It’s not unknown to any cycling fan by this point that the once world-beating squad of Ineos Grenadiers has been some way off the top in the last few years, failing to win a Grand Tour since Egan Bernal took the pink jersey at the Giro d’Italia in 2021.
With one of the team’s stars Tom Pidcock leaving on not-so-amicable terms to join Q36.5 Pro Cycling last month, it only looks like things will get more difficult before they get better for the British team — and the team’s new personnel, with Scott Drawer in his second year as the Performance Director, along with Zak Dempster and Kurt Arvesen coming in as directeur sportifs to replace the outgoing Steve Cummings, are not afraid to accept that.
> "Dysfunctional clown show": Cycling fans react to Tom Pidcock's departure and accuse Ineos Grenadiers of "complete lack of ambition" and "monumental" decline
Speaking to Cyclingnews, Arvesen said: “We need to come back and win bike races, start to win stages. Every race counts. It might take one, two, three or four years before we’re back, winning a Grand Tour, but I'm convinced we’re going to be.
“There are only three Grand Tours, there’s only only three winners, so it’s very difficult.”
But there’s still concern about team owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s commitment to funding the team — the British billionaire of course has another arguably more lucrative ‘sinking ship’ project to focus on in Manchester United with Portuguese manager Ruben Amorim at the helm.
Despite Ineos Grenadiers’ CEO John Allert confirming the team will exist until the 2028 UCI WorldTour and praising the owners for being “very passionate about this sport”, he confirmed the team was in fact, seeking out a second title sponsor.
“It’s fair to say that Ineos don’t want to spend more money,” Allert said. “So it depends entirely on what happens with this commercial activity. They very clearly do want us to be a super team and they know what it takes to be a super team. I'm not going to put a number on that, but it’s a number that's greater than what we're currently spending.
“You don’t need to be that clued-up to realise there’s a reason why we’re trying to bring other people on that journey with us. There’s value to be created for other brands and we don’t necessarily feel we have to, need to, or want to, go it alone.
“I’ve heard some bonkers rumours in the last couple of weeks about people buying us or investing in us or whatever else.
“We certainly have a commercial strategy that is an evolution of our strategy. We’ve appointed an agency and we're looking at commercial partnership opportunities, like most other teams are.
“It’s a very crowded market. We haven't signed anybody. I'm not aware of us imminently signing anybody.”
> “Team Circus continues”: Tom Pidcock dropped by Ineos due to risk of bonus payout claims Brian Smith, who says there’s “no fun in numbers-driven cycling anymore” as “gagged” Steve Cummings confirms exit
Drawer also spoke about the rapid pace at which the sport is changing, from the rise of Tadej Pogačar and other young riders to the growth of the big-budget super teams, and even new performance science such as the ability to ingest more carbohydrates during races and so race longer and harder.
He said: “Some of the most critical things that have probably shaped why we’ve reshaped ourselves are based on the changes that have really happened in the sport.
“I think the trends in racing, particularly pre and post-COVID have changed the nature of the type of cyclists that are now in the peloton. So we've restructured ourselves and set ourselves up to get ahead of that slightly for this year and for the future.
“Our motivation in our approach to racing is going to be very different, and then there will be a bigger investment in talent.
“It’s probably one that we've got behind the curve on, but one that we're really accelerating to get ahead of the curveball.
“You’ve heard some news, and there'll be a lot more news coming out around our importance in that space.”
Add new comment
50 comments
shared paths are just an excuse to avoid putting in proper infrastructure - anyhow used to have a bell and got fed up of people jumping into my path so....
I now have a very loud rear hub on my commuter - sounds like angry wasps - people then turn around to see wtf is heading in their direction - works well
Yes - or at best they bake in a low limit to active travel by a) giving authorities an excuse to limiting space and put infra "where it can be done" not where people want to go b) ensuring that as more people use it there will be more conflict between modes c) ensuring there will be conflict anyway.
Having said that the shared-use former railway lines around North Edinburgh are a great resource for me - because of (mostly) rather low use.
Once you work out how much time you spend sat not moving on urban roads (e.g. junctions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings) you realise even slowing right down for a few walkers is not an impediment by comparison.
I usually avoid shared paths, except for easy leisure off road rides. Rather than use a bell, I shout "ding a ling a ling", when approaching pedestrians. It means I have both hands on the handlebars and can steer and brake more efficiently.
Ooh - that's a fancy bell noise
Weren't lepers (the "unclean" of society) required to carry bells in medieval times? Maybe that's why the progressively challenged are so keen on them for cyclists?
Shared paths are best avoided, although that's not always possible. Generally I'll ring my bell when approaching pedestrians. I haven't ever had anyone complain (I don't think a normal bell sounds in any way aggressive). Usually it works fine, but not always - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j-ZmKqIDgM
I prefer to tell pedestrians what I am about to do.
Also, how many road.cc readers are getting up a midnight to watch the TDU so do not mind knowing who won by lunchtime the following day?
I now say 'on your right' when passing, although didn't work so well with the ped who was walking in the middle of the road in a rural area - "use your bell" was the response !
I've had people complain that ringing a bell is rude and "excuse me" would be more polite. I've had people complain that instead of "excuse me" I should ring my bell. Whatever you do someone won't be happy.
I very rarely cycle on shared paths as I prefer the slightly more predictable behaviour of drivers over pedestrians.
And when I first started cycling my bike didn't have a bell so I didn't get into the habit of using one.
I then got an Air Zound for use against drivers, but again I rarely use it unless the driver has been exceptionally silly.
