[Closed] How 'accessible' is mountain biking compared to other sports?

cycling (as a sport) is elitist compared to a football and 2 jumpers

its still pretty niche really, which may be a good thing?
and its definately a middle class white mans game
also where are all the asian footballers ?

where are all the asian footballers ?

Playing cricket?

The same can be said of any sport that is relient on equipment for competitive advantage.

Cycling used to be a very working class activity, but it's recently become "the new golf" so it doesn't seem that way.

The shoes I wear for cycling were £20 in Sports Direct and I'm still wearing a jersey that I bought for a tenner from On-One years ago. Cycling's only expensive if you want it to be.

there seems to be little or no participation from places like Africa

who won the tdf this year?

The same can be said of any sport that is relient on equipment for competitive advantage.

Very true.

The growth of the MAMIL-influence in road cycling, and the stormtrooper long travel gnarpoonists in MTB haven't helped either, as it's seen more and more that to just go out and ride a bike, you have to have all the right gear. Just pootling along the lanes of a weekend? Well, you'll be needing some crabon fribe and Assos before you're even out of the shed.

depends but on the whole, not very accessible. it is a rip-off but us mug seem happy to pay the prices which doesn't help.

if you fall for the marketing then it is very inaccessible as you will need multiple bikes, tyres, kit; a car to get you to these man-made locations and a small budget for all the 'accessories'/labels.

if you don't fall for the hype you need a bike that you can ride and puts a smile on your face...no need for much else. the kit helps butIisn't necessary. That makes it a bit more accessible, riding anywhere and everywhere you can also helps...but overall, it isn't entirely accessible.

i was in Evans yesterday, saw a stonking GT for £350.

if it only lasts 2 years it's still much cheaper, and more fun than gym membership.

any 'accessibility issues' are an illusion.

Remember in the Good Old Days when £400 was seen as the minimum spend for an entry-level MTB that wouldn't fall apart the first time you took it off-road? A recent ST magazine had £1500 bikes as entry-level, which is 50% more than I've ever paid for a bike.

Kids ride bikes, most kids have bikes. If you look at cycling as a whole you will include things like BMX which is still popular with more kids.

But to let kids mountain bike you either have to take them - only works if you do it, pay somebody to do it or let them go out alone - with all the monsters etc. in the world which parent would do that.

Like many things unless it's something a kid can do at school or have some organised structure into it then it's going to be hard.

If it was part of school sports etc. then maybe it would be picked up more than football.

It's possibe to go mtbing for less than £100 (thanks to BSOs from the supermarkets, halfords, and even Ebay), so while that may be prohibitive for some, I'd wager not the majority. Perhaps it's the view of the kids parents (the ones actually buying) the cycling isn't a recreational thing, purely transport? In which case, they should be buying a car which, equally, [b]can[/b] be had for the same £100?

This may all be rubbish, just thinking out loud...

I don't even think of mountain biking as a sport (yes I know it is technically), more of a hobby for well off people, some of whom like to compete.

It's relatively expensive, and you can't do it unless you live with access to mountains, or have the ability to travel.

All the good downhillers/freeriders are/were kids wih rich parents who had the ability to suport them (probably) and access to places to ride. That video of that 10 year old smashing jumps and drops that was on here last week supports this. There'd be thousands of kids out there with that ability, only they don't have the means to do it.

I think road cycling and bmx are far more accessible, and hence you seem to see people from all sorts of backgrounds riding these disciplines.

Well, you'll be needing some crabon fribe and Assos before you're even out of the shed.

More expensive than a football yeah but to play football properly you need 21 mates (or 10 if your playing the cut price version) and some land. cycling you can do on your own or small groups, so a bit more accessible in that way.

cycling doesn't seem particularly popular amongst ethnic minority groups here in the UK

It's relative. I love football almost as much as I love mountain biking/cycling. However I spend way more on cyclign than on football.

