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

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.

It would also make for a crap magazine.

Accessible to me = grass roots

Grass roots of mountain biking is a cheap bike and a bridleway. enjoy it then save up and move up. Pretty accessible in my eyes, but it'll never compare to football/Running/etc

Pretty accessible in my eyes, but it'll never compare to football/Running/etc

the correct answer 🙂

I think when discussing these sorts of socio-economic debates it all starts with role models and aspirations. Peer pressure plays a part also in positive and negative ways. If their in place people will find a way to emulate their hero's/mates

>I can't think of a town or city with no half-decent off-road riding within a few miles of the outskirts. OK getting out of the city can be a problem, but I think riding 5-10 miles on tarmac to get to good trails is ok. <

Take your point but I don't see your example as being particularly accessible (or desirable) given the traffic levels choking the roads nowadays. More importantly the general attitudes of motorists towards cyclists. Having said that, Falkirk near where I live now has a fantastic network of cycle paths but that's an exception to the rule.

Mountain biking accessible - not really, as lets be honest only a small percentage on here have ever taken their pride & joy anywhere near an actual mountain 😆

Riding a bike on trails within woods, fields etc is pretty accessible but lets face it, it's not exactly seen as a 'cool' past time by kids or a lot of adults come to that. The majority of my collegues (other than those who ride) think I'm bonkers for riding a bike in my spare time, let alone chucking myself down some kind of rocky hillock in mid wales.

Football is easy for any bunch of kids to play, it can provide a high level of competitiveness (?) even if there's 3 or 4 of you, playing things like wallie, 3 and you're in 'em (nets that is) etc etc, and balls are bloody cheap. It can also be played anywhere from the scummiest slum in Brazil to the garden of Buckingham Palace.

It's also considerably more apsirational and appealing, just look a thte number of youngsters that have made it to the very top, earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a week and have come from the very bottom of the social ladder!

Whereas in cycling, to compete at an equally high level will cost umpteen thousands of pounds in equipment, let alone travel and training.

Ultimately it's a niche sport, populated by people with a healthy dose of disposable income or handy credit ratings. Much akin to Golf, Tennis & Horse Riding.

Even "Grass Roots" racing is relatively expensive, generally £10 to £15 per race, fuel costs etc.

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.

Can you please come an explain this to the asian kids next door, they're riding up and down, up and down from kicking out time at school to dusk! They're itritating my missus (I couldn't give a fig, but would like the peace).

More importantly the general attitudes of motorists towards cyclists.

OT but 'city centre escape cycle routes' - Sustrans do a good job there generally but how many people know of them or how well established they are is another q. Most seem concerned with transport within a city rather than getting the hell out of Dodge.

it's not exactly seen as a 'cool' past time by kids

David, guess betterer next time.. lopes and cully both came from racing national level bmx as kids, as did gracia, only he'd also been a national level ski racer from an even younger age.
Girls don't really count as to get a top 15 WC position you generally only really needed to turn up and complete the course in under half an hour..

All of the riders you mention came from families that heavily supported their chosen sport as kids (even Missy) hardly comparable to todays UK council estate kids on £50 BMXs

Mtb is a dull middle aged middle class man's pastime where paying for bike fitting, skills coaching and keeping up with the latest trends is what's most important.. Kids aren't interested in joining fat IT managers in dayglo poc gear mincing about on bridleways

MTBing as a sport will always be limited far more by transport/entry costs far more than equipment.

The cost of bikes can be reduced by buying 2nd hand but license + entries + fuel would easily come to > £700 a year

I think "how accessible...?" is probably too simplistic.
It's easy to answer - as it need cost very little to get started, but that only part of the picture.
It's possibly more to do with the route into MTB that people take.

eg. We recently had a new rider, armed with an aging BSO, come along on an easy Saturday club ride. During the ride various riders helped sort out her gears, her brakes (which were binding badly), a cup and cone hub (which was lose), etc. So yes it's very "accessible" to start with.

... but then other factors kick in...

The bikes that most of those nice, helpful, seeming knowledgable folk are riding are typically going to be around the £2k mark.
Despite her mechanical trials and tribulations, she had a whale of a time and was hooked (yay, success) so sought advice from those same folk as to a new bike purchase.
Good advice was given (go try lots etc) and not long after, a rather nice new F/S trail bike appeared.

So, my angle on this is, yes it's accessible, but soon after there is an effect based on experiences/norms, what other people have/advise/etc.
This is what might appear not-quite-so-accessible.

ac282 - Member

MTBing as a sport will always be limited far more by transport/entry costs far more than equipment.

The cost of bikes can be reduced by buying 2nd hand but license + entries + fuel would easily come to > £700 a year

Anyway I reckon one of the main reasons why "poorer" countries are not so much into it is because they haven't got as much access to mountain bikes in their countries, either at the top end or the bottom end and therefore there is also no second hand market for specialist bikes there. Bikes are not seen as a sport but as a cheap method of transportation and are sold on when they get their first moped.

I watched the commonwealth youth games here in 2011 and on the time trial some of the kids from the "richer" nations were riding custom fitted carbon frames, whereas one poor lad from the carribean looked like he was riding his granddads racer, it was far too big for him and only had about five gears and he really struggled to get up to speed partly because of the gearing but also because he couldn't reach the pedals properly and had to stand on the pedals and slide either side of the top tube to keep in contact with them on the bottom of the downstrokes.

So maybe all our old bikes should be recycled and donated to youth centres around the UK and the world to get them into biking? instead of ending up rusted and on the scrapheap.

you're assuming that those entering the sport want to race instead of just enjoying the ride - they can do either.

