LA Does it again!

[Bagster]

He just never lets up.. this from US Cycling:

USA Cycling says Lance Armstrong's return to competition can be thanked for its growth to a record 66,600 licensed bike racers this year. The figure represents a 5% increase over 2008. "There is no way to say exactly why we have had such an increase, but common sense lets us figure that one of those factors is certainly Lance Armstrong," says Andrea Smith, USA Cycling's director of communications. About 45,000 members race in road, cyclocross or track events, with the remainder including mountain bikers, coaches and officials. USA Cycling is the governing body of bike racing in America.

Well all I can say is that if this increase results in more race congestion and more crashes with more injuries resulting...then its all Lance's fault! That guy just never does anything good for cycling

 

[filipo]

He just never lets up.. this from US Cycling:

USA Cycling says Lance Armstrong's return to competition can be thanked for its growth to a record 66,600 licensed bike racers this year. The figure represents a 5% increase over 2008. "There is no way to say exactly why we have had such an increase, but common sense lets us figure that one of those factors is certainly Lance Armstrong," says Andrea Smith, USA Cycling's director of communications. About 45,000 members race in road, cyclocross or track events, with the remainder including mountain bikers, coaches and officials. USA Cycling is the governing body of bike racing in America.

Well all I can say is that if this increase results in more race congestion and more crashes with more injuries resulting...then its all Lance's fault! That guy just never does anything good for cycling

There's no way to tell -- we just say it's that way.

 

[Race Radio]

He just never lets up.. this from US Cycling:

USA Cycling says Lance Armstrong's return to competition can be thanked for its growth to a record 66,600 licensed bike racers this year. The figure represents a 5% increase over 2008. "There is no way to say exactly why we have had such an increase, but common sense lets us figure that one of those factors is certainly Lance Armstrong," says Andrea Smith, USA Cycling's director of communications. About 45,000 members race in road, cyclocross or track events, with the remainder including mountain bikers, coaches and officials. USA Cycling is the governing body of bike racing in America.

Well all I can say is that if this increase results in more race congestion and more crashes with more injuries resulting...then its all Lance's fault! That guy just never does anything good for cycling

I think that we can all agree that the increase is due to Floyd Landis' return.

 

[Anonymous]

It's interesting that they usually grow at 3%, then 5% this year.

It's not a huge change really, and could be attributed to Garmin's success with Farrar this year and Vandevelde in last years tour. As well as Team Columbia building a great american rivarly with Garmin. Then throw in teams like BMC coming through the system, and Lance coming back.

Add all those factors, divide them by a 2% increase in participation and I don't think the Lance factor was really that high. Of course it contributed, but for me, it's more logical that the Lance factor would be reflected in things like charity ride participation, rather than racing.

 

[Anonymous]

But is it LANCES fault that US cycling decided to write that article..

he cant control what crap is written any more than we can..

 

[Race Radio]

But is it LANCES fault that US cycling decided to write that article..

he cant control what crap is written any more than we can..

really?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full

this little fact: Johnson essentially works for Armstrong.

I think we can all agree that USA Cycling is hardly an unbiased observer.

 

[buckwheat]

really?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2005-09-07/news/tour-de-farce/full



I think we can all agree that USA Cycling is hardly an unbiased observer.

BTW, is Andrea Smith one of Prance's "ladies?"

 

[350Watts]

It's interesting that they usually grow at 3%, then 5% this year.

It's not a huge change really, and could be attributed to Garmin's success with Farrar this year and Vandevelde in last years tour. As well as Team Columbia building a great american rivarly with Garmin. Then throw in teams like BMC coming through the system, and Lance coming back.

Add all those factors, divide them by a 2% increase in participation and I don't think the Lance factor was really that high. Of course it contributed, but for me, it's more logical that the Lance factor would be reflected in things like charity ride participation, rather than racing.

So you don't think a 66% increase is a huge change? Wow lots of companies would love to grow like that especially given the dire straights of the economy.

 

[Rominger]

So you don't think a 66% increase is a huge change? Wow lots of companies would love to grow like that especially given the dire straights of the economy.

erm, its an increase of 5% not 66

 

[Rominger]

wow 66,600 out of the whole population, old Lance really does have the whole of the population of America throwing their leg over a bike doesn't he?

 

[flicker]

Lance has nothing to do with new racing license in US. People are racing more because they are underemployed or out of work. Thus the need for more endorphin production and getting ****ed off and stomping Sr.5 races.

