Opinion: The Rockrider Team Could Change World Cup Racing
Unfamiliar team name and logos on Joshua Dubau's jersey at Nove Mesto. Photo: Ross Bell.
After Joshua Dubau's incredible weekend, the Ford-supported team are poised to shake things up.
Words: Matt Wragg
 | While it is cool to see Reece Wilson running a Volvo helmet, it is not the same scale of engagement as when they were title sponsors for the Volvo Cannondale team… |
Last year I wrote about the then-newly formed Rockrider World Cup XC team looking to shake up the World Cup circuit. I believe that they are looking to change the sport in a profound and unexpected way. Recently they announced their new co-title sponsor for the 2023 season: Ford.
Yes, that Ford. The globe-spanning, American auto behemoth. To be more precise, it is the French subsidiary of Ford, but a car maker is once more title sponsor of a mountain bike racing team, and we have not seen that in our sport in twenty years.
Rockrider are Decalthlon's in-house mountain bike brand. For anybody not familiar with Decathlon (I’m looking at people living in North America here), think REI, but more general, more value-focused and much, much bigger. The reason I wrote about Rockrider is because they are a mainstream brand taking an interest in mountain biking. That hasn’t happened much in the past couple of decades. In my piece, I wrote that “Decathlon has the resources to truly shift the playing field in World Cup racing” and I would argue that bringing Ford as a co-title sponsor is doing just that.
Photo: Rockrider
Our colleagues at Velovert wrote a piece about the signing, stating that the team have received a fleet of vehicles for the year, and financial support similar to Rockrider’s investment. I suspect more than a few team managers will be spitting their coffee with jealousy to hear that they doubled the teams operating budget in one step.
Rockrider’s team manager, Samuel Roces, broke down some of the details of the deal in the Velovert article. Firstly, he explains that attracting a sponsor from outside of the sport was a goal from the very beginning for them. Initially they were in talks with Allianz, the insurance giant, but although they came close to agreeing a deal, nothing was ever signed. When he talks about what attracted Ford to mountain biking right now, he is explicit in stating that the Discovery deal and the 2024 Paris Olympic games were major deciding factors. Yet he also explains Ford have only signed a one year deal - that this is very much testing the water for them.
Rockrider's Joshua Dubau pushed Pidcock all day at Nove Mesto, finishing a close second and nearly spoiling Pidcock's perfect weekend. Photo: Andy Vathis
This poses a big question: is mountain biking ready for such a major sponsor?
For those too young to remember, at the end of the 90s, there was an influx of money into the sport - Grundig, Diesel, Volvo and more were all invested in the sport when they thought it was going to be the next big thing. As cool and exciting as mountain bike culture may have seemed while in the saddle, watching skinny men and women judder their way down fireroads and hiking trails was not a great TV spectacle. This was not the image they were dreaming of and the mainstream brands left en masse. They were so badly burned that there has been little in the way of mainstream interest in mountain biking for two decades now.
That means the stakes are high for this deal with Ford. The sport has grown up a lot in the intervening years, but has it grown enough? With more and more data available to marketing departments than ever before, they have a far clearer picture of what works and what does not. It is a far harsher commercial world than maybe many in the cycling industry are used to, there is little space for sentiment, and if the World Cup is to retain sponsors like Ford it will need to provide measurable value for these sponsors.
Here's hoping that along with the mainstream recongnition (and money), double-drivetrained hyperbikes, wild, anatomical skinsuits and talk show appearances for racers are coming back too...
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
I'm pretty psyched about it. I spent a lot of time in that truck as a kid.
www.axios.com/2023/01/23/pickup-trucks-f150-size-weight-safety
www.insidehook.com/article/vehicles/why-pickup-trucks-keep-getting-bigger
They look cool AF and ride smooth on gravel roads though.
Improved safety at low manufacturing costs, mostly pushed by the insurance industry.
You can make a small, efficient, car, but it ain’t going to be cheap.
