[Closed] How 'accessible' is mountain biking compared to other sports?

Personally for me the whole aggressive marketing is the most depressive aspect of Mountain biking. It must put off people who haven't got the finances to afford luxury bikes. The magazines really don't help at all with promoting the sport for first timers. Why focus so much time on 2-5k bikes when most folk just do trail centres on a weekend for fun. I'm sure it's intimidating for someone to turn up at somewhere like glentress where it's soooooo middle class.

Ha ha.. Ever been in an indoor skate park recently chief? they're full kids on £500+ BMXs or £200 scooters driven there by mummy or daddy

Which great DHers started on a shit S/H bmx?

there is a drive from the bike manufacturers to get us to buy better equipment,

Ha ha.. Ever been in an indoor skate park recently chief? they're full kids on £500+ BMXs or £200 scooters driven there by mummy or daddy

We've got an outdoor pump track and a 4X track, built by the council. There are kids on those on every kind of cheap bike.

>I've taken up running more recently as a reaction to the recurrent expense of road and mountain biking, in terms of maintenance and kit. The MTB is especially expensive to maintain because of wear and tear.<

This really and the getting there...

If you're talking about getting hold of an old bike and fannying around a housing scheme on it then for sure that's not expensive but its not mountain biking as practiced by most on here (Trail Centres, trips to the hills etc)

To imply that everyone on a low income is sitting on a big fat Sky package smoking their way through 20 a day and that it's all a lifestyle choice is generalising just a little 😉

Which great DHers started on a shit S/H bmx?

Loads I imagine, although perhaps the downhillers of the 90's and early 00's.

Lopes, Gracia, Cullinan, Donovan, Giove etc. I'd guess at.

If you're talking about getting hold of an old bike and fannying around a housing scheme on it then for sure that's not expensive but its not mountain biking as practiced by most on here (Trail Centres, trips to the hills etc)

When I was riding my GT Outpost in tracksuit bottoms and hiking boots, we were riding proper trails in Swaledale. You can easily ride trail centres without suspension or disk brakes.

I had a conversation the other day, with a female friend I'd not spoken with in ages.
Her 13 year old grandson had a 26 wheel Apollo bough for his birthday a few months back which he rides when he can from home in a city.
She lives on the edge of Wyre forest and grandson visits most weekends and wanted to ride his bike more "offroad". With a little time on her hands and not having ridden bikes for many years, she decided maybe she could go out with him.
A quick look on ebay and checking sizes of bikes etc. Then doing a little basic web searching and looking at Bike Radar reviews, she found a Trek wsd for about £100. £50 on shorts, trousers and a jacket at Aldi. A helmet and baggy shorts from Halfords, some old "approach" shoes and baselayer used for snowboarding and she's away. Well under £250.
OK so, she's quite independent and can work stuff out for herself, there's nothing flash about any of this kit, but she's out riding and really enjoying it. As she said, she will probably look for a more up to date bike and will purchase "better" kit as she sees fit.

I don't think finances are the be-all and end-all for whether you can do mountain biking or not. Everyone seems to indicate it's too expensive for all but decent earners. I don't buy that at all. I'd suggest that the reason mountain biking has become the bastion of the middle classes is more due to the value people place on certain things. As someone said, if you have an iPhone or a full on sky subscription etc then you could afford to get yourself on a mountain bike.

I'm not well off by an stretch of the imagination but I place a very high value on being outdoors, riding a bike so I sacrifice the things that most folk have. I have a 20 quid pay as you go phone. I don't have sky, I don't even have a TV licence (don't watch TV before any has a go), we have a 9 year old car between us and our holidays are weekend trips in the UK to go riding or kayaking. Our house is made up of furniture we have bought second hand and refurbished and we live without anything other than absolute essentials but the money we have is spent on doing the stuff we want to do, which means we both have decent bikes, riding gear, kayaks and camping gear. We also don't live anywhere near decent trails or mountains so we have to travel.

I just think it's about the values you have. Horses for courses. But I struggle to see mountain biking isn't accessible to anyone that places a high value on it.

