Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Rapha signs up to Cyclescheme – and there’s a competition to win £700 of kit to celebrate

Since 2013, people whose employers support the scheme have been able to take out accessories only packages

Fans of upmarket cycle clothing brand Rapha who love its clothing but not its prices can now secure discounts of between 25 and 40 per cent – provided their employer is signed up to Cycle to Work initiative provider, Cyclescheme.

With Cyclescheme certificates now available for accessories and not just bikes, and the possibility to take a fresh allowance each year, UK-based employees can make savings when shopping almost the entire Rapha range.

Items can be bought online or in Rapha Clubhouses in the UK, with the procedure outlined on the Cyclescheme website.

To celebrate the partnership, Cyclescheme has launched a competition running until 24 May, open to everyone except Rapha employees and their immediate family, with prizes of men’s and women’s commuter bundles from the London firm, each worth £700.

The Cycle to Work Scheme was amended in 2013 to allow people to buy accessories, with a £1,000 limit each year unless your employer has a consumer credit licence.

> Cycle to Work Scheme guidance allows accessories only packages

The money typically repayable by salary sacrifice over 12 months, allowing participating employees to enjoy tax breaks on the amount they have spent.

We shouldn't have to say this, but past experience shows we have to - the competition is NOT hosted here on road.cc, so there is no point sticking your virtual hand up in the comments. Instead, head over to Cyclescheme to enter.

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

47 comments

Avatar
ClubSmed | 6 years ago
1 like

Even so, as ~66% of the population are of working age and we have 74.6% employment in this country it means that more than half of the population is actually employed even when you add in all of the children and pensioners.
I appreciate that this would still mean that less than half of the population had access to the Cycle to Work Scheme but would argue that those more likely to want to spend money on cycling would be those in employment?

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
1 like
ClubSmed wrote:

Even so, as ~66% of the population are of working age and we have 74.6% employment in this country it means that more than half of the population is actually employed even when you add in all of the children and pensioners.
I appreciate that this would still mean that less than half of the population had access to the Cycle to Work Scheme but would argue that those more likely to want to spend money on cycling would be those in employment?

66% of 74.8% is not more than half. It's nearly half. I don't know what % if employed people have access to c2w schemes, I suspect less than half. Either way we are left with a minority of people with access to the scheme, not the majority.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to wycombewheeler | 6 years ago
1 like

Regardless, the Cycle to Work scheme was set up to take two things:

1) Health of the nation

2) Pollution

The best way to deal with the second point is to reduce single person vehicle trips during rush hour. As the people who make these journeys are working it makes the most sense to target these people specifically. Agreed that there may be better or more inclusive ways of dealing with the first point but if you want to replace this with something else it should deal with both points

Avatar
ClubSmed | 6 years ago
1 like

Yes, though children do not buy their own bikes and I'd argue that children under the age of 2 don't ride bikes.

Avatar
Kestevan | 6 years ago
0 likes

Do children and pensioners not ride bikes then?

Avatar
Kestevan | 6 years ago
0 likes

Do children and pensioners not ride bikes then?

Avatar
Kestevan | 6 years ago
0 likes

Do children and pensioners not ride bikes then?

Avatar
davel | 6 years ago
2 likes

I don't get how this works with the whole rental thing, the premise being that a bike retains some value. Technically you can choose to hand it back or defer payment, and when you make the final payment it's based on some perceived value.

I can tell you exactly what bib shorts will be worth, whether Aldi or Rapha, after I've commuted for a year in them. They'll be beyond the interest of even Japanese vending machines.

Avatar
Kestevan | 6 years ago
0 likes

A healthy dose of common sense

If you want to be arsey about it the cws Is only open to a minority of the population.... Less than half of the UK population is in employment, and of these not all are eligible for the scheme.

Good enough? or would you like to add further spurious caveats.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Kestevan | 6 years ago
1 like
Kestevan wrote:

A healthy dose of common sense

If you want to be arsey about it the cws Is only open to a minority of the population.... Less than half of the UK population is in employment, and of these not all are eligible for the scheme.

Good enough? or would you like to add further spurious caveats.

Less than half the populating is in employment? I take it that you are including children and pensioners in this figure then?

Avatar
Kestevan | 6 years ago
2 likes

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Kestevan | 6 years ago
1 like

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

Avatar
Velomark replied to bendertherobot | 6 years ago
0 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact, if you earn under £45,000 you save about £200 on £1000 worth of kit and if you earn over £46,000 you save £400 on the same £1000 worth of kit.