Not sure why you think your opinion on what others need is important
If you want to go "wheeling" then rent a jeep. You still don't need to daily drive a truck.
Your actions have externalities that society pays for.
I could say the same to you - somebody opened a conversation about trucks, I responded. The PB comments section would be pretty quiet if people posted based on whether or not their comments were genuinely important.
In this case my opinion is probably more important than most bike-related ones given that trucks are inherently more dangerous than cars from a road-user standpoint (ie people in smaller cars, people on bicycles (oh wait, that's most of us) and pedestrians. Also if you consider an environmental standpoint, where because trucks are much bigger and heavier than passenger cars they're much worse for the environment. Most people just don't need them. For 90% of people a small van would work much better, as most europeans know, but the American market has been convinced by decades of propaganda that a truck is what they need, despite them having shitty payload capacity, little room for actually carrying things and inefficient engines mostly so American automakers can get away with much lower safety and emissions standards than regular cars.
In my opinion, almost nobody needs a truck, and most people could use their cars less. I drive an SUV because I actually take it off road. But yeah, regardless of what you think, it is actually important.
Rear seats were removed and I permanently stored all my camping and mountain biking supplies inside in storage bins (didn't need to remove the seat, but made life easier). Life was great. Even went to Sea Otter with my girlfriend and three bikes (both our MTB's, and my road bike) without a problem.
When it got totaled I replaced it with a Wrangler, which has even less storage space. I didn't need a truck. Though I did buy a van, which turns out to be WAY better than a truck.
For sure - I just felt like spouting off to make myself feel good. It worked! I love my little (not a pickup) truck and can't wait to get out in it again
Why don’t you just rent something when you have to go off-road?
So entitled to your own opinion, and so critical of others, cause it doesn’t fit into your box of what you believe is important,
As stated, your opinion of what others do, is not important, feel free to keep it to yourself
I'm simply stating the facts that trucks are worse for the environment and more dangerous in pretty much every scenario. I'm not sure why you seem to be quite so offended by this.
I'll freely admit that a regular car would suit my needs 90% of the time better than an SUV. Unfortunately renting an SUV for what I would want to do would be just as expensive as owning one given how much I drive and honestly, I'd rather own my own vehicle. I'd prefer to own electric but the market is crazy. But hey, I rode my bike to work today.
I will continue to post my opinion because after all, the internet is a forum for doing exactly so, that's literally it's primary function. Equally, feel free to not read anything I post. If you feel that compelled to respond, that's a you problem.
Not sure why you feel that you driving a SUV is anymore correct in society than someones elses choice to drive a truck.
Youve taken some high road approach to your thinking, making the assumption that all others have no use to choose what they choose, but somehow can easily justify your own use case.
What are you doing out in the woods that you couldnt simply just do in a car?
Why do you believe an electric car is the answer, youre simply just moving the environmental impact to another place.
How many people with 4wd pickup trucks either take those vehicles off road or actually use the bed? Like 10%? I can justify it because I use it most weekends and try not to during the week.
I'm not saying nobody should own one, I'm saying most people don't need them and drive more often than they need to (myself included, I could ride to work more).
What are people doing now that requires a pickup truck that they weren't doing 20-30 years ago when they were nowhere near as common?
Of course on an outdoor recreation website most people that own said vehicles probably use them appropriately, but how many of the general public own mall crawling pickup trucks and SUVs that never go off road? My comments are not necessarily directed at mountain bikers, but more at the general public. That said I do think pickup trucks are stupid and make no sense for the majority of people, mountain bikers included. They're just less practical SUVs. The idea of owning a pickup truck for mountain biking and then putting a bike rack on it is ludicrous to me and I see it all the time on the North Shore.
I can condemn people for their choices when they affect others, and what you drive and how often certainly affects other people in a measurable way.
You have no idea how much another person does or doesnt use their vehicle, youre merely making an assumption to justify your public stance, and "prove" how much better you are than others.
Not sure why you think the "general public" has any less right to own a truck or SUV, or why you think you should have the right to.
