USAC is failing to get people into cycling?

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Annual Report Cycling Australia 2013

Annual Report USAC 2012

Annual Report British Cycling 2013

 

[rogerg]

I think the government should also give a role to remind the quantity and quality as well.

 

[TrackCynic]

I'd be interested to know how BC got themselves into such a strong budgetary position in a country (UK) where cycling has not been traditionally a strong sport. What could USAC learn from that? Or do Weisel & Co. even want to learn because they are, in fact, happy with the status quo?

 

[Catwhoorg]

Lottery grants.

Both tied to Olympic medals (which mainly get fed to athletes and the main infrastructure/velodromes ) and general ones for getting folks involved. (The main thrust of the Skyride program).

If I want to do a group ride at a decent lick on my road bike (or hit the MTB trails) I can do that through clubs, or the Local bike stores. Roads are open to the local rednecks in pickup trucks, and safety is certainly not a given

If I want to go on closed roads, with my 2 year old in a trailer, and my wife riding along at a gentle pace, thats just not something there are events for in Atlanta (thanks heavens for the Silver Comet trail though).

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I'd be interested to know how BC got themselves into such a strong budgetary position in a country (UK) where cycling has not been traditionally a strong sport. What could USAC learn from that? Or do Weisel & Co. even want to learn because they are, in fact, happy with the status quo?

While not solely responsible - successfully bidding to host Olympics/Paralympics combined with a political desire to be successful at Olympic Sports meant funding would be assured for events that GB had reasonable prospects of success.

Track Cycling was the initial driver for the overall cycling program as that was seen as relatively low hanging fruit with fewer (nation) competitors, and funding channel was set up via the decision to allocate a portion of national lottery takings.

I don't think the British model is something the USA can reasonably adopt, politically and culturally there are significantly differences, unless you think a large amount of federal money over long time period (i.e. a real commitment) can be found or diverted from something else. Instead USAC need different strategies.

Nevertheless, there are no doubt components of what one federation does that could be applied elsewhere.

 

[DirtyWorks]

I'd be interested to know how BC got themselves into such a strong budgetary position in a country (UK) where cycling has not been traditionally a strong sport. What could USAC learn from that? Or do Weisel & Co. even want to learn because they are, in fact, happy with the status quo?

Please realize revenue was divorced from USAC by Thom quite a while ago.

USACDF (Thom) is free to spend USOC revenue and USAC activities revenue as he likes because USACDF controls three BOD seats at USAC.

To be brief, USAC administrators aren't just sitting around all day. There is lots of not very interesting work to do in sports administration.

Specific to this thread, growing attendance is not something they do, or have done, or are willing to fund. Size of budget is immaterial to the discussion.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Specific to this thread, growing attendance is not something they do, or have done, or are willing to fund. Size of budget is immaterial to the discussion.

I note that the USAC Vision and Mission Statements say nothing about the size or growth of cycling membership or that these are things considered a factor in measuring USAC's success. But they report on membership numbers and emphasise growth figures and initiatives and it's clearly a source of revenue.

From USAC Annual Report:

USA Cycling is the official national governing body for all disciplines of
competitive cycling in the United States, including road, track, mountain
bike, BMX, and cyclo-cross. A membership-based organization that strives
to grow the sport domestically, USA Cycling also fosters the identification,
development, and support of American cyclists in international competition.

Sources of revenue for USA Cycling include annual license fees, permit fees,
event surcharges, grants from the USA Cycling Development Foundation
and the United States Olympic Committee, corporate sponsorship and
generous gifts from individual donors. Unlike most other national cycling
federations across the globe, USA Cycling receives no government funding.

As a membership-based organization, USA Cycling is comprised of clubs and
teams, officials, coaches, mechanics, race directors, and competitive cyclists
of all ages and abilities across the sport’s five disciplines.

In an effort to grow the sport on the domestic front, USA Cycling supports
grassroots initiatives at the local level by reinvesting a significant portion of
its membership dollars into its 34 local associations and into a rebate pool
for qualified mountain bike race organizers. The national governing body also
works to grow the sport by working with a comprehensive network of certified
coaches and officials, administering national-level calendars, and managing
national championship events for all ages and skill levels.

We provide regulation, education, and structure to our many constituents,
with the ultimate goal of growing bicycle racing in America. USA Cycling
strives to provide its members with impeccable service, valuable benefits and
a second-to-none racing experience.