It all comes down to what you choose to spend your money on. I started mountain biking 5 years ago with a £190 hardtail from decathlon and cheap kit. Although a year later I bought a better bike and better kit, I would have continued using the cheaper stuff if I couldn't afford better. My car is only worth about £1000, I don't drink or smoke, we have a tiny TV. Annual subscription to my cycling club is a whole £10.

I strongly suspect that most footy-mad people are not satisfied with simply playing the game- what about the price of season tickets and sky subscription, and I see an awful lot of people wearing replica footy kit.

when i were a lad...

me first bike cost 50 quid and me mam made me ride in me undies so i didnt mucky me clothes up.

Why focus so much time on 2-5k bikes when most folk just do trail centres on a weekend for fun

I've always lived within reasonable riding distance from offroad trails not sure how people in big cities manage without spending extra money on petrol/travel.

*rrp, there's lots of classified buyers here aswell so they may not have paid that.

Thanks all; some excellent thought-provoking responses here.

As far as seeing Asian/black kids on bikes - there is a school of thought that some ethnic groups see the bicycle not as a leisure tool but as a poor man's means of transport. As most of these groups have immigrated to the UK to try to improve their lot, they see the bicycle as a symbol of poverty, and aspire to greater things. This is why most of them are in cars almost from the point that they can reach the pedals.

This seems to be the consensus amongst black and Asian people I know- that a bike isn't something to aspire to own, whereas a car is. And cars are generally a lot more expensive than bikes, so that negates the economic issue. White folk tend to have a more positive attitude towards bikes and cycling, hence why we see proportionately more white folk out cycling. In my experience, the most under-represented group in cycling has to be Asian women. Some of the reasons for this are really quite disturbing.

Some good points re Sky tv, X-boxes, gym membership etc. People choose to spend their money on other things. But is it because those things are more accessible, or simply less effort to acquire/participate in? Are there factors that discourage people from cycling (I know the weather certainly is!)? And what are they?

Back to cycling as a sport: are clubs doing enough to help promote cycling amongst all groups within our society? A friend who works in some deprived areas of London, with kids, told me that he worked with lots of athletics clubs before and after the olympics, to help promote a range of sports, yet no cycling clubs contacted his organisation to become involved. He wonders if the demographic of the areas he works in don't appeal to the organisers of cycle clubs, and that they instead prefer to seek members in other geographic and economic areas. Th olympics showed that whilst we were represented in athletics (and many other sports) by many people from all sorts of backgrounds, all our cyclists were white. So, do non-white groups see cycling as too 'white' an activity to become involved in?

The last two winners of the Tour de France were brought up in Kenya and Kilburn 🙂

>When I was riding the my GT Outpost in tracksuit and hiking boots, we were riding proper trails in Swaledale.<

Not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the population live in towns and cities and so by definition mtb is only easily accessible if you are near trails and or have the means to drive to them.

Not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the population live in towns and cities and so by definition mtb is only easily accessible if you are near trails and or have the means to drive to them.

My point was that 'proper' trails can be ridden on cheap bikes.

There are lots of trails near/in towns and cities; I live in a town and I don't drive to ride my bike.

Just off the top of my head, and ignoring bridleways: Bristol has Ashton Court, Manchester has Clayton Vale, Newcastle has Chopwell, Leeds is surrounded by countryside, Sheffield has the Peak district.

Every city has [i]somewhere[/i] that MTBs can be ridden.

I think football would work out more expensive in the long run. Football coaching camps, replica strip, every addition of FIFA on the Xbox, season tickets, venue hire @ over £70 per pitch, petrol costs, etc. it all adds up.

You can be top 10 competitive in a road or mtb race on a ~£700 bike in my experience. (I accept that need 2 bikes leads to a cost of £1400, but I'd doubt you'd move discipline till you got result in one.)

If ST Towers think that £1500-2000 is beginner level, then they are more ****ing deluded than I thought they were.

It's not about the cost. To put it bluntly, you don't see many non-white people walking in the countryside either, and you don't get cheaper than that.

I thought (road) cycling was regarded as a bit of a working class pastime anyway.

The cost of a season ticket to a football team can be above 1000UKP, that's an annual cost before you even consider travel etc...

miketually - Member

Every city has somewhere that MTBs can be ridden.

But it can't be a proper MTB ride without a purpose built café selling a range of hand ground coffee starting at only £3 per cup, surely?