In reality, your choice to outdoor recreate, while using said SUV is also harming those around you, but its what you want to do, so its ok I guess.
I own a pick up truck, a big, long box, crew cab, 1 tonne, diesel pick up. I use it for everything, haul a trailer with it, haul building material with it, work with it everyday. I have a big f*ck off rack on it as well, hauling pipe, etc. Also has a bike rack on it, I use it to get to the trailhead, sometimes shuttle with it, and putting bikes in the back of my truck isnt the best way to haul them around, so I'm one of those people youre referencing. You have no idea what I do with my truck everyday, just what you think I'm doing, and youre using that to virtue signal how good a person you are for not doing those things, all while driving a SUV around off-road.
You think its ludicrous cause you simply dont understand what others are doing, which is why your opinion is fairly worthless. Youre welcome to it, its just pointless, highlighted by the fact that youre fundamentally "ok" with a SUV being used for weekend recreation.....cause thats what YOU want to do
Youre choices are just as detrimental as anyone elses, you just want to seem like youre better than everyone else. Absolute muffin stump
You're just offended because you drive a big truck and I said I don't like trucks... Stop taking it so personally. This is not a personal attack and honestly you can do what you want.
Of course pickup trucks make sense for people that use them for work, the reality is that most people don't.
You're assuming that everybody that owns a pickup truck uses them for hauling large amounts of stuff, which they don't. And even if they did, a van would make more sense for more people and be safer all around. Problem is North American vans have always been just as terrible as pickup trucks and only now are there some decent options, albeit way too expensive.
No virtue signalling here, if I wanted to do that I'd drive a Tesla.
I own a truck to be able to do the work that I do, and recreate in a way that I want. I dont however try to tell others what they should or shouldnt be doing based on my "feelings"
Im not assuming others are doing anything, I am however assuming they have purchased the thing that they feel is right for them, as they have the right to do. Im not judging them for their own personal choices. Buy a truck, dont buy a truck, load it, lift it, lower it, race it, or pose in it, its no different than you wheeling on the weekends.
Not sure why you think a van is so much better than a truck, one is simply an enclosed version of the other
You already noted that you'd be driving an electric vehicle if they werent so expensive, I'm willing to bet 6 beers it'd be a Tesla. Doesnt much matter, they are all the same.
Stay fresh cheese bag
You're getting pretty butthurt considering how little you're telling me my opinion matters.
Have you tried logging into PB without starting a pointless argument ever?
You mentioned that was the point of the internet, now it bothers you?
Your argument has kinda crumbled away, so now youre doing a little backtracking.
You got up on a soap box to spew some garbage about how detrimental to the health and wellness of others driving pointless trucks was, to try and virtue signal how good a person you were.
You started the argument, I'm calling you on your bullshit is all.
People are free to buy and use the vehicles they see fit for their purpose. You, while having a very strange opinion on the subject, still choose to drive around in an SUV, while condemning others for the choices they make.
Hoping youve got a helmet, youll need it
I’m absolutely not backpedaling and I mean what I said, you’re just upset because you’re a truck guy that doesn’t feel like actually reading what I posted.
Unapologetically a truck guy, they are unmatched in their versatility (for me, maybe not for everyone, but definitely for me) If I could get a Ram mega cab, with a 10’ box I would, as there’s no sense (for me) to be limited in either cargo, or hauling capacity.
Luckily, I get to make that choice, whether you agree with it or not, and you get to make your choice whether I agree with it or not.
So, maybe stuff your uneducated opinion about what others do in regards to their choice of personal transport, and go on enjoying what u]you choose to do.
Cool?
I'm not sure why you've decided I'm backpedaling on anything, pickup trucks make no sense for most people. I'll keep saying it. I didn't say they don't make sense for you personally, I actually never even mentioned you, you just inserted yourself into my statement.
I think I'll probably just keep telling people that I think trucks are stupid... #sorrynotsorry
How is a van or SUV any different?
