Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

Rapha unveils its Roadmap for the future of professional cycling

Reform of a confusing and cluttered calendar and introducing an easy-to-follow calendar are among proposals

Rapha has unveiled the first two parts of its Roadmap for the future of professional cycling. It makes for some interesting, if lengthy, reading.

Two years in the making, the full report runs to some 40,000 words, the London-based brand says that “The Rapha Roadmap was commissioned to help the business understand the state of the professional sport, and inform our involvement in the future.

“We believe there is an incredible opportunity for growth in the sport, and this research is our attempt to chart a radically new path for Rapha within a radically reformed sport,” it adds.

The research is wide-ranging, covering all aspects of the sport such as its economic model, media involvement, the role of race organisers and the UCI, professional teams and the racing calendar.

It acknowledges from the outset that cycling is a baffling sport to the outsider, with a cluttered and confusing calendar, lacking an easy-to-follow narrative that, with teams and their top riders having different priorities throughout the year, makes it near-impossible to say with complete confidence which is the best.

Think back to when you first started following the sport. In those early days, as you got to grips with the array of teams and riders and the different types of races, it’s likely that you wondered at some point why, if Paris-Roubaix is one of the biggest one-day races on the calendar, the stars who battle it out in the Tour de France tend to avoid it.

After examining how other sports have brought cohesion to their calendars and packaged their competitions into a media-friendly format readily understood by new and old fans alike, the Roadmap goes on to propose a sweeping change to the men’s and women’s WorldTour calendars.

Men’s events would be split into two divisions, with 15 teams competing in each and promotion and relegation happening at the end of each season.

Division One would comprise a 14-race One Day Series as well as a Grand Tour Series.

The former would include all five Monuments, running from late January until early May. Curiously, given that Rapha calls for mass participation events to be held alongside those, the Prudential RideLondon-Surrey Classic – currently part of a weekend-long summer festival that includes the world’s biggest sportive – would move to March.

The latter, made up of just six events, would include two-week editions of the Giro d’Italia and Vuelta, and culminate with a three-week Tour de France held in August to bring the season to its climax.

Rapha, pointing out that the last major reform of the men’s calendar was in 1995 when the Vuelta was moved from the springtime to its current August/September slot and the road world championships were put back a month, insists that “the racing programme has become too long, crowded and unfocused.”

As a result, it says, “the modern cycling calendar, which does not build toward a season finale, risks losing the interest of dedicated fans, alienating new audiences, and makes it difficult to maintain and promote an annual sporting ‘narrative’.”

Most cycling fans we think would agree with the report’s finding that the men’s calendar has become too bloated and can be difficult to follow, even for the most committed.

But at the same time, given the competing interests involved – the teams and race organisers and their various sponsors, the media (broadcasters in particular) and of course the UCI – finding a solution that suits all is an impossible, not to mention thankless, task.

In the decade or so since road.cc was launched, there has hardly been a time where there has not been some form of discussion going on about how to reform the sport, whether that be in terms of the calendar, a so-called breakaway league trying to ensure teams gain a share of broadcast income, or how to raise the profile of women’s cycling and achieve greater parity between the genders in terms of both racing and income.

It’s as a contribution to that debate that the Rapha Roadmap is likely to be viewed, even if there is little chance in reality of seeing the implementation of all of its recommendations, which we list below. Let us know your thoughts on the report, and other issues you think need addressing in professional cycling, in the comments below.

Rapha Roadmap recommendations

Professional cycling must fundamentally reform and shorten its calendar to create a season-long series of linked races that reward individual triumphs throughout the year

It must find new ways to judge riders’ success, revolutionising traditional models of racing and winning to promote combative and aggressive racing across the season in new locations and formats

It must promote team structures that elevate rider stories, rewarding riders as much for their roles as ambassadors as athletes and moving beyond performance as the sole motivation

It must become the most transparent, media-friendly sport in the world, creating content that champions the human stories of the sport at every conceivable opportunity and building communities out of fans

The production and distribution of entertainment must be integrated into the heart of the sport, giving fans more access, creating more content and evaluating success by engagement