A good mate of mine eats, sleeps and breathes football - he castigates me for spending thousands on a single bike, yet he will happily spend £200 on a pair of football boots. Mine cost £12 from Sports Direct and have lasted two seasons.

It's like anything else - if you want the best (and lets face it, who DOESN'T aspire to wanting the best of everything?) then you will quite happily find the means to fund it if you can. And if you can't you set your sights on it and work like blazes to get it.

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.

cycling doesn't seem particularly popular amongst ethnic minority groups here in the UK, you see white kids from poorer backgrounds out on bikes, but not so many Asian or black kids

well that's a bit racist

any 'accessibility issues' are an illusion.

But they're not. Compare cycle sport to athletics. Whilst cycling is undoubtedly more expensive, pursuing athletics as a sport is still relatively quite costly, yet there is far more representative participation in the clubs.

Cycling used to be a very working class activity, but it's recently become "the new golf" so it doesn't seem that way.

The growth of the MAMIL-influence in road cycling, and the stormtrooper long travel gnarpoonists in MTB haven't helped either, as it's seen more and more that to just go out and ride a bike, you have to have all the right gear. Just pootling along the lanes of a weekend? Well, you'll be needing some crabon fribe and Assos before you're even out of the shed.

Yes, marketing does seem to have a large part to play in this. And the marketing doesn't seem to be particularly aimed at women and young people either. A visit to a bike shop is interesting; the vast majority of customers are white men, and even in ethnically diverse areas, it's vary rare to see non-white staff working there. And often, the 'womens' section is almost an afterthought, a grudging admission that they'd better provide 'something for the ladies'. Yet go to a sports shop selling athletics gear, and the clothing sections are far more equally provided.

who won the tdf this year?

A white man from a wealthy family who's been afforded the best in equipment and training facilities.

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.

And often, the 'womens' section is almost an afterthought

More expensive than a football yeah but to play football properly you need 21 mates (or 10 if your playing the cut price version) and some land. cycling you can do on your own or small groups, so a bit more accessible in that way.

to achieve this, you need cultural acceptance of the 'sport' and then the infrastructure to promote it.

here:
to make cycling more accessible here - make fuel prices unaffordable.
free bikes for school kids - replace football/rugby with cycling.
safe bike routes for all, the bike is king, not the car.

third world nations use bikes as transport already but they dont have the sport infrastructure developed nations do. Not sure i have any more brain farts to think of ideas of how you build that side of it up.
/brain fart]

Football as a concept can be played by 1 person and a ball

<edited to try to make more sense>

As others have said largely depends where you live. When I was 17 (22 years ago...) I saved for a bit and bought a Marin Muirwoods for £200, then rode up the woods in clothing I already had and no helmet. Pretty accessible really. And I was having just as much fun then as I do now riding a Blur LTc on pretty much the same terrain 😉

i was in Evans yesterday, saw a stonking GT for £350.

if it only lasts 2 years it's still much cheaper, and more fun than gym membership.

any 'accessibility issues' are an illusion.

LOL... it's this
up until the last five years or so, I was 'poor'

£350 to spend on a toy..!!? Never in a month of sundays, not for all the tea in china
Having £20 to spare on new clothes was a very rare occurrence, perhaps a birthday or Christmas treat
Never mind having something that valuable in the house.. I would have been a shining beacon for thieves from miles around

Perhaps simply having to mix with the sort of people that find £350 a trifle is a part of it.. Gym memberships were for posh people

That said, me and my BIL have ridden most of the Dartmoor tech on upcycled £50 BSOs over the years 😀

But to let kids mountain bike you either have to take them - only works if you do it, pay somebody to do it or let them go out alone - with all the monsters etc. in the world which parent would do that.

I see unaccompanied kids on MTBs all the time.

A lot of people seem to think that MTBing is only something that can be done in trail centres. You can ride an MTB anywhere.

I don't even think of mountain biking as a sport, more of a hobby

This.