I hang a bluetooth speaker from my handlebars and with my phone in my pocket play music through it.
This is my recommendation.
Unless the music is vulgar, no one should be bothered by it for a few seconds as I pass.
You mean like The Rite of Spring, or something?
A million years ago, as a London courier, I had a bell that ran off the front wheel, it had a trigger on the bars and like a dynamo contacted the tyre. It was loud, but I realised so very aggresive. Now I use the little brass ones from Lezyne, just because the sound is so gentle, but the best is just a "Good morning/afternoon"
I would just like to point out the irony of the headline claiming cyclists are spoiling the serenity by... (wait for it)... being too quiet.
One of the most humanising aspects of being a cyclist is that, unlike motorists, we aren't sworn to silence and need to communicate everything through an ambiguous system of honks and flashes. So i just say "heya, excuse me", it's worked pretty well so far.
The classic "I want cyclists to do what I want because I am clearly right". As everyone else is saying, you can't please so many people. Bells annoy more people than they placate. A bell to most people is "get out of my way".
On shared pathways around me I reckon about 70% of pedestrians are in the bike lane. If you say anything as you are about to go past people you will usually get one of a few reactions. If you're lucky they just acknowledge you and stay the course. If you are unlucky they will act shocked and angry or my personal favourite, move into your way when they were fine before.
If they are blocking the path I obviously slow right down, communicate and pass when they have moved over. If they are clearly walking to the side, aren't showing any signs of meandering or changing direction and there is plenty of space I will just go past them saying nothing as its by far the safest way unless I want to overtake at 5mph and make the overtake take 3x as long.
Am I the only one to think that this is utterly insane?
No.
If pedestrians are that interested in whether cyclists are about to pass them, then they can be attentive to sounds and possibly even look.
It's certainly extreme. That said, if it's a narrow path and a group of cyclists is a bit strung out, then calls of "there's a couple more still coming" or "that's all of us" can be sensible.
I regularly lead group rides, and I ask that who ever is at the front tells pedestrians that there is a group of [insert rough number] us.
I'll normally ask that the second from last tells the pedestrian that there is one more, and that the last one says that they are the last one ... quantified with "of us".
I've found that in narrow areas - especially towpaths and trails - this has been reasonably well received.
For the sake of a few words, it reduces the risk of collision with the peds who may change course thinking that the group is through.
Every rider saying it ... yeah, that's insane. But not first [middle] and last.
What? Were there Reavers riding bicycles? I missed that
Chapeau, sir
You can't stop the signal.
Everyone needs to taake care on shared paths. They aren't suitable for fast riding. I'm a jogger and cyclist and also a dog owner (no I don't use a long lead). I see this from different perspectives. On shared paths that are busy with cyclists I keep my dog on a short lead. When cycling along them, I go slowly and keep my wits about me.
I don't have a bell on my bike but the brake blocks came off one of my BMXs and make a shrieking noise, no matter how you adjust them. Just a touch of the back brake is sufficient to let anyone know I'm there, and this also avoids the pro and against arguments for bicycle bells.
So there's the answer, squeaky brakes.
Shared paths are the shrug-your-shoulders copout of transport infrastructure. No use to pedestrians, no use to cyclists. But great for drivers who don't have their precious road space impinged upon.
But squeaky brakes, and a freehub that sounds like a million angry hornets, are part of the solution
Amen! Although some of the ones I'm fortunate enough to live near allow me to travel for several miles in a few directions and are almost always faster than the roads (just due to having to wait e.g. a minute at traffic lights - get stopped by a few and this really adds up).
I'm conscious that's simply because they're mostly under-used though. Plus they're "wide" as these things go in the UK - so much so, the council is actively planning to reclaim them for "tram" * so as not to "cause disruption". AKA inconvenience drivers and have to deal with utilities, compensation etc. as happened with the last round of "tram" (at least in part due to sheer incompetence) (* Actually their plan better fits "light rail transit" as they don't go along the "main streets" or in fact near anyone wants to go for much of the route).
I always ring my bell when passing pedestrians on shared paths, although if they're busy then I tend to avoid them in favour of the road.
Most people are fine with it, and I always give a friendly wave and a thanks if people need to move or grab their dogs to allow me to pass. Sometimes people ignore me and then jump when I pass them. Sometimes people ignore me and then scowl or make some comment when I pass, you get dickheads everywhere.
Once or twice I've had dog walkers shout at me for not slowing down, even though I have slowed down and passed very carefully. These tend to be the people who decide that the place they want to stop and have a chat is on one of the main cycle routes through Southampton common and that it's perfectly fine to have their dozen dogs running around off leads on a shared path.
The only time I've really been given proper abuse was from a blind man. I rang my bell from a good distance so I was sure he knew I was there and passed with a lot of space. But he didn't like it and was very angry.
There are only problems when people misunderstood what the bell means. It isn't a demand. It's an alert. I'm going to be passing you and I'd rather you didn't suddenly change direction and step in front of me.
Voice is far more useful and flexible than a bell.
If you want to be polite (e.g. shared paths), then you can use a "excuse me please", "morning", "afternoon" etc. If there's a ped in the "wrong" place, then a spoken "beep beep" might be appropriate (alternatives such as "ding ding" are good too).
If a ped is about to step right into your way, then a shouted "Oi!" is really effective.
Meanwhile bells seldom get the wanted result and often annoy the peds.
This is what happens:
or the classic:
To be fair, most peds (and horse riders) are fine if you say "hi" or "OK if I pass?" (usually preceded by a very British "sorry") & then pass & say thanks as you go. As others have said though, there's dickheads everywhere.
Pages