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.
47 thoughts on “Rapha signs up to Cyclescheme – and there’s a competition to win £700 of kit to celebrate”
I can’t help feeling this is
I can’t help feeling this is not what the cycle scheme was set up for.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Agree wholeheartedly.
Johnnystorm wrote:
I can’t help feeling this is not what the cycle scheme was set up for.
— Johnnystorm Agree wholeheartedly.— wycombewheeler
A couple of hundred per year for things other than a whole bike might be justifiable to cover running costs but a grand seems excessive, especially as the scheme already benefits higher rate taxpayers more.
Duncann wrote:
£200? Replacement tyres for the winter and summer wheels (if you commute all year this is perfectly acceptable), add in a spare plus a few innertubes and a new cassette and you could have easily already spent this. Those are all acceptable wear and tear items within a year imho and leaves no room for the kit you need to deal with the british weather or needed accessories like pannier bags, child seats, locks etc.
If you wanted the possibility of a groupset upgrade it would blow a £200 budget out the water by itself.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Yep but not unprecedented…..when I enquired about my work scheme the cycle shop suggested I could buy buy a crappy bike and add a grand’s worth of wheels if I really just wanted the wheels….its a gaming of the system
wycombewheeler wrote:
Unless the scheme rules have changed again, I thought the ‘equipment-only’ option introduced in 2013 was designed to allow people to buy ‘safety equipment’, not accessories as a whole – see the road.cc article linked above.
Again, unless this is an outdated page, Cyclescheme’s own guidance to its retail partners (https://www.cyclescheme.co.uk/eops) is that safety equipment includes “reflective and high-visibility clothing and accessories” – so clothing is available on the scheme only if hi-vis or reflective so as to be considered safety equipment. I assume the same proviso is intended to apply to accessories but the wording is ambiguous.
If that’s right then it doesn’t apply to ‘almost the entire Rapha range’ as the article suggests.
Of course this probably isn’t enforced and how a retailer chooses to let you use your certificate is another matter. I took my certificate from another C2W scheme to a LBS who were very happy to allow me to top it up with my own money to buy a more expensive bike, which is not technically permitted.
quiff wrote:
The hi-vis business is easy to get around – why do you think all clothes in Evans or wherever have little tiny reflective tabs on the back?
As for accessories… I know a guy who persuaded his branch of Evans to let him get a set of Garmin Vector 2 pedals on the scheme. Go figure.
Nice way to reduce your tax
Nice way to reduce your tax bill though.
Buy a speed suit get 3mins
Buy a speed suit get 3mins longer in bed…
check12 wrote:
…..and lose 5mins getting into the bugger. 😉
If there’s extra tax money
If there’s extra tax money for cycling I can think of better uses than helping people who already ride a bike buy some pink shorts
The cycle scheme in my mind
The cycle scheme in my mind is not just about getting someone cycling to work, it’s about continually enabling them to do so. To continually able them they need to be able to buy parts, accessories and kit when they run out in subsequent scheme years.
ClubSmed wrote:
this is true, but enabling people who can ‘only afford castelli’ to buy rapha instead is surely not the aim. All this does is anble those already heavily invested in cycling and with plenty of means to save tax on the rapha they would be buying anyway.
when corporations follow the letter of the law to minimise their tax bill they are evil, but if wealthy cyclists do likewise all good?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Ridiculous swivel-eyed nonsense. How far gone must you be to suggest that cyclists are ‘evil’ for buying clothing on Cyclescheme. And yes that’s exactly what you’re trying to get at there.
Didn’t take long for the myopic whinge to out from the very people who vote for LAB/CON politicians who cosy up to financial institutions openly.
