Actually, it has been shown in the US that greater numbers of mountain bikers has, in the higher population density areas (like the UK), let to greater restrictions and reduced access.

Got any info on that? Bear in mind that the UK isn’t the USA; Scotland and Wales already have better access than England, as do many other European countries, and this hasn’t led to greater restrictions, more that people can spread out more and use more trails.

Improved transport provision? Can you clarify that please?

Sure; transport provision is based on need, current and predicted. More cars = more roads being built. More people needing/wanting to access other areas with bikes would therefore surely lead to increased need for transport, which means more revenue for transport providers and the treasury. This is already happening in urban areas; more cyclists has led to increased cycling provision, and an improvement (albeit not great) in provision for cyclists on public transport.

The thread is about mountain biking specifically, not cycling in general.

Mountain biking is part of a greater cycling whole.

I still don’t see why mountain biking must be seen to be accessible?

So you’d prefer accessibility to remain as it is, or be less accessible even? Care to expand on that? So because you can’t see a benefit to you personally, you don’t believe anything should change? Isn’t that a somewhat blinkered and selfish attitude to have (it’s fine, you’re entitled to think as you wish)? Considering that other contributors to this thread believe there should be greater accessibility.

greater numbers of people on the trails leading to less of a feeling of getting away from the world (which is mostly why I ride offroad as opposed to on the road).

What makes you more entitled to enjoy mountain biking than others?

I’d disagree with that on the grounds that if you build a “facility for cycling” in terms of leisure (ie a velodrome, a closed circuit, a trail centre) you actually encourage MORE driving

Not necessarily. I don’t see anyone driving to the bmx tracks near me. And the new Olympic velodrome in London has fantastic public transport links. And trail centres built nearer to urban areas would be more accessible by bike. There are problems, but there are also solutions.

Ah, but you’re talking about cycling in general as a mode of transport, not mountain biking as a recreational activity.

I’m not, I’m talking about cycling as a whole here. Of which mountain biking is a part.

What are the tangible benefits to people who already mountain bike as a leisure activity of more people getting involved?

Larger numbers would lead to greater need for access. English access laws are woefully outdated and restrictive. Greater numbers of participants would provide a larger pool from which to draw potential sporting talent. Larger numbers of people wishing to travel to mountain biking areas would call for better facilities for travelling, such as improved transport provision. A far greater percentage of the Dutch population cycles regularly, and facilities, as well as consideration for cyclists are much better there.

Would you argue that less participation is better for cycling/mountain biking?

I think it matters, because more people cycling = hopefully less people driving, better facilities for cyclists, a better environment and a healthier population.

As for a greater diversity; as with anything in life, things are improved when you have a broad mix of people involved in something. Music is the perfect example of this. Football has an almost universal appeal due largely to it’s truly inclusive nature. I fail to see how cycling can’t be improved by more people doing it.

I thought it was Rolf Harris.

They were an improvement in stopping but a backward step in terms of mud clearance. I can’t recall any time in the 12 years I was running cantilevers that my wheels stopped turning because they were clogged with mud whereas I’ve had that experience many times with v brakes.

I doubt mud clearance is ever an issue for the 99.99% of people whose bikes have v-bakes though.

I’m looking to buy an iPad in the near future, and will be watching ebay with interest, to see if there are any iPad 3/4 bargains. Not that interested in the ‘latest thing’.

But one product Apple have recently developed which does seem revolutionary, yet isn’t getting much attention, is the new Mac Pro. A completely new approach to computer design, and a real showcase for Apple’s legendary innovation. Might be crap, but in terms of design thinking (Apple’s biggest strength), it’s completely different to anything else, as was the original iMac, the iPod, iPad etc.

God knows how you’d get new/replacement bits for the thing though!

jameso; I don’t believe there’s a deliberate move by the ‘industry’ to exclude any particular group/s, just that possibly those involved in mountain biking media are unable to identify other potential groups of participants, or aren’t best equipped to work with other groups to expand participation. My own experience of the mountain biking ‘media’ is that it appears almost exclusively to comprise that very demographic which seems to be the most dominant within the sport. The media exists to help market and promote the sport as part of a wider industry; perhaps the industry as a whole is naive and a bit parochial. But the fact that a relatively expensive sport is relatively inaccessible to certain minority groups is surely an issue within greater society, not just mountain biking.

