British Cycling sucks!!

morstar

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Bernal took 500,000 euros for winning the biggest annual sports event.The guy who won the fortnight tournament won 3,000000 dollars.

None of that changes the fact that it's still just a computer game. A bit like comparing a fortnight tournament winner to an actual special forces soldier...

Plenty of people want to belittle it even making false comparisons as here.

The fact is no one person or group owns the whole of cycling and gets to dictate what the whole of cycling should be.

Unfortunately, for the 40 odd years I've been involved in cycling you do come across characters who think only their cycling is the true cycling and woe betide anyone who comes with new ideas that don't fit their narrative. You don't have to like it or participate in it but it doesn't make it any less cycling.

Not sure I agree. It might be a 'thing' - nobody can argue with that. But the point I was making is that it's about as far removed from 'actual' cycling is as Fortnight is from an 'actual' military operation..

But again you've made a false comparison. As already said, you still have to actually ride in Zwift, you don't actually fight in Fortnite.

It is cycling regardless of what some may think. The question is why do such people feel the need to be so precious about their definition of cycling? Cycling is so diverse their's room for everyone, why operate with a closed mind when they should be encouraging people of all interests and abilities to get active.

To be clear, as I've mentioned previously I've no interest in using Zwift, I just hate to see such open prejudice, discimination, elitism and snobbery in cycling.

You could argue it's not cycling. The bike is reduced to an interface in a computer game. You could argue that cycling is the activity of moving from a to b on a two wheeled machine.
Personally, I think turbo training with modern training platforms is great but it's training rather than actual cycling imho. You don't cycle anywhere. But I'm not trying to be pedantic, just I do think there is a debate about what constitutes cycling.

imposter2.0

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But again you've made a false comparison. As already said, you still have to actually ride in Zwift, you don't actually fight in Fortnite.

'Virtual' cycling versus 'virtual' fighting - both are in a simulated environment. The differences between those and their 'real' counterparts should not need explaining. Puzzled why you are trying to debate this.

redvision

I'm an avid supporter of British cycling. However, what I find sad and concerning is, at a time when amateur road racing is declining they are choosing to support and invest (apparently quite heavily) in virtual cycling.

There is no doubt that the likes of zwift and online programs are popular and may help get people more active, but all surveys now show the main cause if this rise in indoor cycling is because cyclists feel road riding is too unsafe.

That's the area British Cycling should be investing their time and resources in, along with amateur/ grass roots OUTDOOR cycling, not supporting e-racing.

Just my opinion though.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

You could argue it's not cycling. The bike is reduced to an interface in a computer game. You could argue that cycling is the activity of moving from a to b on a two wheeled machine.
Personally, I think turbo training with modern training platforms is great but it's training rather than actual cycling imho. You don't cycle anywhere. But I'm not trying to be pedantic, just I do think there is a debate about what constitutes cycling.

Go back to page 1 and you will find that I agree with this view. It is false to claim that it is not controlled though. The UCI thinks cycling includes Zwift. Right or wrong.

morstar

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

You could argue it's not cycling. The bike is reduced to an interface in a computer game. You could argue that cycling is the activity of moving from a to b on a two wheeled machine.
Personally, I think turbo training with modern training platforms is great but it's training rather than actual cycling imho. You don't cycle anywhere. But I'm not trying to be pedantic, just I do think there is a debate about what constitutes cycling.

Go back to page 1 and you will find that I agree with this view. It is false to claim that it is not controlled though. The UCI thinks cycling includes Zwift. Right or wrong.

It's an interesting debate. I think governing bodies in some cases are being proactive about securing promotion of all aspects of their sport whilst the cycnic in me thinks they are power crazed control freaks.
I read an article a few months back about the motorcycling governing body and UCI squabbling for control of ebike racing. Although culturally the roots stem from cycling, I'd say from a racing perspective, the ability to race a powered machine efficiently is more closely related to motorbike riding. Not sure where that debate is currently at.
I seem to recall skateboarding comes under UCi control or something daft like that.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

I seem to recall skateboarding comes under UCi control or something daft like that.

World Skate. Formerly FIRS (Federation Internationale de Roller Sport).
Basically covers any skating activities off ice.

morstar

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

I seem to recall skateboarding comes under UCi control or something daft like that.

World Skate. Formerly FIRS (Federation Internationale de Roller Sport).
Basically covers any skating activities off ice.

I googled it after making the comment. It goes back to about 2011 when UCi was trying to bring skateboarding under its wing to drag it into the olympics. Clearly didn't work out due to it being a bonkers union.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

morstar wrote:

I seem to recall skateboarding comes under UCi control or something daft like that.

World Skate. Formerly FIRS (Federation Internationale de Roller Sport).
Basically covers any skating activities off ice.

I googled it after making the comment. It goes back to about 2011 when UCi was trying to bring skateboarding under its wing to drag it into the olympics. Clearly didn't work out due to it being a bonkers union.