Here’s the deal. Cyclists from all industry, especially the financial industry, need to start riding to work. If you’re just out of uni, that means you’re on a low wage yet need to turn into work looking sharp. A lot of the workforce are on 50 to 70 hours a week, no overtime pay, and will put a lot of moaners work ethic to shame. Most financial institutions still have shockingly low rates of cyclists, yet that’s the industry which is keeping the UK afloat. Rapha has the appeal to do what no other brand can do – get trendy people under the highest level of scrutiny and peer pressure to jump on a bike and ride into a highly competitive environment. Hence the expanding City collection.
At the moment, the only people who’re cycling to work in these massive industries are mostly back-office, middle aged guys, who’ve got so many commitments that they’ll rough it out and change at whatever lack of facility they can find. There’s also a bit of respectability to it, which these guys care about, so that helps them deal with it. Maybe you’ll find a few 20 to 30 year olds – why, because again, they’re on the breadline. These ones got married, had a kid, got a mortgage, now they’ve got little room to move. Decent job, but left bean-counting and the next promotion is a few years away, if they get it. Heaven forbid these evil fuckers get to turn up to work looking alright, or actually get to wear something they enjoy on their commute.
And no, this pitifully small amount of money is not ever going into creating a better world, where potholes don’t exist, or heated sky-high cycle lanes carry you around the country. Utter fantasy. Money for infrastructure is regional, and when you break down the Cyclescheme savings regionally, you’re left with bugger all to do anything. Costs millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions, to get anything done.
The original Cyclescheme was too restrictive. It needs to appeal to all types of cyclists.
wycombewheeler wrote:
this is true, but enabling people who can ‘only afford castelli’ to buy rapha instead is surely not the aim. All this does is anble those already heavily invested in cycling and with plenty of means to save tax on the rapha they would be buying anyway.
when corporations follow the letter of the law to minimise their tax bill they are evil, but if wealthy cyclists do likewise all good?— ClubSmed
Are you suggesting that only the lower income groups should be incentivised to cycle to work? Surely those are the ones who are currently more likely to use public transport to commute? Does it not make more sense from a pollution saving point of view to also incentivise those more likely to drive?
Cycle to Work is a scheme aiming to get ALL cycling to work surely?
Not sure how enough money to
Not sure how enough money to buy a cap and socks will help you get to work but good on Rapha I guess.
too bad you’re ineligible for
too bad you’re ineligible for the cyclescheme, if you’re stuck on minimum wage, which really sucks, as i want access to discounted bike crap.
It’s a great move. I cycle
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.
I understand why some people
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.
For me the issue is not what
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!
ClubSmed wrote:
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!
LastBoyScout 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.
ClubSmed wrote:
Nope – she walks, which is nearly as good 🙂 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…
LastBoyScout wrote:
I am in no way sexist, but you put the child seat on her bike and not yours?
Grahamd wrote:
Kids = multiple. I already have a bike seat on my bike for the older one.
LastBoyScout wrote:
Fair enough, I used a trailer a few times for mine; was great until you got a headwind.
Not done the cycle scheme
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?)
macrophotofly wrote:
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.
About time the whole cycle
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.
Kestevan wrote:
Do you have an evidence base for the above?
bendertherobot wrote:
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.
Velomark wrote:
The saving. Can you tell me what the saving will be on that sports kit once c2w is scrapped.
Velomark wrote:
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
ClubSmed wrote:
Ffs…..There’s always one… 🙂
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.
Kestevan wrote:
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?
Kestevan wrote:
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?
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.
— Kestevan
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.
A healthy dose of common
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.
Kestevan wrote:
Less than half the populating is in employment? I take it that you are including children and pensioners in this figure then?
I don’t get how this works
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.
Do children and pensioners
Do children and pensioners not ride bikes then?
Do children and pensioners
Do children and pensioners not ride bikes then?
Do children and pensioners
Do children and pensioners not ride bikes then?
Yes, though children do not
Yes, though children do not buy their own bikes and I’d argue that children under the age of 2 don’t ride bikes.
Even so, as ~66% of the
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?
ClubSmed wrote:
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.
wycombewheeler wrote:
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