'Marketable' Cyclists: Stage/one-day racers vs GC riders

[MatchstickMan]

What makes you think this would be the case???

Because Specialized chose to launch their new prototype to the world with Cav on it, and because Canc is the first to use Trek's new machine (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-cancellaras-trek-speed-concept-tour-de-france).
Doesn't that imply that they are, at least when it comes to bikes, more marketable than GC riders, who get (albeit custom-painted) largely team-issue kit?

Perhaps excited wasn't quite the right word. And celebrity endorsement certainly isn't what everybody uses when deciding which bike to buy! But a sprinter's success, in addition to their physical and technical advantages, depends more acutely on the efficiency with which their power is transferred into movement, putting a higher premium on the stiffness, gearing etc of the bike. So a bike geek might find it easier to see how a particular bike assists their sprinting heroes rather than a GC rider, who's a beast enough to win on any bike light enough...

Will concede I'd still rather have a Ridley Noah. So can't say 'who rides what' makes a great deal of difference...

 

[The Hitch]

Why on earth do the Dutchies play cricket?

Theyre not very good at anything else.

Man i miss some of those conversations with the dutchies.

On a related issue, anyone know if a Polish rider (ie Szmyd) ended up beating all the dutchies in the Tour. I remember looking at that one halfway through and laughing at that situation at the time. Mollema or someone probably rescued it in the end, but like Voeckler it was good while it lasted.

 

[heartburn1]

Most other riders might prefer reliability and familiarity and thus stick to time-tested frames.

Because Specialized chose to launch their new prototype to the world with Cav on it, and because Canc is the first to use Trek's new machine (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-cancellaras-trek-speed-concept-tour-de-france).
Doesn't that imply that they are, at least when it comes to bikes, more marketable than GC riders, who get (albeit custom-painted) largely team-issue kit?

Perhaps excited wasn't quite the right word. And celebrity endorsement certainly isn't what everybody uses when deciding which bike to buy! But a sprinter's success, in addition to their physical and technical advantages, depends more acutely on the efficiency with which their power is transferred into movement, putting a higher premium on the stiffness, gearing etc of the bike. So a bike geek might find it easier to see how a particular bike assists their sprinting heroes rather than a GC rider, who's a beast enough to win on any bike light enough...

Will concede I'd still rather have a Ridley Noah. So can't say 'who rides what' makes a great deal of difference...

 

[theyoungest]

Weirdly enough, it looks like the Dutchies are the only non-British Empire people at the last Cricket World Cup.

Why on earth do the Dutchies play cricket? It makes me think of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0jPaTmWF5I

Nobody watches cricket in Holland though. There is however a bestselling novel about Dutch cricket (well, at least partly): Netherland, by Joseph O'Neill.

 

[El Pistolero]

If you are a star in a country with a population the size of India you are already a better known sports person than every tour winner bar Armstrong regardless of what language they speak.

I'd rather be famous in Germany than India. No matter how you turn it, it's a third world country.

 

[woodie]

I'd rather be famous in Germany than India. No matter how you turn it, it's a third world country.

I'm starting to wonder if you realise how stuck up and arrogant you sound

 

[El Pistolero]

I'm starting to wonder if you realise how stuck up and arrogant you sound

We're talking about marketable cyclists here. India might have a big market that's yet to be opened by European and American companies, it's not for the coming future and tbh I doubt it ever will turn ok over there with an economy that's set to implode. Besides, I'm no fan of countries who threat their inhabitants like crap. I'd still rather be famous in Hollywood than Bollywood. Doesn't matter if India has an enormous population.

Cricket stars are famous in the common wealth and the common wealth alone. Cycling is a bigger sport. And worldwide Tour is watched a hell of a lot more than any cricket game, so the population argument hardly holds up.

There's more money involved in being super famous in a country like Germany than being famous in India.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

1,21 billion people in India. 170 million in ****stan. 156 million in Bangladesh. 20 million in Sri Lanka.

That's 1.56 billion people, or more than a quarter of the world's population, in those four countries.