Makes sense. My off the top of my head knowledge only went as far as the ESA.

PhilipPirrip

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But again you've made a false comparison. As already said, you still have to actually ride in Zwift, you don't actually fight in Fortnite.

'Virtual' cycling versus 'virtual' fighting - both are in a simulated environment. The differences between those and their 'real' counterparts should not need explaining. Puzzled why you are trying to debate this.

But previously you referred to it as 'actual' cycling, now you're referring to it as 'virtual' cycling. You've moved the goal posts.

It is actual cycling, Fortnite is not actual fighting but both could be called virtual.

Most dictionary definitions refer to cycling being the act of riding a bicycle, some add travelling by bike, so if the dictionary defintion says cycling is the act of riding a bike then Zwift meets that definition and is therefore cycling.

Disappointingly, I'm not puzzled why people choose to discriminate against forms of cycling just because thay don't fit with their view of what cycling is. Cycling is egalitarian and open to all in all its forms*, it doesn't mean you have to like or participate in it all but why waste energy being negative about the forms of cycling you don't agree with.


*except where a person has been DQd

sungod

it's not road cycling

zwift is like riding one of these, but with less excitement as there's no risk of crashing

imposter2.0

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But previously you referred to it as 'actual' cycling, now you're referring to it as 'virtual' cycling. You've moved the goal posts.

Wrong. I’ve never referred to swift as ‘actual’ cycling. Because it obviously isn’t..

PhilipPirrip

redvision wrote:

I'm an avid supporter of British cycling. However, what I find sad and concerning is, at a time when amateur road racing is declining they are choosing to support and invest (apparently quite heavily) in virtual cycling.

There is no doubt that the likes of zwift and online programs are popular and may help get people more active, but all surveys now show the main cause if this rise in indoor cycling is because cyclists feel road riding is too unsafe.

That's the area British Cycling should be investing their time and resources in, along with amateur/ grass roots OUTDOOR cycling, not supporting e-racing.

Just my opinion though.

For women not only do they consider roads generally unsafe but they can have to put up with verbal and sexual abuse. There is also the toxic culture within cycling for as we know BC has had a culture of sexism and amateur and pro female racing has serious problems of sexism and sexual abuse. Not an environment I'd want anyone to have to endure.

Having an arena where they can do part of their riding without the sexism and abuse they might get on the road has to be helpful and encouraging. And I did say part of their riding as no-one, including BC, is suggesting e-racing is a replacement for road/track racing. It simply adds to the variety of opporunity.

PhilipPirrip

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But previously you referred to it as 'actual' cycling, now you're referring to it as 'virtual' cycling. You've moved the goal posts.

Wrong. I’ve never referred to swift as ‘actual’ cycling. Because it obviously isn’t..

But it obviously is.

As per the dictionary definitions, it is the act of riding a bicycle. Pretty obvious when you see a picture because...they're riding a bicycle, therefore it is cycling.

N0bodyOfTheGoat

There are still definitely aspects of virtual racing that can and need to be improved (eg. rider weight "doping") but Zwift and alike are opening up the racing of bikes to a huge number of people that might not consider joining a non-virtual club.

They can use their nice bikes and ordinarily only risk sweat damage to them, while being able to race 24/7, usually without travelling time.

The UCI getting behind virtual racing is a no brainer for them.

imposter2.0

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But previously you referred to it as 'actual' cycling, now you're referring to it as 'virtual' cycling. You've moved the goal posts.

Wrong. I’ve never referred to swift as ‘actual’ cycling. Because it obviously isn’t..

But it obviously is.

As per the dictionary definitions, it is the act of riding a bicycle. Pretty obvious when you see a picture because...they're riding a bicycle, therefore it is cycling.

Lol. There is so much more to cycling than ‘turning the pedals in a cyclic pattern’. If that’s how you see it, then you’re beyond the help of this discussion.

Also, well done for completely glossing over the fact that you comprehensively misquoted me earlier.

morstar

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But previously you referred to it as 'actual' cycling, now you're referring to it as 'virtual' cycling. You've moved the goal posts.

Wrong. I’ve never referred to swift as ‘actual’ cycling. Because it obviously isn’t..

But it obviously is.

As per the dictionary definitions, it is the act of riding a bicycle. Pretty obvious when you see a picture because...they're riding a bicycle, therefore it is cycling.

Lol. There is so much more to cycling than ‘turning the pedals in a cyclic pattern’. If that’s how you see it, then you’re beyond the help of this discussion.

Also, well done for completely glossing over the fact that you comprehensively misquoted me earlier.

I agree with this.
Actual cycling consists of producing watts, aerodynamics and bike handling. Virtual cycling eliminates 2 of those elements (with the exception of virtual super bikes which seems absurd in a racing scenario).
I personally have ridden descents on virtual bikes at 50mph+ through 90 degree bends which to me suggests virtual cycling is not real cycling. It is a measure solely of pedalling efficiency which is a hugely important aspect of real cycling, but not the totality.
Take part in a triathlon and you'll see how hugely mismatched engines and handling abilities are a scary combination.