Very valid points but it depends on where we all draw the ‘unsavoury’ trail sharing line. Most of us don’t want to share our trails with thieves with an eye on our bikes, are out to trash and leave litter. Some clearly do want trails to themselves and bikes that reflect their perceived status, some people are unhappy about the jeans wearing crew with no helmets and not a stitch of lycra between their knees. Most people who may look a bit unsavoury usually are OK and are less judgemental about the types of people they are likely to meet.

Certain walking/rambling ‘types’ can seem quite insular and elitist, and I’d imagine there may be a small minority of such types in mountain biking. But you get that in all sorts of activities. I have perceived a sense of ‘we don’t want other people enjoying our trails’ from some walking/rambling types I’ve met, and the same in a few mountain bikers too, sadly. But I tend to ignore such narrow-mindedness, as I’m sure anyone with any sense would. It does point towards a perceived sense of ‘ownership’ and ‘entitlement’ amongst some groups/individuals though. People can be quite territorial if they think they’re being ‘threatened’ in any way.

As a lady looking for places to ride and other people to ride with I find that I have no suitable skills areas in my locality and absolutely no complete trails suitable to even persuade newbies to spend some hard cash and I can’t see many of my friends and associates wanting to do illegal mud moving in the local woods. I actually find that far more depressing than not currently having a 4 grand bike

Now you’re talking about creating trails, as opposed to using what’s already there/organic development, which opens up a whole new field of discussion. Should be be creating more place to ride bikes? I’m not sure if that’s the ‘answer’ personally, but an interesting perspective nonetheless.

Thanks spockrider, that’s a very informative and interesting post. Lots of points to consider.

Some points I’d consider important are:

BUT only if you ignore the hype and big sell.

I think some people do alienate others who can’t afford top end machines. There is perhaps too much focus on trends and fashion and not enough on practical needs for lower budget buyers who just want to get out and have a go at grinding a granny ring and hopping a few bumps downhill in the woods or ride the red trail at a trail centre.

If you want to race, well that’s going to get very expensive if you need to use road fuel and pay for accommodation, food, entry fees and bike repairs,

On the economic side, there are suggestions as expressed here, that the ‘industry’ isn’t making mountain biking more accessible, by concentrating on an affluent ‘core market’. Deliberate or not, I think this is true to an extent, certainly that’s the impression you’d get if you walked into a bike shop specialising in mountain bikes. The most expensive bikes more prominently displayed, the more expensive options of items stocked (tyres, shoes, helmets etc), display cabinets full of high end kit. And things like “the bikes tested in the latest issue come in at an average of £4497.00” when the UK average price is a tenth of that, can’t help promote mountain biking as accessible in terms of cost.

there is a massive void in ethnic participation across most wheeled sport… It only takes one person or a club to sponsor the kid with talent

So we have to ask, why isn’t this happening more? How can we all help achieve greater integration and diversity? Some comments I’ve read on this forum alone suggest some folk might prefer mountain biking to remain exclusive, both economically and possibly socially and culturally. That’s quite depressing.

Personally I don’t think there are enough local MTB groups and local trails.

With mountain biking being a more ‘rural’ pursuit, and the vast majority of people living in large towns and cities, this is always going to be an issue I think. Then gain some might think there are already too many/the wrong ‘type’ of people out on the trails.

Will they need an app for that though?

You still don’t get what I’m saying do you?

I think you lost sight of whatever it was yourself, some time ago. Coming up with guff like ‘Digital signals don’t translate all that well to brakes’ convinced me you’re simply spouting whatever it is you want to believe. Rather than continue what has now become a pointless argument, I’m going to leave it there, but thanks for your input all the same.

I’d still however be interested in comparative weights and prices of Di2 and mechanical systems.

How about simple LED cycle lights? Bright, noticeable, effective. Much longer battery run times, no more need for massive expensive cells which last a couple of hours at best.

What experience of Di2 do you have? In the real world? Becuase everything you’ve said about it screams ill informed.