The realistic startup cost is pretty high, plus maintenance costs are frightening for the uninitiated. I remember planning on spending £450 for a Spesh Hardrock, helmet and gloves back in 2003, but by the time I left the shop I was £750 poorer, with a V-brake equipped Rockhopper, £70 worth of SPD shoes, gloves and a 1.5 litre Camelbak!

Within two months, I'd spent an additional £280 on hydraulic Hopes, a new headset and a replacement chainring and I had a bike I was pretty happy with...until I took it to Wales the following summer and upon my return I splurged £1600 on a Spesh Enduro.

It's not a beginner friendly sport, unless you have significant finances available for the initial outlay, then some tosser in a marketing department somewhere decides that your year old bike is obsolete and that you ought to splash out another £2.5k for something with the current headtube diameter/ISCG/wheel size etc.

Football is the most accessible sport for youngsters but probably the most competitive, good or bad, I'm not sure. I played in my youth up to county level and the abuse I and my teammates received from parents ( including my own!) is something I'm sure I wouldn't want for my own kids.

A few weeks back I was at Glentress and they had some youth cross county competition and the parents seemed to be cheering even if they weren't doing that well. Big smiles on faces all round. We never got cheered on in football when we were losing!

I would want my kids to take up cycling.

As for the expense, well if you ignore all the marketing hype then it's accessible for a few hundred pounds.

The realistic startup cost is pretty high

I started on a GT Outpost that I bought second hand for £140, wearing tracksuit bottoms, hiking boots, and a flannel shirt.

>i was in Evans yesterday, saw a stonking GT for £350.

if it only lasts 2 years it's still much cheaper, and more fun than gym membership.

any 'accessibility issues' are an illusion.<

Depends on what social cross section you're talking about surely?

I think your observations merely reinforce the OP's points. It's only accessible if you have £350 going buckshee to spend on a bike. And let's face it, this forum is not exactly populated by lower income groups. A quick glance down most of the posts confirms this.

It's not a beginner friendly sport, unless you have significant finances available for the initial outlay, then some tosser in a marketing department somewhere decides that your year old bike is obsolete and that you ought to splash out another £2.5k for something with the current headtube diameter/ISCG/wheel size etc.

Such an out dated and over-rated point, which is largely boll*cks.

You don't 'need' any of that to go mountain biking! You can buy a second hand bike off Ebay, a helmet for a tenner from Tesco & go & blat around the local woods.

It's the same for ANY business wanting to make money and be successful.

Within two months, I'd spent an additional £280 on hydraulic Hopes

Good point by joeelston, I know my FiL was banned from sidelines when his son was playing, I hear stories from colleagues about aggro at their kids matches, sounds pretty grim.

It's only accessible if you have £350 going buckshee to spend on a bike

Well yes, a bike is pretty much an essential component of mountain biking. I'm not sure how you could make it accessible to people that don't possess bikes.

Donk it was due to the fact, that several sets of parents believed their kids would turn professional. Invested so much time and money into that 'idea'

Football was not that cheap! I played for four teams. So four games a week adds up to a lot of fuel. Plus training, soccer schools, kit etc.

I guess it depends how far you want to take it. Same with biking.

theblackmount - Member

Depends on what social cross section you're talking about surely?

I think your observations merely reinforce the OP's points. It's only accessible if you have £350 going buckshee to spend on a bike. And let's face it, this forum is not exactly populated by lower income groups. A quick glance down most of the posts confirms this.

my point is this: if you can afford Gym membership - you can afford 'cycling'

if you can afford a sky subscription so you can watch teh footy - you can afford a bike.

if you can afford to go out drinking [s]2 nights a week[/s] every now and then - etc.

etc.

lots of people have disposable income which they choose to spend on hobbies - cycling is not particularly expensive by comparison, i'd even say it's cheaper than lots of 'normal' hobbies.

have you got an iphone so you keep up with twitter + facebook? - you can afford a bike.

there's an office 5-a-side thing every friday, it's £5 to play, that's over £200/year, not including the beer and curry afterwards. It all sounds like great fun (really!), but it's not 'cheap'.