 

[DirtyWorks]

... But they report on membership numbers and emphasise growth figures and initiatives and it's clearly a source of revenue.

Compare the growth to Triathlon. I realize they are different products, but really, if USAC was actually interested in growth, they would have created some analogous product, or modify their offerings over a decade ago to grow attendance. But they don't and they won't.

Here are some fun examples of USAC's "growth."
One year licenses "grew" because they held 'cross nationals in Oregon and all the OBRA riders bought one-day licenses.

Another year licenses "grew" because they put Colorado's independent federation out of business.

Another year licenses "grew" because they added mechanics license.

Another year permitted events "grew" because they introduced a permit for training rides. Training rides!!!

Meanwhile, the number of competitive cycling events is relatively flat, the numbers in attendance is flat, and a continental pro economy is non-existent across all disciplines. They have a very colourful annual report. You have to dig into their tax documents to see what is not happening.

**outside** USAC there is rapid growth in endurance events.

 

[BroDeal]

Compare the growth to Triathlon. I realize they are different products, but really, if USAC was actually interested in growth, they would have created some analogous product, or modify their offerings over a decade ago to grow attendance. But they don't and they won't.

The way forward is gran fondo-like events, something semi competitive that allows people to measure themselves against others and their performance from year to year but at the same time can be a participatory sport for those who just want to finish. This is what triathlon is. I would say get rid of categories and just use age groups plus an elite/pro class.

What is more, these types of events can be big enough to make the promoters money. WTC makes money by having communities bear a lot of the costs. The communities do it because they want 2500 triathletes plus their families staying in the area for four days. Without the swimming (and running, but especially swimming) it should be possible to attract field sizes that are many times the size of an Ironman event.

A sport that relies on people training scores and scores of hours so they don't get dropped on the first lap of a race will never grow very large in the U.S.

 

[stainlessguy1]

The way forward is gran fondo-like events, something semi competitive that allows people to measure themselves against others and their performance from year to year but at the same time can be a participatory sport for those who just want to finish. This is what triathlon is. I would say get rid of categories and just use age groups plus an elite/pro class.

What is more, these types of events can be big enough to make the promoters money. WTC makes money by having communities bear a lot of the costs. The communities do it because they want 2500 triathletes plus their families staying in the area for four days. Without the swimming (and running, but especially swimming) it should be possible to attract field sizes that are many times the size of an Ironman event.

A sport that relies on people training scores and scores of hours so they don't get dropped on the first lap of a race will never grow very large in the U.S.

Good Points BroD.

why not make it even easier , and just let the groups self select as per distance ridden.
All participants can choose what distance they want to ride , the first starters are the 160 km group and so on and so forth at 1/2 hour intervals .
Each loop is half the total distance and stragglers can opt out early if tired or over shot their ability .
The roads are controlled at intersections by police much like a race , as the groups go through . Thus you don't have to unclip all the time , and 50 to 70 percent of good riders for the long rides can do them non stop .
All get the benefit of the feed stations or can by pass them to keep continuity.
There is something for everyone in this format .
Lots of racers use it as a training for longer provincial road races and championships .
Kids and families use the shorter distances and also have on and off road sections to ride on hybrid or mountain bikes .
This has grown in this area by leaps and bounds and gets more and more people out every year .
Food for thought .

 

[stainlessguy1]

here is a good format to gain members

tour de Grand Cambridge , Ontario .

http://www.cambridgetourdegrand.com/

500 the first year , and 2,800 starters last year .
Growth that is fun and still continues to grow each year .
If it has wheels and goes round and round its good to go .
The one time that Freds, commuters , racers , ex-racers , kids , families , and just about anything in between get along and have a blast .

 

[Race Radio]

The way forward is gran fondo-like events, something semi competitive that allows people to measure themselves against others and their performance from year to year but at the same time can be a participatory sport for those who just want to finish. This is what triathlon is. I would say get rid of categories and just use age groups plus an elite/pro class.

What is more, these types of events can be big enough to make the promoters money. WTC makes money by having communities bear a lot of the costs. The communities do it because they want 2500 triathletes plus their families staying in the area for four days. Without the swimming (and running, but especially swimming) it should be possible to attract field sizes that are many times the size of an Ironman event.

A sport that relies on people training scores and scores of hours so they don't get dropped on the first lap of a race will never grow very large in the U.S.