Teams, events and stakeholders must pursue solid links with wider participation in cycling, integrating with clubs, infrastructure lobbyists and broader fitness initiatives and taking on leadership roles on safety and environmentalism

Coverage of the sport must be enhanced with the adoption of cutting-edge direct-to-audience broadcast models and episodic, free-to-view content creation on a variety of platforms

Women’s racing must be promoted as aggressively as men’s, with greater emphasis on building and promoting characters and commitments to parity to capitalise on a huge untapped opportunity

Events and teams must urgently pursue diverse revenue streams, monetising opportunities around gate fees, marketing opportunities, merchandise, public rides, tiered-access content, fan access and more

The sport must better monitor and develop its sponsorship proposition locally and globally, and the main costs associated with the sport - team budget, event organisation, television broadcast - must be reduced through shared resources and modernisation

The UCI’s role must be reconsidered in relation to the friction with events organisers as leaders in reform of the sport

Long-term plans for youth development, including a radical approach to talent programmes that promote careers in the sport beyond riding must be developed.

Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.

Add new comment

20 comments

Avatar
peted76 | 4 years ago
0 likes

The idea of numbers and or names on jerseys is only a footnote in this report, it's mentioned as a 'smallest easiest change' in order for fans to engage a tiny bit more.

Quote:

Several simple cues from other sports could help fans feel more connected at the actual race viewing venue, combining with reforms in each of the above areas to create a far more compelling live sport package. The riders' names should be printed on their jerseys with a greater emphasis on visibility, for example, and a permanently-assigned season-long race number would provide even novice fans with cues to spot any racer in the pack – and make it easier to track the action as it happens. The UCI still retains several archaic regulations regarding how sponsors are to be named, where logos can be placed on a jersey, and so on. In most cases, given the size of the primary sponsor logo on the jersey, and with all of the secondary or tertiary sponsorship insignias, there is little room left to put the rider’s name on the jersey. Team Sky has experimented with small rider names on the jersey because its primary sponsor largely overwhelms its supporting sponsor names, thus making it easier to free space for the rider name. This balance should be redressed to prioritise ease of viewing. These reforms are so small as to barely be worth mentioning, and yet they are the basics of modern sport presentation that professional cycling still resists.

 

@RaphaNadal, yes, no, sort of.  The whole report attempts to address the money/sponsorship broken model. It's not that race organisers are making loads of money, the opposite, races are shutting down more than starting up due to lack of making money. The issue of broadcasting and rights to that is mentioned a lot and is core to the whole aspect of change, but not in sharing the rights with team..  it's only a select few races which tv will pay for, it's mentioned that a lot of race organisers give away rights,  context about the season length and TV watching fatigue (which I identify with), figures on how races 'post TdF' get less interest in TV views and IRL roadside views. 

 

Avatar
Rapha Nadal | 4 years ago
0 likes

Is there any mention in there of sharing TV revenue with teams?  The dead model of only race owners/organisers making money needs the biggest overhaul really. 

Avatar
crazy-legs | 4 years ago
0 likes

No, I *did* read your post - there are elements of it I agree with.

The "unique number" thing: I was using the UCI Code as an example of how they'd moved away from something that could be confused to something unique - as per the Rapha idea of each rider having a unique number for the season.

Formula 1 has the same - every driver has a number (picked by them) that stays with them for life no matter what team they move to. Easier there though as there's only 20 drivers.

Names on jerseys are also difficult for riders from countries that don't use a Roman alphabet - Russians, Chinese, Arabic etc. Yes, there are English-spelling equivalents of their names obviously but it's an extra layer of complexity that doesn't need to be there.

Related; there really must be an easier and better way of fixing numbers to jerseys though - here you are we've made an incredible jersey of lightweight, aero and wicking material, custom sized for you, tested in wind tunnels. And here you go, here's two bits of laminated paper and a dozen safety pins to attach them with...

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
1 like

So when/IF a women takes a married name, change the name on the jersey, it's hardly rocket science is it!