Surely if you're just enjoying the ride, "rambling on a bike," it's not a sport - isn't 'sport' sort of defined by the competitive element?

no*.

and it's sort of irrelevant to the debate.

(*to misquote Hemmingway: there are only 3 sports; mountaineering, cycling, and sailing, everything else is a game 🙂 )

Isn't the thread about mtbing as a sport.

MTBing as a hobby is a different thing altogether (I would say I do a bit of both) and pretty hard to define. Is riding down a canal tow path on a BSO from Argos MTBing?

This is what might appear not-quite-so-accessible.

Coincidentally I played 5 aside at lunchtime, my colleagues (and occasionally me) are supposed to play every week, bet they only manage about 20 times a year tho. It's only £3, during lunch hour so everyone should have the time, most are pretty avid footy fans/players so there's the will too but somehow it's often difficult to get enough players for a game - not [i]that[/i] accessible eh?

Re sport/hobby thing, I assumed we were talking about both, I'm fairly sure just for fun riders vastly outnumber racers, what's it like in football? There seem to be a few kids/adult footy leagues about dunno how the numbers compare to "fun" matches. Surely football is done just as a hobby by lots of people? but then I'm pretty relaxed when I play football, I'll chase down every ball but take very little notice of the scoreline, so admit I may not be the best authority on this.

Is riding down a canal tow path on a BSO from Argos MTBing?

*used to say "offroad on a 26" wheeled bike" as bigger wheels would suggest it was CX, bit more complicated now

I disagree that it's cheap to get into but immediately becomes a money sink once you're hooked, you can keep riding on (comparatively) meagre funds.

I wasn't suggesting that it immediately becomes...
Just observing that when buying that second/replacement bike, that's the point at which new-ish riders seem to be heavily influenced by what everyone else rides.

Interesting one for the accessibility of football: I saw a sign in Leeds the other day for a new five-a-side facility which included something along the lines of "corporate teams only" - have to say I was a bit surprised by that.

I think, with mountain biking, that the distinction about "sport" may be less clear cut than it used to be: "going for a bike ride" - accessible to many, if not most; doing "mountain biking as a sport", less so. But then along came Strava....

Take your point but I don't see your example as being particularly accessible (or desirable) given the traffic levels choking the roads nowadays. More importantly the general attitudes of motorists towards cyclists. Having said that, Falkirk near where I live now has a fantastic network of cycle paths but that's an exception to the rule.

Most towns and cities have [url=

View this post on Instagram

patches of woodland[/url] left between the houses. These [i]always[/i] have little bits of singletrack running through them.

Add in [url=

View this post on Instagram

[url= http://instagram.com/p/d_g1mot-8j/ ]wasteground[/url], [url= http://instagram.com/p/d2GfJgt-2X/ ]access roads[/url], rivers and canals and you get a pretty good network of 'trails' that kids will have been riding on for as long as there have been kids on bikes.

In September, I rode 500km in and around the medium-sized (pop 100000) town in the grim desolate north where I live. All the links above are photos I took in September and there're all inside the town boundary. All ridden on a bike with non suspension that cost me £600, but I've ridden them all on cheaper bikes.

I take your point ecky, but I'd say that was an eagerness to have either a. shiny or b. good quality (depending on your cynicism) gear rather than an accessibility issue.

But that's a good shout about peer influence, if everyone else is blinged up you feel the need too (noticed myself getting upgraditus last cpl of weeks) also if you're riding with better riders on better bikes down technical stuff, that'll increase breakages and push up costs.

All sports are relatively accessible at the grass roots end, you just have to know where to look.

Mountain biking is probably one of the simpler ones you'll find, buy a BSO ride it in the woods.

With football you have to find a team, learn some rules.

But even if you want to get into racing, you simply find a race on line and send off your entry, you have to be much more organised and sociable to play football at any level

David, guess betterer next time.. lopes and cully both came from racing national level bmx as kids, as did gracia, only he'd also been a national level ski racer from an even younger age.
Girls don't really count as to get a top 15 WC position you generally only really needed to turn up and complete the course in under half an hour..

So I was correct then?

cybicle - Member
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.

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.
I've been reading ST for years - they are a business set up to make money.
They may say that they reflect the changes in the market, but they are still part of the problem.
They have made a conscious decision to represent MTB as an aspirational pastime for the wealthy.
The price of the bikes that they test has risen massively over the past few years - they don't seem keen to push many cheaper alternatives.

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.

Mike

See my earlier remarks re fannying around housing estates 😉

Seriously though that's very similar to a lot of the riding I do but I just regard that as training. Have to say I meet very few kids (small or big) on my exploits...

Dahn sarf in this here Lahndahn, I've noticed that cycle commuters tend to be an increasingly diverse bunch. Owning a high end carbon road bike isn't necessarily an exclusively white MAMIL club anymore, which is very encouraging.

Even in deepest, leafy green Toryville I've seen non-white male MTBers, so it's a sign that things are changing for the better.

From speaking to many recent converts, cycling is now also seen as another way of flaunting disposable income.

This also is something worth remembering too. It's becoming more socially acceptable to be seen on a fortune's worth of carbon and cranks than it is to be seen sat at the lights in a BMW or Audi.

A pastime that was relatively affordable has, over the past five or six years become the target of cynical price hiking and opportunism.

And I absolutely agree with this. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with an industry that is growing ever more desperate to push the acceptable cost of a bike and components ever upwards.