The VAT thing would make sense to me as it seems that the frustration on this board is due to the confusion about the purpose of the scheme, if the pupose is to make it easier for people to buy cycle kit of anykind then the scheme seems fit for purpose, if it is to buy a bike in some kind of utilitarian way as a means of transport then obviously not so much. The name of the scheme suggests the latter but everything else seems to suggest the former.

 

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to Velomark | 6 years ago
0 likes

Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact, if you earn under £45,000 you save about £200 on £1000 worth of kit and if you earn over £46,000 you save £400 on the same £1000 worth of kit.

The VAT thing would make sense to me as it seems that the frustration on this board is due to the confusion about the purpose of the scheme, if the pupose is to make it easier for people to buy cycle kit of anykind then the scheme seems fit for purpose, if it is to buy a bike in some kind of utilitarian way as a means of transport then obviously not so much. The name of the scheme suggests the latter but everything else seems to suggest the former.

 

The saving. Can you tell me what the saving will be on that sports kit once c2w is scrapped. 

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Velomark | 6 years ago
2 likes
Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact

Not sure it is a fact unless it can be evidenced.
The statement of "It's only available to a few" is ambiguous and needs classifying and evidencing

Avatar
Kestevan replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
0 likes
ClubSmed wrote:
Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact

Not sure it is a fact unless it can be evidenced.
The statement of "It's only available to a few" is ambiguous and needs classifying and evidencing

Ffs.....There's always one...  1

Ok, replace few with "not everyone". There are plenty of employers who don't/won't support the ctw scheme, and if you're self employed it's out too.

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Kestevan | 6 years ago
1 like
Kestevan wrote:
ClubSmed wrote:
Velomark wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Do you have an evidence base for the above?

 

He doesnt need evidence its a fact

Not sure it is a fact unless it can be evidenced.
The statement of "It's only available to a few" is ambiguous and needs classifying and evidencing

Ffs.....There's always one...  1

Ok, replace few with "not everyone". There are plenty of employers who don't/won't support the ctw scheme, and if you're self employed it's out too.

So you are basically saying that I should have read your post and changed the wording so that it meant the opposite and accepted it?
Few having access to it would infer that only a minority can benefit
Not everyone having access to it infers that only a minority are not benefiting from it

Or am I missing something?

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to Kestevan | 6 years ago
2 likes

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

Surely if that happend then the biggest saving would be on the most expensive kit so it would benefit the people who can afford more and therefore not change the bias?

Avatar
Rapha Nadal replied to Kestevan | 6 years ago
1 like

Kestevan wrote:

About time the whole cycle scheme was scrapped. It's only available to a few and benefits high rate tax payers more than the poorer sections of society who would gain more actual benefit.

I'd much rather it was scrapped, and the money used  to reduce/remove VAT from cycling/sports kit for everyone.

 

I wouldn't say that.  I'm a "normal rate" tax payer and the scheme allowed me to get my S-Works Tarmac frame at a lower price and allowed me to pay it off over 12 months.  Win/win for me.

That was when our Cycle Scheme mentality was "if you can afford to pay it back then we'll give you the money" though.  Sadly, we're now much bigger & restricted to the voucher scheme.

Avatar
macrophotofly | 6 years ago
0 likes

Not done the cycle scheme before but is it possible to buy the items from more than one retailer? Or do you have to buy your entire annual (applied for) allowance at just one shop?  (e.g. can i buy some new tyres from Wiggle and a new raincoat from Rapha?)

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to macrophotofly | 6 years ago
2 likes

macrophotofly wrote:

Not done the cycle scheme before but is it possible to buy the items from more than one retailer? Or do you have to buy your entire annual (applied for) allowance at just one shop?  (e.g. can i buy some new tyres from Wiggle and a new raincoat from Rapha?)

I think it would depend on who provides the scheme. The scheme at my work currently is run by Evans so all has to be obtained from there. In a previous job the scheme was limited to Halfords but there are many other providers and some that allow you to use any cycle shop I believe.

Avatar
ClubSmed | 6 years ago
4 likes

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work! surprise

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
0 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work! surprise

Interesting one.

My wife bought her bike on her company's bike to work scheme, but has never once ridden it to work, nor is ever likely to.

This is for several reasons:

- she is mostly home based.

