Tom wins, he doesn't have to ride a grand tour, is the big fish on the small pond team. He can pick his races and gets paid a hefty fee, as well goes under the UK press radar abit not being the English super kid that needs to perform at Inoes.
Although he will not have much support in the last 20K by teammates in any meaningful one day races. Suppose he is use to that with MTB and cross not really subject to the same team work dynamics.
Also have to assume this allows Tom more freedom to race CX and MTB which are his first loves (and maybe dip a toe into gravel), require no support riders and pick up some UCI points (which now have some cross genre applications). That has to help the team’s overall profile as well.
I don't understand the CX and MTB market. How many people watch these races and can name more than 3 riders? And how do CX and MTB races increase revenue for bike, component, and accessory manufacturers? These questions make me wonder why a bike manufacturer would care how many CX and MTB races Tom wins. I get why e-bikes are so popular--many people don't want to pedal. And I understand the lure of high-end road bikes. They're beautiful, and riders can feel the spirit of professional road racing and all the famous races and climbs. I also understand why some people prefer to ride CX and MTB, to connect with nature and avoid cars. My question is why the industry should care who races and wins CX and MTB.
So much change at Ineos. I'll predict one thing stays the same with that team: they'll ride the front in Tour mountain stages only to see their leader dropped when the contenders start attacking. You'd have thought it would change with Pidcock, directed by Steve Cummings, into an outfit picking and choosing its opportunities to win. Instead, we watched them applying old tactics without the dominant GC rider to bring home a Grand Tour win. They seem stuck in 2015.
Tom wins, he doesn't have to ride a grand tour, is the big fish on the small pond team. He can pick his races and gets paid a hefty fee, as well goes under the UK press radar abit not being the English super kid that needs to perform at Inoes.
Although he will not have much support in the last 20K by teammates in any meaningful one day races. Suppose he is use to that with MTB and cross not really subject to the same team work dynamics.
Also have to assume this allows Tom more freedom to race CX and MTB which are his first loves (and maybe dip a toe into gravel), require no support riders and pick up some UCI points (which now have some cross genre applications). That has to help the team’s overall profile as well.
I don't understand the CX and MTB market. How many people watch these races and can name more than 3 riders? And how do CX and MTB races increase revenue for bike, component, and accessory manufacturers? These questions make me wonder why a bike manufacturer would care how many CX and MTB races Tom wins. I get why e-bikes are so popular--many people don't want to pedal. And I understand the lure of high-end road bikes. They're beautiful, and riders can feel the spirit of professional road racing and all the famous races and climbs. I also understand why some people prefer to ride CX and MTB, to connect with nature and avoid cars. My question is why the industry should care who races and wins CX and MTB.
So much change at Ineos. I'll predict one thing stays the same with that team: they'll ride the front in Tour mountain stages only to see their leader dropped when the contenders start attacking. You'd have thought it would change with Pidcock, directed by Steve Cummings, into an outfit picking and choosing its opportunities to win. Instead, we watched them applying old tactics without the dominant GC rider to bring home a Grand Tour win. They seem stuck in 2015.