A pastime that was relatively affordable has, over the past five or six years become the target of cynical price hiking and opportunism.
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

Couldn't agree more. I've just bought a new bike today (in a sale with 45% off). The last time I bought a new bike was just under 3 years ago. They are similar in terms of their targeted use, frame weight etc but the spec of my old bike which I bought at full price, cost almost the same price as the new bike with 45% off yet actually has a higher spec. That's just in 3 years, so when I started looking for a new bike I almost immediately felt utterly disenfranchised with the sport and it's pretty obvious that we are, by the industry as a whole, being taken for one big ride.

Mountain biking shouldn't be elitist in anyway but the industry is doing its bloody hardest to make it that way.

Rusty Spanner - Member

I don't agree.
A pastime that was relatively affordable has, over the past five or six years become the target of cynical price hiking and opportunism.

Don't think I agree with that... Yes there's opportunism, yes there's lots of ways to spend a ridiculous amount of money, but look at lower prices, the "first decent bike entry level. And no I don't mean £1000 hardtail!

I bought a bike in about 1990 that cost £360- rigid forks, cantis, all quality kit but basic as it comes. You could go cheaper but you wouldn't want to spend much less. Then in 2010, I bought another £360 bike- proper suspension forks, hydro brakes, slightly lower spec overall but ridiculously more capable. Same sort of price point but the difference in what you get is massive.

To a new rider I don't think it matters if you can spend £750 on a rim, or whatever. New drivers don't care if you can spend a million quid on a chromed ferrari

And I absolutely agree with this. I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with an industry that is growing ever more desperate to push the acceptable cost of a bike and components ever upwards.

>£5000 bikes are a tiny, minority part of it all that see a lot more focus as 'halo products' in marketing / media. Stuff magazine mentality. Av RRP of bikes in a large retailer is still closer to £400, maybe >75% is under a grand. TBH I think it's great that some people see bikes as something worth spending £5-8k or more on, and that's not anything I'm ever going to gain from, working on £300-1200 bikes.

That's just in 3 years, so when I started looking for a new bike I almost immediately felt utterly disenfranchised with the sport and it's pretty obvious that we are, by the industry as a whole, being taken for one big ride.

Mike

See my earlier remarks re fannying around housing estates

It's much more like woodland and farm tracks round here. Though they did find a murder victim just up from one of those a week or so ago 🙂

Seriously though that's very similar to a lot of the riding I do but I just regard that as training. Have to say I meet very few kids (small or big) on my exploits...

Last Saturday I rode the same bike to the local trail centre, which is only a 90 minute ride away.

There're loads of kids on the 4X and pump tracks.

Yes, Dave,
100% correct.
In the mid 70s the Lopes, Cullinan and McGrath families were to be regularly found in truckstops across America hitching lifts from state to state so their boys could race their £50 S/H bikes against kids from other poor families

What's even more of an achievement is how they always managed to get back in time to stand in line for their social security check each week.

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 [i]deliberately[/i] 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 [i]deliberate[/i] 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 [i]entire[/i] 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.

jameso - Member

See my earlier comment about chicken-egg element of consumerism. Human nature is to blame here, not 'the evil marketing depts / industry / media' etc. Why wouldn't any industry hope to grow by selling higher-end products if people want them? It's not the arms trade ) We don't NEED £300 carbon cranks. We have a choice.

James, the price of bike tyres (as an example, let's use Maxxis) has risen from £20 odd a couple of years ago to £40 odd today.
That's a 100% rise in a couple of years.
The price of my car tyres has remained the same.

Let's look at the price of forks shall we?
Again, pretty much a doubling in price in just a few years.

The 'downspeccing' and increased pricing of complete bikes, the ridiculous prices being asked for some generic Taiwanese bikes (Grapil anyone? - They'd have sold thousands of those things if they'd been priced correctly)and the opportunism displayed by some of the clothing companies is beyond belief.

The industry offers us a greater choice of hugely more expensive bikes, whilst introducing new standards that reduce the possibility of keeping older bikes on the trail.
The magazines generally refuse to review anything under £1500.

And your teling me it's OUR fault?

cybicle - Member
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.

Ultimately it's a niche sport, populated by people with a healthy dose of disposable income or handy credit ratings. Much akin to Golf, Tennis & Horse Riding.

I'd hardly call golf, tennis or equestrianism "niche" - if you look at the numbers who participate regularly, as against cycling, it's mind-boggling.

It's also been mentioned that golf is elitist - again I disagree. It is certainly [i]perceived[/i] 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. A full set of clubs from Sports Direct (albeit cheap as chips ones) is about £75; box of balls £5; packet of tees £2. Head to your local municipal course (many towns have them, especially in Scotland) and you're looking at about £6 for a round.

Golf is one of my other passions, and I am a member of a club, but there are people from every walk of life there - from "lad and dad" pairings up to the fanatics. Everyone is made welcome, no-one is treated with any deference (except the club officers) and everyone helps each other to get along. In fact, golf is often cited as about the only sport where the man in the street can compete (theoritically) with the pros.

If most people bought the cheap stuff, that's what the shops would mostly stock. No one is forcing people to read magazines and buy top-end stuff.

But vicky, the magazines only feature the expensive stuff!

And if the shops stocked the cheaper stuff, it would encourage more people to paricipate 😀

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.

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.

cybicle - Member
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

I don't think there's much else I can add.

If 99% of the bikes a magazine reviews are over £1500 it's pretty clear they are appealing to a certain demographic, isn't it?

And by not reviewing the cheaper bikes, the magazine becomes much less appealing to newcomers and those who want to read about and spend their money on cheaper bikes.