Is 'accessibility' simply a money thing? - of course it isn't. Lots of hobbies need facilities, friends, specialist equipment, suitable weather. Try rock-climbing, on your own, in a field, in the rain, if you don't believe me.

Cycling's great, even on your own, in the rain, on a machine you can also use to get to work.

pypdjl - Member

I'm not sure how you could make it accessible to people that don't possess bikes.

£22 per day for bike hire at glentress, that's pretty accessible- less per hour than hiring a tennis court. You don't need a bike of your own to enjoy mountain biking (in fact at the bottom end, it's not neccesarily economic, you need to do about 20 rides without a single further expense- mechanical or consumables- to make it work better than hiring and most people won't do that in a year. Most bikes end up costing more than £20 a ride I reckon.

A Rockhopper on the cycle to work scheme is about the same as a sky subscription. A decent second hand hardtail the same as decent tv. I know which I would rather have.

£22 per day for bike hire at glentress, that's pretty accessible- less per hour than hiring a tennis court.

Ok good point, I think you'd be better off getting a cheap/2nd hand bike (especially as you could ride from home), but yes, either way not that expensive.

It's worrying that £350 can be considered a small amount of money on here! And how many poorer working class families have gym membership?!!

I'm hopeful that the increase in skate parks and BMX tracks we're seeing locally will give an affordable accessible option for less wealthy kids - £50 or less for a secondhand BMX which will cost almost nothing to maintain. And many great DHers started on BMX.

And how many poorer working class families have gym membership?!!

Swap "gym membership" for Sky subscription, massive tellybox and beer 'n tabs and it's a different story, though! 😉

If MTB is expensive, I wouldn't have got started on a basic Raleigh, a lid and T+tracky bottoms. £200-worth tops, bike was only 150. Didn't have any less fun than 20+ years later on a full-tech ~£3000 bike - if anything it'd lost something in all the gadget-hype. Sometimes it's hard to separate the consumerist side of MTB from the pure experience side of it, but it's worth trying.
(sounds a bit jumpers for goalposts but bikes plus the freedom to ride 20+ miles and away from our parents got a small group of us hooked and was the best thing they ever let us do)

chiefgrooveguru - Member

It's worrying that £350 can be considered a small amount of money on here! And how many poorer working class families have gym membership?!!

oh the poor working class, gawd bless 'em. (i'm skint, and i work, can i join?)

if you've got an Xbox, you can afford a bike.

my point is: there are lots of luxuries that people (even poor ones) spend their money on, more money than they'd need to 'access' cycling.

i don't have Gym membership, an iphone, an Xbox, an ipad, my own car, a big house, a big telly, a tattoo*, etc.

(*i'd like one, but i can't afford it, or rather, i choose to spend my money on other stuff, like really nice cheese)

£22 per day for bike hire at glentress, that's pretty accessible- less per hour than hiring a tennis court.

Thing is though, most would have to spend some time getting there, and then faffing about getting used to the bike etc.

I'd say mountain biking in this respect is more like one of those "organized fun" activities like Go Ape/Paintballing/Quad biking etc.

Something that's done once per year, if that.

I'm hopeful that the increase in skate parks and BMX tracks we're seeing locally will give an affordable accessible option for less wealthy kids - £50 or less for a secondhand BMX which will cost almost nothing to maintain.

Yes!

When I used to ride skateparks, there'd always be plenty of scruffy looking kids there with BMX's and Skateboards.

