CyclingOptometrist on page 1 wrote:Mmm, seems this has divided opinion between the old guard and the free thinkers.
Wow! No agenda or bias there then - just an open mind freely thinking?
CyclingOptometrist on page 1 wrote:Mmm, seems this has divided opinion between the old guard and the free thinkers.
This has answered the OP question beautifully.beardy wrote:But it is a Charity, it is supposed to support cycling not cash in on it.
Or support cyclists, not profit from them.
CyclingOptometrist wrote:How sad and myopic.
beardy wrote:You are seeing what you expected to see rather than what is there.
Our group likes to see new members. One of the things that those new members have in common with the old members is that they are not, and do not seek to be, racing or sports cyclists.
mjr wrote:and even allows ill/disabled =no ride.
mjr wrote:I'm surprised British Cycling back them as they do. BC claims to be worried about the excluded minorities, but then force sportive events to be no helmet=no ride, recumbent =no ride, e bike=no ride and even allows ill/disabled =no ride. This is the dirty little secret of sportive events that ought to be exposed, denounced and challenged..
mjr wrote:It looks like Audax promotion is a big opportunity for CTC or whatever it's becoming, but the rumoured renames suggest that mimicking BC is more likely than innovation.
CyclingOptometrist wrote:Profit is not a dirty word. Charities raise money to further their respective causes.
The CTC is not attracting younger riders in my area. The format clearly does not appeal to them.
The fact is, there are hundreds of young riders out there riding Sportives.
It seems to me that you have your head in the sand. The CTC and its members need to adopt and adapt.
geocycle wrote:There are sportives and sportives. I'd quite like CTC to do something at cost price between spit and sawdust audax and glam sportive to attract those who might have done a charity ride but are put off by racing wannabees. For example an open event as a feature of the York weekend, or something on the back of the Tour de Yorkshire. Personally, I'd not be interested but there are many that would and the publicity would be good.
Vorpal wrote:mjr wrote:and even allows ill/disabled =no ride.
Other that the usual 'consult your GP, if...' sort of warnings, where does this come form?
BrianFox wrote:I'm sure you've got sound grounds for this claim, but I'm very surprised. I've done a sportive on a Tandem, no questions asked, nothing but encouragement, so I don't see why the other categories would be an issue. Perhaps the rules are mostly ignored.
I'm not a fan of helmets generally, but for a ride with perhaps thousands of rather inexperienced riders and a few fast descents with some people trying for a time, I can see some logic there.
Yes, organised rides have massively increased in popularity. Surely CTC and Audax, between them probably the biggest backers of organised rides in the country, have something to gain...
Vorpal wrote:But they already do these things. Have a look at the links I added above. Or go to http://www.ctc.org.uk/uk-cycling-events and find something else that suits. There are a lot of rides there, suiting a wide variety of abilities.