(I completely agree with you about riding trails in or near cities, btw.)

if you've got an Xbox, you can afford a bike.

+1

My first 'serious' bike was £275 in the sales, full deore groupset, damped forks (not adjustable though), V-brakes. These days you could probably get similar with disks for £300-£350. Rode it from my door, cost about £60/year in drivetrain and brake pads, everything else I just greased/oiled untill it moved again. So it can be pretty cheep.

But compared to Sailing (which was my previous hobby). It's on a par. and Sailing is considdered hugely elitist.

£250 for a very good condition Mirror
£25 p/a club membership
£25 p/a 3rd party insurance
£30 bouyancy aid (assuming you already have some sort of waterproof coat or you only sail in summer).

The entire cycling media is hugely out of touch though IMO. Cycling Plus rarely seems to cover anything less than £1500, and most is arround £2k. Same in STW. I might buy a £1500 frame at some point, but it's not the kind of thing I need reviews of every week, unlike say more practical but boring stuff like alloy bars/posts, which may actualy spur some impulse buying. The market buying £150 On-One frames and £30 bars must be 10x (or probably more) the size of the market buying Rockets or carbon finishing kit.

Donk. The point I'm getting at is that 2k isn't that far out for what many could afford, compared to elite cars for example. I think realistically reviews on sub 500 bikes tested on say red routes would be excellent information for a someone looking to get into the sport without feeling they have to spend more.

cybicle - Member

This seems to be the consensus amongst black and Asian people I know- that a bike isn't something to aspire to own, whereas a car is.

Yep, friend of mine was horrified when her son asked for a bike for his christmas- she'd worked her arse off so he wouldn't have to pedal places. I think she suspects I'm really poor 🙂

In my experience, the most under-represented group in cycling has to be Asian women. Some of the reasons for this are really quite disturbing.

It's not just cycling. You very rarely see them taking part in ANY physical activity which involves mixing with other groups and ethnicities. I don't think that this has anything to do with accesibility, more cultural peculiarities.

The cost of a season ticket to a football team can be above 1000UKP, that's an annual cost before you even consider travel etc...

I think that the issue we're discussing is not accessibility as a spectator but as a competitor/participant.

If you [b]play[/b] football, the absolute bare minimum you need to start off (say, boots, shin pads, training strip, tracksuit) can be bought brand new for well under £100.

It's worrying that £350 can be considered a small amount of money on here! And how many poorer working class families have gym membership?!!

Who needs a subscription? Most local councils (if not all) provide free access to sport and exercise equipment and classes.

If you ride a bike, the absolute bare minimum you need to start off (a bike) can be bought brand new for well under £100.

£22 per day for bike hire at glentress, that's pretty accessible- less per hour than hiring a tennis court.

I think that if your frame of reference for recreational opportunities for the poor is "hiring a tennis court" then you may be a little bit out of touch with what it means to be skint.

As for the comparisons between an "entry level" bike and gym memberships, sky subs etc. you're forgetting the cashflow difference, there's a heck of a difference when you're skint between spending £350 spread over 24 / 36 months on subs and spending £350 up front for a bike that will last 2-3 years. I.e. for the latter, you have to have the £350 in your hand.

This is why poor people have the big tellies etc, btw, because they can pay for them weekly.

Biking is pretty accessible: bikes can be had cheap, you don't need mates or to join a team, you can learn most skills without going far from home etc. But, if you want better equipment it soon becomes ridiculous.

We met a guy in France this year whose son was really good and had just landed a deal with Giant. Prior to riding downhill the lad had ridden MX and his dad reckoned that it had been much cheaper to keep him going at MX than DH. He didn't even ride a super expensive bike.

So, do non-white groups see cycling as too 'white' an activity to become involved in?

Our perceptions on cycling and ethnicity from UK cycling may not match other parts of the world. Yet in many parts of Asia (Africa also?) bikes are seen as a sign of poverty and as you say, car aspiration is widespread. That seems fairly well ingrained and comes to the UK with the people that have moved here.

The vast majority of the population live in towns and cities and so by definition mtb is only easily accessible if you are near trails and or have the means to drive to them.