- it is an horrific journey to her local office by bike. Even I wouldn't want to do it, as it involves a couple of miles of a terrifying dual carriage way in rush hour (no footpath) and any route that avoids that adds quite a chunk of distance and a couple of big hills.

- other company offices are at least 60 miles away.

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

- often, she is visiting customers with samples.

On the other hand, she has a better bike than she would otherwise have been able to afford = nicer to ride = more incentive to ride it at weekends. I've just fitted a child seat on it, so we can go on family rides.

She's not the only one, many of her other colleagues did the same, one of whom bought a full-on Enduro rig!

Avatar
ClubSmed replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
2 likes

LastBoyScout wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work! surprise

Interesting one.

My wife bought her bike on her company's bike to work scheme, but has never once ridden it to work, nor is ever likely to.

This is for several reasons:

- she is mostly home based.

- it is an horrific journey to her local office by bike. Even I wouldn't want to do it, as it involves a couple of miles of a terrifying dual carriage way in rush hour (no footpath) and any route that avoids that adds quite a chunk of distance and a couple of big hills.

- other company offices are at least 60 miles away.

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

- often, she is visiting customers with samples.

On the other hand, she has a better bike than she would otherwise have been able to afford = nicer to ride = more incentive to ride it at weekends. I've just fitted a child seat on it, so we can go on family rides.

She's not the only one, many of her other colleagues did the same, one of whom bought a full-on Enduro rig!

Sounds like she needs her car during the day so she has no option but to take it in then. My issue is more with people who use the scheme, could commute by bike, but don't.
However I would hope that if possible that the morning run with the kids is done by bike when working from home. I don't see dropping the kids of as an excuse not to cycle, it is quite the reverse.

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to ClubSmed | 6 years ago
0 likes

ClubSmed wrote:

Sounds like she needs her car during the day so she has no option but to take it in then. My issue is more with people who use the scheme, could commute by bike, but don't.

However I would hope that if possible that the morning run with the kids is done by bike when working from home. I don't see dropping the kids of as an excuse not to cycle, it is quite the reverse.

Nope - she walks, which is nearly as good  1 Cycling may become a possibility when the older one gets more confident on her own bike.

On the other hand, I commute by bike and didn't buy mine on the BTW scheme. I probably won't buy it's replacement on BTW, either, depending on circumstances when it comes to that. I will be looking to buy a set of new wheels soon...

Avatar
Grahamd replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
1 like

LastBoyScout wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

For me the issue is not what people spend their Cycle to Work Scheme voucher on (as long as it is cycling related it's fair imho), it is when people use the scheme but never cycle to work! surprise

Interesting one.

My wife bought her bike on her company's bike to work scheme, but has never once ridden it to work, nor is ever likely to.

This is for several reasons:

- she is mostly home based.

- it is an horrific journey to her local office by bike. Even I wouldn't want to do it, as it involves a couple of miles of a terrifying dual carriage way in rush hour (no footpath) and any route that avoids that adds quite a chunk of distance and a couple of big hills.

- other company offices are at least 60 miles away.

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

- often, she is visiting customers with samples.

On the other hand, she has a better bike than she would otherwise have been able to afford = nicer to ride = more incentive to ride it at weekends. I've just fitted a child seat on it, so we can go on family rides.

She's not the only one, many of her other colleagues did the same, one of whom bought a full-on Enduro rig!

I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?

Avatar
LastBoyScout replied to Grahamd | 6 years ago
0 likes

Grahamd wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?

Kids = multiple. I already have a bike seat on my bike for the older one.

Avatar
Grahamd replied to LastBoyScout | 6 years ago
0 likes

LastBoyScout wrote:

Grahamd wrote:

LastBoyScout wrote:

- these days, having to drop kids off on the way when she is in the office.

I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?

Kids = multiple. I already have a bike seat on my bike for the older one.

Fair enough, I used a trailer a few times for mine; was great until you got a headwind.

Avatar
timb27 | 6 years ago
5 likes

I understand why some people are upset. If higher rate taxpayers can dress head-to-toe in new season Rapha at 40% off then they will no longer be able to pour scorn on them in forums. 

Avatar
dunnoh | 6 years ago
3 likes

It's a great move.  I cycle to work in Rapha day in, day out and it's superb.  Hopefully people without the means to buy it can now do so.  Anything to make cycling in our awful weather more pleasant has to be a good thing.  

Pages

Latest Comments