T. Farrar and Vand. D.Valve are not big draws to go to racing at this point.

 

[Publicus]

erm, its an increase of 5% not 66

350 Watts is calculating the percentage change in new members year over year. So if the baseline is 3% and the increase in 2009 is 5%, then (5-3)/3=66.7%.

 

[350Watts]

erm, its an increase of 5% not 66

No, not 66% overall, talking year over year. The growth rate is usually about 3% so for the math challenged moving to 5% is (5-3)/3=66.67% increase over the normal growth rate.

 

[350Watts]

350 Watts is calculating the percentage change in new members year over year. So if the baseline is 3% and the increase in 2009 is 5%, then (5-3)/3=66.7%.

Thank you.

 

[L29205]

Lance has nothing to do with new racing license in US. People are racing more because they are underemployed or out of work. Thus the need for more endorphin production and getting ****ed off and stomping Sr.5 races.

T. Farrar and Vand. D.Valve are not big draws to go to racing at this point.

Very valid point, LA's comeback may be part of it. But there could be multiple different reasons for the rise.

 

[Walshworld]

I second that opinion, wise man. People always under-estimate the Floyd Effect.
Twisted Spoke
http://walshworld.wordpress.com/

 

[Cracked Again]

Well all I can say is that if this increase results in more race congestion and more crashes with more injuries resulting...:

While this is true, it also may mean that there might be more events and that is never a bad thing. New riders equal new races and rides

 

[British Pro Cycling]

It's often said that bike clubs like to say they want new people to join their clubs but secretly they're quite happy with things how they are. I think we have a bit of that here. I get the impression that many Americans in this forum may bemoan the fact cycling is not as big as it is in Europe, but really they quite like the idea of being part of something that is a minority interest for a select few.

 

[Anonymous]

So you don't think a 66% increase is a huge change? Wow lots of companies would love to grow like that especially given the dire straights of the economy.

Hahahahah classic!

It's not a 66% increase in numbers. It's a 66% increase in the 'rate of change' in the increase in numbers.

In reality it is a 2% increase. The numbers initially grew at 3%, then they grew at 5%. The difference is a 2% increase in participation

Yes, 2%/3% = 0.666666, but that cannot be interpreted as a 66% increase in participation. It's a 66% increase in the rate of change of participation.

Nice try tho, but I'm afraid your maths teacher will not be happy with you mate haha


I did a little extra math for you. The article says overall participatin increased to 66,600. Now if it were a 66% increase, then this means that last years figures had participation of 39,961 (which was not the case).

Why? 66,600*(1/166.66)*100 = 39,961.

Hence, if last year's numbers were 39,961, then a 66% increase would lead to 66,600 numbers this year. But, this was not that case.

There was a 5% increase in numbers across the two years, which was 2% above the normal rate of change.

 

[derailleur]

Me, I just blame Drew's cancer and it helps me cope with all the evils in the world good or bad.

 

[No Chain]

Hahahahah classic!

It's not a 66% increase in numbers. It's a 66% increase in the 'rate of change' in the increase in numbers.

In reality it is a 2% increase. The numbers initially grew at 3%, then they grew at 5%. The difference is a 2% increase in participation

Yes, 2%/3% = 0.666666, but that cannot be interpreted as a 66% increase in participation. It's a 66% increase in the rate of change of participation.

Nice try tho, but I'm afraid your maths teacher will not be happy with you mate haha


I did a little extra math for you. The article says overall participatin increased to 66,600. Now if it were a 66% increase, then this means that last years figures had participation of 39,961 (which was not the case).

Why? 66,600*(1/166.66)*100 = 39,961.

Hence, if last year's numbers were 39,961, then a 66% increase would lead to 66,600 numbers this year. But, this was not that case.

There was a 5% increase in numbers across the two years, which was 2% above the normal rate of change.

"I was told there would be no math involved."

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

So you don't think a 66% increase is a huge change? Wow lots of companies would love to grow like that especially given the dire straights of the economy.

Math. Learn it. Love it.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Thank you.

Dumbest calculation EVER. If you don't understand why, you're ****ty at math.
If you're ****ty at math, at least don't flaunt it.

I don't care about it either way, but stupid arguments are just stupid.

-Moose

 

[350Watts]

Dumbest calculation EVER. If you don't understand why, you're ****ty at math.
If you're ****ty at math, at least don't flaunt it.

I don't care about it either way, but stupid arguments are just stupid.

-Moose

Year over year moron, if you had half a brain you could have figured that out.

 

[Anonymous]

There was a 5% increase in numbers across the two years, which was 2% above the normal rate of change.

so has it increased or no?