British Cycling agrees 8-year sponsorship with Shell

Basically that. Nowhere close to the range and the charging infrastructure is not in place to cope with something like Tour of Britain landing in town and needing dozens of fast chargers.

part of which might be not associating cycling (part of the solution) with Shell (part of the problem).

Cycling as a sport or hobby is no more part of the solution than Shell is. Both sell products based on oil or other minerals dug out of the ground. Both spend a large amount of cash encouraging you to buy more of their products, with cycling  virtually all are never actually needed.

If you are commuting by bike and genuinely relocating car moments with a bike then great and that will help but as a hobby or sport cycling has no green credentials

If you are commuting by bike and genuinely relocating car moments with a bike then great and that will help but as a hobby or sport cycling has no green credentials

Unfortunately, the general public don’t see the difference- all people on bikes are cyclists, and cycling is pushed as green. Shell using British Cycling to seem like they’re green and doing good things for the environment is a bad thing. It’s essentially using British Cycling and cycling as a sport AND a mode of transport to give Shell a good public image to hide behind while they fail to meet their environmental responsibilities by not working toward net zero or shifting their focus from oil to alternative power.

whilst the optics of the deal are pretty crap, I can’t as a mad keen cyclist get on my high horse about petrochemical companies seeing as pretty much every part of cycling is reliant on the hydrocarbons and polymers from crude oil.

It takes litres of oil for each tire manufactured and If I look at the mountain of rubber in my workshop and on my bikes, then I may as well kick a seal puppy in face now.

Never mind the plastics and resins in brake compounds, cables, hydraulic oils, cable coatings, foams for grips, saddles, helmets, elastane/lycra in cycle clothing, carbon fibre is wholly reliant on oil and then we have the use in the energy utilised to mine, manufacture and ship the ores and then transport our bikes all over the world via big old polluting cargo ships.

if we move to net Zero use of oil as a fuel source, we still need vast quantities of oil and the environmental damage that it entails from extraction through to refining for every single part of our lives.

So whilst Shell are a bunch of ********* as are all large corporations, if you look at it logically rather than emotionally there is no environmental reason to have a hissy fit.

Regardless of the fact that many of us drive cars and are still dependent on fossil fuels for the products we all consume, the issue that Shell actively lobby to slow down climate change action (see many links shared earlier in this thread) should be sufficient to consider them an unsuitable partner to enable british cycling to get to net zero.

Cycling as a sport or hobby is no more part of the solution than Shell is

It doesn’t matter. This is a sponsorship deal, which Shell hopes will reflect on it favourably through being associated with something perceived as healthy and sustainable. That’s your virtue signalling, right there.

I was already wavering about my BC membership, in that I think CUK supports a style of cycling more relevant to what I do, then the nonsense with the Queen, and now this.

I have emailed them and asked them not to renew my membership (though somewhat predictably this was only just renewed automatically).

As @FunkyDunc says above ^^, it’s more than that.
Plus you’re talking about the range as the length of a stage but it’ll be far more. Transfer from hotel to stage start (could be 100km easily), the stage itself and then the drive to the hotel (which again could easily be another 100km). If it’s a long transfer, it could be 400km.

The charging infrastructure in most countries is not well enough developed to be using a full fleet of EVs – in a road race scenario (even at Tour of Britain level), there are dozens of cars that would need charging. Multiply that up to TdF level and it’s hundreds of cars.

The recent Cycling Weekly article about “making cycle racing greener” was mostly a load of bollocks – stuff about how they could use drones instead of gas guzzling helicopters. Well yes, they could except to get uninterrupted drone coverage of a 200km stage, you’d need hundreds of drones and operators (presumably all travelling in cars…) to cover it all. Not exactly any greener, in fact more of a logistical nightmare. Same with EVs, the idea that all teams could immediately switch to EV estate cars is just not realistic.

Chris,

Completely disagree. I really don’t care what others think about the car I drive out the watch I wear or the music I listen to. I make purchases because I want the item.

Same here, at least that’s what I believe. We signal to others in most things we do I think, signalling is communication etc. Protest moves often get called virtue signalling, a protest move is the same thought process as why I don’t drive a new BMW. I don’t because I DGAS about cars and I have an issue with thew car industry in general, a rejection of consumerist and transport norms which some would call virtue signalling. Maybe it is – does someone know enough about what else I do or don’t do to say whether it’s legit or fake for appearance, signalling?