I’m willing to bet a 6 pack on the fact that you don’t even know when someone is using their truck for work, clearly, as you can’t even see the validity of using a bike rack on one.
Dude, go find someone else to start a dumb argument with.
Even following up with an incredible #sorrynotsorry, like you’re a 12 yr old.
You could have also chosen to not respond, but you keep on keeping on.
You’re entitled to your opinion, however stupid and silly they may be, but if you’re going to go looking for a reaction, expect to get one.
Cheese bag
Who tries to call somebody a 12 year old on the internet and then signs off with "cheese bag"?
Genuinely bewildered by your lack of self awareness.
A ton is imperial and is either 907kg or 1,016 kg depending on how long it is.
Problem is, no one can point me to a 4x4, high-clearance vehicle that can seat 4 people and carry 4 bikes more or less within the profile of the vehicle (i.e. without having to add racks to enlarge the dimensions of the vehicle significantly), and for around $40,000.
I think there is something to be said or definite market for a high-clearance, 4x4 van, about the size of a 15 passenger van, flexible seating for up to 7, between $35k-$45k USD. However, once all of that criteria is satisfied, I bet you are not going to be improving fuel economy nor are you decreasing the vehicle footprint--it's just a more practical version of a pickup truck.
Merely trying to help you see your own.
Spent the weekend anytime I was out and about looking at how trucks get used, and maybe trying to see things in a different light.
I live in a touristy area, having a truck makes some sense for the types of outdoor recreation that takes place.
Of the trucks on the road, let’s say 40% are immediately recognizable as trucks that are being used for work. They have some sort of decal stating they’re a tire shop, or construction company. Let’s say another 20% aren’t as immediately noticeable, they have a headache rack, or pipe rack, boat rack, etc. couple trucks hauling dirt bikes, or with sled decks, or a fifth wheel tailgate, so let’s give them a pass. Lots of guys hauling trailers, boats, etc.
Easily over 50% make a clear case for that person to own a truck. Let’s assume that people who choose to work with their truck are making the right decision for themselves, that it works better for them than a van (still not sure why you believe a van or SUV is a better choice)
Most of the trucks that I noticed that I couldn’t make a clear argument for were the smaller trucks, Canyon, Ranger, Tacoma, but who knows how they get used.
Trucks make a lot of sense for most people, I just don’t think you have an understanding of how others live and use them.
You’ve missed my point entirely. How many of those people would be better served by a van? I’d bet you almost all of them.
I’d also like to point out that use cases in metro Vancouver are likely wildly different to more rural BC.
The vehicle of choice in north van and Squamish is the Tacoma. While I’m sure they’re great, they’re not actually that practical, and most of the folk I know that own them keep them on pavement and use them for school runs. Great.
How is a van any different than a pickup, other than to lots people, its less convenient to use?
The vehicle of choice certainly isnt the Tacoma, I see way more Teslas on the road than Tacomas when I'm there. Maybe in the small circle that youve surrounded yourself with, but not in the larger populace.
Not that it cant be done, you can drive most things with most cars.
I'll ask you this, you ride a rigid hardtail, or a full sus bike?
I am hopefully inheriting a very clean daily driver '89 Daytona though.
The argument is always "you can achieve what you are doing with that truck with a van." The problem is that the closest thing that can carry what a long-bed (6'), crew-cab pickup truck can carry, both people and cargo, is a crew van. Those things start at $55k USD, have a larger footprint than my Tacoma, harder to see around when you are following, the fuel economy is a toss-up, all the while I lose the 4wd and ground clearance.
And for the "I don't need 4wd/AWD group": if you have even tried to park at Wolf Hill at the Sea Otter on a Sunday morning, it's hilarious how all the 2wd/FWD vehicles have to zig-zag up that first dirt hill--a seemingly easy climb that deteriorates as more traffic creates moguls on the road. Now imagine having to drive even 2-5 miles of "easy" terrain like that on a weekly basis where you don't have room to cut back-and-forth across the road and I bet you would be running to get some sort of 4wd/AWD vehicle with some clearance.