Singletrack reckon £2000 is the amount people historically spend on 'their first serious mountain bike' according to the last couple of issues.

Well, seeing as how this is a website run by and aimed primarily at the very demographic I mentioned at the start, ie white British men above a certain income bracket, I don't find that surprising. I'm not saying that the owners of this site deliberately seek to exclude those outside of this particular demographic, more that they perhaps are unable to appeal to other groups due to their own lack of cultural experience/knowledge. This appears to be the case for pretty much the whole cycling media industry. In fact, even if we look at another popular website, LFGSS, we still see the same overall trend, even if the user demographic for LFGSS is somewhat wider.

I don't see this as an issue of deliberate elitism, more that representatives of other groups have not sought to become sufficiently involved in cycling, as they have done in other sports, to help shape the media, industry and indeed market so that it has a more universal appeal. Golf has traditionally been quite elitist and exclusive, I don't feel that cycling is the same, although I suspect there are elements of that mentality within the wider organisation of the sport.

It's not just cycling. You very rarely see them taking part in ANY physical activity which involves mixing with other groups and ethnicities. I don't think that this has anything to do with accesibility, more cultural peculiarities.

That is true up to a point, I agree, but many leisure centres and other sports venues offer womens' only sessions/activities which do attract Asian women. This of course isn't all that possible with an outdoor activity like cycling.

On the point of asian participants in cycling, I used to teach cycling in Harrow (36% white).

At the upper end of primary and the lower end of secondary school, most kids love messing around on bikes. Those that have parents who are into cycling and those that don't. With any skin colour. With any quality of bike.

I also taught adults who had never ridden a bike before how to ride. Around half of those were asian women who had never learned when they were children and now wanted to go riding with their kids.

So, it seems that things are changing.

Rather than comparing the ethnic diversity in cycling against football, it would be fairer to compare it with hillwalking. Hillwalking (in fine weather) doesn't require much expensive kit at all, but you used to only ever see white faces. It does seem to be changing, and cycling seems to be changing (just a bit more slowly).

Magazines are all dependant on the industry for a large proportion of their income, so of course they're going to help perpetuate the idea that you should spend thousands on the latest thing. If any mag came out and said, "buy a £100 clunker from gumtree, that'll get you where you want" it wouldn't do lots for their advertising sales I reckon.

Fair enough that they ignore the cheap stuff, but what boiled my wee a bit was a couple of years ago when a mag (MBR I think) pretended that they were looking at the cheap end of the market, but it was like one of those Top Gear "adventures" where they deliberately went out and bought, new and second hand, bikes which were completely unsuitable for mountain biking and/or actually unsafe, then smugly concluded that cheap bikes weren't suitable for "proper" mountain biking and you needed to go out and spend serious £££....

I think that the issue we're discussing is not accessibility as a spectator but as a competitor/participant.

Sure but my point is that people find plenty of money to splash on leisure activities when they want to.

I read that same article and it was in MBR. Of course those cheaper bikes are no good for the Alps or Fort Bill, but more than likely are suitable for certain trail centre routes and general riding. IMO bike magazines are more about the 'bike' rather than the sport of cycling.

edlong - Member

I think that if your frame of reference for recreational opportunities for the poor is "hiring a tennis court" then you may be a little bit out of touch with what it means to be skint.

Nah- just being realistic, it's a luxury so comparisons with other equivalent luxuries makes sense.

Magazines are all dependant on the industry for a large proportion of their income, so of course they're going to help perpetuate the idea that you should spend thousands on the latest thing. If any mag came out and said, "buy a £100 clunker from gumtree, that'll get you where you want" it wouldn't do lots for their advertising sales I reckon.

It would also make for a crap magazine.

Accessible to me = grass roots

Grass roots of mountain biking is a cheap bike and a bridleway. enjoy it then save up and move up. Pretty accessible in my eyes, but it'll never compare to football/Running/etc

Pretty accessible in my eyes, but it'll never compare to football/Running/etc

the correct answer 🙂

I think when discussing these sorts of socio-economic debates it all starts with role models and aspirations. Peer pressure plays a part also in positive and negative ways. If their in place people will find a way to emulate their hero's/mates

>I can't think of a town or city with no half-decent off-road riding within a few miles of the outskirts. OK getting out of the city can be a problem, but I think riding 5-10 miles on tarmac to get to good trails is ok. <

Take your point but I don't see your example as being particularly accessible (or desirable) given the traffic levels choking the roads nowadays. More importantly the general attitudes of motorists towards cyclists. Having said that, Falkirk near where I live now has a fantastic network of cycle paths but that's an exception to the rule.