Limited to testing a D12 equipped bike for a day. Limited I know, but sufficient for me to make my own judgments based on my own particular needs. Although front-ring upshifts are awesome I have to say.

I’ve already said three times now and it’s getting painful

It will if you don’t explain yourself clearly. 😉

Ok; for example, v brakes offer vastly superior braking performance to cantis or caliper systems. V brakes are relatively cheap to develop and produce (the original XT ones were bloody expensive if I remember right though). Ergo, their development ‘benefits’ a great many cyclists. Di2 on the other hand, is a technology which is very unlikely to ever be all that cheap, therefore it won’t benefit anywhere near the same number of cyclists. So your claim that there are ‘benefits for all’ is somewhat disingenuous. Personally I’m more interested in developments and innovations that benefit cyclists universally, you appear more concerned with your own needs. Everyone’s different.

What’s your point caller?

My own personal set up means that STI’s won’t work very well as I can’t position them where they’d be comfortable and effective in use. That’s all.

You seem to have me down as some sort of luddite, simply because I questioned the ‘benefits’ (for most cyclists) of Di2. I’m not. Interesting that you seem to want me to be though.

I’d be interested in seeing weights and prices for Di2 v mechanical groupsets.

Presumably an electronic braking system would require a lot more power, so wouldn’t be viable/sensible.

Interesting. So, imagining a hybrid electronic/hydraulic system, would a braking system require a lot more power?

So you never bothered with indexed shifting because they are unnecessarily complicated and a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist?

Your application of Occam’s Razor could have led you to Wackoak’s suggestion, had you taken it to it’s conclusion. 🙄

Indexed shifiting offers a genuine and obvious improvement over non-indexed. As do V/disc brake systems over calipers/cantis. So, it’s common sense to ‘upgrade’ if you ant to enjoy the benefits.

As to Di2; I’m sure there are those who enjoy the benefits of that system over a mechanical one, although my own and others’ experience of it suggests an ‘benefits’ are both negligible and not worth the added expense and complexity. Your personal experience may differ. Great. Buy it.

I made an important distinction, you ignored it.

Ok, so enlighten me as to exactly what it was you meant.

Point is that STIs function better than downtube shifters, they’re more complex, but the overwhelming majority of folk would always choose STIs because of the benefits

‘Better’ is a subjective term. I’d argue that due to their increased reliability over time, downtube shifters could be seen as ‘better’, depending on your own personal perspective. My own road bike uses bar end shifters (10+ years old and still as good as new). As someone said earlier; horses for courses.

I assume your pursuit of relentless simplicity has lead you to singlespeed.

My commuter bike is singlespeed; no derailleurs, shifters, extra cables, batteries or electronics to worry about.

Notice how Shimano haven’t bothered with an electronic braking system? I wonder why that is? After all, cables get gungy and snap, etc. 😉

So yes, Di2 has benefits for everyone. It is not beneficial to everyone. Subtle but important difference there.

😆

You should get a job in marketing. You’re a natural. Those power balance band folk would love you.

you ever looked inside an STI lever?

Yes. You ever looked inside a downtube shifter? 😉

Continuing the theme of celebrating too early, anyone remember this?

😆

V-Brakes.

I remember when they first came out. Virtually universal love.

I remember almost killing myself several times when I fitted a set of the original XT ones. Compared to the cantis I’d been using, the Vs were so powerful that endos were almost inevitable in sudden braking, until I got used to them. Of course discs came along soon after and are generally better, but Vs are so easy to set up and maintain, and even cheap ones offer decent stopping power.

My first bicycle had rod brakes with perished hard rubber pads. Technology’s great. 😉

surely the ‘it won’t benefit everyone’ argument could be made against 99% of the cycling products out there.

Certain innovations have proven essential, such as pneumatic tyres, brakes, freewheels etc. Over time, certain ‘innovations’ become less revolutionary, as the design of the human powered bicycle has reached a stage of near-perfection. So each new ‘innovation’ appears to offer less actual ‘benefit’, to a point where the actual benefit is more perceived than real (Kashima coating, anyone?). But in order to continue to generate profits, manufacturers must continue to sell the myth of improvement. Which is pretty much where we are now. Innovation offers diminishing returns. And some of those ‘innovations’ aren’t really; they’re just trying to reinvent the wheel.

