Rapha unveils its Roadmap for the future of professional cycling

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. 

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. 

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...

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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  

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...

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.

If it ain't broke...

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.

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...

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.

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