This is what is driving the sport in the rest of the world. Mass participation road and MTB events that draw Pro's and fat guys. I have seen excellent examples on the MTB side in the US (Whiskey 50) but the road side is pretty weak. Most of the Gran Fondos I see in U.S. have uninspired courses and high entry fees. In Italy I see the exact opposite. For 30 Euros I get a bag full of stuff, a semi closed awesome course, and full gas riding.

Hopefully someone has the $$ to develop something similar here in the US. Need something interesting to motivate me and I am sick of 11 hour plane flights.

 

[TrackCynic]

So, it looks like USAC are NOT the people to do anything to help this Gran Fondo/mass participation riding happen. Let's just think of them as an extension/preparation for the Olympics and Professional Road teams. What next? Is there any other body or organization ideally placed to pick this up and run (ride) with it? This is where my frustration with the hugely rich US bike manufacturers begins - where are they in helping this along?

Any pointers from UK/Australian people as how this grew? Was it commercial interests? Was it clubs (again, most clubs in the US seem more interested in putting on boring crits for masters than Gran Fondos)? Something else?

 

[stainlessguy1]

Bike shops.....

So, it looks like USAC are NOT the people to do anything to help this Gran Fondo/mass participation riding happen. Let's just think of them as an extension/preparation for the Olympics and Professional Road teams. What next? Is there any other body or organization ideally placed to pick this up and run (ride) with it? This is where my frustration with the hugely rich US bike manufacturers begins - where are they in helping this along?

Any pointers from UK/Australian people as how this grew? Was it commercial interests? Was it clubs (again, most clubs in the US seem more interested in putting on boring crits for masters than Gran Fondos)? Something else?

The main fuel at the grass roots level is Bike shops .
They have the vested interest in gathering anyone they can that is interested in riding a bike . The biggest money maker for them is and always will be the cycle tourist or Sportif rider .
Not the racer , the tourist is what bike shops prefer . Today we add all sorts of newbie's to this group that don't identify with tourist but I lump them all together to keep it simple . Don't look for a national association to deal with it , its not a race . Keep it grass roots and it will look after itself.
That is as old as the sport itself .

Cities that endorse this go for the spin off tourism so you will get other advertisers jumping on board as well .

 

[DirtyWorks]

So, it looks like USAC are NOT the people to do anything to help this Gran Fondo/mass participation riding happen. Let's just think of them as an extension/preparation for Professional Road teams. What next? Is there any other body or organization ideally placed to pick this up and run (ride) with it? This is where my frustration with the hugely rich US bike manufacturers begins - where are they in helping this along?

I fixed that for you a bit, and they are ONLY interested in road and setting up the next armstrong brand . They try to transition the best mtb'ers over with mixed results.

There are maybe two u.s. Bike brands with free cash to pay living wages. The rest are resellers barely making it. Merida owns specialized, so that is a different deal.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Any pointers from UK/Australian people as how this grew? Was it commercial interests? Was it clubs (again, most clubs in the US seem more interested in putting on boring crits for masters than Gran Fondos)? Something else?

I don't think there is a successful strategy in Australia to share. Most of it has just been natural demographics - baby boomer masters riders joining local clubs.

Most mass participation events here (spotives/fondos) are privately run ventures that don't involve CA / state cycling federations and don't require CA licence.

The federations are trying to get in on the action of late and have become involved with some sportive events, but they promote and run them as "race like" with commissaires and placings and so on, and as a result they end up as mass crashfests, which I advise all my clients to avoid unless they are prepared to ride with a slow mate and have a nice day smelling the flowers.

Crits are popular because the logistics and costs are far easier to manage.

 

[avanti]

...............................Hopefully someone has the $$ to develop something similar here in the US. ................

"Ride the Rockies' is a popular 5 day event with riders chosen by lottery - 2000 riders picked from 4000 applicants. Entry fee $500. Some top riders (past and present) ride some legs.
http://ridetherockies.com/

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

People say budget doesn't matter, but I think it does. A lot. But it can only come through political will. From British Cycling:

http://issuu.com/britishcycling/docs/choosecycling_digital_sp/20?e=9887104/6668644

 

[TrackCynic]

Seems like in the UK there was a "perfect storm" of a number of things happening that has meant an explosion in cycling participation (and, therefore, racing too):

1. Identification that cycling was a "short-cut" to getting some Olympic medals. Therefore funding from the lottery via British Cycling.
2. Winning the Olympics 2012 bid.
3. Having cycling heroes in the public domain other than just pro cyclists: Chris Hoy v. Lance Armstrong.
4. A cycling federation with a plan (for the medium and long term).
5. A government that has realized there is good PR to be gained by backing cycling participation.
6. Tour de France Gran Departs in the UK.