Coupled with the aforementioned comments regarding £2000 being regarded as the accepted amount that a person will spend on their first 'proper' mtb, you can see who the magazine is trying to appeal to.
Surely that comment is designed to exclude those without that amount to spend?

I have no idea of the intentions of the publishers, but that's how it seems to me.

Just common sense though, if someone's got a small amount of money to spend on their hobby they're less likely to spend it on a magazine. Inevitable that bike mags are targeted at the enthusiasts and certainly not indicative of the reality of the bike market, any more than forums are (since they're also for the daft enthusiasts)

After all, Halfords is I think still the UK's biggest bike shop, but everyone on here rides a steel singlespeed made by a man with a beard.

Northwind - Member

Just common sense though, if someone's got a small amount of money to spend on their hobby they're less likely to spend it on a magazine.

Care to provide any evidence?
In my experience, the first thing I do when getting into a new hobby or researching new kit is to go and buy all the relevant magazines.

The magazines used to review proportionately cheaper bikes.
They now focus on the relatively high end.
A conscious decision by the industry (of which the magazines are an intrinsic part) to appeal to those with a higher income?
I think so.

Also a big part of why you hardly see any younger people out on the trails?
S'all middle aged old farts round here.
Very little younger new blood at all.

Anyway, I'm off for a spin in the rain. 🙂

My son is 14 and has played football since he was 6 .Annual subs are £110 this includes the team strip .The club is quite big and has four senior mens teams ,a ladies team childrens mixed teams until under 11 and boys and girls for each age group to under 18.Various fundraisers help subsidise things

And your teling me it's OUR fault?

Forks or any other pricing example - look at inflation and ex rates plus the added costs of all those CTD Kashima RLC ETC bits and pieces and not much has changed. My Z1 BAMS in 98 would be £520 roughly in today's economy, simply on inflation never mind ex rates that have gone against us in most areas. So a £900 fork is laughable imo but considering tooling, volumes, processes as well as economical variable, no suprise. And people still want them. And the higher end you go, the faster standards etc change to keep things 'on top'. It's mostly BS imo.
(edit to add - Xfusion seem to be making progress, that's vfm overcoming brand-pull and says consumers can drive things both ways eventually)

The Grapil's an example that backs my point that it's not an 'industry plot' - if buyers don't see good vfm (materially or some brand feel-good, whatever) they don't buy and the product fails. So it's not 'your' fault as a buyer - quite the opposite. Blame the small % of wealthy buyers who create a market for £7000+ bikes for your perceptions, or ignore all that boll0cks and ride what you're happy on. The trails haven't changed in the decades I've been riding and my bike needn't have either.

If I wanted a good, new bike to start out on, I can get one for £350-400, the equivalent of my £160 80s Raleigh in today's money, or less.

A lot has been said here about football but what about other sports,compared with say clubman rallying mountain biking is quite reasonable.

I know someone who spends £1,000's on engine and gearbox re builds and hundreds on tyres for a single day.

Rusty Spanner - Member

Care to provide any evidence?
In my experience, the first thing I do when getting into a new hobby or researching new kit is to go and buy all the relevant magazines.

On day one, sure, but that sells one magazine, repeat readership is obviously far more important. Take Future, frinstance, 2 mountain bike mags to sell and fill with ads, they can't do that by selling every potential cyclist one or two mags, but they can do it by selling a subscription to half as many readers. So naturally they'll make their offerings attractive to the people who're likely to spend a tenner a month on magazines.

[url=

Of course cycling isn't accessible!!!

It has always been a working mans sport, have a read about Sean Kelly, the only difference now is some people seem to believe that you need to spend lots of money to be good. The reality is if you want to be good get fit, ride your bike and hope that you are in the right place at the right time.

As for needing to drive, look at the old photos of people riding out to the local tt with spare wheels. I seem to remember one of the current tt riders doesn't drive, rides to events and still wins.

As a kid i started by scavenging bits from skips and making things work.

One of the reasons the UCI weight limit exists is to reduce the advantage that money will buy you.

As for other sports, take a look at cart racing!

>As for needing to drive, look at the old photos of people riding out to the local tt with spare wheels. I seem to remember one of the current tt riders doesn't drive, rides to events and still wins.<

Wouldn't know - the OP posted about mountain biking.

As far as I'm concerned that's something that takes place in mountains. For sure I do most of my riding in the Central Scotland bad/flatlands but that's just training for days and weekends away in the big hills. And that sure is neither cheap nor accessible.

Motorsport is relatively off the scale - why even bring it into the discussion?

Mountain biking has gone off the scale in terms of the pricing... I sold my mountain bike earlier this year as I thought it was becoming to middle class and full of the mimby pimby brigade! I also totally fell out of love with it and had and still have no motivation to cycle at all.. Have hardly ridden a bike this year! First time I have been without a mountain bike for about 18 years..

Granted I mainly rode trail centres due to the group I used to ride with.. But I was at Glentress the last time I used the MTB, I was riding the pump track and came round a corner to find a family sat at the trail side with bike left on the path.. I cycles round them and never said a word.. I was followed down the track (unbeknown to me) by the parents and told I was a " stupid idiot for riding so fast off road, I was a danger to myself and others".. I promptly pointed out they shouldn't be stopped there and got told to "watch my back"....

Another visit I was riding down a rocky section minding my own business and passed a group all admiring the rocks, I was give a mouthful of abuse for not "ringing my bell, going to fast and not taking there safety into consideration"... I didn't even stop to argue! I couldn't be bothered anymore!

