British Cycling agrees 8-year sponsorship with Shell

@rhayter All those follow cars need a fuel supplier

Joking aside I have often wondered why electric vehicle producers dont sponsor cycling. It would make a lot of sense, other than the fact that electric vehicles would been shown up for being completely inappropriate for the task in hand

other than the fact that electric vehicles would been shown up for being completely inappropriate for the task in hand

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.

Does anyone know how to cancel a membership of BC? I’m a member of both BC and UK Cycling and this deal is crap.

Aside from just letting it lapse, if you want an instant cancellation it would be an email to membership@britishcycling.org.uk or a call to 0161 274 2010

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

Skoda sponsored the TDF this year and provided a limited number of electric cars including a full EV Octavia to the Commissaire which was used on 15 of the 21 stages.

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.

I have often wondered why electric vehicle producers dont sponsor cycling. It would make a lot of sense, other than the fact that electric vehicles would been shown up for being completely inappropriate for the task in hand

~200km at 25-30 mph should be well within the range of most modern big EVs – the sort of size used as team/support cars anyway. an 80kWh skoda would fully charge in 12 hours on a 7.4kW charger

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.

Whilst I disagree in principle with this decision, If I had the choice to simply cancel my membership I would. Bc provide zero benefit for the vast majority of cyclists

Unfortunately however, if I want to race I need to pay bc, and given this announcement, that irks me somewhat

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.

‘virtue signalling’ is a bullshit phrase. It often just signifies a weak position in a discussion.

Not necessarily. You can be vacuously virtue signalling, but people can also mis-use the term to denigrate any discussion of doing something better.

Whereas this decision by BC sticks two fingers up to our efforts

I remain unconvinced of that.

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.

Unfortunately however, if I want to race I need to pay bc, and given this announcement, that irks me somewhat

Only if you need points, which obviously you might, otherwise just pay the extra couple of quid on each entry for a temporary license.

Was thinking about whether it was worth renewing my membership at £86 when it comes round in Jan. This has made it a much easier decision!

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).

~200km at 25-30 mph should be well within the range of most modern big EVs – the sort of size used as team/support cars anyway. an 80kWh skoda would fully charge in 12 hours on a 7.4kW charger

not with all the windows open, bikes on the roof, alpine passes, constant periods of hard acceleration.

and then they get to the hotel at the end of the day and some selfish sod has taken the one charging point

cycling isn’t green, most bikes are made of plastic

~200km at 25-30 mph should be well within the range of most modern big EVs – the sort of size used as team/support cars anyway. an 80kWh skoda would fully charge in 12 hours on a 7.4kW charger

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.

Maybe Shell base their sponsorship on the tactical nous of the partner, given they are linked to Ferrari in F1!

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.

So basically the consensus is we just shouldn’t aspire to be better.

Brilliant.

A lot of people leaving British Cycling

I’ve resigned from @BritishCycling.

— Helen Ward (@profhelenward) October 10, 2022

You could be, though generally how would someone know it was vacuous (assuming it’s online)?

Because everyone online is always acting in the worst possible way. Everyone knows this! 😉

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

For anyone saying that if you’ve ever owned anything made of plastic, or have ever sat in a car you’re a hypocrite for calling out this deal then you’re missing the point. A lot of people have issue with this sponsorship not because it’s a petro-chem company but because it’s Shell specifically.
I defy anybody to do the tiniest bit of research into Shell and not come away thinking ‘Christ, they’re full on Bond villains’. The amount of information available stating how despicable they are is astounding. Amnesty International have accused them of murder!

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.

So Shell get to sponsor British Cycling for 8 years.
Yet Shell never show an oil rig in their adverts.

What a crock of absolute bollocks.

I thought a road cycling team being sponsored by a 4×4 manufacturer was as shameless as it could get…

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…

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.

Net zero is a target because fossil fuels are burnt, not because they are extracted & refined

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?

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 and the focus is almost always elite competition. Grass roots seems to be taken care of mainly by the local clubs (putting on events, finding Marshalls, etc)…

Does shell align with BC’s espoused values? I don’t really think it does myself…

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.

Any of you smarty pants got a better idea?
Doubt it, you’all be too busy signing from the same hypocritical hymnsheet.

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?

Interesting watching track world cup, GB team all got Shell logo on their kits. In the womens team sprint the last rider wasn’t wearing the logo. Do you think this is due to timescales and not getting kit in time or some kind of protest?

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.

Good work.

First page of Shell’s annual report 2020:

“Shell is an international energy company engaged in the principal aspects of the oil and gas industry and reports its business through segments.”

What on earth does that have to do with cycling.

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?

What on earth does that have to do with cycling.

Could easily ask the same about HSBC or Sky (other than maybe “cyclists have bank accounts” and “cyclists watch TV”…?)

BC need a big money sponsor/ partner in order to keep doing what they’re doing, it’s nowhere close to being self-funding.
I can see that Shell is basically greenwashing but then so is every other fossil fuel company.

Best you don’t look too closely at the delightful human rights records of some of the countries involved in football or F1…

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.