kids who may have confidence issues - peer pressure will hit those kids hard.

 

[M.R.M]

... but compare that with top-end running kit. £200? And you could race in £60 shoes without anyone looking down on you.

Then there's the kids who may have confidence issues - peer pressure will hit those kids hard.

🤷‍♂️

 

[matticus]

🤷‍♂️

 

[Dirk Van Der Dirk]

Fran Millar, a fine example of 'it's not what you know, but who you know'. That piece reads like your typical clueless corporate bollox. Imagine saying cycling should follow the examples of F1 and Prem football with a straight face. The latter particularly is a corporate shitshow which has priced out so many fans.

 

[Alex321]

... but compare that with top-end running kit. £200? And you could race in £60 shoes without anyone looking down on you.

Then there's the kids who may have confidence issues - peer pressure will hit those kids hard.

There is no doubt that cycling at a reasonably high competitive level is more expensive than a number of other sports, such as athletics, swimming and others. It is also cheaper than a number of other sports, such as most equetsrian sports, all motorsports, sailing, ans several others.

 

[Alex321]

A entry level bike was not way slower than a high speed bike ( TT aside) . Entry level bikes now are slower than old entry level bikes . While high end 4k plus bikes are way faster

I don't think it is true at all that entry level bikes now are slower than they used to be.

There may be more of a gap between performance of an entry level bike and a high end bike, but even entry level bikes now are better than they were a few years ago.

 

[matticus]

There is no doubt that cycling at a reasonably high competitive level is more expensive than a number of other sports, such as athletics, swimming and others. It is also cheaper than a number of other sports, such as most equetsrian sports, all motorsports, sailing, ans several others.

which of those two categories would you say has the most participation?
p.s. you forgot climbing Everest on your list.

 

[cyberknight]

I don't think it is true at all that entry level bikes now are slower than they used to be.

There may be more of a gap between performance of an entry level bike and a high end bike, but even entry level bikes now are better than they were a few years ago.

i just googled a gcn article 2013 race bike presenter team issue vs 2023 bike an average of 3 km/h faster for the same watts

 

[Alex321]

which of those two categories would you say has the most participation?
p.s. you forgot climbing Everest on your list.

It wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.

And I am sure the cheaper sports have more participation.

 

[Alex321]

i just googled a gcn article 2013 race bike presenter team issue vs 2023 bike an average of 3 km/h faster for the same watts

Neither of those bikes were exactly entry level though (But still not real top end either).

 

[rydabent]

Loved going to the Coors Classic in Colo. You got to see the pros and what bikes they were riding. Also there were many bike company booths set up to look at too.

 

[Happy_Days]

I am sure the cheaper sports have more participation.

Indeed. For example, approximately 12.5 million adults go swimming annually (including 4.2 million people who swim at least twice per month) in the UK.

https://www.swimming.org/swimengland/key-swimming-statistics/

Thankfully for swimming, people aren’t concerned with ludicrously pricey gear. AFAIK, carbon-fibre goggles aren’t a thing.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Fran Millar, a fine example of 'it's not what you know, but who you know'. That piece reads like your typical clueless corporate bollox. Imagine saying cycling should follow the examples of F1 and Prem football with a straight face. The latter particularly is a corporate shitshow which has priced out so many fans.

Now I've had some time to think about it, the underlying message of the report was that pro cycling needs to have a single unified season long championship with a single winner and a season ending grand finale. Why? Because "other sports do this".

So we have to have a single winner of the season, and this has to be based on points accrued in events throughout the season. And because this new single winner thing is the only game in town weird strictures have to be introduced such as the need to accrue points in the classics to be allowed to enter the TdF.

This underlying idea that there has to be a single winner is what is so crap about it. A single winner based on points awarded in obscure ways is just the way to make the sport incomprehensible and boring.

It would also take the edge off the racing, because it would get rid of specialists. Jonas Vingegaard? Sorry, you can't ride the tour because you didn't score enough points in Paris-Roubaix and Ronde van Vlaanderen to qualify for entry.

The rest of the horrifically badly written document revolves around doing things to cycling that make it fall into this model. In so doing it throws away a lot of things because they are "time-elapsed".
Different jerseys in a stage race? Time elapsed, begone! Goodbye yellow, green and polka-dot. (Actually, I don't think we'd miss that last one all that much)
The winner of a stage race being the one with the least time? Time-elapsed! They propose some fiddling around with "dramatic time bonuses or point tables" to make "race time more competitive". Yeh right. As if that hasn't been tried.
Three week Giro and three week Vuelta? Away with you, you time-elapsed dinosaurs. Only two weeks for you. (Admittedly the Vuelta doesn't have the history that the Giro has).
The World Championship road race? In the bin with you!

Fortunately Rapha is simply a struggling clothing brand and has no power whatsoever to make any of this nonsense happen. Go and sell some jerseys, Fran.