Mountain biking accessible - not really, as lets be honest only a small percentage on here have ever taken their pride & joy anywhere near an actual mountain 😆

Riding a bike on trails within woods, fields etc is pretty accessible but lets face it, it's not exactly seen as a 'cool' past time by kids or a lot of adults come to that. The majority of my collegues (other than those who ride) think I'm bonkers for riding a bike in my spare time, let alone chucking myself down some kind of rocky hillock in mid wales.

Football is easy for any bunch of kids to play, it can provide a high level of competitiveness (?) even if there's 3 or 4 of you, playing things like wallie, 3 and you're in 'em (nets that is) etc etc, and balls are bloody cheap. It can also be played anywhere from the scummiest slum in Brazil to the garden of Buckingham Palace.

It's also considerably more apsirational and appealing, just look a thte number of youngsters that have made it to the very top, earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a week and have come from the very bottom of the social ladder!

Whereas in cycling, to compete at an equally high level will cost umpteen thousands of pounds in equipment, let alone travel and training.

Ultimately it's a niche sport, populated by people with a healthy dose of disposable income or handy credit ratings. Much akin to Golf, Tennis & Horse Riding.

Even "Grass Roots" racing is relatively expensive, generally £10 to £15 per race, fuel costs etc.

In my experience, the most under-represented group in cycling has to be Asian women. Some of the reasons for this are really quite disturbing.

It's not just cycling. You very rarely see them taking part in ANY physical activity which involves mixing with other groups and ethnicities. I don't think that this has anything to do with accesibility, more cultural peculiarities.

Can you please come an explain this to the asian kids next door, they're riding up and down, up and down from kicking out time at school to dusk! They're itritating my missus (I couldn't give a fig, but would like the peace).

More importantly the general attitudes of motorists towards cyclists.

OT but 'city centre escape cycle routes' - Sustrans do a good job there generally but how many people know of them or how well established they are is another q. Most seem concerned with transport within a city rather than getting the hell out of Dodge.

it's not exactly seen as a 'cool' past time by kids

David, guess betterer next time.. lopes and cully both came from racing national level bmx as kids, as did gracia, only he'd also been a national level ski racer from an even younger age.
Girls don't really count as to get a top 15 WC position you generally only really needed to turn up and complete the course in under half an hour..

All of the riders you mention came from families that heavily supported their chosen sport as kids (even Missy) hardly comparable to todays UK council estate kids on £50 BMXs

Mtb is a dull middle aged middle class man's pastime where paying for bike fitting, skills coaching and keeping up with the latest trends is what's most important.. Kids aren't interested in joining fat IT managers in dayglo poc gear mincing about on bridleways

MTBing as a sport will always be limited far more by transport/entry costs far more than equipment.

The cost of bikes can be reduced by buying 2nd hand but license + entries + fuel would easily come to > £700 a year

I think "how accessible...?" is probably too simplistic.
It's easy to answer - as it need cost very little to get started, but that only part of the picture.
It's possibly more to do with the route into MTB that people take.

eg. We recently had a new rider, armed with an aging BSO, come along on an easy Saturday club ride. During the ride various riders helped sort out her gears, her brakes (which were binding badly), a cup and cone hub (which was lose), etc. So yes it's very "accessible" to start with.

... but then other factors kick in...

The bikes that most of those nice, helpful, seeming knowledgable folk are riding are typically going to be around the £2k mark.
Despite her mechanical trials and tribulations, she had a whale of a time and was hooked (yay, success) so sought advice from those same folk as to a new bike purchase.
Good advice was given (go try lots etc) and not long after, a rather nice new F/S trail bike appeared.

So, my angle on this is, yes it's accessible, but soon after there is an effect based on experiences/norms, what other people have/advise/etc.
This is what might appear not-quite-so-accessible.