It's a good question, OP. I only managed to get back into cycling a few years back through painstaking trawling through eBay and other classifieds. I've taken up running more recently as a reaction to the recurrent expense of road and mountain biking, in terms of maintenance and kit. The MTB is especially expensive to maintain because of wear and tear. Road not so much, but the best equipment is very very pricey. All my riding kit comes from Aldi, Lidl and Decathlon, shops that make cycling affordable if not possible for people on extremely tight budgets like myself.

Makes me laugh the alternative slightly bohemian attitude of most cyclists, in complete ignorance of their 'privilege'. I'm not against that, but it's one of those very Western ironies. Actually, in terms of personality, there's more of that in the average cyclist than a whole pro football team.

Cycling is potentially very democratic but at the top end of its specialisms and even in its mid range it's more exclusive and expensive than most other sports.

most of us started with a secondhand bike, I started in my early teens with a second hand racer going through the trails amongst the trees, wearing jeans, trainers a t shirt and a big grin.

And to be honest that is all you need - any bike will do, that is how it started out, yes I had lots of punctures, but that still seems the case for some on here! 😀

Its not a rich mans sport, I could pick up a second hand bike today for £50 - might not be brilliant, but it'll get me on the trails.

Up until my 50th birthday my most expensive bike had cost £450 and I felt bad about spending that kind of money. For my 50th I got a clockwork s on sale for £950 - and I paid for that by selling my old bike for £250, my family and friends all chipped in £500 between them and the missus paid the other £200.

So yes, you can pay thousands for bikes, but you don't need too, especially with all the old bikes becoming available as new bikes are purchased.

And we know from on here that aldi provide good and cheap cycle clothing, but most of us use our walking / running gear for tops and shoes (well I do anyway 😳 )

So there are no financial bars for beginners / entry to the sport, its just that there is a drive from the bike manufacturers to get us to buy better equipment, which while it helps, isn't needed unless you are racing (perhaps not even then).

I guess it comes down to whether you are competitive in this "sport", do you want to race / beat everyone or just enjoy the rides and push yourself? Luckily mountain biking gives you that option, or as many options as you want.

miketually
A recent ST magazine had £1500 bikes as entry-level, which is 50% more than I've ever paid for a bike.

Do keep up.

Singletrack reckon £2000 is the amount people historically spend on 'their first serious mountain bike' according to the last couple of issues.

It would be funny if it wasn't so bloody pathetic.

The perception of bikes generally is probably a lot different in the developing world, where in the large part they are still a very common and often the sole form of transport.

We replaced horses with bikes, then came along came the car, so we don't rely on them like we used to, hence the perception has changed and having been marginalised they are now becoming more popular as a recreational activity - mostly by relatively affluent white middle class blokes who 'need' a hobby...........

You can get an entry level bike cheap, but we all like to look and feel the part (no pun intended), whatever our budget, and most people do worry about looking like a numpty on a shit bike at a trail centre, so spend more so they feel they fit in more etc, it's human nature, I guess we're nearly all guilty of it and are perpetuating this trend.

My mates do see mountain biking as something 'hardcore' 'rad' and 'gnarr' people do, spend lots of money on and have all the kit for, so are put off by the perception of expense........

Personally for me the whole aggressive marketing is the most depressive aspect of Mountain biking. It must put off people who haven't got the finances to afford luxury bikes. The magazines really don't help at all with promoting the sport for first timers. Why focus so much time on 2-5k bikes when most folk just do trail centres on a weekend for fun. I'm sure it's intimidating for someone to turn up at somewhere like glentress where it's soooooo middle class.

Ha ha.. Ever been in an indoor skate park recently chief? they're full kids on £500+ BMXs or £200 scooters driven there by mummy or daddy

Which great DHers started on a shit S/H bmx?

there is a drive from the bike manufacturers to get us to buy better equipment,

Ha ha.. Ever been in an indoor skate park recently chief? they're full kids on £500+ BMXs or £200 scooters driven there by mummy or daddy

We've got an outdoor pump track and a 4X track, built by the council. There are kids on those on every kind of cheap bike.