You've clearly not read what I said because your number is not what is written on a racing jersey number. As I said, embed the numbers/code into the tracker which is required for all pro races anyways, but there is no need for an actual racing number on the bike or on the person.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
0 likes

But your surname is already pretty unique in this context, you don't have to worry about issuing numbers for a season, the name is for a lifetime. How often is there going to be a rider with the same surname, not that often even in a 200 strong race, if so you simply add the initial and it's right there for all to see especially on rainjackets which was a problem in the past when riders didn't have numbers pinned to them, simply add your name to all your kit and bosh, job done.

if you like you can electronically add a rider number within the data transponder but I don't see any genuine reason to have a number tag on the bikes or the jerseys when you have the far easier idientifier of your name.  In fact it could be a good marketing thing for Rapha or whichever manufacturer to have the names of the riders on the jerseys so that just like in rugby/soccer and other sports fans can have the team jersey with the name of their favourite rider on it.

I'll take a £1 for each jersey rapha sell with a name on the back thanks ...

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

But your surname is already pretty unique in this context, you don't have to worry about issuing numbers for a season, the name is for a lifetime. How often is there going to be a rider with the same surname, not that often even in a 200 strong race...

Not in Women's racing it isn't.
Armitstead -> Deignan
Trott -> Kenny
Rowsell -> Rowsell-Shand
Davies -> Davies-Jones

Also, the UCI Code for a rider used to be their Nationality (3-digit code) and DoB in the format YYYYMMDD tied to the surname. That was a massive pain when you had twins like Simon and Adam Yates.

So GBR 19980207 YATES could be either Simon or Adam. Also, riders can change nationality so your code would change (say from GBR to BEL)

UCI Code is now a distinct 10-digit number unique to each rider so name changes (female riders getting married), identical DoB and/or name (twins or just genuine random chance) or even gender changes in the case of a transgender athlete are irrelevant, the UCI Code stays with you throughout your life.

 

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
1 like

Why even give the pro riders numbers? In rugby we have had the names of the players on the back of jerseys for decades, it would stand out far more than a number and immediately indentify who it was. Afterall even with same surnames there can't be too many in the same team so you'd easily be able to see who it was, would get shot of the old number tag especially since they have electronic data tags on the bikes anyways.

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Why even give the pro riders numbers? In rugby we have had the names of the players on the back of jerseys for decades, it would stand out far more than a number and immediately identify who it was. Afterall even with same surnames there can't be too many in the same team so you'd easily be able to see who it was, would get shot of the old number tag especially since they have electronic data tags on the bikes anyways.

Numbers are kind of useful, especially if each rider had a unique number for the course of the year. That way you could know that Peter Sagan was always going to be #12 (for example). Magazines / websites would be able to do a list at the start of the year with every rider and their number for the year.

Although the argument against that is that races always give last year's winner #1 and the rest of his/her team are #2, 3, 4 etc and then the rest of the teams in alphabetical order. You don't necessarily have to do sequential numbers either so TdF for example can go #1 (Geraint Thomas), the rest of Team Ineos (Sky) get #2 up to #7 and then the next team are #11 (team leader) up to #17 and so on. So you miss out some numbers but each team leader ends in a 1 and it's easy to see last year's winner.

Pros and cons!

Avatar
Awavey replied to BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
0 likes

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Why even give the pro riders numbers? In rugby we have had the names of the players on the back of jerseys for decades, it would stand out far more than a number and immediately indentify who it was. Afterall even with same surnames there can't be too many in the same team so you'd easily be able to see who it was, would get shot of the old number tag especially since they have electronic data tags on the bikes anyways.

 

and clearly everyone has been noticing Sky have been doing that for ages...so that works really obviously... and would you insist names were printed on gilets,rain capes and wet weather gear as well ? and what size typeface so they could be read from a helicopter flying at several hundred feet or visible from the roadside in a bunch riding by at 20mph. and presumably youd have to have A.Yates and S.Yates too, and does  Geoghegan Hart have to have a special extra large jersey so his name fits...

sorry remind me what problem these ideas actually fix again ?