Although people like to try to paint the US as something totally different to the UK - if you ignore the mid-west, there are a lot of similarities between the UK 15 years ago and US now: cycling was a minority sport with a lot of competition for TV coverage and sponsorship money (soccer, rugby, cricket, golf, angling, athletics, tennis), the car was king and people didn't commute much on bikes.

I wonder whether the US is primed for a similar explosion in interest. Winning an Olympic bid would certainly help!

As a side, how is US swimming so successful? How do they manage their funding/grass-roots programs?

 

[DirtyWorks]

People say budget doesn't matter, but I think it does. A lot. But it can only come through political will. From British Cycling:

http://issuu.com/britishcycling/docs/choosecycling_digital_sp/20?e=9887104/6668644

Look at USACDF's tax reports. Their balance sheet has only gotten better and not one dime has gone to mass participation. It's not their mission.

 

[DirtyWorks]

As a side, how is US swimming so successful? How do they manage their funding/grass-roots programs?

Easy access for swimmers of all ages with pools in wealthy schools and public pools. How many years ago did the international swim federation do the right thing and ban suits that enhanced flow? The federation understood that elite would go faster at the considerable expense of a wide base of participants.
You don't see cycling doing that.

If the UCI wanted a broad base, (they don't) they'd have entry-level equipment classes. And they'd be busting full AND have a bigger fan base. Instead, the UCI is going the other way with fewer races and an even poorer domestic racing economy. But! The UCI coffers are in great shape, and grassroots racing won't make them rich in their narrow view of the cycling world.

 

[oldcrank]

Here is the thing , as a family you don't get away with just buying one bike . You really need to buy one for each member , and that adds up ,
Please all of you do the math , a family of 4 ,,, the bikes , the clothing the helmets the shoes etc.

Here is how one family dealt with that situation:
http://www.bicycles.net.au/2014/02/thinking-outside-cell-hack-track-fixie-bike/

 

[oldcrank]

I came across some interesting stats today. British Cycling has 75,000 members out of a UK population of 63 million - USA Cycling has around 70,000 members from a US population of 314 million.

That's about 500% better in the UK than the US.

I know the UK has seen a huge surge in cycling popularity over the past 10 years based on Olympic and road success but BC also seem to do a hell of a lot to promote riding in general and are getting a lot of kids on bikes, into clubs and competing in large numbers.

Conversely, it seems to be that USAC are completely failing at growing the sport in the USA and seem to be only interested in elite cycling and promoting masters. The large cycling brands (Trek, Specialized, Giro, etc) also seem to do very little to encourage adoption of the sport.

What do you think it would take to change this and get road cycling to the levels it should rightly be in the US? How do we get more kids into cycling?

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cy...-all-children-to-have-access-to-Bikeability-0

 

[DirtyWorks]

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/cy...-all-children-to-have-access-to-Bikeability-0

This is good and what a competitive cycling federation should actually be doing because it works for many different national interests, not just their own. Did BC's funding is from the Government that it came with some conditions? I **really** don't know.

This is definitley not USACDF, nor is it the UCI's emphasis. USACDF gets some funds from the USOC, but the rest is donations that Thom controls. Here's an example of Thom's work: http://www.usacycling.org/usa-cycling-announces-100k-challenge-athlete-incentive-program.htm
This is not the clinic, but winning and not testing positive was all that was required in London as was the case with U.S. Postal.

Per oldcrank's post, ~$200 single-speed + helmet would be a *HUGE* group of racers in many American locales, $200 gets a good enough single-speed to ride to exhaustion. There's your grassroots community to build fans and riders. But Thom and Co have completely different goals.

 

[oldcrank]

Some cycle-friendly initiatives, including the above referenced
Bikeability as well as http://www.cyclescheme.co.uk (which encourages
commuting by bike) are funded by the Department for Transport.

However, many grass-roots racing programs are funded by the
UK Sport lottery grants, my friend.