The price of bikes and components is shocking aswell, I purchased an Orange 5 pro in 2009 for £2500, I really like this bike and wish if never sold it, so I though I'd price one up again... £3500 for the same bike.. With worse components... Really? Have they started to roll the turd in glitter?? Because you definitely haven't changed that much!

I'm really struggling to justify buying another mountain bike with the prices and specs on offer.. However, if people pay the prices... The manufacturers will continue to charge essentially whatever they damn well please!

Don't even get me started on the clothing.. £60+ for baggy over shorts.... Really? Shorts used to be £30, tops were maybe £20-£30.. What the hell happened to the prices.. Cycling glasses... How much?
Ok people don't have to buy it.. But they do because they read it in a magazine!

It's a conspiracy I tell u... We are a marketing mans dream!

26"
29er
650b

What's next? 650b and 7/10ths?

And breathe!

Presumably you had to drive there? If so why put yourself through it?

You'll never encounter that kind of attitude on the open hills so why not go there?

Clear from the last 3 posts that mtb is very different to each individual.

Yeah had to drive there mate, like I said it was just the group I rode with.. They preferred trail centres, it's guaranteed to be half decent riding I suppose..

Even visiting larger areas like Ae, Kirroughtree, Mabie etc I noticed a difference overall..

Maybe just volume of people.. And I happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!

But yeah I know what ur saying, I used to ride the open hills years ago and had no qualms there.. Just a different bunch I rode with then.

However that isn't the industries fault.. More of a rant! The high horse is away now.. ; )

1981miked - Member

But I was at Glentress the last time I used the MTB, I was riding the pump track and came round a corner to find a family sat at the trail side with bike left on the path.. I cycles round them and never said a word.. I was followed down the track (unbeknown to me) by the parents and told I was a " stupid idiot for riding so fast off road, I was a danger to myself and others".. I promptly pointed out they shouldn't be stopped there and got told to "watch my back"....

That's interesting. There isn't a pumptrack at Glentress.

What an utter load of tripe 😀

Too many people with not enough motivation on here!

I also love the way everyone argues their own position with no thought of being objective.

To get into mtbing you only need a bike and an imagination!

I started on that bright orange £99 Apollo that everyone had. I rode everything and anything on that bike and it was only lust that lead me on to the heady heights of Carreras when I got myself a weekend job 😀

Hell, if someone was keen enough, I reckon you could find someone to give you a bike!

I did the full route Maxx Exposure ride last year on a £200 10-year old GT Agressor. Lo and behold, I didn't die and didn't finish last.

If you don't want to be brainwashed into believing you need an upgrade, spend less time reading and more time actually riding your bike!!!

The berm track thing at the car park.. Can't remember what it's called..

Rusty Spanner - I know the magazines only show pricey stuff but I was trying to say that you don't have to buy a magazine or anything advertised in it.

I used to ride the open hills years ago

crosshair, well said )

Yeah I know mate, been looking at El cheapo bike this week.. Was thinking of going old school.. V brakes and fully rigid, or a Trek Y22..

I think I'll get my brother to post up the Cotic Soul I sold him last year and see how I get on..sorry for the doom mongering guys!

Struggling a bit this week with work and other stuff!

>As for needing to drive, look at the old photos of people riding out to the local tt with spare wheels. I seem to remember one of the current tt riders doesn't drive, rides to events and still wins.<

Wouldn't know - the OP posted about mountain biking.

It makes FA difference, just a bit slower. If you want to ride you ride. If you want to spend your time posing in trail centre car parks that is your call i guess.

As far as I'm concerned that's something that takes place in mountains. For sure I do most of my riding in the Central Scotland bad/flatlands but that's just training for days and weekends away in the big hills. And that sure is neither cheap nor accessible.

And for the vast majority of the population there are no mountains in the UK to have to worry about, just riding in the local woods. But if you want to ride in real mountains, I remember a few years back seeing people in Verbier doing Cristalp who had ridden from the UK... Depends on what motivates you. Bling or riding.

Rusty Spanner - Member

Also a big part of why you hardly see any younger people out on the trails?
S'all middle aged old farts round here.
Very little younger new blood at all.

There are loads of younger riders down here in Swansea. Easily as many as the 40+ yr old fat guys. Lots of dirtjumpers coming across to MTB as well.

What's next? 650b and 7/10ths?

link please

crosshair - Member

I also love the way everyone argues their own position with no thought of being objective.

Very true.

[i]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. [/i]

+1

When I was working in India the Senior Manager I dealt with commented:

"what, can't you afford a car?"

When I mentioned I commuted on a motorcycle. I then Google'd my bike (Triumph 1050), and he was gob-smacked. As a 150cc is a big bike in India.

Rather than jump in on this topic last night I had a think about the whole topic and thought I'd post today, sorry for unearthing a now old thread. Forgive the long post also...

I think the thing is "Cost of entry" or "Expense" all depends on what what sort of cycling you are looking at to start with.

As a "leisure activity" purely cycling for the enjoyment of it, Non-competitive cycling? It can be as cheap or expensive as you want really. A couple of hundred quid or less and you can roll about on a BSO or a reasonable 2nd hand bike for several years without much bother that's probably sufficient for most of the population...
Reading some of the comics you'd be forgiven for thinking you [I]Have[/I] to spend £700+ on an "Entry" level bike to ride round your local woods or do a loop on the roads, and half as much again on "Accessories", we all know £300 - £350 (maybe less if you are canny) will buy you a functional Road bike or MTB that you can probably drag through a couple of winters and maybe have a pop at racing on without too much trouble...