>I've taken up running more recently as a reaction to the recurrent expense of road and mountain biking, in terms of maintenance and kit. The MTB is especially expensive to maintain because of wear and tear.<

This really and the getting there...

If you're talking about getting hold of an old bike and fannying around a housing scheme on it then for sure that's not expensive but its not mountain biking as practiced by most on here (Trail Centres, trips to the hills etc)

To imply that everyone on a low income is sitting on a big fat Sky package smoking their way through 20 a day and that it's all a lifestyle choice is generalising just a little 😉

Which great DHers started on a shit S/H bmx?

Loads I imagine, although perhaps the downhillers of the 90's and early 00's.

Lopes, Gracia, Cullinan, Donovan, Giove etc. I'd guess at.

If you're talking about getting hold of an old bike and fannying around a housing scheme on it then for sure that's not expensive but its not mountain biking as practiced by most on here (Trail Centres, trips to the hills etc)

When I was riding my GT Outpost in tracksuit bottoms and hiking boots, we were riding proper trails in Swaledale. You can easily ride trail centres without suspension or disk brakes.

I had a conversation the other day, with a female friend I'd not spoken with in ages.
Her 13 year old grandson had a 26 wheel Apollo bough for his birthday a few months back which he rides when he can from home in a city.
She lives on the edge of Wyre forest and grandson visits most weekends and wanted to ride his bike more "offroad". With a little time on her hands and not having ridden bikes for many years, she decided maybe she could go out with him.
A quick look on ebay and checking sizes of bikes etc. Then doing a little basic web searching and looking at Bike Radar reviews, she found a Trek wsd for about £100. £50 on shorts, trousers and a jacket at Aldi. A helmet and baggy shorts from Halfords, some old "approach" shoes and baselayer used for snowboarding and she's away. Well under £250.
OK so, she's quite independent and can work stuff out for herself, there's nothing flash about any of this kit, but she's out riding and really enjoying it. As she said, she will probably look for a more up to date bike and will purchase "better" kit as she sees fit.

I don't think finances are the be-all and end-all for whether you can do mountain biking or not. Everyone seems to indicate it's too expensive for all but decent earners. I don't buy that at all. I'd suggest that the reason mountain biking has become the bastion of the middle classes is more due to the value people place on certain things. As someone said, if you have an iPhone or a full on sky subscription etc then you could afford to get yourself on a mountain bike.

I'm not well off by an stretch of the imagination but I place a very high value on being outdoors, riding a bike so I sacrifice the things that most folk have. I have a 20 quid pay as you go phone. I don't have sky, I don't even have a TV licence (don't watch TV before any has a go), we have a 9 year old car between us and our holidays are weekend trips in the UK to go riding or kayaking. Our house is made up of furniture we have bought second hand and refurbished and we live without anything other than absolute essentials but the money we have is spent on doing the stuff we want to do, which means we both have decent bikes, riding gear, kayaks and camping gear. We also don't live anywhere near decent trails or mountains so we have to travel.

I just think it's about the values you have. Horses for courses. But I struggle to see mountain biking isn't accessible to anyone that places a high value on it.

It all comes down to what you choose to spend your money on. I started mountain biking 5 years ago with a £190 hardtail from decathlon and cheap kit. Although a year later I bought a better bike and better kit, I would have continued using the cheaper stuff if I couldn't afford better. My car is only worth about £1000, I don't drink or smoke, we have a tiny TV. Annual subscription to my cycling club is a whole £10.

I strongly suspect that most footy-mad people are not satisfied with simply playing the game- what about the price of season tickets and sky subscription, and I see an awful lot of people wearing replica footy kit.

when i were a lad...

me first bike cost 50 quid and me mam made me ride in me undies so i didnt mucky me clothes up.

Why focus so much time on 2-5k bikes when most folk just do trail centres on a weekend for fun

I've always lived within reasonable riding distance from offroad trails not sure how people in big cities manage without spending extra money on petrol/travel.

