"I don't think anyone is riding SRAM unless they're paid to, or forced by their sponsor": Phil Gaimon calls Jumbo-Visma dropping Shimano a "marginal loss"; Shell logo appears on (most) GB kits; Boonen: Van Aert could do better + more on the live blog

abedfo wrote:

I take it all the people who are faux up in arms about shell sponsoring british cycling won't be filling their cars up with petrol anytime soon?

No, I won't, I don't own one on principle. Why do people always assume that others can't possibly practise what they preach? Is it because they can't imagine doing so themselves? Even if it was totally necessary to own a car, one could still protest about the methods and morals of petrol companies (Shell being a particularly egregious example of a bad one). Imagine a scenario in which one company, or a small group of companies, had completely cornered the market for all foodstuffs so that it was impossible to survive without purchasing from the cartel, I assume you would be saying anyone complaining about this would be a hypocrite because they were still eating food?

That's such a specious argument, it's like if McDonalds had sponsored BC instead saying people who complained shouldnt be eating food again.

Awavey wrote:

That's such a specious argument, it's like if McDonalds had sponsored BC instead saying people who complained shouldnt be eating food again.

Exactly, and even if people were eating McDonald's they could legitimately express reservations about parts of their promotional activities, e.g., one could enjoy the occasional Big Mac but still say they shouldn't be allowed to advertise on children's TV.

I've read enough about Shell over the years to know that they're shady as hell.

I don't give a shit if some dimwit arsewipe pops up and thinks I shouldn't have any ethical opinions if I own a car. My wife doesn't drive and she finds it a complete PITA merely trying to get across town to work on public transport. And anyone living in rural areas has no choice because the Tories have deliberately run public transport into the ground. Tory voters are mostly selfish bastards who don't care about anyone but themselves.

Perhaps if Rosneft and Gazprom sponsor a couple of teams all these arseholes complaining about the objections to the BC-Shell deal will cheer for those teams, buy the jerseys etc and be very happy to support Russia's military objectives in Ukraine and elsewhere.

exactly, or avoid lycra, tyres, innertubes, tupperware, polyester, carbon fibre parts, lube etc etc

Petrol and diesel are the secondary products of crude oil

Pyro Tim wrote:

exactly, or avoid lycra, tyres, innertubes, tupperware, polyester, carbon fibre parts, lube etc etc. Petrol and diesel are the secondary products of crude oil

Accepting that, regrettably, we live in a society where many things rely on petrochemical products does not preclude objecting to the ethical and environmental standards of petroleum companies and particularly objecting to them attempting to greenwash their activities by sponsoring cycling.

Why is it green washing? Cycling isn't green, they fly to races, have 100s of support vehicles. The bikes and equipment are almost single use products from the petrochemical industry at pro level, certainly don't remain in use more than a season. We need to look at culture rather than who pays, expecailly when they are paying for their own products. 

We're told by vegans not to use animal products, told that too much water is used in natural products such as cotton, so we rely on man made fibres, which are petrochem. We drive to races, or sometimes just to go for a ride. It's blatant hypocrisy to have a go at BC for taking the money on offer when just about everything we do is based on petrochem industry

Pyro Tim wrote:

We need to look at culture rather than who pays

A significant part of any cultural change surely must involve trying to attract more ethical sponsors to the sport as well as changing the sport's own practices. It's not either/or.

Indeed - it's the age of plastic ("what will remain of us is PVC").  Or in biological terms the use of petrochemicals has "gone to fixation".  There is effectively no way of avoiding them. If you lived atop a moor in isolation any products you didn't dig up or grow yourself would involve them. Similarly it is just possible - although inconvenient - to avoid batteries and computers in your personal usage.  Again as soon as you interact with the external world your data will be on digital media and again all the products you use have been made with their use.

So probably the only people who can take a high moral stand here are the Sentinalese.  But we can't talk to them (they don't want to) and it seems likely if the climate changes (they live on a smallish low-lying island) - or simply with the rest of the world around them - they won't be around much longer.

chrisonatrike wrote:

So probably the only people who can take a high moral stand here are the Sentinalese.  But we can't talk to them (they don't want to) and it seems likely if the climate changes (they live on a smallish low-lying island) - or simply with the rest of the world around them - they won't be around much longer.

Even in their case I'm sure certain people on here would say that they are hypocrites because their isolation is being protected by Indian Navy patrols, and what do those navy boats run on? Bloody hypocritical native tribes!

Also they're happy to scavenge metal from wrecks and they're eating crabs and fish full of plastic!  They're trolling us!

Yep, all those being burnt in car engines is really a massive problem........ you do realise it is the FUELS part that is the main problem here. 
 

But it isn't, well not from your car anyway. The polution from cars is negligible on a global scale, although not good on the street where it happens. The real harm is cutting down rain forests, and burning gas / coal on huge scale in power stations. The hoo ha about this is just bullshit

And Russia probably still are by Gazprom, your point being what ?

It's not a race to the bottom, just because other national federations choose sponsors that raise serious questions about their activities and impact on the world, which is both a moral & ethical debate, that BC should just follow suit and chase the cash ?.

The Giblet wrote:

I would rather petro-energy companies spend their money on cycling rather than other stuff.

They are presumably, like any other company, spending their money on cycling in the hope that the advertising will provide them with a greater return than the monies expended, so they will then have more money, rather than less, to spend on "other stuff".

But consider how much a full tank costs for them or how many mpg their vehicles use. Plus their average trip distance. They are used to cheap driving.

I can see their point.

That's about £5 a litre at current exchange rates.

I think their MTB and their road offerings have very different reputations, don't they? That said Mrs H has SRAM on her road and gravel bikes and it's always performed perfectly...

Which shows nobody buys Campy any more.

IanMSpencer wrote:

Which shows nobody buys Campy any more.

Or that Campag doesn't break.....

Curious, we write 50x11 when logically it should be 50/11.