 

Avatar
peted76 | 4 years ago
0 likes

Four parts to this report are now out.

Whilst I don't agree with all of the suggestions, the idea of focussing the races and changing the calendar to lead up to the TdF is the standout point for me. 

Also the 'simple' things about changing the rules on jersey sponsorship and giving each rider a number for the year are long overdue. 

I really like the divisional aspect of the idea, two divisions of 15 teams will see a lot of competition at the lower ranks as the season closes and gives the development pro-continental teams something to aim for. 

I get overdosed watching cycling on TV, usually directly or during the TdF... it is a long season, great for us, but I'd prefer a more rational season overall.  It's is stupid that the Tour of California is on at the same time as the Giro, that Terreno Adriatico and Paris-Nice clash..  they deserve their own space, I'd love to see coverage of the Chinese Tour at the end of the year, but not with a reduced roster of stars there for the appearance fees and sponsor pressures over actual honest racing. 

Also logistics wise, without clashes it'll make it so much cheaper for team to run, imagine not needing to field two teams of kit, staff, riders and vehicles at the same time.  With two divisions and smaller teams, it'd also make the transfer market far more exciting. 

I know it's being wrapped up as a big marketing stunt, but at least they've had a crack at a comprehensive idea to help our sport move into the 21st century, not fester and struggle like it is doing. 

I also liked the idea of the Hammer series, but it's stifled and will fail because there simply isn't enough space in the calendar for teams/riders to accommodate it.

 

I hope others will build on these ideas and we'll see some changes take place.

Avatar
Organon | 4 years ago
2 likes

I did Ride London in the tail end of a tropical storm, Bertha I think it was, in 2014. they cut the route short, but most people had great fun. There was lots of maniacal grinning because it was just silly. The conditions were bad, but it was warm. If this was in March we could have A+E's full of hypothemia cases and broken bones. It ain't moving.

I don't see what is wong with the calendar. Random tours in weird places, Spring Classics, Grand tours, World Champs. Makes sense to me.

Avatar
BehindTheBikesheds | 4 years ago
2 likes

interesting how rapha use the word "must", or else what? Shirley that's a 'should' rather than a must, basically implying that if their ideas aren't taken up that cycling, well pro cycling, will come crashing down, which would patentently be bollocks.

Avatar
alotronic | 4 years ago
1 like

Ohhh, interesting this...

I am happy with a confusing and ridiculous calendar and I like that there is no real way to compare riders. The echos of the birth of the sport in the long pointless TdF stages, silly formats like madson and devil and kieren, all good to me.

BUT and it is a big but, I have been wacthing the sport for 40 years and put the time in as an obcessed teen to make sense of it all. Is is fascinating or off putting to a newbie? Don't know. Would a revolution in format make it more accessible? Not sure. What are these revolutions in format anyway that are not just better story-telling about existing formats? No idea. However it is worth noting that the formats we currently have (classics, TdF, six day etc) were all innovative and ground-breaking in their day. I suspect the UCI is not the, errr, most innovative outfit and a shake up there wouldn't hurt anyone. Look at what red bull did with the fixie for a while there - true return to the batty glory days of cycling madness in the late 1800s - search 'fix'n'fox' to see what I mean. And of course their mental MTB events.

Sponsorship and involvement from brands that are bit more 'relateable' than click together flooring and fracking exponents would go a long way. Apple. Intel. Google. Netflix... well at least the onboard stats would work  1 

As for the media and brand bit, well cycling has always been a media darling. TdF origins obvs. It's hard not to read the above and see 'make a shit ton more money' as an underlying motivation, but perhaps I am being cynical. I think there is room for more 'real' story telling in cycling rather than just stage managed b/s. Look at the (still stage managed admitedly) Amazon Prime docs on rugby teams etc - there is plenty of headroom in that market still, and room for real characters in sport. You might not like Bernard Hinault much but he is a hell of a character... Ditto Wiggins. Whereas Indurian was a bit like paint drying... and Froome. Of course you can't legislate for character in sport!

And ban sunglasses - brands need faces....