Thing is, it’s already been invented.

Man alive what do you want? The moon on a stick?

No, just something that works reliably and isn’t unnecessarily overcomplicated.

A reliable SA 3-speed? Have you ever ridden one?

Owned several. Have one that, apart from a strip and clean a few years ago, has been running faultlessly since the 1970s.

Software upgrade anyone? 😉

“Sorry sir, but your derailleur version 1.1 is no longer supported, you’ll have to upgrade to version 2.2 buy a whole new bike.”

Kerching.

Fair point. The only people who this might benefit are professional racers and anyone who’s got enough disposable income to be considering high-end groupsets.

But njee20 claims:

There are benefits for everyone

So which is it?

If cost were not an issue, imagine a commuter bike with di2 alfine fitted. No cable stretch, minimal chain wear, no rear/front mech alignment issues, no adjustments needed, no jockey wheel wear, no mech to snap off. Just a bit of lube on the chain every now and again (or fit a Gates belt and do away with that) and a charge of the battery twice a year. Surely that’s a benefit?

Great. But what about the wear in the mechanical parts of the system?

Does it over complicate something that shouldn’t be complicated? Maybe. Does it cost a lot more than a bike should cost? possibly. Is it mega awesome? Damn straight…

I wouldn’t say it was mega awesome; it’s simply a different way of achieving the same end result, yet with added complications, and more limited appeal.

Now, if Shimano (or indeed anyone) were to develop and produce a multi-speed hub gear system with the reliability of a SA 3-speed system, but lighter than a current derailleur system, THEN I’d be impressed.

Freewheels?

Double post

Is that the forum equivalent of accidentally arse-dialling the last person you rang?

Should Shimano not be investing in Di2 because those on the Indian sub-continent who ride bikes won’t be using it?

I’d prefer it if they invested more in improving the environmental and social impact of the whole industry, personally. I’m all for innovation, however I’d prefer it if it want’ exclusive to making cycling more accessible as a whole. See my thread on accessibility for an expansion on this theme. I don’t see how making more and more expensive toys achieves this.

There are benefits for everyone

Call me selfish, but when I’m considering a purchase, be it bike, car, electronic, clothing, food, I’m not really thinking about the people in Africa or India

I’m a bit confused here. So, are you saying you’d prefer it if the cycling industry concentrated only on your personal needs?

How do you think the laptop/Phone your typing on is made exactly? Fairydust?

So, the answer is more electronic stuff?

Do you honestly believe this is the target market?

No, I’m merely expressing my own views that stuff like Di2 doesn’t ‘benefit’ the greater cycling world in the way some might claim.

It is an interesting discussion.

You could also break a chain, put the rear mech into the back wheel (snapping mech and a few spokes making the wheel unrideable) or simply snap a gear cable. I don’t know how many people carry a spare gear cable with them, but I know I and all of my riding mates don’t.

None of those issues would pose an insurmountable problem for in experienced cycle tourist with a few spare links, a chain tool and few spare spokes. But we’re going round in circles now; you could carry spare batteries (which of course would add to the load,not simply replace other things), the whole electronic system could fail, a frame could snap etc. Di2 would however present more potential issues than already exist.

None of the arguments presented here in favour of Di2 convince me that it’s the ‘way forward’. I am however more convinced that it’s yet another product aimed at making profit from those who need their cycling to be high tech and sophisticated. Which in this regard, cycling doesn’t need to be. If you need Di2 to make your biking more enjoyable, then buy it. I’ll stick to my low-tech bike, and continue to enjoy riding it.

njee20; you seem like the sort of person for whom Di2 is ideal. But I must take issue with your claim that “it offers benefits to all”, as I simply don’t see how a relatively very expensive system is of any real benefit to anyone but professional racers and those with relatively high levels of disposable income. I hardly see how an expensive proprietary electronic gear shifting system would be of benefit to someone say in rural Africa or India, people who would need a bicycle for transport etc. And There are an awful lot more people like that on this planet, than ‘Weekend Warriors’ with loads of spare cash to splash on toys.

the “resource exploitation” derived from the development of the entire XTR Di2 groupset is probably about 1/1000000000th of what China do on a daily basis.