Interested in Competition? well that's a broad topic isn't it.
I suppose it covers everything from Sportives to DH racing and all points inbetween, suffice to say again you can compete in most disciplines on a relative shoestring, but go to any race and your attention will probably be drawn by the exotica and brand new bling on display, and you'll maybe miss the fella still doing OK on a 10 year old 'Nag'... The cost is relative though, if you enjoy cycling enough to want to compete, you'll probably end up balancing what you can afford against what you "need" to take part...

Cycling as Transport? My current commuter cost ~£200 and pretty much paid for itself in petrol savings within about 3-4 months. Spend more, ride to work more, pretty much any bike can be justified for getting to work in the long run TBH. The Cost of cycling as transport compares rather favourably with the alternatives and that ignores the health benefits...

The comparisons drawn with football are interesting. Yes all you need to play football is a ball, some space and at least one other person (the more the merrier IME) but the costs of football can escalate a bit too the more you get into it, Boots, kit, club subs, etc, you can spend some money on it... but then you are probably getting more back out in terms of fitness, endorphins and being sociable than the simple financial outlay would indicate...

Then there's the cost of following a sport, again following football can cost a fortune, season tickets, traveling to away games, the apparently mandatory sky sports subscription, or spending hours and hours in the pub; I've got mates who are "into" football, which means they watch it a lot, talk about it a lot, but don't seem to play it much, despite this, the "Beautiful game" soaks up a reasonable chunk of their income and does rather little for their health.... Following cycling? well its pretty much free, you seldom have to pay to watch it, if you do it's comparatively cheap, most of the broadcast coverage is either on free to air channels or via the interwebz...

I'd say on balance, yes cycling equipment is comparatively expensive, but you can get a lot out of it for the money, and the cost of participation (club memberships, race entries, etc) is about on par with any other mainstream sporting activity.

Different sports/pastimes/hobbies appeal to different people for different reasons, the conspicuous display of wealth element exists within cycling (as in any sport or hobby probably), as does the "Look what I can do with next to no money" brigade, perhaps simply enjoying it and not worrying about the cost of everything is the key thing...

I think the big thing with off road riding is that to most people it seems a bit odd - why would you want to ride round in the woods in the rain and mud, getting cold and filthy? On top of this you have the marketing depatments and Red Bull / Monster trying to promote it as an extreme sport whoch makes people think that you'll get hurt (on top of being cold and muddy).

It's also pretty niche - not many people outside of those already into it will know who Steve Peat or Rachel Atherton are. I hate football with a passion, but I know who the bog teams are and can name players etc.

The prices have escalated massively - my first bike was an inherited Barracuda which I rode whilst saving up for my first proper bike; a '97 Spesh Rockhopper which was £400. That was a lot of paper rounds! Although the bike was rigid, I think it was still better value for money then some of the modern bikes. I think VFM peaked around 07 and has since gone downhill. A current £700 Rockhopper was rubbish forks and Acera bits yet a few years ago it has Avid brakes, proper Rock Shox forks etc.

I would say that I have a pretty nice main bike but I am pretty price conscious. The forks were second hand and I've had them for ages and all of the new bits were bought in the sales. I bought a posh (for me) frame this year because I was seconded to a client in London and getting paid extra so treated myself. Had I not been, I would have kept on riding my beaten up old SX Trail. RRP prices are insane - a chap from work wanted to get a reasonable bike through the C2W scheme for commuting on and couldn't get his head around how much bikes and components were. It was pretty hard to explain / justify!

As for other gear, this does seem to be going the same way. I mean £100 for some 5 10's. Really? I have a pair but waited until they were heavily discounted. Again, a lot of my gear is bought in the sales because I could never bring myself to buy a pair of shorts for £80 plus.

For someone who wants to get into MTBing as a hobby, the cost of kit must be pretty shocking especially when picking up mags like STW who have £1,500 starter bikes for advice.

On the other hand trail centres do make it more accessible because you know that you will be able to ride it as well as have an OK ride. Whether you approve or not, it must be more fun for someone giving it a go to visit Cannock, Glentress etc than get lost round the Peaks being shouted at by angry walkers / walking stuff that doesn't look rideable etc.

As for it being a white male dominated sport, as far as I can remember, it always has been and it doesn't appear to have changed much over the years. How you change it, I don't know but there are more ladies riding which is a good thing. It is currently pretty elitist from the outside and does have an image that you need to spend loads to participate.

In my experience, the accessibility of mountain biking is as much a function of your desire to do it as it is a function of your disposable income.

I started out on a Raleigh Maverick and it was a great bike. Technology moved on, suspension came into play, disc brakes became the norm, lights improved massively to the extent that I think that today it's cheaper to get riding than it ever has been. What my first mountain bike did was open up a whole world of possibilities that I've embraced ever since.

There is no compulson to spend thousands of pounds although the option to do so is there more than ever. That's a choice for folk to make and if they have the means, why not? It won't necessarily mean that they are having more fun though than anyone else. I have a wry smile when I see carbon full sussers costing £5k and upwards. I'm not sure where the tipping point is but there is definitely a point at which the incremental benefits decline, the more you pay. Of course, that point for me will no doubt differ from everyone else. I like kit that is reliable and is hopefully less likely to fail when out in the boonies or when being subjected to hard riding on technical trails and on all day adventures. The riding I do today could still be done on my old maverick. However, the advances in technology have meant that my bikes are now a bit lighter, more reliable, stop better and are more comfrtable than ever before which in their own way contribute to a better experience. However, if I was still riding the Maverick, I'd still have the same sh*t eating grin.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the bike and the gear are secondary, it's committing to riding in the first place that is key. 😀

Rustyspanner

Just reading some of your comments.