So... attract better brands and the innovation will follow.... or innovate to attract the better brands... do both. And with the better brands will inevitably come an increase in emphasis on diversity and inclusivity in cycling which is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay overdue. No world sport is quite as euro as cycling - I can only think of horse sport and sailing as being more euro and exclusive. Big challenge there in the relative expense of bikes for genuinely poor populations, perhaps there is room in there for one-design bikes, lease schemes and the like. We seem to be able to make a bikes cheap enough to qualify as litter (looking at you bike hire schemes) so it can't be that difficult to create a one-design racing bike. Giant could bash out TCRs for next to nothing surely?

It's easy to dismiss Rapha but they have done a very good job of middle class cycling in the UK - the club format seems to work well for people who want to belong but don't want to race and don't want to go on CTC ride with a thermos. They do good partnerships with rouleur and the like, have club nights with movies, decent coffee. None of that troubles me at all but I can see why people like it, they have taken the effort to make a bridge between the word of the newbie, the fan and the pro. And of course made a shit ton of money off it too. If I was in my 30s I would probably be an ardent Raphaeste. So rather than pissing on their parade I think this is probably worth a read - they have at least demonstrated how it is done by using contemporary brand thinking.

Sorry, that got a bit random...  and another thing...

 

 

 

Avatar
janusz0 | 4 years ago
2 likes

We already have a bagful of simplified sports. Rapha presumably wants to become the Nike/Adidas of the Cycling "world". I say to hell with them. Cycling is doing very nicely for those of us who don't mind exercising grey cells as well as muscle cells, whether as competitors or followers.

Avatar
alexuk | 4 years ago
1 like

If it ain't broke...

Avatar
ktache | 4 years ago
2 likes

I think there is a reason why RideLondon is the worlds largest mass participation cycling event, it's because it takes place in the summer.  Now I know there has been some bad weather, but March, it can get very cold, snow even, very, very wet and named storms.  I ride all year, I can't not, but the numbers riding in the summer increases exponentially.

Avatar
FlyingPenguin | 4 years ago
0 likes

Well, aside from moving mass participation events into parts of the year they probably shouldn't be held, it's not actually a bad idea.

Never going to happen though. Accessible, easy to understand and still just as competitive cycling calendar? Never! Because tradition...

Avatar
kil0ran | 4 years ago
0 likes

RideLondon in March! Compulsory mudguards?

I think the existing calendar headline events work well - bunch of Classics in April, then Giro, then TdF, then Vuelta, then Worlds. Each GT with a week-long stage race the week before. 

Too many other events undoubtedly but you need regional events like TDU & California for it to be a worldwide sport.

Avatar
crazy-legs replied to kil0ran | 4 years ago
0 likes

kil0ran wrote:

I think the existing calendar headline events work well - bunch of Classics in April, then Giro, then TdF, then Vuelta, then Worlds. Each GT with a week-long stage race the week before. 

Too many other events undoubtedly but you need regional events like TDU & California for it to be a worldwide sport.

It kind of does but there's not really a narrative, a story to tell.
Media love a story and a timeline, it allows them to build on previous broadcasts, schedule everything well in advance and market it accordingly but cycling has 12 different interlocking storylines all going at once with races here there and everywhere. Tour of California (which is a brilliant race!) clashes with Giro and the timings mean it's screened in the UK in the middle of the night so it gets bugger all coverage here.

Tour of Britain clashes with Vuelta. And then you've got each countries own domestic racing season, National Championships etc all competing for screen time too (although they're sort of Division 2 as far as the media are concerned).

Eurosport and ITV4 between them have done some great work in getting more cycle racing on air but it's still a confusing mess of broadcast times and it really doesn't engage people in the same way that (say) F1 or football manages to do. And the formulaic traditionalistic way that racing plays out - break disappears up the road for 4hrs, gets brought back, sprint finish.

That's like giving the ball to the other side for them to kick around between themselves for 85 minutes before having the actual football match in the last 5 minutes...

Avatar
tom_w | 4 years ago
3 likes

I thought the complete impenetrability of it all was at least half the point?  4

Latest Comments