You have to see the bigger picture. It’s still adding to consumption and exploitation of resources. Something we’re constantly told is bad M’kay.

Very good questions njee20. Personally, I’d love to see more people enjoying something I love doing, and seeing more of the world in which we live. Mountain biking is a great way to do that. It’s also a healthy activity, so has many potentially positive social benefits.

Do you not want to see more people becoming involved? Would you prefer it if remained something exclusive to yourself and a small number of others?

And for you and Rusty Spanner (and anyone else interested):

Cyclists can help Britain’s economy get back on its bike suggests research

Cycling contributes almost £3 billion to the UK economy shows a new report from the London School of Economics and Political Science which also reveals that almost a quarter of the population are now cyclists.

The study quantifies for the first time the full economic success story of the UK’s cycling sector which generates £2.9 billion for the British economy, equating to a value of £230 for every biking Briton in the country.

208 million cycle journeys were made in 2010 meaning that there were 1.3 million more cyclists bringing the total UK cycle population to 13 million. The increasing levels of participation mean more money with new cyclists contributing £685 million to the UK economy.

cycle pathDr Alexander Grous of LSE’s Department of Management calculated a “Gross Cycling Product” by taking into account factors such as bicycle manufacturing, cycle and accessory retail and cycle related employment. A 28 per cent jump in retail sales last year led to 3.7 million bikes being sold at an average price of £439 each. Accessory sales also made a significant contribution, followed by a further £500 million through the 23,000 people employed in the sector.

The increased levels of cycling also bring a range of benefits for businesses. Regular cyclists take one sick-day less per year, which saves the economy £128 million per year in absenteeism. Dr Grous found that over a ten year period the net present value of cost savings to the economy could rise to be £1.6 billion. A 20 per cent rise in cyclists by 2015 could save a stretched NHS £52 million in costs. There are also potential benefits associated with reductions in congestion and pollution

You can assume anything you like, but based on no experience and no direct knowledge of the product in question it’s not likely to be very useful. Lots of people out there using Di2 already, where is the epidemic of failed batteries?

My comments were about posing a theoretical counter to the comment regarding gungy cables. As to the failings of the Di2 system;

have also repaired many Di2 bikes with “issues” including crash damaged components (normally rear derailleur) and firmware incompatability – normally where the customer has replaced a damaged component with a new item bought from on-line retailer and installed ‘at home’

also seen torn cables, damaged shifters and battery charging issues

Real world experience such as this is sufficient to convince me (and I’d imagine many others) that Di2 is unnecessary and pointless for the kind of riding I do. As for cables; in over 25 years of riding mountain bikes, I’ve never had a cable fail on me. And I’m not the most fastidious when it comes to bike maintenance.

That distance is about 5000 miles. So yes, if you’re likely to be more than 5000 miles away from mains power it’s not for you.

You could be just 5 miles from a source of electricity. However, if that 5 miles involves very difficult terrain or adverse weather conditions, the inability to sort out the issue at the roadside could prove disastrous.

the hand wringing is rather unnecessary

Hand wringing? Where? Simply pointing out the failings of a system is hardly ‘hand wringing’. Di2 offers ‘benefits’ (whatever they may be) to a relatively tiny number of cyclists. It’s not a product that will benefit the majority. It’s development and production undoubtedly involves new levels of resource exploitation which are hardly positive for the environment (the production of bicycles is already negatively exploitative in global terms). Should we not be considering such issues?

If you’re also an oaf who forgets to breathe periodically then you may struggle with the need to change gears mechanically.

I believe the appropriate term here is ‘FTFY’. 😉

If they’re using iPhones it’s unlikely they have a signal.

That, and the battery will have gone flat.

Then you’re a moron for not charging it first.

I see you conveniently avoided my first question. Given the built in obsolescence of virtually everything these days, I think it’s reasonable to assume that any battery would deteriorate fairly quickly over time, and become unreliable. And then be rather expensive to replace.

Lots more to go wrong with an electronic system; as people have pointed out, it’s a solution to a non-existent ‘problem’. A boon to professional racers at best, a neat method of fool and money separation more generally.

