The social world of cycling explained - sociologically

[jefmcg]

I could not agree more - my research is not about racing but about 'racing cyclists' in the training setting. The term ‘racing cyclist’ applied in my research is used as a general descriptor of the cyclists who comprise my research population, and whose level of cycling participation places them at different points on a continuum of racing cycling participation (created by me simply for the purposes of my research). - thesis extract: "The common denominator across the continuum is that all of the racing cyclists referred to in my work ride ‘road bicycles’ designed for racing which are generally lighter than other types of bicycle, and are equipped with: ‘drop’ handle bars; multiple gears; and, narrow high-pressure tyres" - This was a definition was required for academic readers of my thesis (my examiners) who have limited knowledge of cycling - unlike forum members. Bit of a long-winded reply but I hope it clarifies?

No, I am even more confused. So when you say 'racing cyclists' you don't mean 'cyclists who race' but 'cyclist who ride road bikes'? I've read it 3 times and I am still not sure.

 

[S-Express]

The 'deliberately obtuse' are on the warpath again...

 

[snorri]

The 'deliberately obtuse' are on the warpath again...

There is no need to be 'deliberately obtuse' to be irritated by the misleading title of this thread.

 

[S-Express]

There is no need to be 'deliberately obtuse' to be irritated by the misleading title of this thread.

Tony (or cafebeard - I think I preferred 'Tony') has already explained in some detail why the title is necessarily vague, so I can't see the purpose in labouring a point which has already been clarified - unless of course, people are being deliberately obtuse.

 

[cafebeard]

No, I am even more confused. So when you say 'racing cyclists' you don't mean 'cyclists who race' but 'cyclist who ride road bikes'? I've read it 3 times and I am still not sure.

To clarify (hopefully) - I wanted to include a full range of participants in my research. At one end of the continuum are racing cyclists who train all year round and race throughout the season. These cyclists may compete at the highest level (elite) or in categories 1, 2, 3 or 4,. At the opposite end of the continuum are neophyte participants, new entrants in the social world. Also on the continuum are fitness cyclists, these are cyclists who may have the fitness and experience to race but who have no desire to do so, or who may aspire to race in the future. At various points along the continuum of racing cyclists are positioned cyclists who may have formerly raced but no longer do so, and cyclists who may only race occasionally or who compete in other disciplines (MTB, Cyclocross, TT, Sportive)

 

[nickyboy]

I think the OP's post #6 makes it clear. The use of "racing" is something of an anachronism, used to describe someone who rides what was known as a "racer"

No modern cyclist calls a bike which is light, geared, drop handlebarred, narrow tyres a "racer" but that's what he's used so non-cycling academics can understand what he's on about.

I ride a bike like that, fit in the description of "riding for fitness" but I would never describe myself as a racing cyclist

 

[Scoosh]

MOD NOTE:
A number of posts have been Deleted, for either Referring to Deleted post(s), Unnecessary, excessively Pedantic and/or OT and bordering on Rude to a new Member. The matter of the description has been well aired, so any further posts quibbling about the 'racing' aspect will be Deleted.

Will Members please be aware of this:

I could not agree more - my research is not about racing but about 'racing cyclists' in the training setting. The term ‘racing cyclist’ applied in my research is used as a general descriptor of the cyclists who comprise my research population, and whose level of cycling participation places them at different points on a continuum of racing cycling participation (created by me simply for the purposes of my research). - thesis extract: "The common denominator across the continuum is that all of the racing cyclists referred to in my work ride ‘road bicycles’ designed for racing which are generally lighter than other types of bicycle, and are equipped with: ‘drop’ handle bars; multiple gears; and, narrow high-pressure tyres" - This was a definition required for academic readers of my thesis (my examiners) who have limited knowledge of cycling - unlike forum members. Bit of a long-winded reply but I hope it clarifies?

 

[mjr]

I'm sorry @Scoosh but I still don't understand whether this is limited to racing cyclists, or all road bike riders! One of my bikes matches the description, but I'm nowhere on that supposed "continuum", being neither new nor likely ever racing or ever again likely to be fit enough or interested in it. Each of @cafebeard's so-called clarifications has confused me further on that and there's been no answer to @User13710's questions.

 

[jefmcg]

The original study is easy to find on the internet, and then even from the abstract the content and the intent becomes very clear.

Your google-fu is stronger than mine. I either find general article on sociology or cycling and if I refine my search to much, just this thread.

So satisfy my curiosity: is it the sociology of MAMILs?

 

[cafebeard]

My research was carried out in the north east and is my attempt to explain how the social world of ‘racing’ cyclists in that area is governed in terms of rules, rituals and conventions. My research is based on over 400 hours of observations of ‘racing’ cyclists in training captured in field notes. I also collected over 2000 photographs all taken with my phone which reveal details that even the most comprehensive field notes would not capture. In addition, I conducted 149 email interviews with ‘racing’ cyclists of all levels of participation.

Some forum readers may recognise and relate to my research from their own experiences, others almost certainly will not, or may disagree with my findings. This is to be expected as my research provides just one explanation for the behaviours that I have observed in one particular research setting. I fully accept that other theories and explanations could be equally valuable.

Feels like a bit of a ‘lighting the blue touch paper’ moment based on reactions so far, but a link to my blog should now be on my profile.

 

[nickyboy]

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.845.7677&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Funny, I keep getting a "could not open this pdf" message when I click on the link. Is it me (such as security settings) or are others getting the same?

 

[Dogtrousers]

@cafebeard I donned my deerstalker and tracked down and had a peek at your blog. I found it most interesting, especially the stuff about Strava, a subject I find fascinating for various reasons. You describe cycling circles in which I don't move, but it's no less interesting for that.

So stick around here, I'm sure you'd have plenty to contribute. And by the way, this thread may not have shown us at out best, judging from the mod note and deleted posts.

Edit, and while I was sleuthing around, @cafebeard has posted a link (Throws outsize magnifying glass in the bin)

 

[Pale Rider]

Funny, I keep getting a "could not open this pdf" message when I click on the link. Is it me (such as security settings) or are others getting the same?

Works OK for me, although it's too dense and wordy for me.

Try this attachment, might work.

10.1.1.845.7677(1).pdf

 

[Spinney]

Interesting stuff, will enjoy reading that - although I am far from the type of cyclist you describe as 'racing' - for example, I use strava, but only to see how well I've done on various segments compared to my previous times.

 

[nickyboy]

Works OK for me, although it's too dense and wordy for me.

Try this attachment, might work.

10.1.1.845.7677(1).pdf

Thanks that works fine. It's an interesting read