Few people may care about cricket outside of those countries, but I'd wager you have more cricket fans than cycling fans in the world.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Cricket stars are famous in the common wealth and the common wealth alone. Cycling is a bigger sport. And worldwide Tour is watched a hell of a lot more than any cricket game, so the population argument hardly holds up.

There's more money involved in being super famous in a country like Germany than being famous in India.

You are completely wrong here.

Top Indian cricketers earn more than any cyclist, and more than any German sportsman bar Michael Schumacher and a handful of footballers. Cricket is an enormously bigger sport than cycling in terms of fan numbers worldwide. I don't have an axe to grind on this. In fact I think that cricket is a very dull sport indeed. The population of the commonwealth is a multiple the size of the population of europe. And cricket is the number one sport in the sub-continent, the most populous region on earth. We are talking about a completely different scale of sport than cycling, which is the number one sport in, well, Belgium.

Cricket is the number two team sport in the world, behind football alone.

Rugby would be a more viable comparison if you are looking for a "world" sport popular in quite a few countries which is in the greater scheme of things smaller than cycling. Mainly because it is popular in the bits of the commonwealth which don't contain a vast sea of humanity, and in France and not in a lot of other places. Although apparently the Russian government are trying to push it as a suitably tough national sport, so even that might overtake our thing in a couple of decades.

 

[woodie]

We're talking about marketable cyclists here. India might have a big market that's yet to be opened by European and American companies, it's not for the coming future and tbh I doubt it ever will turn ok over there with an economy that's set to implode. Besides, I'm no fan of countries who threat their inhabitants like crap. I'd still rather be famous in Hollywood than Bollywood. Doesn't matter if India has an enormous population.

Cricket stars are famous in the common wealth and the common wealth alone. Cycling is a bigger sport. And worldwide Tour is watched a hell of a lot more than any cricket game, so the population argument hardly holds up.

There's more money involved in being super famous in a country like Germany than being famous in India.

Doesn't change the fact you sound arrogant.

Different sports and different sportspeople are marketable in different places. I'm sure in Belgium people are crazy about JVDB but in Aus pretty much no one knows who he is, whereas everyone I talk to knows Cav. It all depends on who your audience is and what you want to achieve by using that person to endorse your product or service.

 

[uphillstruggle]

I'd rather be famous in Germany than India. No matter how you turn it, it's a third world country.

Not for long my friend. India has cheap labour, which in this screwed up system we have is a valuable commodity. Europe has nothing really, as we are starting to see.

 

[theyoungest]

1,21 billion people in India. 170 million in ****stan. 156 million in Bangladesh. 20 million in Sri Lanka.

That's 1.56 billion people, or more than a quarter of the world's population, in those four countries.

Few people may care about cricket outside of those countries, but I'd wager you have more cricket fans than cycling fans in the world.

Lol at the censoring system. You can't spell P.akistan because there's a pejorative term for a P.akistani hidden in the country's name.

 

[greenedge]

love how it came down to Asian marketability. For now who cares so much about them. Let the UCI worry themselves about it and when i see a meaningful result i shall applaud all the hard work done.

 

[Angliru]

Because Specialized chose to launch their new prototype to the world with Cav on it, and because Canc is the first to use Trek's new machine (http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/pro-bike-cancellaras-trek-speed-concept-tour-de-france).
Doesn't that imply that they are, at least when it comes to bikes, more marketable than GC riders, who get (albeit custom-painted) largely team-issue kit?

Perhaps excited wasn't quite the right word. And celebrity endorsement certainly isn't what everybody uses when deciding which bike to buy! But a sprinter's success, in addition to their physical and technical advantages, depends more acutely on the efficiency with which their power is transferred into movement, putting a higher premium on the stiffness, gearing etc of the bike. So a bike geek might find it easier to see how a particular bike assists their sprinting heroes rather than a GC rider, who's a beast enough to win on any bike light enough...

Will concede I'd still rather have a Ridley Noah. So can't say 'who rides what' makes a great deal of difference...

I've personally been lusting after the Cannondale Super Six Hi Mod in matte black and white circa 2009, simply because I think it's a beautiful machine, not because I saw any particular professional riding it. Plus I have had good experiences with Cannondale bikes in the past and appreciate their dedication to innovation.