A bicycle for me, is a mechanical device which can give me freedom to explore. The idea of needing to be within a certain distance of a suitable charging point kind of negates that ideal.

Funny isn’t it; in an age of increased communication, it’s actually harder to communicate with someone.

You smack yourself in the face for being an idiot and ignoring the warning signs for the last few hundred miles and not charging the battery.

What if it fails suddenly, or you’re on an epic trip where there’s no electricity? And wouldn’t a spare cable be a tad lighter than a battery charger and lead?

Why is it better than cable actuated?

Because cables get grungy and performance deteriorates.

So what happens when your battery dies?

Some fantastic responses just above. Really interesting points of view.

So on an economic level, there appears to be an argument that those with less disposable income are being ‘priced out’ of mountain biking, with a counter argument that suggest mountain biking is relatively ‘cheaper’ in terms of capable equipment being available for comparatively less money now than it was previously. The recent price spikes have reinforced mountain biking as an ‘expensive’ hobby though, undoubtedly, as the various threads on the cost of the sport on here will attest. Sure, there have always been expensive bikes, but it seems there are a lot more now, so somebody must be buying them!

I’m laughing at the thought of the team at the mag holding a meeting to discuss aspirational reader demographics!

I’d be amazed if they weren’t considering who their target market is, quite frankly. They wouldn’t survive long is they didn’t. Again, it would be interesting to read their views on this, particularly in relation to Rusty Spanner’s suggestions that they do behave in an elitist and exclusive manner.

And then; is there perhaps a small element of not wishing to broaden participation further, by those central to the sport? That it is indeed preferable to keep things exclusive and undiluted? A sort of ‘gentlemans’ club’ type ethos? I’m not saying that this is in any way deliberate, more simply a subconscious need to retain control of something good, rather than see it ‘degraded’ through mass participation. Would it be fair to suggest, as Rusty Spanner seems to be doing, that this is possibly the case?

On a cultural level; hopefully issues which prevent or exclude other groups from participating will evaporate over time, but I do think these issues need to be addressed from both sides. No good spending loads of time and effort on targeting particular groups, is no members of those groups have the desire to become involved; parading Oliver Skeete didn’t see much of an increase in the numbers of black people getting involved in equestrian events, it’s still very much a ‘white upper class’ sport.

I don’t think an ostrich mentality, as displayed by some people on here, is helpful though. Maybe we should all be asking what we can be doing to help introduce others to the sport, and help them enjoy it as we do, or should a sport gain prominence purely through it’s own merits?

So refusing to review bikes and equipment that is considered ‘too cheap’ to be credible (whilst still being perfectly capable) isn’t deliberately excluding those on a lower income?
Of course it’s elitist.

That’s an interesting perspective. Having given up on the cycling ‘press’ many years ago (for precisely the reasons re marketing hype given here), I have no idea what sort of kit they regularly review. Last time I read a cycling magazine, MBUK was all about downhilling (and more or less a brochure for Specialized products), and Cycling Weekly seemed to consist mainly of Beligian CX race results. I’d be very surprised if cycling media such as this website were actively pursuing a campaign of deliberate exclusion of any particular group though. Would be interesting to read your expansion on this, and also the thoughts of the owners of this site. Isn’t this website more about making money for the owners than primarily focussing on promoting cycling? I’d be very surprised if it wasn’t. We all gotta eat.

It’s also been mentioned that golf is elitist – again I disagree. It is certainly perceived as elitist in some sectors, but I would suspect the large number of working-class people who play would also disagree. Again, it’s like any sport – it’s only elitist if you want it to be.

Perception or not, a visit to practically any golf course will reveal a mainly white male membership. I’ve yet to see one featuring proportionate numbers of representatives from other groups.

If we promote cycling as a sport for the rich, the industry gains in the short term.
If we promote cycling as a part of everyday life that everyone can participate in, we all gain.

This is pretty much the jist of why I started this thread. I love mountain biking, indeed any form of cycling really, and would love everyone else to enjoy it too. The sad truth is, that mountain biking certainly isn’t the inclusive activity that other sports are (more), and it’s proportionately under-represented by all sections of society, whereas cycling as a whole in this country is now more popular than ever before, with many more groups. There are many more people out on the trails compared to when I first started mountain biking over 25 years ago, but they’re still the same ‘type’. Would be nice to see greater diversity out there.