I'm laughing at the thought of the team at the mag holding a meeting to discuss aspirational reader demographics! 😀 Magazines test the bikes that they are given. If manufacturers and distributers want to profile their higher end products in order to generate wider brand awareness, that's nothing new and is pretty much standard in todays consumer society. Muddy Fox were doing it over 25 years ago with their £5,000 gold plated mountain bike!

Prices have gone up but then so has the cost of everything. Petrol prices, gas and electricity, housing etc. It's not something peculiar to bikes. What has changed since I started mountain biking in the late 80s is the technological development which has gone through the roof. Back then, you could still buy really expensive bikes e.g. Klein, Fat Chance, Mountain Goat and of course dead cheap bikes - Emmelle anyone? If memory serves, a Klein framest back in the day was over £2k. Eek!

Back then, suspension was a rarity and almost all mountain bikes available were fully rigid. Frame material and drivetrain were the main differentiators. Fast forward to now and the main mountain bike I am currently riding has disc brakes, full suspension, a dropper post and is a fair chunk lighter than my maverick. It costs £2,000 and is a considerably better bike. If I could jump back in time, my younger self would probably have a fit to see the improvements.

Ultimately, each person has to choose what their cost / benefit trade off is. As such, there will always be an element of exclusion. Even if it was free, I suspect many folk would still not get a bike as it doesn't fit in with their view of life. No one has to ride a bike. It's all about choice. 🙂

Magazines test the bikes that they are given.

Yes, but:

1) Only from the manufacturers / distributers who they invite to submit a bike for test. This will usually bear a more than passing resemblance to the ones who advertise in their mags. which is fair enough, but does generally mean you won't see stuff from other sources.

2) They'll get given the bikes that fit the test they've asked for bikes for. If the magazine put out the call for £1,500 hardtails, they're not going to get sent any £300 basic models are they?

And it is the magazines who call this, they are the ones who set a price point when they do the group tests, and they did all shoot up a lot round about the time the world's economies went wappy, and have continued to do so since. For example, in 2007, when I was looking for a cheap full suspension bike, What Mountain Bike's "Cheap Full Suspension" group test review was based on a £500 price point. The bike that won (Rockrider 6.3 from Decathlon) was actually only £300, although shortly afterwards they went up to £350. Anyway, their 2008 "Cheap Full Sus" price point was £1,000. Decathlon, at the time, were still selling the previous year's winner at £350, which calls into question the rationale for a doubling in price for what constitutes "cheap". I've not looked, but I wouldn't be surprised if a "cheap full sus" is now a couple of grand?

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?

Why must it seek to gain prominence? Why should we be introducing others to it?

Funnily enough, just sat here reading issue 85.

After making an effort recently to include a few cheaper bikes, the bikes tested in the latest issue come in at an average of £4497.00.

Yes, I know a few people on here spend that much on bikes.
The vast majority never have and never will.

I always assumed the tests of ultra high end vehicles in car/bike magazines were aimed at small boys furiously masturbating over pictures of Ferraris and Ducatis in their bedrooms.
Is this the bicycle equivalent?

I don't mind reading about the high end occaisionally, but FFS give us a break, will you?
Truffles and caviar for every meal would get a bit tedious after a while (I imagine 🙂 ). Can we have beans on toast a bit more often?

The rest of the mag is as good as it usually is, but the feeling that it isn't aimed at people like me anymore is getting hard to ignore.

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 [b]£3 billion[/b] 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 [b]an average price of £439 each[/b]. 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

I have pondered all the points in cybicle's post in the past, as I was looking for some low cost sporty fun. Having already had family participating in motorsport and horsy competition in the past, mountain biking is the most accessible. BUT only if you ignore the hype and big sell. You don't need expensive toys to have fun on your local trails and tracks. I have a cheap, it does the job bike for less than 500 quid., a pair of cheap thick ladies leggings for winter riding. Cheap supermarket T shirts, fleeces, hiking boots and a pair of high top trainers for dry days. You don't need shimano shoes and pay 100s for clothing which gets snagged on bramble and covered in dung 😉

It is so easy for newbies to mtb to come to a forum like this and get put off by all the huge prices being thrown about and in some ways 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. Plenty of old retro bikes are out there, being ridden so you don't need brand new and expensive.

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, but it is far far less expensive than any motorsport I know and can be cheaper than ferrying a car load of kids to football sessions every week, which can quickly bankrupt the unwary and ill advised in pursuit of that end of season glory. I have met some extremely wealthy people involved in motorsport who actually ran on a budget and won because they had talent and experience not expensive equipment. The same applies to mountain biking as sport.