PhilipPirrip

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

Imposter wrote:

PhilipPirrip wrote:

But previously you referred to it as 'actual' cycling, now you're referring to it as 'virtual' cycling. You've moved the goal posts.

Wrong. I’ve never referred to swift as ‘actual’ cycling. Because it obviously isn’t..

But it obviously is.

As per the dictionary definitions, it is the act of riding a bicycle. Pretty obvious when you see a picture because...they're riding a bicycle, therefore it is cycling.

Lol. There is so much more to cycling than ‘turning the pedals in a cyclic pattern’. If that’s how you see it, then you’re beyond the help of this discussion.

Also, well done for completely glossing over the fact that you comprehensively misquoted me earlier.

The question was is it cycling and in the purest sense of the defintion it is. I'm not the one who needs help in understanding that.

That people have to add caveats to that defintion just shows a need of people to prejudice and discriminate to exclude that which doesn't fit their agenda or narrative, which is unfortunate of some people in cycling as it is in real life. It does make you wonder that with the examples of prejudice and discrimination shown in the microcosm of this forum, what levels of prejudice and discrimination do these people operate by in the real world?

And apologies for any misunderstanding.

PhilipPirrip

morstar wrote:

Actual cycling consists of producing watts, aerodynamics and bike handling. Virtual cycling eliminates 2 of those elements (with the exception of virtual super bikes which seems absurd in a racing scenario).
I personally have ridden descents on virtual bikes at 50mph+ through 90 degree bends which to me suggests virtual cycling is not real cycling. It is a measure solely of pedalling efficiency which is a hugely important aspect of real cycling, but not the totality.
Take part in a triathlon and you'll see how hugely mismatched engines and handling abilities are a scary combination.

So children riding to school isn't cycling as watts nor aerodynamics are relevant to them? Nor are most commuters or elderly people cycling to stave off dementia or anyone cycling for physical health and mental wellbeing. BMXers aren't concerned about watts or aerodynamics either. I could go on.

What you're talking about is a very niche group within cycling who use data when riding to hopefully improve, but it is a minority among the vast array of types of cycling and a minority among all the people who cycle. Why does this minority get to prejudice and discriminate as to what cycling is?

redvision

morstar wrote:

Actual cycling consists of producing watts, aerodynamics and bike handling.

Don't forget the most important aspect of cycling, it gets you outdoors in fresh air and gives you a sense of freedom.

Cycling indoors can never replicate this.

There are also studies which show that (any) training indoors is harder to stick with than training outside, possibly why so many sign up to gym classes but lose interest pretty quick, and prolonged periods indoors can also have a detrimental effect to mental health. In contrast, cycling outdoors is proven to improve mental health.

morstar

PhilipPirrip wrote:

morstar wrote:

Actual cycling consists of producing watts, aerodynamics and bike handling. Virtual cycling eliminates 2 of those elements (with the exception of virtual super bikes which seems absurd in a racing scenario).
I personally have ridden descents on virtual bikes at 50mph+ through 90 degree bends which to me suggests virtual cycling is not real cycling. It is a measure solely of pedalling efficiency which is a hugely important aspect of real cycling, but not the totality.
Take part in a triathlon and you'll see how hugely mismatched engines and handling abilities are a scary combination.

So children riding to school isn't cycling as watts nor aerodynamics are relevant to them? Nor are most commuters or elderly people cycling to stave off dementia or anyone cycling for physical health and mental wellbeing. BMXers aren't concerned about watts or aerodynamics either. I could go on.

What you're talking about is a very niche group within cycling who use data when riding to hopefully improve, but it is a minority among the vast array of types of cycling and a minority among all the people who cycle. Why does this minority get to prejudice and discriminate as to what cycling is?

Not at all, you're reading between the lines. I defined cycling earlier as moving between two points on a two wheeled machine so these examples of yours do fit my criteria.
All bike riders have to handle their bike. All bike riders have to overcome aerodynamic resistance and all bike riders have to spin the pedals using watts. Depending on what you are using the bike for, the elements have different priorities. As your examples are largely non-competitive, the measure of these attributes is irrelevant but they still apply. Ask your kid cycling to school on a windy day whether the ride was hard or easy. They would probably talk about having to pedal harder into the wind (watts and aerodynamics) and how they had a wobble when hit by a gust of wind ( bike handling).
Riding on a trainer requires you to spin pedals, full stop. It is a watts game and a watts game only.

svetty

FFS! Just wasted a few minutes of my - regretably finite - life reading this thread.

Does it really matter whether 'Virtual cycling' is synonymous with 'Cycling'?

Either way some group or other will seek to exert influence and control over it - it's just what people do!