Sorry, but that’s nonsense.
The owners of ST know EXACTLY who they are aiming for, and over the past few years they have obviously decided to change tack and focus on those with a higher level of income.

Of course, they will target their business primarily towards those who they believe will offer the best returns. I don’t believe they are deliberately excluding any particular groups however. That would be foolish, as I’m sure they’d love to have revenue coming in from any possible source.Hence why I don’t believe there is any real deliberate elitism. If you or anyone thinks that there is, then I’d be really interested to read your thoughts.

Cycling HAD a universal appeal – that is now being lost as the
industry dissappears up it’s own arse in a rush to separate the fashionable from their cash.

I don’t think the entire industry is acting thus; the numbers of people cycling in the UK has risen steadily over the last couple of decades, and there are more bikes on the roads and trails. That you can now buy a bike for £50 or even less (the quality of such is subject for another discussion) shows that cycling as a whole is surely now more accessible than ever before? I will agree that the ‘mountain biking’ industry has become more exclusive; at the back end of the ’80s, ‘mountain bikes’ were cited as helping re-popularise cycling, largely due to their more ‘accessible’ nature; now, they have definitely become aspirational ‘lifestyle’ products. And mountain biking itself, once seen as a bit of a niche activity, is now seen as quite ‘cool’, associations with ‘fat IT managers in dayglo gear’ aside. And yes; you will get those who buy the latest shiny kit to show off, this has always been the case with pretty much any activity requiring specialist equipment. See ski-ing for a perfect example of this.

Interesting comments about the Far East; a friend who worked in Singapore said mountain biking is very popular there (even if participants have to go to another country to do it properly). But it still remains an activity mainly enjoyed by those over a certain income level; you won’t find that popularity in many other parts of Asia.

If looked at dispassionately, all that originally happened was that someone got arsey with some coppers who he felt were being **** (but who decided he hadn’t committed any offence worthy of arrest). The real crime, and far, far more serious than someone getting arsey with some coppers, is that several members of Her Majesty’s Police Force then colluded to force a democratically elected Member of Her Majesty’s Parliament into a position which was untenable, which led to his resignation. Serving police officers lied to achieve a political end. Other, more senior police officers then lied in an attempt to cover up the original lies, and compounded matters by seeking to further denigrate said MP.

As much as I despise pompous arrogant **** like Mitchell, the only question that should be asked is why none of those lying scumbags (who have abused and soiled the reputation of the police and created widespread distrust of a public office which operates by Public Consent) have yet been sacked.

The actions of Andrew Mitchell are largely irrelevant. The actions of a number of Public Servants have undermined Democracy. Whatever your political leanings, this must be seen as a very worring issue and great cause for concern, and it’s our duty as a society to ensure such a thing must not and cannot happen again.

As for the accusations of ‘cowardice’; the only cowardice here is that shown by the police officers who betrayed the trust placed in them by the society which they are meant to serve.

Excellent programme. Looking forwards to the next one.

Most airlines specify that only ‘sports equipment’ may be carried in ‘sports equipment luggage’. So helmets and SPD shoes are fine in a bike bag. I’ve carried all sorts in bike bags and never had any issues. Remember that it’s the airport authority, not the airline, that scan the bags, and they aren’t really interested in the contents as long as they’re not bombs and guns. The only issue they care about is the weight, so make sure you have sufficient weight allowance for your trip. With Easyjet, it’s worth buying the ‘sports equipment’ allowance as well as the hold baggage premium, as that then gives you a total of 32kg for the bike bag. Other airlines might just let you have a total weight allowance with no other conditions.

Get it sorted before you fly though, as it can be a right hassle at the airport.

Top tip: if travelling with a bike in a bag, go round the side at the check ins rather than queue up. Feign ignorance/stupidity, and the staff will invariably let you check in at the premium/business/fast check in desk just to get you out of the way. I have never queued at an airport whenever I’ve travelled with a bike.

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.

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?