You have ZERO idea of what I do or have done for a living.
You could do that in almost any modern vehicle with decent tires...
I’ve worked in many different industries myself, still do.
I can assure you that the people who work out of, and count on their vehicles to feed their families every day, are making the right choice for themselves. Far be it from me, or some pilluk like yourself to tell them they’re wrong.
Happy to have you enlighten me, with all your wisdom and knowledge as to how a van or SUV makes more sense, and is a more practical choice than my 1tonne pickup.
You welcome to your opinions, but they’re simply incorrect.
You’re just too busy thinking you’re better than others to give it a second thought.
Dude I'm done, go find someone else to push your entitled opinions on.
No experience in any of the mentionEd industries eh, just wanted to toss out “you have no idea what I do” for some additional internet points, absolute beauty.
If you’re done, feel free to just stop responding, otherwise, see you Monday
Well good sir, I do have to say you have some opinions that I find contradict my own.
Yes, I cordially would have to disagree where you stand on this issue my fine man.
USA
They saw that we´re stupid enough to buy oversized SUVs with too much fuel consumption in order to drive them through our city´s tiny streets.
So they´re now trying to go the next step and sell us cars which are even worse for 99% of the buyer´s use case and also even worse for the environment.
Of course subways only look like that in America...
From a guy towing a caravan in 3 door Civic :-D
@11six: I went and did something outlandish and put a muffler ON my GSXR1000 when I bought it. I guess I grew out of my attention seeking age.
If I was a millionaire, which isn't much anymore, I would just own a home. Then again, my F150 that I used to own (now belongs to my ex) was used for hauling hay for the horses, not for trying to mate with other guys.
the arrow strikes true
twitter.com/i/status/1658225817946664963
I’ve had both and would pick a van everyday.
And even if you do "need" a larger vehicle, vans make way more sense than pickups 99% of the time. But nobody will know what a big tough man you are when you pull up in a Ford Transit.
And, Chevy Trucks, title sponsor of the NORBA series for years....ACURA was also a mid level sponsor of GT in the early 90's....and uhhmm, Mercedes World Cup the last few years.
Long history of auto brands in MTB.
I loved the WC scene how it was in the 90's or over the past years. We'll see what happens next, hopefully we won't hit another Rocky Road...
Most of these comments are about deals from that era, which is 20yrs ago.
Lots of brands were involved, for a long time, then there’s been a pretty long gap from sponsoring teams.
Qashqai was an event series. Merc sponsored the World Cup. But since your Hyundai team and I think even the Trek/VW team ended slightly earlier than yours.
I mean the obvious gaff here is that Ineos is a car company and their team is named after the car they’re building
INEOS Group Limited is a British multinational chemicals company headquartered and registered in London. Ineos is derived from INspec Ethylene Oxide and Specialities, a previous name of the business.
It could have included a chart illustrating the MTB sponsorships and the presence of the automotive industry in the World Cup over the past 30 years. The title "Could Change World Cup Racing" also suggests that automotive partnerships have become dormant since the "Hyundai era," which the comments here clearly demonstrate is not the case. I find the topic intriguing, and there are undoubtedly numerous stories to be told on this subject is all I was trying to bring up, clearly doing a poor job.
I love these topics and just want the reader to be as informed as possible and for me to learn something as well.
Amd many high level road racers started as mountain bikers, e.g Peter Sagan or Cadel Evans. I assume they crossed over because there is much more money in road.
I was talking about public perception of the sport. Call it tunnel vision if you like, but I really believe most people will think less of a sport where someone who clearly prefers to compete in another discipline - for whatever reason - can show up at a handful of events and win without perceptible effort.
Imagine some European football players going where their sport is called soccer, getting on an American Football field, scoring at will, winning games by a fifty points margin, and than leaving as soon as their real season starts (anyone too offended by this picture is free to imagine it the other way round). Does that not throw a shadow on the level of competition in the discipline to which someone can go back whenever they feel like it, and walk away with the win?