It’s a phrase that’s so often used when those motives are assumed or projected by those accusing someone of virtue signalling, as a way to rubbish their action. In that case it’s a BS term. An easy dig i/o asking better questions.

You can be vacuously virtue signalling, but people can also mis-use the term to denigrate any discussion of doing something better.

You could be, though generally how would someone know it was vacuous (assuming it’s online)? Unlikely they would, it’s a projected thing most of the time the phrase is used – as you say, to denigrate.

Regardless of the fact that many of us drive cars and are still dependent on fossil fuels for the products we all consume, the issue that Shell actively lobby to slow down climate change action (see many links shared earlier in this thread) should be sufficient to consider them an unsuitable partner to enable british cycling to get to net zero.

+1. Exactly that, the scale and power of oil co influence that’s put us here when we could be somewhere better by now.

A lot of people leaving British Cycling

I’ve resigned from @BritishCycling.

— Helen Ward (@profhelenward) October 10, 2022

For any BC MTB coaches, i am sure we can arrange a reciprocal agreement with MIAS to convert your qualifications to MIAS.

The amount of information available stating how despicable they are is astounding. Amnesty International have accused them of murder!

Well that’s a good comment but most of what was posted when I asked was just insinuation, or the sort of thing that any company does but painted in an evil light.

From Shell’s perspective it’s a fantastic “partnership” a perceived “green wash” and a “Sports wash” in one.

The thing is I do wonder how much BC really needs a corporate sponsor sometimes, membership subs + race/event fees plus various lottery and government sources of money for development of the sport (as measured by Olympic medals mostly) for an organisation that gets a lot from a volunteer labour force. Do they really need Oil money too?

I’d also be interested to know how much, if any, discussion is had about the reaction to the shell sponsorship at their national council meeting in a few weeks…

Membership money doesn’t come close to covering it.
Event fees is mostly insurance related, BC gets very little actual revenue from events – in fact at grassroots level, events are not a big money spinner unless you’re doing 1000+ rider Sportives regularly. Cycle clubs promoting a road race will make maybe £200 for club funds at most.

All the “other” stuff – coaching, Go-Ride, training of event officials, clothing, race equipment and the day to day running of the back-room elements all adds up.

There are actually only a few companies who can come up with the required millions per year over a 4 or 8 year deal, you’re looking at the top end corporate stuff (like Sky and HSBC before).

Perhaps, but it’s not like BC is meant to be a profit making organisation, and just how much do they get bunged via ‘culture and sport’ and lottery funds? It’s all rather opaque IMO

You can see here. Do remember there are a couple of subsidiary companies too.
Membership is pretty sizeable – equal to what HSBC and other sponsors put in it seems.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03943494/filing-history

I *assumed* they were a charity, but it appears not to be the case.

Hypocritical how? Most of us are trying to do better and that’s what this is about. This isn’t better by a long shot, it’s not even the status quo.

Or is it only the ideologically pure who can criticise?

I’ve just emailed to cancel.

I optimistically had a look to see if this was tied to any meaningful commitments on the part of Shell but I can’t see any. I can’t in good conscience support greenwashing like this.

I’m aware that I’m not perfect and this action won’t make much change but it’s not nothing and it’s something I can do.

Obviously cycling companies are not falling over themselves to sponsor British Cycling.

As our society is completely dependent on fossil fuels why is their sponsorship not acceptable?

Loads of people here criticising Shell while using Shell’s products to power their car and heat their home.

Why shouldn’t BC take their cash when we are all content to use their products?

Why shouldn’t BC take their cash when we are all content to use their products?

Are we? That argument has already been made and debunked by the fact most of us have little choice, dependence is not the same as acceptance.

Give me the means and I’ll gladly dump fossil fuels and personal transport.

BC’s latest update doesn’t help much.
They’re going to make cycling more accessible. – Not without grassroots support they’re not.
They’re going to recruit a Sustainability Manager. – I hope they like working with Shell’s sustainability department.
They’re going to inspire more people to ride across Britain. – The only thing they’ve inspired so far is to cancel BC membership.

My mate has now quit her role as Breeze ride leader, which she had been doing an amazing job of. This is so sad.
I’ll wager a number of GoRide coaches are gone soon.

The facts about oil and logic about funding are no match for ethics and values. The collateral damage is starting to look very big indeed.

I hope it was worth it BC.