*rrp, there's lots of classified buyers here aswell so they may not have paid that.

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?

The last two winners of the Tour de France were brought up in Kenya and Kilburn 🙂

>When I was riding the my GT Outpost in tracksuit and hiking boots, we were riding proper trails in Swaledale.<

Not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the population live in towns and cities and so by definition mtb is only easily accessible if you are near trails and or have the means to drive to them.

Not sure what your point is. The vast majority of the population live in towns and cities and so by definition mtb is only easily accessible if you are near trails and or have the means to drive to them.

My point was that 'proper' trails can be ridden on cheap bikes.

There are lots of trails near/in towns and cities; I live in a town and I don't drive to ride my bike.

Just off the top of my head, and ignoring bridleways: Bristol has Ashton Court, Manchester has Clayton Vale, Newcastle has Chopwell, Leeds is surrounded by countryside, Sheffield has the Peak district.

Every city has [i]somewhere[/i] that MTBs can be ridden.

I think football would work out more expensive in the long run. Football coaching camps, replica strip, every addition of FIFA on the Xbox, season tickets, venue hire @ over £70 per pitch, petrol costs, etc. it all adds up.

You can be top 10 competitive in a road or mtb race on a ~£700 bike in my experience. (I accept that need 2 bikes leads to a cost of £1400, but I'd doubt you'd move discipline till you got result in one.)

If ST Towers think that £1500-2000 is beginner level, then they are more ****ing deluded than I thought they were.

It's not about the cost. To put it bluntly, you don't see many non-white people walking in the countryside either, and you don't get cheaper than that.

I thought (road) cycling was regarded as a bit of a working class pastime anyway.

The cost of a season ticket to a football team can be above 1000UKP, that's an annual cost before you even consider travel etc...

miketually - Member

Every city has somewhere that MTBs can be ridden.

But it can't be a proper MTB ride without a purpose built café selling a range of hand ground coffee starting at only £3 per cup, surely?

(I completely agree with you about riding trails in or near cities, btw.)

if you've got an Xbox, you can afford a bike.

+1

My first 'serious' bike was £275 in the sales, full deore groupset, damped forks (not adjustable though), V-brakes. These days you could probably get similar with disks for £300-£350. Rode it from my door, cost about £60/year in drivetrain and brake pads, everything else I just greased/oiled untill it moved again. So it can be pretty cheep.

But compared to Sailing (which was my previous hobby). It's on a par. and Sailing is considdered hugely elitist.

£250 for a very good condition Mirror
£25 p/a club membership
£25 p/a 3rd party insurance
£30 bouyancy aid (assuming you already have some sort of waterproof coat or you only sail in summer).

The entire cycling media is hugely out of touch though IMO. Cycling Plus rarely seems to cover anything less than £1500, and most is arround £2k. Same in STW. I might buy a £1500 frame at some point, but it's not the kind of thing I need reviews of every week, unlike say more practical but boring stuff like alloy bars/posts, which may actualy spur some impulse buying. The market buying £150 On-One frames and £30 bars must be 10x (or probably more) the size of the market buying Rockets or carbon finishing kit.

Donk. The point I'm getting at is that 2k isn't that far out for what many could afford, compared to elite cars for example. I think realistically reviews on sub 500 bikes tested on say red routes would be excellent information for a someone looking to get into the sport without feeling they have to spend more.

cybicle - Member

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.

Yep, friend of mine was horrified when her son asked for a bike for his christmas- she'd worked her arse off so he wouldn't have to pedal places. I think she suspects I'm really poor 🙂

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.

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.

The cost of a season ticket to a football team can be above 1000UKP, that's an annual cost before you even consider travel etc...

I think that the issue we're discussing is not accessibility as a spectator but as a competitor/participant.

If you [b]play[/b] football, the absolute bare minimum you need to start off (say, boots, shin pads, training strip, tracksuit) can be bought brand new for well under £100.