If mtb would pay seven figure wages and get you on the non-sports news pages we probably would not see an outflux of talent to the road as we do now.
$37,000 is a 40hr a week job making $17.75/hr. Mcdonalds and Starbucks start kids at a higher wage than that in a lot of locations.
some people lose perspective at how insanely wealthy the US is, and instead complain about the rich guy that makes $37,001/yr.
It’d be pretty ballsy to go up to someone around here (greater Seattle area) making $37k and insist they’re wealthy
to something like 5,000,000,000 or so people on this planet, those are all OBSCENE LUXURY ITEMS ONLY THE RICH HAVE.
again, perspective......even if others in your immediate vacinity have a Ferrari. lol
Its about the big scale pairing with the currently-small scale.
* Nissan UCI Mountain Bike World Cup presented by Shimano ?
* Mercedes-Benz UCI Mountain Bike World Cup ? (as already mentioned)
... and several teams/riders had some sponsoring although more likely with the local importer/distributor:
* Rotwild-AMG anyone?
... nevertheless outside the industry sponsors should be a good thing to reach a wider audience as well.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pops_Yoshimura - Legend.
And in the case of Decathlon it’s Ford France sponsoring, an entity of Ford, not a Ford dealership in France or something like that.
XC is great as a racing format. but it isn't emblematic of typical mountain biking, and the UCI has shown a clear bias towards pushing MTB closer to road whenever possible. Enabling that attitude does none of us any favors.
I get that they brought in Chris Ball to fight that perception. but it remains to be seen how much power he really wields.
And the bit about pushing mtb closer to road is just silly considering what's happened to XC courses over the last 10ish years. If the UCI is pushing that they've failed massively. Hardtails have all but disappeared from XCO races and tech, team tactics and politics are almost nonexistent, tech features are significant factors in who ends up winning, etc. If anything XCO has morphed to better represent modern trail riding, with pros on 120mm bikes hitting jumps, berms, rock gardens, etc.
I get that the UCI will probably never really "get it" when it comes to DH racing, but as a fan who's followed races for 15ish years I don't really think it's ever been better than it's been in the last few years (excluding pandemic weirdness). Hopefully Discover doesn't completely drop the ball, but based on the XC coverage I just watched they'll probably do fine. Enduro (at the pro level) is a whole other story and I won't be surprised at all if it basically dies in 10 years. It's horrible as a spectator sport and will never command the kind of fan engagement that XC and DH have. Frankly, if DH is lacking in sponsor money, I'd place the blame on the enduro craze dividing sponsors' attention on the gravity side.
Freeride is where the mainstream will end up watching. Nobody who isn't very serious about riding knows much of anything about downhill vs enduro vs xc racing. it's all mountain biking to them. If I say redbull rampage though? They know exactly what I'm talking about.
Isn't Enduro the closest to what most people do? Ride uphill to get to the downhills, and repeat.
XC courses have gotten much, much more technical in recent years-resulting in the need for full suspension, droppers and slacker bikes.
Your elitist attitude is what's wrong with mountain biking-a casual assumption that "normal" mountain biking is lift served descending.
Oh-and try some road racing. It's apples and oranges with mountain biking. Both fruit, but not the same flavor.
People with actual money ride XC and downhill/ enduro . And drive their kids to the bike parks and shuttle them . Possible sparking an interest in the brand there family drives .
Back in the 90’s we had lots of car sponsors in the industry, VW , Volvo and more . Was very common to see many of these cars parked in the lots at races . Mountain bikers are usually good at supporting the brands that support the industry.
Enduro is the closest in profile. the variance is going to be in riders seeking out trails where the downhill is appropriate for their skill level, but "pedal up, fun down" is what most popular trails look like.
As for XCO getting more technical? that's entirely down to the riders and the venues, and it was in spite of the UCI, not because of them.