I am mixed race ( part african american) although on the paler side and there is a massive void in ethnic participation across most wheeled sport. It is due to culture and culture fashions. All it takes is one person to be encouraged to join in or to win races and more will find the confidence to follow suit. It happened with cricket, tennis, football and formula one but it took years to shake down the poor image of sport being only for people with money and of a distinctively light skin tone. It only takes one person or a club to sponsor the kid with talent. As a child it was damn hard being a bit ethnically challenged and having little money to compete. I had a bit of talent with horses and the right contacts but just wasn't plummy enough to be totally accepted into some circles without some sort of confidence sapping knock. I don't see much of any ethnic challenge with mountain biking other than amongst men and women of other cultures who are forbidden from such pursuits.
I think we all need to be more accepting to all types of two wheeled people we meet on our much loved trails and spread the word that our woody pursuit is great for anyone to have a go at. The more people involved from all backgrounds, the better chance we all have of seeing more trails built and more new mtb clubs/groups/friendships initiated to help keep the variety alive.
Personally I don't think there are enough local MTB groups and local trails. I live close to the som/devon border and am amazed that my nearest suitable group and complete forest trail is Exeter. I am happy to ride regular around the Quantocks and the Blackdowns, but many new people will only get involved in the same way they use gym membership, for the club, social and encouragement in a safe happy group. Especially women. Go to any trail centre and you have accessibility for all and a big sport club style environment at a cost. Go to the local woods and we may get to practice our dark art of trail cheekiness in secret bliss but I don't think it encourages other people to have a go as we are often rarely noticed.
We need more people to get out and ride on a budget, I think that is the key to full accessibility for everyone. The expense comes later, but only for people being silly and elitist over prices and fashion. I don't want a Lambo or Bently, just an affordable bike like most people.

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 [i]"the bikes tested in the latest issue come in at an average of £4497.00"[/i] 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.

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.

And my experience of mags from the trade/test bike supply side of things is that there's probably no meetings to decide their socio-economic pitch. They may plan tests in advance, some do 6-12 months ahead, others seem to just test the most fun (often same as 'priciest') toys they can get their hands on in time for a deadline, ie like riders with a few more strings to pull. It all seems fairly loose to me. Some brands get a lot of bikes into tests - they have a lot of choice and a big demo fleet, usually a good ad budget too, it all goes together. Got a test coming up? Call the reliable suppliers of test bikes, ideally those that you can return dirty )

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.

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.

Mountain biking is a rural pursuit but there are plenty of people who find it hard to get access to decent trails who live in rural areas.
Personally I for one would like to see every county in the UK have accessible areas of forestry commission or private land with developed trails and free ride, DH and good skills areas for use for everyone and that includes the townies who need a refreshing break from brick walls and busy roads. From a rural perspective the powers that make the decisions only appear to have an interest in building city skate parks and allowing developed trail centres to flourish near city hubs, which means we all have to travel and use a lot of time and fuel to get to them.
You only have to look at a map of the Southwest to see why Haldon and Ashton Park gets busy and Bike Park wales is so popular. When trail centres get too busy you may as well spend the day in town as people start to get competitive over crowded spaces and other people slowing down their flow or strava times.

We need more trails in some areas, promotion of lower budget practical options, more free skills/taster training days (for all not just kids and their parents) and a better national working group of mountain bikers that represents everyone, from all backgrounds whatever their financial or personal status in life, without such a group the elitist high cost elements will likely turn people off mountain biking to the eventual demise of retailers that need to sell to future generations who will have less cash to spend than todays generation. I know there are organisations that represent us but they don't seem to be doing much to push our sport under the general publics noses.

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 😥

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 [u]our[/u] 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.

[quote=njee20]Why must it seek to gain prominence? Why should we be introducing others to it?

Nobody's really answered this yet - plenty of people suggesting why mountain biking might be perceived as inaccessible and ways to change that, but no real commentary on why that would be a good thing.

FWIW, I ride solo about 50% of my rides and in the company of one other friend for the other 50%. I couldn't care less whether other people ride mountain bikes or not - it doesn't affect my enjoyment of it. Sure, more people means more purpose-built facilities like BPW, Antur, Swinley and so on, but if they weren't there I wouldn't ride any less.

It's all very well saying we need to get more people cycling, but I don't see why that matters to anyone but the industry that makes money from it?

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

I'd disagree with that on the grounds that if you build a "facility for cycling" in terms of [b]leisure[/b] (ie a velodrome, a closed circuit, a trail centre) you actually encourage MORE driving - people will drive their bikes to the facility, ride round (or race) for a few hours or a day, drive home which sort of fosters the exclusivity aspect in that you really need a car - yes it's possible to go to some trail centres by train but it's a pain in the arse compared to driving there!

If by "facility for cyclists" you mean better infrastructure generally - segregated cycle paths, secure/safe off-road tracks (eg converted railway lines), signposted routes then yes, you can encourage people to ride instead of drive but that's for utility cycling rather than leisure cycling (mostly)

[quote=cybicle]I think it matters, because more people cycling = hopefully less people driving, better facilities for cyclists, a better environment and a healthier population.
Ah, but you're talking about cycling in general as a mode of transport, not mountain biking as a recreational activity. Very different situation there entirely.

Cycling in and of itself is very accessible, and everyone knows it - a basic bike is very cheap, and you can ride a bike as transport in any clothes you like, the Dutch certainly do. The benefits to society as a whole of greater cycle usage as a form of transport are well-proven; less time off work sick through better general health, more money put into funding cycling infrastructure, less cars on the roads, and so on - all of which benefit those who currently use a bike as transport.

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

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 [i]less[/i] participation is better for cycling/mountain biking?

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. If you have an area that has no official mountain bike trails, if there are only a few mountain bikers then they can pretty much go where they like; if you suddenly get hundreds turning up then the areas available to them will get restricted - that seems to be how it goes.

Improved transport provision? Can you clarify that please?

Yes, I believe I made the point about the Dutch, but that's cycling, not mountain biking. The thread is about mountain biking specifically, not cycling in general.

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

More people mountain biking would not benefit me personally, no, so I'm quite ambivalent. I don't care if anyone else rides a mountain bike or not. In fact, the recent swell in numbers simply seems to mean a greater number of thefts of high-end bikes as they are now more of a target, and 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). Why are either of those good things?