It's worrying that £350 can be considered a small amount of money on here! And how many poorer working class families have gym membership?!!

Who needs a subscription? Most local councils (if not all) provide free access to sport and exercise equipment and classes.

If you ride a bike, the absolute bare minimum you need to start off (a bike) can be bought brand new for well under £100.

£22 per day for bike hire at glentress, that's pretty accessible- less per hour than hiring a tennis court.

I think that if your frame of reference for recreational opportunities for the poor is "hiring a tennis court" then you may be a little bit out of touch with what it means to be skint.

As for the comparisons between an "entry level" bike and gym memberships, sky subs etc. you're forgetting the cashflow difference, there's a heck of a difference when you're skint between spending £350 spread over 24 / 36 months on subs and spending £350 up front for a bike that will last 2-3 years. I.e. for the latter, you have to have the £350 in your hand.

This is why poor people have the big tellies etc, btw, because they can pay for them weekly.

Biking is pretty accessible: bikes can be had cheap, you don't need mates or to join a team, you can learn most skills without going far from home etc. But, if you want better equipment it soon becomes ridiculous.

We met a guy in France this year whose son was really good and had just landed a deal with Giant. Prior to riding downhill the lad had ridden MX and his dad reckoned that it had been much cheaper to keep him going at MX than DH. He didn't even ride a super expensive bike.

So, do non-white groups see cycling as too 'white' an activity to become involved in?

Our perceptions on cycling and ethnicity from UK cycling may not match other parts of the world. Yet in many parts of Asia (Africa also?) bikes are seen as a sign of poverty and as you say, car aspiration is widespread. That seems fairly well ingrained and comes to the UK with the people that have moved here.

The vast majority of the population live in towns and cities and so by definition mtb is only easily accessible if you are near trails and or have the means to drive to them.

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.

On the point of asian participants in cycling, I used to teach cycling in Harrow (36% white).

At the upper end of primary and the lower end of secondary school, most kids love messing around on bikes. Those that have parents who are into cycling and those that don't. With any skin colour. With any quality of bike.

I also taught adults who had never ridden a bike before how to ride. Around half of those were asian women who had never learned when they were children and now wanted to go riding with their kids.

So, it seems that things are changing.

Rather than comparing the ethnic diversity in cycling against football, it would be fairer to compare it with hillwalking. Hillwalking (in fine weather) doesn't require much expensive kit at all, but you used to only ever see white faces. It does seem to be changing, and cycling seems to be changing (just a bit more slowly).

Magazines are all dependant on the industry for a large proportion of their income, so of course they're going to help perpetuate the idea that you should spend thousands on the latest thing. If any mag came out and said, "buy a £100 clunker from gumtree, that'll get you where you want" it wouldn't do lots for their advertising sales I reckon.

Fair enough that they ignore the cheap stuff, but what boiled my wee a bit was a couple of years ago when a mag (MBR I think) pretended that they were looking at the cheap end of the market, but it was like one of those Top Gear "adventures" where they deliberately went out and bought, new and second hand, bikes which were completely unsuitable for mountain biking and/or actually unsafe, then smugly concluded that cheap bikes weren't suitable for "proper" mountain biking and you needed to go out and spend serious £££....

I think that the issue we're discussing is not accessibility as a spectator but as a competitor/participant.

Sure but my point is that people find plenty of money to splash on leisure activities when they want to.

I read that same article and it was in MBR. Of course those cheaper bikes are no good for the Alps or Fort Bill, but more than likely are suitable for certain trail centre routes and general riding. IMO bike magazines are more about the 'bike' rather than the sport of cycling.

edlong - Member

I think that if your frame of reference for recreational opportunities for the poor is "hiring a tennis court" then you may be a little bit out of touch with what it means to be skint.

Nah- just being realistic, it's a luxury so comparisons with other equivalent luxuries makes sense.